Nats drop 5% in Roy Morgan, Left surges

Written By: - Date published: 8:28 pm, July 20th, 2011 - 110 comments
Categories: polls - Tags:

TV1’s poll on Sunday was supposedly curtains for CGT, so what does it mean that the latest Roy Morgan has the Nats down 5% and the Left in striking range of an upset win? It means don’t draw instant conclusions linking one poll to one policy (although it must be tempting when you’ve spent $30K getting the numbers) – watch the trends.

So, how are the trends looking?

Roy Morgan’s confidence in government number keeps on falling for National. It’s heading towards where it was for the 5th Labour government in the dying days of its third term.

The gap between National and ACT v Labour and Green is gradually narrowing. It’s at 12% this time, which means if 6% of people change their minds, we have a change of government. It was consistently under 10% late last year, so things haven’t really improved in the last half year or so for the Left, on the other hand, it’s a lot better than the days when the gap was over 20%.

National’s back under 50% at 49%, and only 3% or 4% from that danger zone where they would need ACT and the Maori Party to support them on every piece of their agenda to get anything done (is this why National is cooking something up with the Maori Party about special deals for iwi in asset sales?) .

The message remains that the Left can win this thing. It’s up to Labour and the Greens to turn the dissatisfcation with the government into votes. Labour’s laying out of a credible economic policy that the commentators are praising is a big part of that – they could never hope to win without that ticking that box.

Now, they sell their winning messages – we can have a fair, sustainable future, where we own our future, and everyone is better off, or we can have more of the failed economic mismanagement of National and asset sales.

110 comments on “Nats drop 5% in Roy Morgan, Left surges ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Vinsin 1
    20 July 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Not surprisingly really when you consider the first poll was before Labour’s CGT was rolled out in full. The “own the future” branding is incredibly well done too.

    • ChrisH 1.1
      21 July 2011 at 9:33 am

      Heck yes, Labour’s looking like a “real” Labour party again. Never thought I’d live to see the day.

  2. r0b 2
    20 July 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Good news, at a good time.

  3. Anne 3
    20 July 2011 at 8:44 pm

    The Roy Morgan was conducted between June 27 and July 10 – also before Labour’s CGT was rolled out in full.

  4. lprent 4
    20 July 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Rather boring listening to the idiots raving on polls- guyon comes to mind. As you say eddie, at present Labour has clawed back to where they were last election. National is slightly better off. Nationals two support parties are trashed in terms of getting seats. I think Act will just die in Epsom, and the Maori party looks good to lose electorate seats. UF – who knows if he will get that seat again…

    The government at the election is literally looking too tight to call. It depends on what happens over the next 4 months. It is literally any of the main parties election to lose.

    • Policy Parrot 4.1
      20 July 2011 at 8:59 pm

      I’ll be interested to see the next Horizon Poll.

    • mickysavage 4.2
      20 July 2011 at 9:03 pm

      This explains the shenanagins in Epsom.  National know they will not get a majority.  Support parties are going to be vital.  National will be hoping to get over the mark with ACT alone because a Nat-ACT-MP coalition is going to be really unstable, and this presumes MP has more than one left after the election.

      Labour needs to break thought the 37% mark though reasonably soon.  If this happens then it is game on … 

      • lprent 4.2.1
        20 July 2011 at 9:14 pm

        Yep… I think that the CGT has good chance of pushing them there (over 37%) as it sinks in….

        • Bored 4.2.1.1
          20 July 2011 at 9:42 pm

          Be very wary, one swallow doth not a summer make…..

          More importantly the polls are basically crap, the trick to winning in November is to mobilise South and West Auckland to vote, repeat mobilise South and West Auckland to vote!!!!!!!!!

          • Puddleglum 4.2.1.1.1
            21 July 2011 at 10:20 am

            And east Christchurch. God knows how that gets done. A lot of ‘east Christchurch’ is no longer in east Christchurch.

          • George D 4.2.1.1.2
            21 July 2011 at 10:47 am

            Can’t say that enough. Only one poll that counts, and unlike these ones it’s self-selecting. Gotta get out the numbers.

      • Blue 4.2.2
        20 July 2011 at 9:42 pm

        I posted this link in Open Mike too – it’s not just the Epsom electorate that National and Act are gaming. The Nats know they need every seat they can get, and they’re trying to make sure they do get their majority or damn close to it.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10739621

        • interesting 4.2.2.1
          21 July 2011 at 10:46 am

          MMP in action isnt it???

          • felix 4.2.2.1.1
            21 July 2011 at 11:06 am

            No, the reciprocal stepping aside works exactly the same way under FPP.

            Lemme guess, you think Hone is an example of the type of MP we get with MMP too, dontcha?

            • interesting 4.2.2.1.1.1
              21 July 2011 at 11:09 am

              NO…. he got in due to winning his electorate seat….. and good on him for winning it.

              • felix …
                21 July 2011 at 12:14 pm

                Very good.

                Now what did you mean by “MMP in action”?

                • Chris …
                  21 July 2011 at 1:09 pm

                  In FPP you would only get 1 seat for winning Epsom, however under MMP depending on the vote Act can get more seats (say 3) just by winning that 1 seat. If it was FPP then ACT would only get 1 seat and there would be no incentive to keep them there instead of just having a National candidate. I assume that was what was meant by MMP in action.

                  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about FPP I never actually voted in an election with it (too young) so am a bit hazy about the details.

                  • Puddleglum …
                    21 July 2011 at 1:20 pm

                    Under FPP it would be possible for mutual benefit to accrue by reciprocally ‘stepping aside’.

                    For example, under FPP a minor party may have a real chance in only one electorate seat but can be a ‘spoiler’ in several others. By the major party stepping aside in that one seat (and giving the minor party ‘its’ seat) the major party, in turn, has a better chance of gaining or holding marginal seats elsewhere when the minor party steps aside in those seats. That is, the stepping aside can give a party more than just one seat towards forming a government in return for giving up one seat.

                    In that sense, it’s the same as MMP. 

                  • felix …
                    21 July 2011 at 1:30 pm

                    That aspect is peculiar to MMP, and not one I am personally in favour of. I don’t like having a 5% threshold and I don’t like the “win an electorate seat, bring your mates” rule which ignores the threshold.

                    (I’d prefer to see the threshold simply being the approximate percentage of the overall vote needed to win an electorate seat, which from memory is around 0.8%. i.e. you win an electorate, you get a seat. You win the equivalent amount of party votes, you get a seat.)

                    However, the scenario described above by Blue – and replied to by interesting – has nothing to do with bringing in extra MPs, it’s simply about ACT stepping aside in marginal seats to avoid splitting the overall right-wing vote.

                    This scenario is the same under MMP or FPP.

                    The only difference, I suppose, is that in this particular example under FPP National wouldn’t be giving Epsom to ACT in the first place, so ACT would have no need to reciprocate.

                    This doesn’t however mean that reciprocal arrangements aren’t any use under FPP, just that this particular one wouldn’t be.

                    edit: Pg is too quick, not unusually.

                    • Chris …
                      21 July 2011 at 4:04 pm

                      Sweet that makes sense. I got the wrong end of the stick there a bit, which is also what I assume ‘interesting’ did

        • Deadly_NZ 4.2.2.2
          21 July 2011 at 11:56 am

          Maybe Labour should have a major push in Epsom as it seems the good people of Epsom are somewhat pissed at NACT for using them as pawns, and only looking out for themselves, What with CGT and a good Labour candidate really put the shits up the evil NACTM party.

          • Secret Squirrel 4.2.2.2.1
            21 July 2011 at 12:04 pm

            The ODT has confirmed that David Parker is standing in Epsom, but that “he is not expected to threaten Act New Zealand’s John Banks”.

            That’s a standard sort of MSM assumption that tends to suppress discussion and possibilities of properly democratic “best person for electorate” coverage.

        • Puddleglum 4.2.2.3
          21 July 2011 at 12:30 pm

          “would it make sense, for instance, to lose the seat of New Plymouth to Andrew Little, a future leader of the Labour party, likely to be the leader of the Labour Party post the election, to lose that seat held by Jonathan Young because we put up an Act candidate?”

          This from John Banks, making it very clear that ACT is not an independent party but simply a tactical off-shoot of National. For goodness’ sake, “would it make sense … to lose that seat held by Jonathan Young“. How can ACT lose a seat it doesn’t hold?

          Is there a clearer way of saying that John Banks is not concerned about furthering the support for ACT but simply about furthering the support for National? Why on earth would ACT party members countenance this? (Unless none of them are members because of the principles the party supposedly upholds.)

    • Jason 4.3
      20 July 2011 at 9:16 pm

      Any indications thus far as to how the sheep of Epsom will vote?
      No doubt the cretinous Banks will hold some appeal to this laughable constituency.
      They are as far removed from reality as they are from the unfortunate 44 Hillside workers facing redundancy.

      • lprent 4.3.1
        20 July 2011 at 9:59 pm

        The problem for them is that Act are restricted to about 49% of the electorate. It is really hard to find a woman who is considering voting for Act. John Banks doesn’t seem likely to change that. Their best bet is to make sure that women don’t vote.

  5. felix 5
    20 July 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Keep calm and carry on.

  6. Billy Fish 6
    20 July 2011 at 9:11 pm

    It’s all labours fault!!!! Them and the feminazis, greeny weridos and other sorted lot!!!!!
    Its them thats causing Global Warming!
    Global Warming?!? Its colder now than ever before, don’t talk to me about global warming!!
    Just a con to part right thinking people from their money !
    Them woman and thier monthly sick times, thats the cause of it, them and the maorification of NZ, dammit its like a bloke can’t put on a white hood and burn a cross without some lefty pinko cry baby political correctness gone madite sacking Paul Henry over it.
    Thats it! I’m moving to the 19th Century

    • Bored 6.1
      20 July 2011 at 9:38 pm

      Ah the bliss of the golden age of laissez faire……….

    • Jason 6.2
      20 July 2011 at 9:41 pm

      Careful Billy Fish. That sort of talk will see you drafted into the Act party.
      Oh wait – re-reading what you said – you’re far too liberal for their tastes.
      Phew!

    • mik e 6.3
      21 July 2011 at 10:13 am

      Just keep voting Nact and you,ll get there sooner than later BF

  7. gobsmacked 7
    20 July 2011 at 10:26 pm

    The point about polls in an election campaign (which we’re now well and truly in) is not the details (ignored by 99% of voters) but the perception – the media battleground.

    On Sunday night the Colmar Brunton poll was bad for Labour (but good for the Greens), and it got maximum coverage. Not just because of media “bias”, but because it was commissoned by TV news, and that always means it’s a lead story, and then picked up by other media.

    The poll tonight is much better for Labour, and good for the opposition overall. But it’s not on the TV news. So now it’s up to Labour to MAKE this a news story. Otherwise, the Sunday night poll remains the story – the perception.

    And here’s the problem. In the propaganda war, Labour are too bloody slow, and ineffectual.

    The poll came out tonight, only an hour or so ago, and already there are posts on the Standard, Whale Oil, Imperator Fish, maybe other blogs I haven’t seen.

    But when will Labour pick it up? Where is their media presence? Will it be some flimsy press release tomorrow afternoon? Will Red Alert get there after everyone else has?

    An election is war. Non-stop. Nobody sleeps. Ever. If amateur bloggers have noticed a new poll, and already commented on it within minutes, why hasn’t the Official Opposition? I have a crappy old computer, Google and dial-up. What have they got?

    I don’t want to be told that people are working hard (don’t we all). I want to see Labour people in all the media, all the time, day and night, 24/7. So often they are the LAST. Slater and Farrar kick Mallard’s arse. So does No Right Turn and a bunch of others.

    I worked in election campaigns in the UK, back in the dark ages, before the internet and Twitter and all. You worked until you dropped dead, or until the polls closed on election day – whichever came first. You worked with a hunger, energy, focus, and a f**cking gun to your head. Why? Because the other parties were doing it too. And we wanted to WIN.

    I want to believe that Labour want to win in 2011. But mostly I see a horse and cart lumbering along in the space age. It makes me weep.

    If this poll is not hammered home all day tomorrow by every Labour spokesperson at every opportunity in every media outlet … well, then they deserve to lose.

    (Rant finally over!)

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      20 July 2011 at 10:32 pm

      I made sure a few LAB types knew about this poll within an hour of its appearing…I’m just one wee footsoldier but I can throw a grenade and use a bayonet… 🙂

      • gobsmacked 7.1.1
        20 July 2011 at 10:39 pm

        Good on ya, CV. “Lions led by donkeys” springs to mind …

        While I was thumping my keyboard for the comment above, a new post was added to Red Alert, on the latest results …

        Unfortunately, not the results of the Morgan poll. It’s about a rugby match.

        http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/07/20/breaking-the-eden-park-hoodoo/

        I rest my case.

        • seeker 7.1.1.1
          21 July 2011 at 12:14 am

          While you were fuelling the right wing scoffometers gs, Clare Curran commented a PS after the rugby post you mentioned that labour would be releasing new policy tomorrow. They are really setting the pace and not worrying about getting bogged down with polls but in getting NZ out of the bog we are currently stuck in. Get with it Gobsmacked.
          PS David Cunliffe did a great rebuttal on “Cute Joyces $18.5b misinformation tactic, and said they would keep this attack up on national’s misinformation ‘spin’ machine.(herald monday or tuesday I think; sorry bit late and head dozing off).

          • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1
            21 July 2011 at 12:21 am

            Yep. Policy distance between Labour and National is going to get wider and wider from here on in.

            Labour’s plans focus on the next 10-20 years. National’s plans, such as they are, run out on Nov 26.

            New Zealanders will have a very clear choice ahead of them.

            • AAMC 7.1.1.1.1.1
              21 July 2011 at 9:10 am

              Gobsmacked is right. I read a great op Ed in the guardian last year on the Right Wings mastery of the emotive argument. They are much more prepared to lie to us, fuel our prejudices, appeal to our emotions. We all know this and Act is currently proven it.
              The Left however (and I’m guilty of it myself), have a seemingly unwavering belief, that if we can just get the detail out, point out the statistics, consult academia, people will have to see the reason in our argument.
              The majority, as is proven by Mr Smile and Wave don’t want to engage in those details, and so we have to stop counting on the reason o the detail and get in the trenches with Gobsmacket.

              • seanmaitland …
                21 July 2011 at 4:02 pm

                Lol – sorry, but your belief may hold true for you and a few of your mates – but it certainly doesn’t represent Labour supporters in general – just witness the millions of cries of “greedy rich pricks” over the last decade and the complete piss-take that Labour does when they roll out known Labour party members to the press to claim that their families cannot afford fruit and vegies under a National government.

                What about the assault on Farmers recently using tax paid figures from the worst farming year in recent history and comparing it to their revenues and income from one of the best in recent history? Thats dubious at best. A total misrepresentation and straight-out lying at worst.

              • Colonial Viper …
                21 July 2011 at 5:26 pm

                +1

                The Right Wing and their Marketing execs get that peoples emotive brains are way stronger than their rational brains.

                Engage the heart before you do anything else.

  8. Reality Bytes 8
    20 July 2011 at 10:34 pm

    A good noteworthy response to Labour’s CGT proposition’s.

  9. Sanctuary 9
    20 July 2011 at 10:44 pm

    There has to be some concern at the polling companies themselves at these different figures, since the differences are outside the comfortable margins of error.

  10. NickC 10
    20 July 2011 at 11:38 pm

    Its hilarious that almost every poll you report on sees the left gaining ground, but they never seem to gain any real ground overall…

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      20 July 2011 at 11:45 pm

      That’s actually a very true observation.

    • ropata 10.2
      20 July 2011 at 11:50 pm

      Do the numbers 2005, 2002, 1999 mean anything to you?

      • burt 10.2.1
        21 July 2011 at 8:29 am

        Yes they do actually, all those years were retrospectively validated for illegal election spending under urgency outside of the normal budget cycle.

        • mik e 10.2.1.1
          21 July 2011 at 10:19 am

          I see the bretheren are breaking their own ban on the use of technology again re Burt

          • burt 10.2.1.1.1
            22 July 2011 at 12:38 am

            I think ropata might be onto something actually. The police are currently evaluating if they should prosecute Labour for a reported breach of electoral funding laws and their popularity has gone up in the Morgan poll. ropata rightly points to 2005 which having been defended by saying – it’s how we always did it and the ref changed the rules; tells us 2002 & 1999 were also illegal advertising years.

            So ropata seems to have made (or stumbled across) the connection – when Labour break the law with election advertising they poll better.

    • Eddie 10.3
      21 July 2011 at 6:44 am

      The TVNZ poll was reported here too.

      • Lanthanide 10.3.1
        21 July 2011 at 9:57 am

        But your last post on polls conspicuously ignored the Roy Morgan, which was down for Labour. If anything this poll is just a bounce back up to where they should be.

    • Kaplan 10.4
      21 July 2011 at 7:44 am

      It’s hilarious that National really believed the self created myth they could just coast* in to the election AND claim an outright majority.

      As soon as the Labour started really putting the hard word on them for a plan National have been shown to be severely wanting. If the MSM and in turn NZers really start asking the hard questions and having some real expectations of their government then National will be gone come November. You can bank on that.

      *Actually it’s not like they really ever had their foot to anything other than a bike on a imaginary cycle way anyway so coasting was probably a little ambitious for them.

  11. alex 11
    21 July 2011 at 12:03 am

    Its not on stuff.co.nz yet. My bet is that it won’t be, I think Farrar organises their poll coverage.

  12. higherstandard 12
    21 July 2011 at 8:23 am

    All pollsters should be tied to a stake in the hippo enclosure the morning after all hippos have had a evening treat with gallons of guinness and vegetarian vindaloo.

  13. robertguyton 13
    21 July 2011 at 8:25 am

    “I’m moving to the 19th Century”

    Funny line.

    It’s tortoise and hare. Hare’s not asleep, but hypnotized by it’s own sleek gorgeousness.
    Tortoise has reserves and has paced itself perfectly.

  14. gobsmacked 14
    21 July 2011 at 8:49 am

    Radio Live, 8.20 a.m.

    Marcus Lush asks Shane Jones about the polls. A great opening to push last night’s Morgan poll. To reverse the narrative that took hold on Sunday.

    And Jones says nothing. He blathers on about something else entirely.

    You cannot blame the MSM when they give you a free hit and you then ignore them.

    I don’t ask for miracles. Just competence.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      21 July 2011 at 8:53 am

      You’re making me cry

    • DavidW 14.2
      21 July 2011 at 9:39 am

      Gobsmacked: The logical conclusion to draw from that would be that you are looking in the wrong place for competence.

      The definition of futility goes something like – doing the same thing time after time and each time expecting a different outcome.

      Brick walls and foreheads are not compatable.

    • felix 14.3
      21 July 2011 at 9:47 am

      Jesus. He didn’t even know about the most recent poll, so he changed the subject.

      That bears repeating: In a interview with a major media outlet, in an election campaign, a senior MP doesn’t know the result of the most recent poll.

      What exactly are his secret powers again? His contribution to date appears to be putting on a poncy voice and masturbating.

      Time he was put out to pasture.

      • marty mars 14.3.1
        21 July 2011 at 5:31 pm

        Tautoko. He also does a distainful look that combines ‘there’s some dogshit on my shoe and you, at the other end of the camera, put it there’.

        • felix 14.3.1.1
          21 July 2011 at 7:15 pm

          Ha, he does too! I have no idea why he was ever touted as some kind of “great brown hope” for Labour.

  15. interesting 15
    21 July 2011 at 10:43 am

    Funny how the other polls didnt matter cos they were BEFORE the CGT tax announcement so shouldnt be read in to……and yet here is another poll taken BEFORE the CGT tax announcement…..and because it shows the left doing well it can be trusted???

    This is the problem when people dismiss a poll that is bad for “their side” with excuses….which then get totally ignored when a poll goes in favour of their team….

    • r0b 15.1
      21 July 2011 at 10:53 am

      Did you actually read the post?  I’m guessing not:

      It means don’t draw instant conclusions linking one poll to one policy (although it must be tempting when you’ve spent $30K getting the numbers) – watch the trends. 

  16. Secret Squirrel 16
    21 July 2011 at 11:11 am

    Something puzzling with the numbers:

    The gap between National and ACT v Labour and Green is gradually narrowing. It’s at 12% this time, which means if 6% of people change their minds, we have a change of government.

    If 6% changed from National to Labour:
    National go from 49% to 43%
    Labour go from 33.5% to 39.5%

    National are still clearly in front, so should have first rights at forming a coalition.
    Would Greens risk their first real coalition with a runner up party?

    Anyway these numbers are:
    – at the low end of National’s recent range
    – at the high end of Labour’s range
    – unlikely to simply shift from National to Labour, Act, NZ First and Maori are at least as likely to pick up soft National votes, and NZ First and Maori and Greens are at least as likely to pick up soft Labour votes.

    It’s far too soon to worry about the seating arrangements in parliament.

    • Ianupnorth 16.1
      21 July 2011 at 11:49 am

      The greens have principals against working with environmental criminals, there would little chance of them hopping into bed with a mob intent on mining everywhere and drilling for oil.

    • Rich 16.2
      21 July 2011 at 12:00 pm

      National are still clearly in front, so should have first rights at forming a coalition.

      MYTH!

      The government is formed by the leader that can get a majority of MPs and win a confidence motion in parliament. It doesn’t matter if that leader’s own party got 30% or 49%.

      • Secret Squirrel 16.2.1
        21 July 2011 at 12:09 pm

        It might matter to voters, and I’m sure that’s in the minds of the parties, especially the small ones who have ambitions for being more than a one term coalition party. Greens in particular seem very cautious about how they are seen to associate.

        But…this hasn’t been tested in an election since Peters jumped for baubles, although the Maori Party are facing judgement of a similar but different kind from joining the biggest party but at odds with it’s electorates.

        • felix 16.2.1.1
          21 July 2011 at 12:12 pm

          It matters in the minds of National, hence it’s flung from the tongue of Pete George.

          More “everyone must support the biggest party” bullshit from one-party-pete.

        • Lanthanide 16.2.1.2
          21 July 2011 at 12:32 pm

          Your statement doesn’t make logical sense anyway.

          Consider this scenario: Party A gets 45% of the seats, Party B gets 40% of the seats and Party C gets 11% of the seats.

          A + C or B + C will get sufficient seats to form a government.

          Party C knows this.

          If Party A gets “first choice”, they go talk to Party C and Party says “get screwed, we’re only going to work with Party B”. How does Party A getting “first choice” affect the results of the election at all?

          Now, if Party C liked A and B equally, it would be in their interests to say “sorry B, but A just got more votes than you” and choose party A. But this is entirely up to Party C whether they do this.

          Trying to impose any sort of rule in the process is meaningless anyway because this is effectively a market with A and B competing for C’s affection, and C could just say “yes, we considered A first and then rejected it” and they would still be abiding by the rules, even if in their heart of hearts they never planned to go with A anyway.

          • felix 16.2.1.2.1
            21 July 2011 at 12:47 pm

            You’re absolutely correct.

            If Pete rejects your logic, he will have to admit that couched in his “first rights at forming a coalition” is the totalitarian idea that the largest party has more right to form a coalition than several small parties.

          • Carol 16.2.1.2.2
            21 July 2011 at 12:50 pm

            Also, Labour are saying before the election that they would go into coalition with the Greens. People will know that when they make their choices on election day, just as voters will know that National & Act are joined_at_the_hip_factions_of_the_same_party.

          • Secret Squirrel 16.2.1.2.3
            21 July 2011 at 1:35 pm

            I’m aware there are not and there can’t be specific rules on the formation of a government. I presume the partys have some sort of convention worked out, but there’s nothing to stop some parties ignoring that.

            But I imagine many voters (apart rom those desparate for power) could get very irate if a party with a clear lead (in seats) was sidelined by some minor parties, and they’d be likely to punish it at the next election.

            Eg on current polling, if the seats went something like:
            National 56
            Act 2
            UF 1
            Labour 40
            Green 15
            Maori 5
            Mana 1

            felix, you’re just being a nob if you try to paint this as pro National, it would apply to whatever party got the most votes.

            • Lanthanide 16.2.1.2.3.1
              21 July 2011 at 3:30 pm

              Have a look at how the Lib Dems are fairing in the UK where it they are C and conservatives are A.

              Turns out the public aren’t very happy at C. C was screwed either way.

            • felix 16.2.1.2.3.2
              21 July 2011 at 5:40 pm

              No Pete, it applies to neither party because it simply doesn’t apply.

              The largest party does not get to dictate negotiations by rule or by convention.

              Ignorance or lies, makes no difference. You’re full of shit either way.

          • mikesh 16.2.1.2.4
            21 July 2011 at 1:56 pm

            The point is that if both B and C say they can’t support A because of the policies A espouses, then A simply can’t form a government no matter what. This doesn’t seem like something the general population would have difficulty understanding.

            • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.2.4.1
              21 July 2011 at 3:37 pm

              You guys still giving SS the time of day?

              • McFlock …
                21 July 2011 at 4:05 pm

                While it’s fun calling him a shallow arrogant party hack masquerading as a stupid fuckwit, the trouble is that if everybody refuses to give SS the time of day he’ll complain that the “left” (apparently following instructions from the Global Left Politburo) “refuses to engage in civil debate”.

                A bit like some of the AGW climate change deniers. As one commentator I read put it, jerks like SS have an idea that “Baby’s First Cartesian Doubt” counts as civil debate.

              • Lanthanide …
                21 July 2011 at 5:40 pm

                I only replied because it’s a common but stupid line that right-tards like to spout. I was more doing it for the purposes of having it on record than wanting to educate SS/PeteG.

                Probably should have gone with party Apple, Banana and Cherry though, to help out with their little minds that can’t cope with abstract ideas.

                • burt …
                  23 July 2011 at 8:03 am

                  I only replied because it’s a common but stupid line that right-tards like to spout.

                  I don’t think that’s right. It’s the line the party who is currently polling the highest likes to spout. It was also that proven liar’s Winston’s position that he would work with the party who had the most votes first. That kind of popularised the issue as Winston’s inclined to do because having no substance he needs a way to sell his BS.

                  • Pete George …
                    23 July 2011 at 9:05 am

                    Probably burt, there is no defined protocol for how coalitions are to be formed, the official line is “leave it to the politicians”.

                    Of course the party with the most seats will push their case as priority. And I don’t doubt Labour would promote themselves as having top shot at it if they got the most seats.

                    If two leading parties have a similar number of seats I think it wouldn’t matter, it would come down to which parties can agree to a coalition.

                    But if the biggest party had significantly more seats and was sidelined from coalition negotiations by a bunch of smaller parties it would be interesting to see how voters would react. It might all depend on how well the coalition held together – there would almost certainly be increased pressure and tension between parties.

                    • felix …
                      23 July 2011 at 9:33 am

                      You still haven’t said what “having top shot” means in reality though.

                      Do you mean others would be somehow obliged to deal with them?

                      If that’s not what you mean, then what?

    • felix 16.3
      21 July 2011 at 12:10 pm

      “National are still clearly in front, so should have first rights at forming a coalition.”

      Complete bullshit.

      “It’s far too soon to worry about the seating arrangements in parliament.”

      Only accurate sentence you’re likely to write all day.

    • Lazy Susan 16.4
      21 July 2011 at 12:17 pm

      National are still clearly in front, so should have first rights at forming a coalition.

      Just been waiting for that old chestnut to surface. Looks like the right wing trolls are getting rattled already. As Rich says it’s about which leader can put together a coalition government that guarantees confidence and supply.

    • Reality Bytes 16.5
      21 July 2011 at 8:16 pm

      The real issue of the day is if Act wish to retain any iota of credibility and put forward the possibility that they will work with Labour over Nats, if Labour has more compatible policy than the Nats.

      At the moment they just seem to be the National-B option party. They have no point of distinction and will compromise their values just to be seen as a ‘righty’ party. If you are a Nact supporter, why on earth would you vote for them, considering it may be a wasted vote if they don’t get in?

      If they had any concerns about their credibility, they would say: ‘we will work with the party that best supports our core values’ Not a vote for us equals a vote for the Nats. Oh and by the way we think the Nats are dicks, so don’t vote for them, vote for us, because we are oh so desperate for votes+survival.

      Act’s core principles are for smaller government and less tax burden. Last I checked it was Labour that actually had a lower tax rate strategy overall, not National.

      If Act want to portray themselves as hypocrits and be the National-lite party, then yeah it may get them 2 or 3 seats this time round, but political oblivion awaits them in 2014.

  17. Rich 17
    21 July 2011 at 11:58 am

    Why do they ask questions in polls that don’t actually relate to our electoral system?

    There isn’t a box on election day for preferred PM and there isn’t a box for satisfaction with the previous government. Has anyone ever found a correlation between these questions and either voting intentions or actual voting – do they give a better correlation to votes, or do they forerun them (I suspect not, or we’d have heard)?

    About all they do tell us is that Labour would be doing way better with (insert person other than Goff or any other frontbencher who’s been around more than one term here).

  18. ak 18
    21 July 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Winne v. ACT is interesting.

    Zero/negative MSM cover v. MSM satufellation and the most potent political card in history. Yet neck and neck still. With the ACT scrotum empty, Winnie primed and well into foreplay.

    Take the Maori Party percentage off the Right. They’ll never enable a NAT-led govt. At worst they’d repeat the ’08 arrangement for more crumbs (for which we should all be thankful, or it would’ve been three years of a nasty psychoACT tail wagging the Key puppy), at best a Maori-Mana combo for the Left.

    Accept that Banks will win Epsom. Every gold-plated fibre of the massive NACT/msm machine will be devoted to it.

    The asset-sales leaflets are working. Crank up those presses and oil up those bikes, brothers and sisters, and Phil: talk hard and long with Winnie. If Nicey can french kiss ACThorroids with msm impunity, you can seduce an old flame. There’s heavy angst in the air: it could be Hels/Jim and ’99 all over again.

  19. Deadly_NZ 19
    21 July 2011 at 12:50 pm

    When the NATS have a good poll the MSM shout it from the rooftops. When Labour get a good poll NOTHING. WTF.

      • gobsmacked 19.1.1
        21 July 2011 at 3:27 pm

        When the NATS have a good poll the MSM shout it from the rooftops. When Labour get a good poll NOTHING..

        No. When the Nats have a good poll … the NATS shout it from the rooftops. That’s why it’s in the MSM. The media have to be fed (i.e. spun). That’s how it works.

        On Monday “No Right Turn” had a story on the Brownlee/ Shipley remuneration scandal in Christchurch. It was then picked up as the lead story on TV One news. That’s due to one person, no resources, no team, no party machine, no salary – just a blogger who did some hard work.

        It says a great deal about Labour’s performance that after nearly 24 hours, DPF has now commented on the poll on his Stuff blog, and Labour have still not said a thing. I’ll repeat that – a positive poll for Labour, and it’s the guy from the other side who gets in the media first! (If it had been a good poll for National, it would have taken DPF five minutes).

        For Labour, ‘Communications Failure’ is an understatement.

  20. Colonial Viper 20
    21 July 2011 at 1:03 pm

    I’ve crunched the numbers and things are looking stronger for National since late March 2011, when compared with the totality of the opposition parties as according to Roy Morgan.

    In fact National’s base support has firmed and is up around the same levels as they were sitting at in Q4 2009.

    Their asset sale plans, the implosion of ACT and general incompetence in the management of Christchurch have had no lasting negative impact on them at all vis a vis the Roy Morgan.

    Not good.

    The only upside is that public confidence in them as a Government is waning in a real way, again per the Roy Morgan. The juxtaposition is worth thinking about.

  21. randal 21
    21 July 2011 at 1:17 pm

    I never crunched no numbers. I just talk to people and it seems like they have had enough of a government that promised everything and did nothing.

    • Colonial Viper 21.1
      21 July 2011 at 1:20 pm

      Yeah I’ve talked to a lot of people like that too.

      Question: did they go on and issue statements of support for Labour or for the Greens.

      Because its clear that although ‘Confidence in the Government’ is falling (which reflects your anecdotal experience), the ‘Opposition Parties’ are not benefitting from it one whit.

  22. fabregas4 22
    21 July 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Lots of talk about TV1 and TV3 polls. This one, the Roy Morgan appears to be the most impartial. can anyone comment on this?

  23. Stephen Judd 23
    21 July 2011 at 3:05 pm

    I think a clue to the variance between the two polls is the don’t know/won’t respond count.

    I heard that the TV1 poll had a 14% don’t know — huge! Roy Morgan reports 8.5%.

    • McFlock 23.1
      21 July 2011 at 4:10 pm

      14% don’t know? NACT better hope they don’t make up their mind to vote left this time around.

      • queenstfarmer 23.1.1
        21 July 2011 at 6:37 pm

        And Labour better hope they don’t vote right. Very often it is the “undecided voter” who decides elections. Even after months of campaining, they still don’t know. I’m quite convinced that many of these people are the types who are swayed by whoever’s hoarding they last saw, or which party has the prettiest logo, or which ad had the catchy tune, etc.

        • mik e 23.1.1.1
          21 July 2011 at 9:21 pm

          Or who had the dirtiest campaign

        • felix 23.1.1.2
          22 July 2011 at 12:38 am

          “Very often it is the “undecided voter” who decides elections.”

          Not at all. Their vote has precisely the same influence on the result as that of someone who decided months or years ago. Take either vote out of the total and you’ll notice that the result changes by exactly the same amount.

          “I’m quite convinced that many of these people are the types who are swayed by whoever’s hoarding they last saw…”

          Yes, I too suspect this.

    • lprent 23.2
      21 July 2011 at 6:19 pm

      It was

      “UNDECIDED VOTERS” figures (previously unreleased) from ONE NEWS COLMAR BRUNTON POLL last night

      Party Vote 8% Down 3% (from May Poll)
      Electorate Vote 14% Down 2% (from May Poll)

      Sourced from Andi Brotherson’s e-mail that gets sent to the standards e-mail. The Morgan poll is just party voters, so the 8% vs 8.5% is pretty similar.

      Of course it doesn’t count the people who don’t have land-lines, don’t list their landline number (like me), and don’t answer their landline unless they know the caller id (like me). Since electorates range from having 35% landlines to households to 90% throughout the country with some pretty obvious demographic biases, I think that they are largely measuring political intentions amongst those conservative enough to have a listed phone line and to answer it.

  24. rod 24
    21 July 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Don’t think we will see Roy Morgan’s poll results on any of the TV news channels tonight or any time soon.

  25. William Watson 25
    21 July 2011 at 7:52 pm

    As a fiscally conservative voter (ie, I like balanced budgets on average) I think Labour never looked so good. But I don’t think my feelings are widespread yet.

  26. Frank Macskasy 26
    25 July 2011 at 2:15 pm

    I’ve recieved the results of the latest Horizon polling. It makes for interesting reading…

    http://fmacskasy.blogspot.com/p/political.html