Narratives out of noise

Written By: - Date published: 7:13 am, July 11th, 2017 - 189 comments
Categories: election 2017, polls - Tags: , , ,

Another poll:

The Maori Party is up to 2 per cent, and Gareth Morgan’s Opportunities Party is steady on 1 per cent.
Act and United Future don’t feature.

PARTY VOTE
National 47 per cent (down 2)
Labour 27 (down 3)
Greens 11 (up 2)
NZ First 11 (up 2)

PREFERRED PRIME MINISTER
Bill English 26 per cent (down 3)
Winston Peters 11 per cent (up 4)
Jacinda Ardern 6 per cent (steady)
Andrew Little 5 per cent (down 3)

One could focus on Labour’s fall, or National’s, or the Green’s rise, or NZF holding the balance. On preferred PM one could focus on Little’s fall, English’s fall, Labour’s combined leadership team, and so on. But all of these are narratives out of noise.

The poll of 1007 eligible voters was conducted July 1 – 5. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 per cent. Party vote undecideds stood at 19 per cent (up 2).

Possibly the only significant change is the rise of Winston Peters, as usual in election year. Having said that, obviously the polls are nowhere near where the Left would like them to be. We have our work cut out for us. How do we win over those undecided voters?

189 comments on “Narratives out of noise ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    11 July 2017 at 7:38 am

    The question Labour needs to answer to it’s supporters is why does it think everything is ka pai and going tickety boo and it still thinks it can form a government when 78 days out from a general election over 80% of eligible voters have either no intention of voting or do not intend to vote for them.

    The disconnect is mind boggling. Panic is sometimes a legitimate response to a given set of facts. I’d like to know what else it will take to light a fire under a Labour and get them panicking.

    It is astonishing that after nine years of National government Labour is still deeply out of fashion, still has no traction with the public, and is treated with the outright contempt of the bully who knows he is safe by the media, and it still cannot connect with young people, the poor or it’s erstwhile base in the artisan bourgeoise.

    Yet somehow, it thinks it has a suite of fabulous policies that everyone will love and everything will be fine on the night.

    It is suffering Berlin bunker heights of delusion if it thinks it shouldn’t be running around panicking like crazy right now!

    • Keith 1.1
      11 July 2017 at 8:38 am

      I am wondering why after that bad result in 2014 there was not a strong look at a new direction because now there is still that massive disconnect that is especially worrying even with all the reprehensible behavior by National.

      They have been almost invisible over the last couple of weeks except for donation requests as if there is almost no will to win. The intern thing floored the party by the looks.

      Clearly the housing policy which should resonate with voters is barely understood and therefore not deemed realistic.

      Perhaps for the third time in a row being timidly like National but a little bit different is simply not cutting it!

    • LivinInTheBay 1.2
      11 July 2017 at 9:43 am

      What is worse for the left surely is how poorly Andrew Little rates. How can someone who doesn’t have the support of 95% of voters claim to be able to lead the country?

      • BM 1.2.1
        11 July 2017 at 9:47 am

        And only 18% of Labour voters #notmyleader

      • Siobhan 1.2.2
        11 July 2017 at 10:52 am

        I sometimes wonder if the desire to make Little ‘appeal’ to the perceived likes of the so called middle, and the soft National voter, has hobbled a man who could have presented a strong, and therefore more credible left wing Leader.
        His team, which he no doubt picked, have set him wrong. All the way down to contacts over glasses, the watered down, bland Little, with his watered down policies just lack authenticity to the disenchanted voter, let alone the really disenchanted non voter.

        • Keith 1.2.2.1
          11 July 2017 at 11:51 am

          Tax cuts could have been a major point of difference. National pretend to be centre but they are not. A well articulated, well argued policy on why less government costs its citizens dearly is something National could not deal with but somewhere in the ether of Wellington, this has completely passed Labour by.

          The thing is as National have starved the public service of money and turned many government departments into wounded animals barely able to function, the police is an excellent example, mental health another, state housing another. Labour missed it.

          Right there and then is the reason we should not have tax cuts, easy to argue, a major point of difference, but where the hell was the Labour Party? There dumb silence was complicit in their support of tax cuts.

          I think Grant Robertson has been utterly useless and blind in his portfolio exactly like he has no idea. God help us if he puts his name in the hat for leader when Little has to go if these turkeys do not get their shit together and right now!

        • dave 1.2.2.2
          11 July 2017 at 12:49 pm

          “…who could have presented a strong, and therefore more credible left wing Leader.”

          I wouldn’t go that far myself, I think the center appeal and moderate is necessary.
          they need to be getting their additional votes from national and NZF, not the greens.
          However there seems to be a massive disconnect between Little and potential voters, that can’t be papered over in 3 months.

          • Siobhan 1.2.2.2.1
            11 July 2017 at 1:51 pm

            No they should not go for the Green vote, I agree there.
            But that Labour should also forget the votes of the hard done by workers and renters and go for soft National voters?
            Well, they are trying that this election…and here we are, quite possibly looking at another National led Government.
            The harsh reality is, if someone still votes National in the light of their appalling management of the countries resources (economic, natural, people), not to mention their broken moral compass, then they are a lost cause. Short of becoming National lite, Labour will never get their vote.

            • garibaldi 1.2.2.2.1.1
              11 July 2017 at 4:51 pm

              Siobhan @ 1.51pm, I couldn’t agree more.
              This is also why it beggars belief that the likes of James and BM hang around here.
              National voters are a lost cause, which is a huge indictment on Western society because there are still so many of the thick bastards out there who are determined to destroy this planet with their me-me-me capitalist greed.

    • Matthew Whitehead 1.3
      11 July 2017 at 9:46 pm

      Your maths is off, you mean over 70%.

      I don’t mind having a coalition with no hugely dominant party. In other proportional systems, it’s normal for no party on either side to reach 30%. We actually have a fairly conglomerated power base in NZ as-is for a system that’s largely proportional.

  2. BM 2
    11 July 2017 at 7:39 am

    How do we win over those undecided voters?

    The undecideds are the non-vote.

    Chasing the non-vote is a mug’s game.

    • Ed 2.1
      11 July 2017 at 7:56 am

      To get non voters do what Corbyn did.

      • Sanctuary 2.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 8:06 am

        +1000

        But who is our Jeremy Corbyn?

        • garibaldi 2.1.1.1
          11 July 2017 at 8:28 am

          David Cunliffe was our closest to Corbyn.
          Imo Labour has to drop the free market Capitalism it has stuck with since 1984 and get back to what it was founded for. In the meantime it is merely shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic.
          They better have some radically good policies in the pipeline or we are facing three more years of shit.

        • James 2.1.1.2
          11 July 2017 at 8:43 am

          The left dosnt have one. The best you have upcoming is Jacinda and now she is tainted with the smell of this campaign with little.

          • Ed 2.1.1.2.1
            11 July 2017 at 9:09 am

            Do you intend to ‘sow discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory messages in an online community?

            Just wondering……..

            Now let’s see if you are capable of discussing policy.
            Which National policies should we be looking at to change our point of view?

            • james 2.1.1.2.1.1
              11 July 2017 at 10:34 am

              So if you disagree – who is your corbyn ??????? See – you dont have one.

              • The Lone Haranguer …
                11 July 2017 at 11:59 am

                To “Do a Corbyn” or a “Bernie” even you need two things which I suspect are lacking in the NZLP at present:

                1) have a passionate person who can articulate the new direction
                2) actually have a new direction

                Corbyn still lost the election tho, and Bernie got knifed from within so he didnt even get to the main show, because the DNC liked the old direction way better.

                • james …
                  11 July 2017 at 12:07 pm

                  I agree whole heartily – and that is a big part of the problem labour have. There is nobody to get behind.

                  Little isnt – Jacinda as I said is tainted and to be honest I think would have less chance of being a Corbyn than Little.

                  Robertson?

                  Nash?

                  Davis?

                  Perhaps – if he makes the list Willie Jackson ?

                  • The Lone Haranguer …
                    11 July 2017 at 1:15 pm

                    Although he and I would be chalk and cheese in almost all our political views, the one person I reckon could do a Corbyn for the NZLP is Hone Harawira.

                    The guy is passionate as all hell, and hes certainly not part of the status quo.

                    I think he is New Zealand’s only “circuit breaker politician”

                    And those who suggest that David Cunliffe could have been the Kiwi Corbyn seem to conveniently forget that at the time he was living in a $2m house in a pretty good Auckland suburb, with his mega dollar lawyer wife.

                    His message lacked street cred.

                    • garibaldi …
                      11 July 2017 at 1:54 pm

                      That’s a harsh call on Cunliffe’s house price now. How long had they owned it and where would you have bought a place that many years ago? Does a leftie have to live in a hovel?

                    • The Lone Haranguer …
                      11 July 2017 at 4:09 pm

                      Garibaldi,

                      Yes the house call was harsh, but deliberately put there.

                      I do not begrudge David Cunliffe his house at all, but if I recall at the time his housing was questioned, the reply was something about needing to live in that area as his wife was breastfeeding.

                      Hardly the LW hero really.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      11 July 2017 at 10:13 pm

                      Cunliffe was the closest we had, but yes, you’re absolutely right to say he lacked the perceived authenticity and sincerity to pull off a populist left-wing campaign. (that’s not to say he wasn’t authentic or sincere about what he wanted to do, just that he didn’t have credibility to back up that that was the case, and he was not good at communicating it to the electorate) The membership elected him because they wanted that leftwing turn.

                      Unfortunately, Little and Labour have learned the wrong lesson from his failure. They think they went too far left and need to re-centre their party to grab voters “from the middle”, when in fact there were several other things that are all far more likely explanations: disunity in the Caucus, refusal to co-operate with the Greens making them look like a non-government, Cunliffe’s punchable face (seriously, google “cats that look like Cunliffe”) and the fact that he wasn’t the best messenger for a left-wing campaign, and of course, the huge rump to their caucus that they’re still not quite rid of. Of those problems, the only one they’ve really solved is their relation to the Greens. (and in doing so, they’ve created problems by tying themselves much too closely to NZ First in terms of policy and rhetoric) They have made progress on renewal, although they still have too much non-talent on the front bench.

                      Labour needs to figure out an identity for itself that’s not generic, that it authentically believes in, and then kick out anyone who can’t abide by it, if they really want to start increasing their vote significantly. They’ve tried the current way and it’s not working. They don’t have a Bernie, but it would be enough if, for instance, they all agreed they were pro-worker and actually acted like it.

        • RedLogix 2.1.1.3
          11 July 2017 at 10:09 am

          Chris Trotter said this years back; the knifing of Cunliffe would mark the end of Labour as an effective political force for a generation. Now Cunliffe was no Corbyn or Sanders really, but he was in the ball park. If the NZLP couldn’t tolerate him, they certainly will never allow anyone like Corbyn to gain power.

          Winston is corralled in a reactionary ghetto of his own making and the lefty activist base hate both him and the economic-centric policy initiatives fronted by Morgan.

          The Greens are all fine heart based values, but if anyone here thinks they can crack 20% in our lifetimes, now would be a good moment to put your hand up.

          Short answer … there is no-one. Nor can there be anyone. Labour would not tolerate such a person, and anyone putting an argument centered on class inequality, tax reform, universal income and economic reform … instantly has fixed labels like ‘neo-liberal’, ‘third-way blairite’ or ‘commie-marxist’ slapped on them to shut down the conversation.

          The left in this country, a tight and intellectually incestuous hot box, has been shut out of the economic argument so long, so long derisive and fearful of the power of money, it cannot engage in a sane discussion about it anymore.

          In such a hostile setting I simply do not see a Sanders or Corbyn figure arising here.

          • greywarshark 2.1.1.3.1
            11 July 2017 at 11:15 am

            RedLogix
            Wow an excoriating critique on our political scene. We just have to prove you wrong by taking extraordinary steps to change things equivalent to when Mickey Savage got in. But he was Australian. (Send for a an Australian who likes NZ, who isn’t an incipient alcoholic and hedonist.)

            So many of the middle aged – 40 and up – are completely without scruples or principles relating to fairness and vision of a place where all have opportunity and are helped to access that. Where there are barriers to conning people into thinking only of individual advancement or pleasure.

            How do you fire such people up? They are too busy trying to master the latest app and don’t give a stuff about others difficulties and whether there are good safety nets, or how a good, modern society needs to operate and how government needs tax, which is spent wisely for all. They prefer to operate on heightened emotion, giving generously to people they identify with who have some tragedy or personal dream requiring funding, the ‘deserving charity’ approach.

            Here is a good example of government and planners not spending wisely and intelligently, and operating on emotion and wishful thinking prompted no doubt by lobby groups who also advanced their case with maximum emotion and minimum practicality and pragmatism. I think this stands for a good case study of how NZ is being run, or actually not run but being conned into bad decision-making ignoring all the good data and sensible scenarios.
            https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2017/07/11/parnell-station-next-stop-disneyland/

            • RedLogix 2.1.1.3.1.1
              11 July 2017 at 11:35 am

              Can I recommend a great post at Boots Theory on the nature of values based politics.

              The question I ponder when polls show people are anxious about immigration is, what’s behind it? Immigration in of itself is just the movement of people across borders. Are they worried about wages? Job losses? Housing pressure? Rents? Traffic? Crime? A loss of our national identity? All those things immigrants get blamed for.

              What Corbyn did as well as play strongly to progressive values, is offer solutions to all those underlying anxieties which feed anti-migrant sentiment. You don’t need to fear newcomers if housing and transport and industry and pay and corporate greed are getting sorted. You don’t need to fear losing your identity if your identity is founded on community and collectivism.

              https://bootstheory.wordpress.com/2017/07/08/politics-in-the-age-of-populism/

              In other words, Corbyn added to the conversation, he directly addressed our values around collective benevolence, fairness and economic justice. And people believe him, not because he has hit on some egg-headed credibility algorithm, but because this was who Jeremy is all his public life.

          • Bill 2.1.1.3.2
            11 July 2017 at 11:25 am

            Forget National and forget NZ Labour. They have no part to play in NZs political future though yes, one of them will form government this time around.

            The real decision to make is what influence gets asserted on whichever of those parties forms government.

            If the Greens could gather their shit around a social democratic platform, they’d bust way through that 15%.

            Winston and Jones will run on a social democratic platform and gain substantial traction because of that.

            Both will go with a NZ Labour led government. (Those who have doubts really need to read NZF policy)

            Morgan will take a slice of the “comfortable with liberalism” vote and sit on the cross benches.

            I’d suggest ‘soft’ Labour voters could do far worse than make some serious calls around either the Greens or NZF. That, for what it’s worth, is where the election is.

            • Enough is Enough 2.1.1.3.2.1
              11 July 2017 at 11:33 am

              “Both will go with a NZ Labour led government. (Those who have doubts really need to read NZF policy)”

              I have my doubts, and they are based not on policy, but on personality. Peters will go with whoever can offer him the most baubles, and Jones will be in no hurry to get back into government with the labour party he has run away from.

              We need to get to a position where those two old fools are not be dictating how a socialist government will operate.

              • Bill …
                11 July 2017 at 11:37 am

                Erm. Socialist government? Anyway. Unless you’re a ‘hard-core’ NZ Labour voter, I guess your indicating your choice is to vote Green?

            • weka 2.1.1.3.2.2
              11 July 2017 at 2:52 pm

              “Both will go with a NZ Labour led government. (Those who have doubts really need to read NZF policy)”

              Or, they’ll go with the best deal. (those who have doubts really need to look at NZF/Peters history).

              A NZF vote is roulette if you want to change the govt. Labour will change the govt. Pretty clear choice there for people that want to change the govt and are soft Labour voters.

              • Bill …
                11 July 2017 at 4:33 pm

                Have you read the policies Weka?

                There is a lot there that chimes with the Greens and a lot that sits to the left of Labour (eg – the policy on renationalisation) and nothing I can see at first blush that fits with National.

                And let’s face it, he’ll get more than his “pound of flesh” from a NZ Labour Party desperate form government. I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to think NZF might seek to take a chunk of Green influence as a part of that pound of flesh.

                But any attempt by NZF to leverage themselves and diminish the influence of the Greens depends on the final numbers. NZF are going to get a “good run” for their money. The Greens, unless they give themselves a shake, wont.

                Soft but informed NZ Labour voters, might want to think about that. Meanwhile, committed NZ Labour voters will vote for NZ Labour, committed Greens for the Greens and, I’m picking, a fairly broad sweep of the electorate for NZF

                • weka …
                  11 July 2017 at 11:10 pm

                  All very interesting (and the argument about NZF’s LW policies is one that’s been had on TS for ages), but largely by the by. Like everyone else’s beliefs about what Peters will do (including yours and mine), and whatever the rationales, it’s still roulette. NZF’s stated position is to not say before an election what it will do after an election. Last time I looked Peters took the view he would talk to the party with the largest vote first (and we don’t know if he will consider L/G a bloc). So my point stands. If people want a left wing govt then there are two choices for the party vote: Labour or the Greens.

                  And yep, Peters will try remove whatever power the Greens have that he can get away with. So having Labour with more MPs is better than having NZF with more MPs.

                  I have some sympathy for your apparent position e.g. the need to move NZ towards social democracy as priority. But I don’t think that is more important than changing the government. Even with the state Labour is in. For that reason I would encourage soft Labour voters to vote Labour and everyone else to vote Green.

                  • Bill …
                    11 July 2017 at 11:17 pm

                    Not stating a position keeps him in the headlines is all. It’s a fairly good media attention grabbing strategy. Crap in many other ways though.

                    When did he last say he’d talk to the largest party?

                    And why wouldn’t you (as a Green supporter) encourage the soft NZ Labour vote to go Green? A larger Green vote moderates NZF influence on NZ Labour.

                    • weka …
                      11 July 2017 at 11:39 pm

                      I assume by ‘soft Labour’ you are talking about centrists and hence unlikely to shift from Labour to Green. Sure, vote Green, but if they can’t do that, Labour is a sure way to change the govt, NZF isn’t. There really is no way around that.

                    • Bill …
                      12 July 2017 at 11:26 am

                      I assume by ‘soft Labour’ you are talking about centrists and hence unlikely to shift from Labour to Green.

                      Well no. By soft Labour, I simply mean ‘less than religiously committed’.

                      Some will sit on an imaginable border between Labour and National (it would appear that NZ Labour is focusing on them).

                      Others sit on a Green/NZ Labour divide and yet others on a TOPs/NZ Labour or NZF/NZ Labour divide.

                      And then there are those who sit between 3 options.

                      So plenty of opportunities to persuade or discourage accordingly.

              • Bill …
                11 July 2017 at 4:41 pm

                Questions I’d have.

                Why did Bolger sack Peters? What changed that Bolger later offered up the deputy PM position to him? What real difference was there in what Bolger sought to do in government and what Clark was seeking to do at that time?

                Those are actual questions. All I remember of that time (I’d newly arrived in NZ) was reading NZF literature, thinking it was very Thatcherite, and not understanding why people thought NZF would jump in with NZ Labour. Of course, that was before I became aware of what NZ Labour had become.

                • weka …
                  11 July 2017 at 11:14 pm

                  From memory, in the election that Peters betrayed his voters, the reason people thought he would go with Labour (not just his voters, but most people) is because that’s what Peters led people to believe before the election. That’s not the only history I’d point to though. As important is his marginalising of the left.

                  • McFlock …
                    11 July 2017 at 11:32 pm

                    Bryce Edwards covers it with reasonable sources here.

                    Apparently 2/3 NZ1 voters expected peters to go against national, Henare (NZ1 deputy leader) made repeated adamant statements about not working with bolger etc (the individuals within national) and Peters also said he wasn’t interested in talking with bolger after the election.

                    I only remember some equivocation from nz1 that they’d on;y promised to nuke the national govt, and because it was a coalition that meant they weren’t liars. Even that didn’t impress me much.

                    • weka …
                      11 July 2017 at 11:41 pm

                      Heh, that’s probably why all the rhetoric from the past whatever years about how Peters wouldn’t go with National because of Key never made sense to me. FFS, he’s a power monger first and foremost and he’ll go with whatever party gives him the most power.

                    • Bill …
                      12 July 2017 at 11:33 am

                      I did come across that after making that comment above. (Not very much written about it anywhere)

                      Anyway. A bit curious about this bit – (my emphasis)

                      “This meant that Labour and NZ First together would not have a majority of votes in the House, and would therefore have to rely on the Alliance’s conditional support for the potential Labour-NZ First government programme – an unattractive situation for NZ First.”

                      Is that a claim that the Alliance were unwilling to guarantee “confidence and supply”, or simply that NZF knew some of their policies would be shot down by the Alliance?

                      If the latter, then I’m going back to my first question about the degrees of difference (from a NZF policy perspective) between Bolgers’ National and Clark’s Labour.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 July 2017 at 2:56 pm

                      If the latter, I would suggest that the difference is that NZ1 would have been trying to push Labour back right, while with National NZ1 were trying to push them left (e.g. super card, doc visits for preschoolers).

                      But I think it’s not so much that the Alliance were choosing opposition over being in a government of tories, I think it’s more that Anderton/Alliance overplayed their hand in the same game that winston was playing: by trying to leverage as much as possible and play hard to get, they gave the excuse to winston to take the baubles from the nats.

                      If you play too hard to get, sometimes you won’t get caught. Hence Anderton overcompensating and becoming an eager rubber stamp, with a couple of policies thrown in his direction under lab5 (e.g. kiwibank, rail).

                      Would Labour have been the same as the bolger/shipley government? Doubtful, in my opinion, but more likely than today (what with all the lab4 caucus still in the ranks in the 1990s).

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    11 July 2017 at 11:33 pm

                    … is because that’s what Peters led people to believe before the election.

                    And that was the purposeful election campaign. Led people to believe it without ever saying it. Didn’t end well for him or NZFirst.

                    Still they’re still here.

    • adam 2.2
      11 July 2017 at 8:02 am

      Why did you just not go with the standard “nothing to see here – move along”.

      Wait – my bad, you did.

    • LivinInTheBay 2.3
      11 July 2017 at 9:53 am

      Spot on.

      Not only that, they may not be Labour voters. They may be Winston First voters…

      • BM 2.3.1
        11 July 2017 at 10:40 am

        I think a fair chunk are recently arrived immigrants who aren’t yet fully immersed in NZ society to feel confident enough to cast a vote.

        When they did reach that point more than likely their vote will Nationals way.

        I’d take a wild stab and so the non-vote would probably reflect the current voting patterns as they are.

        Sorry left wingers no pot of gold here.

    • roadrage 2.4
      11 July 2017 at 3:40 pm

      New direction. Party vote Green. Let Labour soak up the constituencies. Split voting has been a strong theme for Nat act. And that’s essentially what nZf are targeting. So imagine this for a moment, how silly it will look when peters picks up party votes in the regions and national take the constituencies. Its imperative labour voters split vote,party vote Green. And seriously have to ask why Labour voters don’t or won’t coz its just laughable come sept that the progressives forces aren’t.

  3. Ad 3
    11 July 2017 at 8:08 am

    Anthony these narratives would not exist if Labour were performing better.
    You should not be afraid of holding them to account.

    It doesn’t mean you’ve stopped supporting them. But seriously we only have August and September to go and they have got to get some lift in the polls.

  4. Incognito 4
    11 July 2017 at 8:19 am

    I think (these) polls are more like a Rorschach test and say much more about the people ‘interpreting’ them than anything else.

  5. James 5
    11 July 2017 at 8:35 am

    Labour have fallen well short of their own objectives (40% according to the labour president).

    I think they have simply given up. Little has no real suppport in cacaus and they are going thru the motions.

    Labour are heading to a train wreck election and little is still out there saying hers not particularly concerned about the numbers – which makes him look like an idiot and a liar because he should be and any normal person can see that.

    • Ed 5.1
      11 July 2017 at 8:39 am

      As this post states, a narrative out of noise.
      Did you intend to be ironic?

      • James 5.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 8:53 am

        Ok the narrative is labour have given up on little.

        • BM 5.1.1.1
          11 July 2017 at 9:00 am

          Yep, when Labour voters prefer Ardern to Little you’ve got to realise the writings on the wall.

          Little needs to be at 13-14% to even look credible (half of the 27% Labour got in this poll)

          5% is a complete disaster, a loss of historical proportions is looming for Labour at this year’s election.

          • marty mars 5.1.1.1.1
            11 July 2017 at 9:15 am

            Yep keep saying it rwnj – your prepared lines are so original.

          • Stuart Munro 5.1.1.1.2
            11 July 2017 at 1:27 pm

            You’re confused – the mass of population prefers Adern to Little – Labour voters are probably not quite so keen to change horses midstream. She’ll get her turn.

            Preferred prime minister is really neither here nor there – it had some relevance to Key, who apparently had some kind of personal appeal – but when the competition is as lifeless as Bill pretty much anyone can beat him in the charisma stakes. Helen slaughtered him, and charisma wasn’t her strong suit.

    • Ed 5.2
      11 July 2017 at 8:41 am

      You post about polls and sport.
      You don’t post about inequality, housing and child poverty.

      Shows your priorities.

      • James 5.2.1
        11 July 2017 at 8:52 am

        And you stalk me like a love sick child. So what. I normally post in open mike where I can talk about what I want.

        • Johan 5.2.1.1
          11 July 2017 at 9:04 am

          James you make silly comments in order to start flame wars, each and every day.
          Then when people reproach you for your sad behaviour, you call them stalkers.
          James isn’t time that you take responsibility for your actions?

          • james 5.2.1.1.1
            11 July 2017 at 10:41 am

            Ed and Robert comment and follow me around the blog – pretty simply to see them as stalkers (as opposed to others with just opposing views).

            What makes my comment that I made thats replied to silly? Just the fact you dont like it dosnt make it such.

            • Johan 5.2.1.1.1.1
              11 July 2017 at 12:00 pm

              James, “What makes my comment that I made thats replied to silly? Just the fact you dont like it dosnt make it such.” All you comments are intended to start flame wars that is the silly part. Why do you not understand that fact?

              • james …
                11 July 2017 at 12:03 pm

                So – couldn’t find anything in the comment you were replying to huh?

                Kinda kills your argument.

        • Cinny 5.2.1.2
          11 July 2017 at 9:22 am

          James, yourself and BM are self admitted National Party voters who regularly come on a left leaning blog and deliberately run down the opposition parties.

          Both of you don’t appear to offer any solutions to the problems in our country, rather you endorse the suffering by endorsing the outgoing government.

          It’s like your focus on TS is a desperate attempt to find attention.

          May I suggest a dating website for you both instead, you could list ‘The National Party’ as one of your likes, and take it from there.

          If you both love the National Party so much, why not get out there and campaign properly for them? I doubt very much that your comments will change commenters voting preferences here.

          Dudes you are wasting your energy and looking foolish as a result. JS.

          • james 5.2.1.2.1
            11 July 2017 at 10:39 am

            Your continued stating outgoing government is what looks foolish. Well, that and calling mr 5% Alpha Andy.

            And the number thing over poll results – thats also a bit foolish I think most will admit.

            I have opposing views – just because you dont like them – dosnt mean I should comment elsewhere.

          • Enough is Enough 5.2.1.2.2
            11 July 2017 at 11:01 am

            Cinny, wait until the day after the election before calling them the “outgoing government”.

            To call them that two months out from an election, when they are in reasonably good shape, comes across as arrogant. We need to work together to remove them, and not simply assume that they will be defeated.

            • Cinny 5.2.1.2.2.1
              11 July 2017 at 12:13 pm

              Apologies if my belief that the current government will soon be the outgoing government comes across as arrogant, that is def not my intention.

      • marty mars 5.2.2
        11 July 2017 at 8:55 am

        Let’s say that is true – James is a shallow prick self interested vain and not particularly brainy. He is a gnat voter – what are you going to do about it ed? Give him policy, talk to him, talk at him, ignore him, make fun of him – wtf are you going to do ed?

        • Ed 5.2.2.1
          11 July 2017 at 9:05 am

          I post about the important stuff. Yesterday I posted about Aleppo, child poverty, socialism, the Greens, Austin Mitchell and students unable to pay to sit NCEA exams. None of these subjects interest James.
          BTW, why the aggro?

          • marty mars 5.2.2.1.1
            11 July 2017 at 9:12 am

            It’s not aggro. I know what you post. I’m trying to get you to think creatively rather than just hit the same nail the same way with the same rolled up newspaper. But whatever

            • Ed 5.2.2.1.1.1
              11 July 2017 at 9:13 am

              What would you suggest we do marty?

              • marty mars …
                11 July 2017 at 9:19 am

                Not waste time with rwnj’s. Ignore them and keep talking to believers to keep morale and belief up.

                • Ed …
                  11 July 2017 at 9:21 am

                  OK. Will do.

                  • marty mars …
                    11 July 2017 at 9:32 am

                    The left needs your tenacity and positive contributions to build morale and also keep chucking corbyn up please.

                    • Red …
                      11 July 2017 at 1:13 pm

                      Corbyn lost and his vote was a protest vote by a very transient aspirant middle class that will gravitate back to the conservative as brexit is sorted and economy turns if you feel it was a vote for socialist polices you are going to be some what disappointed

                • LivinInTheBay …
                  11 July 2017 at 9:51 am

                  Isn’t that a problem? Surely if you only talk to believers you’ll keep on getting the same results.

                  IMO you need to be talking to the non-believers. The people who looking for a potential change but aren’t convinced Mr Little has it in him. Or are worried about Ms Turei and her ilk.

                  Tell them what Labour are going to do, and why what they are going to do will benefit the whole country.

                  Go back to your roots even – actually be there for the workers. To a lot of right leaning voters you aren’t. They think Labour are only there for the ‘unproductive’ people in society. And they don’t understand why Labour thinks it’s such a great idea to take from the ‘productive’ people to give to the ‘unproductive’.

                  • marty mars …
                    11 July 2017 at 10:37 am

                    For those people the cure would be worse than the disease. Best we leave them, we dont need them – they are unproductive morally and communally. Sad.

                    • The Lone Haranguer …
                      11 July 2017 at 2:18 pm

                      But Labour needs their vote.

                      So if you write off large groups of the electorate because they are different or think differently to you, then how will you ever have a decent conversation with them to introduce them to your “higher thoughts”?

                      Sure you can keep on preaching to the Choir, but in the end you only have that one choir.

                    • LivinInTheBay …
                      11 July 2017 at 2:51 pm

                      Wait what.?.?

                      So you are saying you don’t want your message to go out to people who could ‘potentially’ vote for Labour?

                      Ok then.

                    • marty mars …
                      11 July 2017 at 3:35 pm

                      Yes it seems strange to some for sure, but sticking to your values and ethos is worthwhile. You win with believers.

                  • Pat …
                    11 July 2017 at 8:19 pm

                    my sympathies ….made the same misjudgement myself….once.

                • greywarshark …
                  11 July 2017 at 10:45 am

                  marty mars and Ed
                  I think watching the RWNJs and occasionally giving them one reply would be best, gradually they will dry up and die like untended pot plants. They get too much fuel from combative ommenters here. We need to let them fly across our territory and enjoy the spectacle as they come on with their plumes of smoke. They write to provoke, pretending that they have spent time trying to understand how to deal with our country’s and others’ problems. But they are just mosquitoes and coming here is the neares

                  They are comfortable, they are sure they are right, they are happy to stay with what they have in the party running the country. They don’t give a fuck for the aspirations of the ‘non-productive’ sector.
                  (See Livin the Bay below.)

                  (As if there are many in the ‘productive’ sector in NZ anyway.) One commenter used the term loosely in the way of ignorant citizens who just feel superior to others, but to actually talk reality most jobs in NZ are service ones. To service someone or something as part of the cash economy, money is needed to pay for the service. With hardly anyone manufacturing our daily needs, and earning wages for that the money is not flowing around in the community as needed. Making things in the built environment like providing new infrastructure, roads, bridges, commercial and apartment buildings – there will be a fall-off in that eventually.

                  Hey presto intelligent housing building will save us and we can up our productive sector where it is really needed. But we need to make more of our daily needs ourselves, and sell them to each other. It is so simple that a child of five could understand that. (Groucho Marx: ‘Send for a child aged five.’)

                  But (sigh) the Gnashional government doesn’t like intelligent production, they list costprice efficient economic production, that is only costed on a shallow basis to meet artificial, emotional targets. So RWs are just talking a lot of hot air about productive and non-productive they just say whatever everyone in their set says that will bar progressive discussion. And that is why they are a waste of time, which is precious in what’s left of this decade.

                  • KJT …
                    11 July 2017 at 11:47 am

                    I love the RNJ’s that think they are the “productive sector” when all they are doing is thinking up ever more elaborate ways of removing money from communities.

                    Especially when most of them, have never worn work boots in their lives.

                    Though, Admittedly, that is a problem they have in common with todays, “Leaders of the Left” in Labour.

                    • greywarshark …
                      11 July 2017 at 3:24 pm

                      KJT
                      You started me thinking of the change in jobs and outlooks between recent generations. The saying in the USA refers to ‘Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves’ in three generations’ implying that a man rises in skilled work status and to a suit, but family often falls back to semi- or unskilled, and that there is a chasm between those employment positions.

                      The child of a long-term NZ Labour Party member and worker eased himself into a position in the Party from where he could jettison the old ideas and usher in what he saw as new ones to cure the hands-out, cost-plus diseased economy. (Of course these were just old laissez faire ideas burnished up for new generations.)

                      That was Roger Douglas and his direction is probably mirrored in that of his cronies.
                      His family had strong ties with the trade-union movement, and actively engaged in politics….
                      His grandfather, William Theophilus “Bill” Anderton, (1891–1966), was a left-wing Methodist lay preacher and small business owner in Birmingham, England, who migrated to New Zealand with his wife in 1921
                      Roger Douglas’s father, Norman Vazey Douglas, (1910–1985), a former trade union secretary, served as MP for Auckland Central from 1960–1975, and as opposition spokesman for labour, education, and social security from 1967–1972.[3]
                      Roger’s brother Malcolm Douglas was briefly Labour MP for Hunua 1978–1979.

                      I don’t think we have been good at passing on our wisdom, experience and history, personal, national and international, to our children. Some good quotes indicate this truth.

                      (This seems rather wimpy where it says not to judge, surely that is to decide the value of something. It isn’t necessarily bad and to be frowned on.)
                      Be kind, don’t judge, and have respect for others. If we can all do this, the world would be a better place. The point is to teach this to the next generation. Jasmine Guinness

                      Leadership requires the courage to make decisions that will benefit the next generation. Alan Autry

                      Each new generation is reared by its predecessor; the latter must therefore improve in order to improve its successor. The movement is circular. Emile Durkheim

                      I grew up in a physical world, and I speak English. The next generation is growing up in a digital world, and they speak social.
                      Angela Ahrendts

                      The age in which we live, this non-stop distraction, is making it more impossible for the young generation to ever have the curiosity or discipline… because you need to be alone to find out anything. Vivienne Westwood
                      Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jasminegui626467.html?src=t_generation

                      This link is about passing on money to children who understand what is involved in the business world and the political circumstances that have enabled the earning of the wealth.
                      It shows that just having got wealth doesn’t somehow increase understanding of the world and society, probably as another saying goes “You can live amongst misery more comfortably.”

                      http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
                      and
                      http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/04/10/gordon-ramsay-says-his-kids-wont-get-his-140-million-fortune.html
                      and
                      http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_first_generation_builds_the_business_the_second_makes_it_a_success_and
                      This is a collection of writing around the theme.)

                    • KJT …
                      12 July 2017 at 9:21 pm

                      The most famous example is Trump. Apparently he would be just as wealthy now if he had simply put his inheritance in the bank.

                  • LivinInTheBay …
                    11 July 2017 at 2:50 pm

                    So instead of engage with people you insult them. Is that a good tactic for any side of the political spectrum?

                    “…..they are sure they are right”

                    Doesn’t this also describe you?

                    Unless you open yourself up to the possibility you’re wrong and engage in real debate, you’ll continue to ‘sing to the choir’ and it effect the change you believe is necessary.

              • inspider …
                11 July 2017 at 9:50 am

                It’s. About this time in the poll cycle that someone (usually mickeysavage from memory) comes up with the ‘ internal polling is much better’ line.

                What should Labour do? Disavow the Greens and aggressively target their vote. The MOU has been a disaster for Labour. Presents them as completely unambitious and why would a wavering voter want to support a losing party that tells you it doesn’t even back itself?

                They have the perfect excuse with the Greens calling potential coalition partners racists. Call them out on it and say Labour is going it’s own way.

              • Robert Guyton …
                11 July 2017 at 1:57 pm

                Ed – would this help @ 13.2

          • alwyn 5.2.2.1.2
            11 July 2017 at 1:12 pm

            “Austin Mitchell”.
            God, you really take me back.
            Is he still alive? He must be about 95 surely.

  6. Keepcalmcarryon 6
    11 July 2017 at 9:20 am

    So both main parties down a bit both main leaders down a bit, greens and nz first up a bit.
    But media narrative is trashing labour. I’d make 2 points:
    My first point is the importance of reinstalling a charter to tvnz and some balance to the media. How national could scrap it and hence benefit politically and not be called for corruption is beyond me.
    My second point is a move to green and nzf – if it continued could be interpreted as a real want for more socialist/ nationalist policies per Corbyn etc.

    • Ed 6.1
      11 July 2017 at 9:23 am

      I would imagine the media could be looking at the calamitous decline in English’s numbers.
      They could.
      But as Tory puppets they won’t.
      We need a democratic media.

      • LivinInTheBay 6.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 10:00 am

        You know it’s funny.

        I and many others see the media in general as very left leaning. Almost all of the political commentators are. About the only person who isn’t is Mike Hosking, who actually has some good stuff to say, but the left dismiss him because he’s Mike Hosking.

        • james 6.1.1.1
          11 July 2017 at 10:43 am

          ^ + 100

        • Molly 6.1.1.2
          11 July 2017 at 10:47 am

          Hi LivinInTheBay,

          “I and many others see the media in general as very left leaning.”
          Can you give a couple of examples of that? because I honestly don’t see it.

          Mainly in the type of questions asked, or the failure to ask questions that get to the heart of the matter in terms of NZ politics.

          Even John Campbell, apparently the darling of the left according to some, often dropped the ball in my mind – although at least he made an effort. I recall an interview he gave a few years ago when he related with some surprise the inaccuracies of the answers given by the government, which he had received and believed in good faith. At the time I thought – “That explains a lot”.

          “but the left dismiss him because he’s Mike Hosking”
          No. People – both left and right – who prefer rational, intelligent discourse and commentary based on robust evidence dismiss him because he provides none of that.

          People who like him – also both left and right – hope that they too could emulate his stream-of-unconsciousness rants of prejudice and also be rewarded with public airtime and material wealth. Ass-pirational, you might say.

          • greywarshark 6.1.1.2.1
            11 July 2017 at 11:22 am

            Molly
            +1+

          • LivinInTheBay 6.1.1.2.2
            11 July 2017 at 11:45 am

            I’d argue he does provide that. But ‘your’ bias towards him skews your view. And there lies the fault with many on the left and the right. They dismiss people because they perceive that because they lean a certain way, that they must therefore be wrong.

            Another mistake is assuming people that don’t think like you are ‘uneducated’. I’ve read on this forum about Brexit opponents being ‘educated’. As if 1) educated people oppose Brexit and 2) those who voted for Brexit must be uneducated.

            Ok – Paddy Gower, Katie Bradford, Soper, Campbell, Mulligan, almost all NZH and Stuff articles. All heavily left biased.

            • Molly 6.1.1.2.2.1
              11 July 2017 at 12:11 pm

              “I’d argue he does provide that. But ‘your’ bias towards him skews your view. “
              You could argue it. But provide evidence to persuade me otherwise. Everytime I have been exposed to his opinion, he leaves more unanswered questions than providing answers. If you link to what you think is a particularly erudite example – I’ll show you what I mean.

              “Another mistake is assuming people that don’t think like you are ‘uneducated’. I’ve read on this forum about Brexit opponents being ‘educated’. As if 1) educated people oppose Brexit and 2) those who voted for Brexit must be uneducated. “
              Your argument is going off the reservation there, LintheB. Please stick to what we were talking about, else we will never finish this conversation.

              “But ‘your’ bias towards him skews your view. “”
              (A bit of self-awareness might be a move in the right direction there.) I’m particularly an annoying conversationalist. Don’t mind engaging with well-considered and rational oppositional views and finding out more. Don’t agree with people just because I like them, and don’t disagree just because I don’t – so your assumption is not on-target.

              “Ok – Paddy Gower, Katie Bradford, Soper, Campbell, Mulligan, almost all NZH and Stuff articles. All heavily left biased.”
              Apart from a few hefty guffaws, provide examples of “left-bias” (rather than quite ironically, names of those you consider left) and we can both talk about that.

              • LivinInTheBay …
                11 July 2017 at 12:43 pm

                Here is a piece he did in Charter schools – https://www.facebook.com/MikeHoskingBreakfast/videos/1534616109905278/

                And another one – this one talking about Willie Jackson

                https://www.facebook.com/MikeHoskingBreakfast/videos/1528739307159625/

                I’ll find some more but these are close to my heart as I believe the things NZ’ers care most about are

                Education
                Housing
                Law and Order
                Health

                Not necessarily in that order.

                • Molly …
                  11 July 2017 at 1:07 pm

                  Not on Facebook 🙂 so can’t read. Any chance of a summary?

                • Molly …
                  11 July 2017 at 1:39 pm

                  Don’t worry. Be back in a minute or two. Just got on to his minute on Charter Schools.

                  For now, will link to my comment a couple of days ago about Willie Jackson.

                • JanM …
                  11 July 2017 at 1:43 pm

                  If NZers really did give a damn about education and knew what they were talking about, this government would be gone by lunchtime!

                • Molly …
                  11 July 2017 at 2:21 pm

                  Back on track. Now – disclosure – I will always advocate on the closure of charter schools for a long list of what I believe to be long-term negative impacts of them on students, community, and society. But will try and keep comments to the instance of Mike’s words.

                  Breaking it up to keep comments a reasonable size.

                  “How it is Willie Jackson can sit on the board of the Labour Party list and sit on the board of a charter school. What does Willie Jackson see in charter schools that his party doesn’t?”

                  (See previous link)

                  There is nothing wrong with divergent views of course, within a broad church, but what I have always argued with charter schools is – we should let them flourish if there is a demand.
                  (Two different topics being converged into one argument. One, should every party member have a unified opinion on policy? and Charter Schools – are they of benefit or not?)

                • Molly …
                  11 July 2017 at 2:29 pm

                  More of Mike’s Minutae:

                  “And the demand will be driven by parents and their kids who will very quickly work out, whether they are worth it or not. All that charter schools are – are alternatives.

                  Recognition that state school is not a one-stop shop and world (?) parents want a prescripted approach to their child’s education, that not all kids excel in the state school model – and some specialisation is no bad thing. They are not a panacea of course, they are not a magic bullet, but they are part of a mix of options in a very complex and detailed world of modern education.

                  (Where to start? The first fundamental thing to remember is that attendance at school is compulsory from the ages of six to sixteen.

                  If our legislation compels children to attend, then responsibility for their health and wellbeing ultimately lies with the state. Delegating that responsibility to third parties, often leads to lack of accountability and lack of transparency.

                  National Standards are an ideology that requires a certain achievement at a certain pace, treating education as a “one-stop shop” and he makes no reference to that, and the ongoing failure to provide required support by the National government, when funds for assistance programmes have to come out of operational budgets?

                  State education should provide the diversity and opportunity needed to all students who are compelled to attend. That is the ideal, not devolvement of responsibility under the guise of “informed choice”).

                • Molly …
                  11 July 2017 at 2:33 pm

                  More-on Mike’s Minute:

                  Now, Labour don’t like them. Will close them down. Or will they?
                  (I don’t know – and neither does he apparently)

                  Given all this got stirred up when Willie joined the list, and presented his “so-called” conflict of interest.
                  (Not “so called”, actual. And quite rightly brought up.)

                  Heat is back on the party to explain what their rationale is.
                  (Heat? Similar heat to that brought onto the list MP in Northland facing police charges before election day, or to the recent heat shown by Mike Hosking on a Southland MP? That kind of heat? Or flaming heat now being applied to a open disclosure of difference with party policy when accepting a list place?)

                • Molly …
                  11 July 2017 at 2:44 pm

                  More of my life lost to Mike’s Minutae:

                  Now, Andrew Little said yesterday that not all charter schools will necessarily close. This, as far as I know is new, and indeed welcome. But Chris Hipkins, though, he seems to think they will. (Can I point out they are not in government, and the questions are being asked randomly, not of policy but of opinion)

                  They will either close or get integrated into a state school which is essentially the same thing.

                  (Did either say that, or has he just paraphrased badly? Either way, essentially that statement is right. Just inform Hekia Paerata who used the phrase “integration” as a negative reply to questions about school closures in Christchurch)

                  So – are they closing or not?

                  Is Andrew Little playing with words here, or is he sending a message to Hipkins?
                  (All this Labour commentary is surmising interspersed with his opinion on Charter schools. Using two topics to bounce off, as it they provide answers to either side. Nothing to do with Charter Schools at all, but an attempt to frame the issue of one of incompatibility and discord. Never used by him when National provides inconsistent answers or is shown to be outright lying on topics of importance, such as GCSB, Pike River, Christchurch etc.)

                • Molly …
                  11 July 2017 at 2:47 pm

                  More on the longest minute of my life:

                  But. More importantly, than that – short of saying they don’t like them, where’s the reason? Why? Why don’t you like them? Because they are different? Because they are not state schools? But what is it about the state school that is the answer to every desire educationally? – and given they’re not. Why are they defended to the detriment of every other idea going? Is it the unions? Are they so beholden to the unions that they give – well basically, they’ve got them by the short and curlies – because it makes no sense. None of this makes any sense. And you can draw no other conclusion, than the thinking in policy is driven by ideology and in the face of logic and common sense is always a very dangerous thing.

                  (He is asking rhetorical questions, assuming answers and then coming to a conclusion of a discussion he has not had. My children learnt very early not to do this at home. Smacks of disingenious engagement, and lack of integrity to me. What I’d consider a lazy argument if it was presented at home, which would result in lots of dishes or lawnmowing)

                • Molly …
                  11 July 2017 at 3:01 pm

                  My life is almost my own again – Mike Hosking’s continues in the same vein:

                  So far, charter schools seem a success. Not all of them, of course. But in the very early days, reports seem to be positive, reaction is good, and surely we can all agree – if someone out there is making a positive difference to a kid’s life, why for ideology’s sake – would you want to mess with that?

                  (His first sentence is opinion stated as fact. He provides no examples, even though there was evidence already that charter schools in NZ were failing to perform. One had even been opened, with increased funding and closed by the time he videoed this.

                  Charter schools are receiving more funding per student while failing to meet the minimum roll requirements, meaning that that funding goes even further.

                  Vanguard Military Academy – isn’t that a great name for a learning environment? – not only fails the minimum roll requirement but has a high level of suspension and expulsion. Understandable, given the approach.

                  There is evidential research in the UK and the US that outcomes from charter schools fare no better than state run institutions. But where charter schools are located, state schools often find their funding reduced and students there find their resources limited.

                  He also uses the phrase “positive difference” as as given, and draws a conclusion based on that assumption. Lazy rhetoric.)

                  This is an indication of what runs through my mind when I unfortunately catch Mike Hosking on media, but not all. He does not provide information about where he gets his conclusions from – ie reports or evidence. Most of his primary source is from his own opinions, and a cursory look at topics.

                  His focus seems to be particularly on the minutae of oppositional parties, and never is applied to any degree on his preferred government. Because of that I consider him a PR agent for National, and he could quite easily have that as a disclosure. But we know from his opening statement that he considers disclosure a ridiculous notion.

                  Baton over to you.

                  (Won’t watch any more-on Mike unless taken by unpleasant surprise. Rather be spelunking – or the Veronica Mars alternative.)

                • The Lone Haranguer …
                  11 July 2017 at 4:40 pm

                  I think you might find that the bulk of New Zealanders care most about:

                  Themselves
                  Their families
                  Their House

                  I may be an old cynic, but I reckon Im closer to the mark than you are.

                  Since 1984 the nation has preached in favour of the individual gain over the collective good, so any Government whose policies meet my list, are far more likely to be re-elected.

                  Helen Clarke knew this when she put forward the interest free student loan bribe, and got reelected from it. Great politics, but maybe not so great public policy.

          • KJT 6.1.1.2.3
            11 July 2017 at 11:54 am

            People dismiss him because he is an ignorant blowhard.

            “Only the truly ignorant can be so confident they are correct”.

            • LivinInTheBay 6.1.1.2.3.1
              11 July 2017 at 12:45 pm

              See that’s where your ‘argument’ falls down. Why resort to name calling? You may not like him and/or his views – it’s probably that you don’t like his views, so it follows that you don’t like him. And that’s ok, but resorting to name calling is the domain of people like Slater.

              • McFlock …
                11 July 2017 at 2:35 pm

                Is it name-calling if it’s accurate, though?

                Not liking his views is one thing. Besides that, his delivery is loud, categorical (as in allows little or no space for nuance or alternative views), and the only sources other than himself I’ve seen him refer to (possibly because I don’t watch him much at all) were his references to encounters with dunnokeyo (who he always namedropped by title).

                I have basically the same amount of time for Hosking as I do for bomber (another ignorant blowhard) or Trotter (who’s a slightly less ignorant and less loud blowhard).

                Don’t get me wrong, I find Hosking’s views much more contemptible than bomber or trotter. But I really do dismiss him because he’s ignorant, and a blowhard.

              • Gabby …
                11 July 2017 at 7:40 pm

                I find him to be an unpleasant fellow with bad manners.

          • alwyn 6.1.1.2.4
            11 July 2017 at 1:14 pm

            “he gave a few years ago”.
            That was the one he gave in 2007, wasn’t it?

          • tuppence shrewsbury 6.1.1.2.5
            11 July 2017 at 6:08 pm

            Chris Faafoi? Tamati Coffeyy? ex media presentators now representing labour

            Jesse Mulligan?

        • Johan 6.1.1.3
          11 July 2017 at 12:07 pm

          What a lot of cobblers, have ever listened to 1ZB and Radiolive?

        • Psycho Milt 6.1.1.4
          11 July 2017 at 12:57 pm

          …the left dismiss him because he’s Mike Hosking.

          Actually, the left dismiss him because he’s a narcissistic blowhard who imagines that stating his prejudices out loud constitutes analysis.

          I guess it does go down well with people who share his prejudices and have little capacity for evaluating arguments, but to everyone else, it’s… well, the kind of appalling shit Mike Hosking would come out with.

          • garibaldi 6.1.1.4.1
            11 July 2017 at 2:44 pm

            The saddest part is that people like LivinInTheBay give him cred and criticise us for rejecting him.

        • KJT 6.1.1.5
          12 July 2017 at 9:30 pm

          Reality is left wing.

          Which is why National have to lie and fudge statistics to get votes.

          One thing I can say about ACT is they are honest about what they want to do to us.
          If National was as honest, their share of the vote would be the same as ACT’s.

          Because their aims are the same.

      • Enough is Enough 6.1.2
        11 July 2017 at 10:44 am

        Have you heard of Jesse Mulligan Ed.

        He is doing a fantastic job of calling the Government out and should be given credit for that.

      • Red 6.1.3
        11 July 2017 at 1:22 pm

        You are assuming people voted Corbyn for his socialist policies, they did not and secondly nz is not the uk, Corbyn and his policies would go down like a cup of cold sick here, henc why labour does not go there

      • mary_a 6.1.4
        11 July 2017 at 2:01 pm

        Good point there Ed (6.1) Natz leader is declining in poll preference and all msm can do is concentrate on Andrew Little! You’d think media would be asking a few questions of Natz. A case of won’t bite the hand that controls I guess! No democracy there.

    • james 6.2
      11 July 2017 at 10:45 am

      “So both main parties down a bit both main leaders down a bit, greens and nz first up a bit.
      But media narrative is trashing labour.”

      They are trashing Labour because they are at 27% – which is terrible this close to an election.

      And Little is 4th in the preferred PM stakes – behind Winny and his depuity – thats why they are trashing labour – not because they are biased media.

      • garibaldi 6.2.1
        11 July 2017 at 11:25 am

        They are biased media. The only nonpartisan outlet is RNZ. All the others carry an inbuilt slant of varying degrees to the right, whether it be through ownership or direct influence from advertisers/corporates and ‘stacked’ management( to which even RNZ has been subject).

        • Enough is Enough 6.2.1.1
          11 July 2017 at 11:27 am

          I encourage you to watch the Project on TV 3. Mulligan is certainly biased towards the government.

          He is a staunch opponent and is doing a great job calling them out.

          • garibaldi 6.2.1.1.1
            11 July 2017 at 2:47 pm

            Good on Mulligan, but that is a very recent development and he will be moved on for it. Just watch .

            • garibaldi 6.2.1.1.1.1
              11 July 2017 at 7:42 pm

              I just watched the Project as per your recommendation E is E. I will concede it is better than seven sharp, but I won’t follow it…. too naf. There are many better things to watch or do.
              Oh, the two questions had Little scrambling for cover because his grand new policy didn’t really help in either case !
              NB just for the record I only ever watched seven sharp once but couldn’t stay the distance with that supercilious prick.

        • tuppence shrewsbury 6.2.1.2
          11 July 2017 at 6:10 pm

          You do understand that calling a media outlet nonpartisan because they slant to the left instead of the right is misguided at least

  7. Xanthe 7
    11 July 2017 at 10:11 am

    narrrative from noise is right.
    What if just maby. The polls have no scientific vaildity the outcome is determined by the questions asked and the methodology .
    The “poll” is just another particularly dishonest electioneering.
    Ignore.

  8. Sabine 8
    11 July 2017 at 10:31 am

    no real breakdown of the people asked again.

    I don’t understand why the polling companies can not put the breakdown of the party affiliation of the people asked.

    The only thing again mentioned is ‘undecided’, yet nothing about the others.

    why is that?

    • Phil 8.1
      11 July 2017 at 12:58 pm

      I don’t understand why the polling companies can not put the breakdown of the party affiliation

      Because party affiliation (of the type in, say, the US) is literally not a thing in new Zealand. Or, at the very least, party membership is so low in New Zealand that it is, from the p.o.v of polling, completely meaningless.

      • Sabine 8.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 2:02 pm

        ahh, so in NZ we don’t have people that identify as a National supporter, Labour supporter or Green supporter? It matters not?

  9. Chris 9
    11 July 2017 at 11:48 am

    I’ve always wondered who is advising the last few Labour leaders.

    Why do they keep trying to turn them into some kind of badly designed, mini me, “Just a good bloke” John Key drone?

    It just looks forced and frankly desperate and voters can see through this.

    It is also a bad look when you are still trying to do it (see ping pong), whilst so low in the polls.

    People can hate Key all they like, but the fact is he just came across as naturally like that (Whether you think it was just seriously good acting, or not).

    And as much as housing in Auckland is a major issue, if it is all you ever go on and on and on about for months on end, it starts to lose it’s impact.

    And lose the bloody negative politics. Say what great things Labour will do, not always how bad the govt has done!!

    Sorry. Rant over

    I just don’t like seeing the biggest opposition in NZ floundering!

    • McFlock 9.1
      11 July 2017 at 12:08 pm

      Why do they keep trying to turn them into some kind of badly designed, mini me, “Just a good bloke” John Key drone?

      Possibly partly because they believed the “Waitakere Man” bullshit that Trotter came up with, but they don’t want to ignore the specific needs facing women, queer people, or poor brown people. So they think they have to compensate for this liberal “identity politics” label by drinking Tui and going fishing.

    • james 9.2
      11 July 2017 at 12:09 pm

      Really good points Chris.

      And yeah – the ping pong was a little cringeworthy.

    • Gabby 9.3
      11 July 2017 at 7:43 pm

      Or, if you’re doing negative politics, do it properly.

  10. KJT 10
    11 July 2017 at 11:53 am

    All the changes are within the polls, “margin of error”.

    However Labour being a slightly kinder form of National is not going to work.

    To get people to vote for change, you have to show them how it will be better. Not slightly different from National.

    Many people will think, why rock the boat. May as well vote for the familiar.

    • gsays 10.1
      11 July 2017 at 1:24 pm

      Here is a partial recipe for rocking the boat. Life jackets on people.
      All folk on less than $40,000 the first $15,000 is tax free.
      Abolish secondary tax-a good labour policy.
      Remove gst on fresh fruit, veges.
      Free contraception and tampons, pads etc.
      Apprenticeships across the trades.
      Pull overseas defence forces personnel back home.
      All MPs take a 25% pay cut.
      Transparent lobbying register.
      Move to a UBI in 5 years.
      Financial transaction tax.
      Nationalise power, gas, internet.

      • Xanthe 10.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 2:26 pm

        @gsays, you got my vote there! Thats a bloody good list.

      • The Lone Haranguer 10.1.2
        11 July 2017 at 7:34 pm

        Not a bad list theregsays.

        But your income tax/GST reforms are a bit unworkable. Why not make the first $15,000 of everyones income tax free and then introduce new tax rates at say $100,000 (40%) and $250,000 (45%).

        And align the Trust and Company taxes with the individual rates

        You would reduce (only flat tax rates could eliminate) the opportunities for “tax arbitrage” and the first $15,000 being tax free would save the taxpayers about $1700 per year so thats $31 per week to pay for the gst on the veges and fruit.

        Im with you on the financial transaction tax.

        • gsays 10.1.2.1
          11 July 2017 at 9:33 pm

          i would certainly have others do details, i am all about the vibe.
          probably abolish trusts while i am waving a wand around.

        • KJT 10.1.2.2
          12 July 2017 at 9:09 pm

          Just align income tax rates with Australia. But bring back the wealth taxes that we dumped for GST. .
          I.E. Wealth inheritance taxes (See if the wealthy get more because they are more competent then! LOL), Capital gains taxes, stamp duties and financial transaction taxes.

          May then even be able to reduce income taxes, GST and/or have a UBI.

  11. McFlock 11
    11 July 2017 at 12:13 pm

    So it might still be margin-for-error stuff, but the basic take-home (if any) is that National now need NZ1 plus their minions in order to govern next time.

    I wonder if they’ll have enough even with NZ1 after a month or two of campaigning?

    • Phil 11.1
      11 July 2017 at 1:01 pm

      but the basic take-home (if any) is that National now need NZ1 plus their minions in order to govern next time.

      Erm… 47% + 11% = 58%

      That’s more than enough for a Nat+NZF government without any other support party.

      • Ross 11.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 1:20 pm

        Except National didnt go into coalition with NZF last election and may not this time. Also you are assuming the poll numbers will hold up by election day.

      • McFlock 11.1.2
        11 July 2017 at 2:18 pm

        lol true, my bad.

        Point being that both sides need NZ1, nat’s supplicants don’t cut it by themselves.

        By focusing on Labour, the tories are trying to distract people from the fact that the issue for them is in serious doubt.

  12. Cynical jester 12
    11 July 2017 at 12:40 pm

    I think labour is headed for a 4th election where it loses seats. I’m sick and tired of hearing about immigration and these piddly incremental policies that will do nothing meaningful to people’s lives. It has learned nothing from corbyn / Sanders and still thinks it can win by converting nat voters instead of motivating non voters with radical policy.

    I keep hearing door knocking is what got corbyn 41% this is only partly true corbyn also had a radical manifesto that young people could get behind.

    I’m sick of policy like working for families, accommodation allowances and winter allowances which just subsidizes low wages high rents and out of control power prices.

    I’ll keep door knocking for my candidate but I don’t think labour will ever be in govt until it realizes people elect labour govts tp transform the status quo and tbh i don’t think it will. When talking to labour people they sneer and scoff when you tell them that people are not going to vote for tge crumbs they are offering. If when labour loses the election it doesn’t have a momentum style revolution its going to be a party of the past.

    • BM 12.1
      11 July 2017 at 12:46 pm

      I’ll keep door knocking for my candidate but I don’t think labour will ever be in govt until it realises people elect Labour govt’s to transform the status quo

      You’re getting to the crux of the issue, that being the majority don’t want the status quo modified.

      Now, where does that leave Labour?

      • LivinInTheBay 12.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 12:54 pm

        Good point.

        Another – the left, and especially the Greens go on and on and on about ‘Change the Govt’. It’s a slogan of theirs. They ram down our throats that National=Bad; Lab/Greens=Good, without telling us why.

        I don’t want someone telling me why something is or isn’t bad. I can work that out myself. What I do want, is them telling me why they are good. What will benefit me, my daughter and my community? What will benefit NZ as a whole? And why is that better than the status quo.

        It reminds me of a company rep who used to tell me all the time that one of his competitors was Bad. In the end I told him to stop or get out of my office.

        Why are you good, and what are the increased benefits of that.

        • KJT 12.1.1.1
          12 July 2017 at 9:36 pm

          Actually we tell people the good we can do all the time. But your “Left wing biased” media only publish the negative stuff. Half off which they find by interviewing their typewriter.

          For one. Greens will try and ensure we have an environment to live in!

          Labour that businesses will still have New Zealand customers.
          All the money going to offshore bankers, speculators and tax dodgers, is not good for business.

    • LivinInTheBay 12.2
      11 July 2017 at 12:49 pm

      It also helped Corbin that May was massively arrogant, called a snap election – which voters dislike – and refused to engage with him in debates.

      She did half his work for him. I’d argue if the above hadn’t happened – i.e. A normal election cycle, and actually debated him the result could have been vastly different. Of course we’ll not know for the foreseeable future.

      • Cynical jester 12.2.1
        11 July 2017 at 1:02 pm

        Labour should be going all out for the 800,000 non voters. It’ll have more of a chance with them than converting nat voters.

        There’s an untapped well of support for a change in the status quo if labour could bring more people into the process.

        If labour wants to keep playing the game by nationals rules so be it but it won’t inspire anyone.

        At the very least it could stop sneering when people say what you’re doing isn’t working its time to try something different.

        • Chris 12.2.1.1
          11 July 2017 at 1:37 pm

          Your assuming that a lot of the 800,000 are all left voters and aren’t people that would probably vote the Nat’s, but don’t bother as seeing the polls, they don’t have to

        • KJT 12.2.1.2
          12 July 2017 at 9:39 pm

          Actually. The left is converting Nat voters. They just don’t realise it yet.

          Even the young Nat’s support 350 org.

          Why would National keep pinching, or pretending to follow, left wing policies, if they thought voters didn’t want them.

  13. Ross 13
    11 July 2017 at 1:08 pm

    So much first past the post analysis, and I use the word loosely, in an MMP world. Labour could poll 10% and still form the Government. I recall when Helen Clark polled about 2% before becoming PM. The rwnj’s here have a very selective or very poor memory.

    • alwyn 13.1
      11 July 2017 at 1:19 pm

      “Helen Clark polled about 2%”.
      It took her another FIVE years before she became PM.
      Do you honestly think that Andy is going to survive in the leaders’ job until 2022?

      • Berend de Boer 13.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 3:09 pm

        Not true: Labour’s leader attracted the support of 29.1 per cent of those questioned in the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey, with the incumbent, National’s Jenny Shipley, on 26.

        • alwyn 13.1.1.1
          11 July 2017 at 3:32 pm

          I’m not quite sure what poll you are talking about, or when it was held.
          Helen Clark’s 2% was in the late 1994 time-frame. At that time she had been leader of the opposition for less than a year. Bolger was PM at the time. She finally became PM at the end of 1999 which was, as I say, about 5 years later. The 2% wasn’t just before becoming PM. It was much earlier.
          See
          http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/oppldr.png
          Sorry about where the reference is to, but it shows the situation most clearly.
          She was much more popular when Shipley was PM but that was much later.

    • Robert Guyton 13.2
      11 July 2017 at 1:32 pm

      Their intent is to discourage, Ross.
      That’s all.
      The only useful response is to exhibit great encouragement as a result of their efforts. Of all the behaviours John Key exhibited, the one I found very valuable was his determination that all events were to his advantage and that he would glow with pleasure, no matter what (exaggerating here for effect); for example, he fell and broke his arm, but turned that into a money-maker through Trade Me and a great public relations/voter opportunity to show what a great guy he was; nothing gets John down!
      Do you see what I mean?
      We are, to our disadvantage, too sincere here. Flippant lampooning of the pests/pet trolls is the most successful way to manage them, and manage is all you can hope for, these pests aren’t for eradicating. In any case, pests and “dis-eases” are useful for keeping your collecting immunity system vibrant.

    • Chris 13.3
      11 July 2017 at 1:34 pm

      If Labour polled 10% and still formed a govt it wouldn’t be Labour in charge.

      It would be whoever got the majority of the other 40 odd %, who would allocate the PM and ministers and Labour would just be a minor party coalition partner similar to what the Greens would be if Labour won on current polling

      • James 13.3.1
        11 July 2017 at 5:01 pm

        Labour on 10%. I don’t see that happening this election. But the following one – it’s possible. So we may see what happens then.

    • Blade 13.4
      11 July 2017 at 1:51 pm

      ”The rwnj’s here have a very selective or very poor memory.”

      Nah, mate. Just looked at the latest poll result. Labour going down the gurgler. National steady. In fact I was told by some Leftwing troll on this site that National would be lucky to get 43% towards election time. For a third term government to be on 47% speaks more about the opposition than the government.

      • Booker 13.4.1
        11 July 2017 at 4:00 pm

        I think it speaks more about New Zealanders – they just don’t care. A quarter of children in poverty, half of those expected to never escape poverty, national debt something like 3 times what it was when National came into government, private debt through the roof, the economy a massive housing bubble and only held up by artificially increasing GDP with mass migration and longer hours worked. New Zealanders just go ‘meh’.

        • KJT 13.4.1.1
          12 July 2017 at 9:16 pm

          I think they care, but if you live in Monaco, Nelson, Maunganui, Tauranga, or Remuera, Auckland, you just don’t see it. These people assume the NZ of their youth still exists.

          I had one tell me during a taxi ride that we still give people a benefit they can live on. She was genuinely surprised when I stated some figures. She didn’t know the unemployment benefit was about $140 a week for example. Almost enough to pay the bus fares, to job hunt in Auckland.

          If you live somewhere like Northland, poverty is all around.

  14. Ross 14
    11 July 2017 at 1:16 pm

    Then theres Labour’s recent performance in the UK election. Theresa May called an early election after Labour were trailing badly. She hoped to decimate her opponents but instead ended with egg on her face. Opinion polls didnt pick the result.

  15. UncookedSelachimorpha 15
    11 July 2017 at 2:01 pm

    While I’d love to see a change of government – sadly Labour won’t do much of use while it remains wedded to TINA.

    While they say you can’t do anything if not in power – winning with insipid and worthless policies isn’t any better – you don’t do anything useful then, either.

    50% of the population only have 5% of the wealth.

    Thousands of people work for less than you need to survive.

    Students have life-crushing debt

    Rich people pay proportionally far less tax than poorer people

    Workers have no bargaining power

    Third-world diseases are rife in cold and clammy homes

    LABOUR – how about some radical, bold policies to confront these problems! Then you might actually get some attention!! It worked for Corbyn.

    • red-blooded 15.1
      11 July 2017 at 3:37 pm

      TBH, anyone here who’s criticising Labour as too “middle of the road” and who’s not an active Labour member is just mouthing off. If you want to have a hand in policies, join the party and work to promote your values and priorities. Ranting from the sidelines a few months out from an election achieves bugger all. Politics is about passion, but it’s also about slog. Plus negotiation and – dreaded word – compromise.

      Labour have a strong set of policies. The employment relations policy alone would get my vote. They need to have people behind them, though, and that includes the sort of people who come onto TS. If you want to left to flourish and grow again in NZ, stop bagging the party that actually promotes a left agenda.

      UncookedSelchimorpha (15, above), take a look at the policies announced so far. Life-crushing student debt? 3 years free tertiary education. Unequal distribution of wealth? WFF changes, employment relations changes, lift to minimum wage… Cold, clammy houses? WOF for landlords, winter allowances for heating costs. Tax issues? Well, let’s start by rejecting the proposed tax cuts and build on that over time? Workers’ bargaining power? Take another look at the employment relations packages (especially the industry-wide agreements)… Actually inform yourself about what’s on the table.

      • Gabby 15.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 8:43 pm

        S/he can find the list of changes set out clearly in bullet points so it is easy to see how s/he would benefit, right?

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 15.1.2
        11 July 2017 at 11:31 pm

        I much prefer Lab/Green to the current lot, and I wish Labour all the best – and they or the Greens will get my vote.

        Labour policies are a step in the right direction, but until Labour rethinks the current neoliberal “consensus” on economics and society, at best they will simply tinker at the edges – and will not get widespread grassroots support.

        “A Fresh Approach”

        vs

        “For the Many, not the Few”

        One of these signals a fundamental shift in perspective, the other is putting your hand up and saying “my turn now”.

      • KJT 15.1.3
        12 July 2017 at 9:45 pm

        “who’s criticising Labour as too “middle of the road””

        That’s why I joined the Greens some time ago. Labour is currently a lost cause.
        The entitlement and arrogance of the “political class” exists in Labour as much as it does in National.

        Hopefully the members can reclaim their party.

        Before it becomes irrelevant.

        But real change for the better depends on entrenching Democracy, with BCR and recalls, so Governments cannot go on ideological benders like 84 Labour and 90’s National. At least MMP has kept a bit of a brake on MP’s.

  16. Michael who failed Civics 16
    11 July 2017 at 5:06 pm

    “Bugger the Pollsters” will be the only thing Jim Bolger will be remembered for. I imagine Andrew Little, and his hierarchy, feel much the same today. While I think the polls are increasingly inaccurate and unreliable (with a built-in anti-Labour bias), nevertheless I think we can safely conclude that Labour’s 2017 campaign is another busted flush. The only interesting result on 23 September will be whether Winston beats Labour into fourth place (behind National and No Vote). As to appealing to No Vote, Labour gave up on them years ago and can’t be arsed trying again.

    • Stuart Munro 16.1
      11 July 2017 at 6:34 pm

      There may be some milage yet in Bolger’s admission that neo-liberalism has been a mistake.

      • The Lone Haranguer 16.1.1
        11 July 2017 at 8:44 pm

        Most voters wont even remember his name.

        And out there in non-voter land most will never have even heard of him.

  18. Nick K 18
    12 July 2017 at 3:53 am

    “Act and United Future don’t feature”.

    You need to read the article again.

  19. Cinny 19
    12 July 2017 at 6:29 am

    Meanwhile on social media..

    National has just 75,000 likes on social media

    While the Greens are leading the way with 100,000 likes.