- Date published:
7:26 am, July 12th, 2017 - 141 comments
Categories: election 2017, labour, national, polls - Tags: colmar brunton, election 2014, election 2017, polls
The recent TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll has caused plenty of discussion here in the last few days. Here’s an interesting angle to consider, courtesy of Toby Manhire on The Spinoff:
The latest poll offers little for anyone to crow about […]
But how good is it all for National? On the one hand, tremendously good: to remain firmly in the high-40s in the twilight of a third term is hugely impressive. And yet, the engine failure in Labour may disguise at least some frailty on the part of the blue team and its own leader’s appeal. Because if you compare the Colmar results of today with those of July 2014, the same distance from the last election, the numbers look a little less bulletproof.
National then: 52% Now: 47%
Labour then: 28% Now: 27%
Greens then: 10% Now: 11%
NZ First then: 4.5% Now: 11%
And in the preferred PM stakes …
National leader then (Key): 48% Now (English): 26%
Labour leader then (Cunliffe): 8% Now (Little): 5%
NZ First leader then (Peters): 3% Now (same guy): 11%
From that perspective, no one looks a winner. Except, of course, for [Winston Peters]
National are 5% down on 2014, with the Labour/Green alliance unchanged. The fall in the preferred PM rating from Key to English is huge. It looks like the Nats / English are bleeding support to NZF / Peters. Interesting. The Nats are highly vulnerable.
The analysis linked in the tweet below is also well worth a look.
Chances of current Nat-led coalition in #nzpol election tweaked down to 36%, updated with @ColmarBruntonNZ's latest https://t.co/GtjCTCu5fA pic.twitter.com/SiaYRKNX43
— Peter Ellis (@ellis2013nz) July 10, 2017
Back then National wouldn’t have ben able to go into coalition with NZ First.
Now they can, especially if National people are going NZ Firsts way, those voters want an NZ First/ National coalition not a Greens/Labour coalition.
They’re voting Peters because they want him to fix what they perceive to be wrong in National.
Personally, I think we’re going to end up with a James Shaw led Greens in coalition with National, while Labour is desperately trying to suck up and woo NZ First, the Greens will say “Fuck you Labour” and stitch up a deal with National.
“the Greens will say “Fuck you Labour” and stitch up a deal with National.”
Gee you righties cling to the strangest ideas.
This would be the death of the Greens if they did this.
No, it wouldn’t, be the best thing they ever did, as James said they’re wedded to Labour, they have absolutely no power.
Be honest ms you guys will chuck the greens aside in a heartbeat if you can get a deal together with NZ-First.
You’ll tell them to go sit in the corner and do as they’re told.
The answer is to get rid of Turei and all the SJW’s and become a truly independent party instead of Labours sidekick.
You don’t understand though that parties of the left battle for power not for the sake of power but so they can achieve a better world. Propping up this pro coal pro Ruataniwha Dam pro intensive dairying and destruction of waterways and anti meaningful action on climate change would be a sure fire ticket to oblivion.
So Labour gets all the power and the Greens get none.
I can see why you’d like that deal ms.
Absolute rubbish. Cabinet would reflect size of the parties.
Good one, Winston Peters will decide that and as you know he doesn’t want the Greens anywhere near power.
Great setup for labour though, you guys can just shrug and say
“our hands are tied, Greens you’ve got to suck it up again otherwise it’s National for another three years and if that happens it’s all your fault.”
“You don’t understand though that parties of the left battle for power not for the sake of power but so they can achieve a better world.”
Sounds like a Miss Universe speech
It’s a better argument than his usual ‘pastoral’ efforts, though a little repetitive.
Mullet is merely a henchman, and thus lacks the full Mwuhuhahaha of the evil ideas guy.
I though you were the evil ideas guy, what with all the calling for purges and hangings – NZ’s very own Mme Defarge in absentia.
Justice is terrifying to criminals.
In a well-ordered state the criminals are in prison, not in government.
^^ That would be Stunned Mullet engaging in moronic ad hominem and projection.
Sanctimony is not in short supply on the left, this with we know best and thier spiral into identity politics only adds to thier growing disconnect and unappealing brand to wider populace, it’s amazing they can’t see it, instead it’s all the msm fault
^^ Red doing a Stunned Mullet.
Hi, I’m a Green Party member. The Greens WILL NOT do a deal with National, it’s why they asked for the MoU with Labour in the first place. While the GP is open on working with National on areas where we have the same priorities, those have areas have shrunk, not grown, so there is no real reason to do any formal deal with them like there once was on saving the insulation scheme, which they later scrapped.
National would realistically need to get closer to the Greens’ position for such an arrangement to actually be viable, and there’s just no way that’s going to happen in time for the urgent crises we face to be the reason why, which means that National would have to become “more left than Labour” to be an appealing coalition partner to the Greens, which I imagine you don’t want, BM.
Let’s set that all aside though, and imagine someone in the party Exec or Caucus decides they want a deal with National right now. There’s some obstacles:
1) There is no negotiating team for a deal with National. There is one for Labour.
2) Even if one were to be appointed ad-hoc, such a deal would still come before a general meeting of delegates, and be subject to veto by the delegate from any branch. You can bet there would be a lot of vetoes.
3) Even if somehow all the delegates go insane and none of them voted down such a deal, the Green Party would have a mass exodus of members and die at the next election, failing to get 5%.
4) Even if it means being locked out of cabinet, the Greens would rather change the government than be in the government. But their relative vote to Labour will make it very difficult to justify such a move, especially when Labour has promised that it will talk with the Greens first then invite other parties to the table given that the Greens committed to a deal before the election. Winston can ask for things, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’d get them from either side. And he’s been pretty clear which side he prefers- you don’t see him calling on Andrew Little to resign, do you?
What you’re failing to understand, as others rightly point out, is that the Green Party is a vehicle for an ideology, not something that exists to grab power, and it is set up so that it’s controlled by the members, their representatives on committees, and their delegates. Every member agrees that they believe in a set of Green principles. (only one is about the environment directly, the rest are that SJW stuff you hate, like economic justice or responsible decision-making)
Metiria is our co-leader because she embodies those principles and she was seen as a better leader than Sue B. If she decides to go, (the convention is that leaders step down, rather than are rolled. That’s not to say it isn’t possible, but she’s been re-elected every AGM) then she’ll likely be replaced by either Julie Anne Genter or Marama Davidson, and either of them will be even more vocally opposed to National than Turei is. Right now they’re getting the kid gloves.
I think the last few years have taught us never to say never in politics
You still misunderstand, Red. The members are (indirectly) in charge of whether any coalition deal goes through. I don’t know of any branch that would even say yes to a deal with National, and it needs every branch to do it. That’s as close to a “never” as you’re going to get in politics. It’s as likely as the Greens winning 50% of the vote this election and governing alone. (actually, it’s less likely than that, because probably a good chunk of Green voters would love that)
It’s the members that are steadfast that there’s no deal with National, the Caucus and Leaders are just following our lead. You wouldn’t have to roll Turei and Shaw (oh, btw, Shaw doesn’t want a deal with the Nats as they are either, sorry, he’s just our friendly face to business to try and make them realise they will still exist if we’re in Government) for some friendlier faces, you’d need to scare off all the members that aren’t centrist Greens from the party, and at that point, what you’d have left wouldn’t be enough to get 5%, even if maybe there’s more of them now than there used to be thanks to some solid campaigning from the GP peeling centrists away from National and Labour.
Is it not the caucus that decides whether they go with Nat or not?
Re pt england bill it was the caucus. Don’t think the members mattered in that particular case. Or maybe there was not enough of them?
No, all coalition deals have to be approved by delegates, and all delegates take their instructions on how to vote in advance from the members of their branch.
Caucus can make decisions on individual bills because it would be impractical to grab delegates from all branches to make decisions on each individual law- in fact, that is specifically the point of having a caucus and not shooting for straight direct democracy with members voting electronically on bills and MPs just being spokespeople. Caucus had a difficult call on the Pt. England Bill’s first reading, and I can definitely understand why it upset people, but this is where understanding Green values would actually be useful. Yes, right now in terms of the environment, it’s a bad bill, and it doesn’t respect appropriate local decision-making enough. But the call was made that it does meet enough of the goals regarding economic justice and as a treaty settlement supported by the local iwi, it’s actually highly irregular for any party to vote against, and it does have a different type of appropriate decision-making criteria on its side because of that. (Not to mention the principle of Treaty partnership) The decision to vote for Pt. England on the first reading was made understanding that support would be withdrawn if the bill didn’t improve dramatically by second reading and take into account the concerns of local residents. (in other words, the Greens will very likely end up voting against the bill the next two times because the Government probably won’t improve it enough)
Every member agrees that they believe in a set of Green principles. (only one is about the environment directly, the rest are that SJW stuff you hate, like economic justice or responsible decision-making
Christ that explains a lot, the Greens are actually the Alliance and not an environmental party at all.
Might want to keep this information to yourself Mathew otherwise, I can see the Greens dropping to Act levels of popularity.
No idea how James Shaw fits into all of this doesn’t really strike me as an Alliance sort of guy?
It’s completely public BM and not a secret, in fact it’s on the Green website. (It’s currently at https://home.greens.org.nz/charter while they’re porting it over to the new layout) You can tell anyone you like.
The Greens were, in fact, briefly part of The Alliance, but left before its implosion. It’s an environmental party, but the leaders of the Values Party that was its forerunner, and other global Green movements, know that being a single-issue political party just doesn’t work. All global Green movements have similar core values to the Green Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand, in fact really the only modification for New Zealand is that you have to support the principle of Treaty partnership as well as the normal global Greens pillars.
The values of the Green Party all came from figuring out the best approach to environmental politics. While doing so, they decided that decision-making should be as local and as democratic as possible, (So in the long-run, for instance, the Greens would actually like to delegate or even permanently give up more power to local councils) that in a world with limited resources, the only sensible way to share them was equally, (“economic justice”) and that we should actively try to make sure people don’t fight over limited resources. (“non-violence”) These principles have grown past their original application to environmental policy into the core of a political movement that opposes war, wants to fight poverty, supports democracy, and supports human rights. You might not like it, but it’s just getting more popular over time as people learn about it, and learn it’s serious, and not just about winning the government, but about changing how government is done.
Oh, and I have two Ts. If you want to shorten my name, go all the way and call me Matt.
Have you got disco fever BM …. you must be feeling particularly full of it
The greens would not go into Govt with the nats …………….
As the Nats are the Biggest wreckers of the environment ….
They are literally the lignite party http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/6262007/The-high-cost-of-lignite-projects
As the Nacts are the dirty river killers and Lignite party ….
They represent political Kryptonite to the greens.
What next BM ??? are you going to suggest Womans refuges team up with booze companys ?.
People like you should be tied to a post and made to drink Nationals dirty water …. until you either shit yourself to death …. or agree that poisoning rivers is not the right direction.
The greens will not follow your wrong direction. ….. you unsolicited pic of a dick head
Saved by national incompetence …..
“There is ample political risk to English accepting any sense of blame for Solid Energy’s woes. On Thursday he confirmed that the $128 million support the Crown extended the mining company is gone, and however orderly the sale process is, none of it will be recovered.
By Friday he was defending his decision to pressure the company to pay dividends and take on debt, saying that in his experience of dealing with state-owned enterprises, if they were left with money they tended to waste it,”
” At about the same time English was in the photo when Solid Energy broke ground for its proposed lignite briquette plant in Eastern Southland. Like several other alternative energy plans it came to nothing.
One must assume that at the time of the photo he had no idea what was to come. We have no idea precisely when English realised the company was doomed because the Government has blocked select committee inquiries and the auditor-general has declined to conduct an inquiry.
But now, well beyond the 11th hour, and with well over $100m of taxpayer funds lost, English is at least acknowledging that the problem was more than just bad luck.”
“the Greens will say “Fuck you Labour” and stitch up a deal with National.”
Don’t be surprised if that happens micky, as nothing surprises me. Politicians are politicians and they all love the baubles of power, Who would have thought Peter Sharples and the Maori party would have teamed up with National, Shaw is just itching to get in government and I feel he could be a potential National member in drag
I think if the greens broke the “only with labour” policy and became independent- then they would become the major opposition party of the left.
No we wouldn’t. We ran independently before in 2011, and it didn’t really change the party’s fortunes. In fact, in 2014, an article claiming the Greens would go with National aired near the election, and instead of campaigning a lot of members were having to put out fires that set within the base, assuring them that there was not going to be a coalition with National. There is a very small handful of people in the country who actually vote Green and want such a coalition, less than 1% of the vote. Most of the people who want the Greens to consider options other than Labour already vote for the National Party.
Well, it would be the death of the Greens as a political party with an active base. But both the main NZ political parties and ACT are effectively zombie parties that can barely scratch up 15,000 members amongst them, so losing you activist membership in favour of becoming an undead party of the neoliberal centre isn’t necessarily completely the end of the road!
100% Correct Mr Savage.
The Greens (complete with their SJWs) are a party of values and one of those values involves not getting into bed for a romp with the enemy, despite the promise of the short term pleasures. (Baubles of power anyone).
To suggest they would offer themselves up to the Nats is fanciful.
Ironically, the other party that claimed to have values, ACT, stayed out of the first Nat lead government, preferring to be independent, and raved on about values being more important than power, (see Richard Prebbles early writings for evidence of this) but soon after decided that power – and the Cabinet Limos – were more fun than taking the bus to the airport.
The Greens may not be in power, but they have influence. ACT may be in power, but they have no influence.
Are you a Labour voter?
Im an ex ACT voter, and really thought the Douglas/Prebble experiment was going to be great for ALL New Zealanders.
Just imagine – flat taxes so that folk got on with business and not tax evasion, and targetted support for those in need, with Government not playing favourites in business, and everyone having hope for the future.
Benevolent Government for the benefit of all.
That vision of the future didnt turn out so well for me.
I guess you can call me a confused voter. 🙂 a petrolhead with an interest in
green stuff particularly around warm dry housing that doesnt cost a fortune, but who believes that Saint Elon Musk is this century’s greatest conman.
Out of curiosity- why’s Elon Musk a conman? 🙂 I mean, he’s having some real success with EVs and solar power.
I am fully prepared to change my view IF he ever actually delivers on his promises.
But he doesnt. Well he hasnt yet. He has millions of folk drinking his coolaid promises – Tesla is valued at crazy numbers without making a profit, solely based on his promises of a great future.
GM made US$2.8b in the last quarter and yet is valued at less than a company thats never made its promised profits and which regularly (always if the truth be known) fails to meet its own sales and profit predictions.
Its my view that hes this century’s greatest conman. But inside Im still hoping his promises come true.
I’d be very surprised if Tesla doesn’t end up turning a profit, especially with the upcoming bans on nonelectric cars in Europe, and Tesla being the clear market leader in EVs.
Musk has managed to make EVs real in a world where perfectly servicable EV companies all either got bought out or sabotaged by the petrol industry. Even if Tesla flops, he has shepparded in the EV successfully and the market for them won’t go away now, so in my book he’s done pretty well there even if he fails.
I do agree he makes grand plans and over-promises, but I can’t fault him for being a bit ambitious. As long as you take him with a grain of salt, Musk is fine IMO. He’s not a conman, he is a normal CEO, but I can see how you’d confuse the two. 😉
You cant fault him for being a bit ambitious?
Hes ambitious with other folks money and to date he hasnt delivered. Most CEOs that over promise and under deliver get hammered by their shareholders/customers but Elon Musk seems to be the ultimate teflon CEO.
But maybe he will come thru and folk like me will need to revise their views about him.
Also he’s not the greatest employer.
Have a view of this it’s about his Hyperloop(if you haven’t already seen it).
Yeah, he’s either a conman or after having so much hot air blown up him he’s lost his grasp on reality.
Um, no, a fair amount of CEOs get away just fine with over-promising and setting up their companies for a long-term crash, they just deliver short-term profits in the meantime so it’s totally okay! Musk has actually got a viable long-term strategy for a bunch of industries that, in most cases, didn’t really even exist to any large degree before he got involved.
I will agree that he isn’t a great employer and that the Hyperloop vacuum maglev has way too much work needed to be done before it’s ready for prime-time. If he wants a fast train, he should be looking at doing normal maglev routes first before he starts getting into a constructing tunnels with super-low air pressure on top of it.
Ha ha sabotaged by the petrol industry. Brilliant! Just like they bought up the technology for the water powered car.
I love how the Greens present themselves as political intellectuals driven by reason and science, yet their supporters continually get sucked in by the lamest scam conspiracy theories.
I’m sorry, are you trying to say that there isn’t a history of electric vehicles back from the 19th century, and a repeated history of companies after the initial win for petrol being aggressively purchased by petrol companies? What would you call that, I wonder?
The only reason Tesla is still around is because Musk actually had enough money himself to (just barely) make it to mass sales and no desire to actually fold, and good luck seeing EVs from other companies without Tesla having led the way.
Have a look through Labour’s policies. You’ll find quite a few of them have been, in whole or part, quietly adopted from the Greens. That’s before the negotiation even starts. Anyone who thinks the Greens wouldn’t be able to influence a party that’s polling at best 17% higher than them isn’t paying attention.
I would say more than quite a few of them. The Green Party is the policy engine room for the left.
What the Green Party stands for today, will be picked up by Labour in the next 3 -5 years. That is how Labour has worked since it lost the intellect and drive of Clark and Cullen.
Yeah, I was just trying to be understated, lol, but I don’t disagree with you. I mean, look at our CGT policy- they picked it up, convinced the public it was a good idea, dropped their leader, then dropped the policy as if the public didn’t now support it, lol.
Since NZ Labour will adopt and then take credit for Green policies (they did the same with the Progressives), isn’t there a very good argument for the Greens to put some unequivocal distance between themselves and NZ Labour in the minds of the voting public?
So, for example, keep the likes of the MoU, (putting aside the head-desk fiscal responsibility stupidity for a sec) but run their policies off of an unapologetic social democratic platform. I mean, they’re almost there – or maybe even actually there, but not quite recognising it – and so not selling it.
Read somewhere recently that the social democratic/liberal divide is being viewed in terms of “right/wrong” (morally speaking) rather than “left/right”.
Tell me that’s not a natural fit for the Greens? Then (more tricky) tell me why the Greens aren’t doing it? (I’ve aired my opinion on the ‘whys’ of that before)
Some great questions to ponder. I will come back to this
Personally, I think we’re going to end up with a James Shaw led Greens in coalition with National…
Well, if we’re going with wildly implausible fantasies, I pick a mass defection from National of electorate MPs switching to independents, who then decide to back a Labour/Green government.
Seriously, are you just stirring or are you a long-term absinthe drinker and it’s starting to bite?
Boring Bill will get less than 40% for the Nats…… he will crash and burn in the campaign.
National and Greens together…..are you ‘avin a larf?
40% would be stellar for Bill – what’d he turn in last time? 23% or something.
BM, I don’t think you are correct where you say this:
“Back then National wouldn’t have ben able to go into coalition with NZ First.
Now they can, especially if National people are going NZ Firsts way, those voters want an NZ First/ National coalition not a Greens/Labour coalition.
They’re voting Peters because they want him to fix what they perceive to be wrong in National.”
A post on TS a while back quoting Horizon research noted:
“Winston’s choice – 77% of his voters want a Labour-led government
If New Zealand First ends up holding the balance of power after the next election, those who gave the party their party vote in 2014 are likely to prefer the party leadership to support a Labour-led coalition, just as they did in 2014.
Prior to the 2014 election, 64% of those who had voted for New Zealand First in 2011 general election preferred a Labour led coalition. In March 2017, 77% of those who voted for New Zealand First in the 2014 general election prefer Labour.”
Essentially, the opposite of what you claim is true according to NZ First voters.
“the Greens will say “Fuck you Labour” and stitch up a deal with National.”
I would love that – just for giggles – but even I cannot see that happening. Even if its the smartest thing for the Greens to do – unhitching from Labour to being a real independent party.
Nats – NZF for the win. Its been on ever since JK left.
Grens would loose SJW but pick up centrist voter and become a true environmental party with a shot at power rather than the non event confused watermelons they are now, The SJWs would probably reform as a new hard left party following the disintegration of labour after the election, everything would just recalibrate, one of the benefits of mmp
It’s an attractive outcome.
There was already a Green Party in New Zealand who tried to pick up centrist and right-wing Environmentalists and concentrate purely on the environment as a single-issue party like you and Red suggest.
Never heard of them? I’m not surprised. They were called the Progressive Green Party, and they got about 0.25% of the vote before disbanding. They were a splinter from the Greens that objected to their entry into the Alliance back before the ’96 election. Their supporters seem to have either fallen into obscurity or joined National and become “blue-green” laughing stocks.
Different times, the time is now right for a truly independent environmental party not weighed down by socialist rubbish or a play thing of labour and activist sjws
So why don’t you help form one then if you’re so bloody keen? The fact is that even the centrist environmentalists agree with the GP’s approach, and recognize that the social policies the Greens have that they don’t like are necessary to build a movement. It’s only non-environmentalists who think the word is trendy who take the idea of blue-greens seriously. I doubt you’d even get many defectors from the right-wing (which, really, is generally more of a centre-wing) of the Green Party, and you’d probably do worse than the Progressive Greens did, because they at least had Green credentials.
The time is seriously wrong for it. Climate change is getting worse, not better. If they seriously care about the environment they know National is out to trash it completely, and even Labour (the closest party you will get to “blue-green,” as they actually do things to help the environment, but they still believe in unlimited growth for some reason) is too softly-softly to solve NZ’s share of climate change in time to stop the environment from changing to be unrecognizable.
National Party put economic issues above the environment and sustainability.
1.Look at today’s news on RNZ:
Green party Environmental Policy: Policies that tackle climate change and protect our environment.
It is irrational to think that the Greens would prop up a National Government in a formal coalition with such opposing views on environment. If I drew a Venn diagram for Greens and National based on policy, the intersection would be very small.
The British Lions had no show of beating our National heroes! All this tattle is fetid air.
You know it was a draw right ?
But your point remains correct
In the UK, the Corbyn phenomena began to occur almost exactly from the moment fairness restrictions on reporting kicked in for the election campaign. Interestingly, when groups with high exposure to the media were interviewed towards the end of the UK election campaign a significant favourable shift in opinion towards Corbyn was recorded. Amongst groups with low exposure to the media, the anti-Corbyn sentiment was almost unchanged. So I guess for Labour it must hope it can only be upwards once the MSM broadcast media is forced to cover the parties equally.
*sigh* it’s the media. Of course you need to understand that could put even more people off labour NZ
Yes James ,it’s the media.
Can’t wait to see Little go head to head with English. At least Little has some passion in his debating as opposed to Mr Boring as Fuck.
Funny how the PM role in the National government has gone from its biggest strength to its biggest liability in such a small space of time.
“biggest liability” – yet Little is preferred as PM waaaaaay after English, and Winston, and Just behind Jacinda.
Is Little Labours biggest liability?
James; stalking Andrew Little since forever.
There is no media campaigning strongly against either party is there?
I can’t think of any rag which says a vote for X party will be a disaster for New Zealand. That is exactly what was happening in the UK but it does not really happen here
Yeah but they have to blame someone other than little and labour for their disastrous position they are in.
Lefties (well come of them)- assigning blame to others for own failings since ages ago.
Corbyn lost , the gap between labour and conservative mps increased in favour of conservatives from the last general election fought by millibrand, Corbyn called this a disaster yet his effort somehow is success Conservatives will remain in power for some time, is success by labour now simply measured by not loosing by to much
Okay, Labour stirred yesterday after a fortnight missing in action, with some policy and best if all canning the bloody tax cut bribe we cannot afford.
They must stay on the front page every day they can, explain why less tax cuts is better for NZ, driving home THE irreconcilable differences they have from the corrupt, tired, sleazy National Party and take the limelight for all the right reasons
Andrew Little is in for the fight of his short political life and that surely must be an incentive !
Yep. Taking $ from the pockets of over a million kiwis – keep it on the front page I reckon.
Oh you are a selfish little fellow aren’t you?
actually its 2.2m according to the press. And yep – some of them ( a lot I believe) will think that they deserve that money back.
Its labour policy and good on them – get it out in the papers and let the people decide.
You do understand that cancelling a promised tax cut bribe (oh-so-conveniently timed for after the election) isn’t the same as putting up taxes, don’t you Jimmy boy? And BTW, taxes are used for everyone’s benefit – even yours.
I never said it was putting up taxes – its taking away $ that people would have (thus my comment about getting that money back).
And I understand that its for everyones benefit – but I also know a lot of people who think they pay too much.
So – Im actually agreeing with the original comment by Keith – Get this out and public in the papers on the front page.
Let people decide if they agree with it or not.
Whats wrong with that?
Actually, James, when you say “Taking $ from the pockets…” you’re talking about money that’s IN people’s pockets. The tax bribe offered for next year isn’t in my pocket or yours – it’s oh-so-conveniently timed for after the election. Cancelling it wouldn’t take a cent out of either of our pockets.
Taking? Do the maths jame, they’re just not going to keep nuttyanal’s promise.
Yes – they are taking something back – ie the tax breaks.
nuttyanals? Really? Thats classy.
That’s jawcie’s line jame – the thieves! they takin my moneys I was gunna give myself!
I’ve had enough of parasitic housing investors taking money from our pockets but National seem more than happy with that shit
That preferred Prime Minister Poll?
Do pollsters chose names presented as a list to choose from? If so how?
How come Jacinda appears whereas Paula’s doesn’t? (Is Paula totally unsuited to PMship?)
Labour was given stick for having Jacinda ahead of Andrew so it is important to know how the poll was worded.
Was rung for a poll last election Ian, and they asked who I preferred as PM but did not offer me any names to choose from.
Preferred PM is totally unprompted, which is why you usually don’t register significantly unless you’re already leader of Labour or National, (with the exception of Winston, who is a bit of a headline-grabber) because there’s a huge name-recognition barrier.
I’ve often thought that if preferred PM was to have any meaning pollsters should ask the question unprompted but say “the current leaders of any political party,” and then give the names if asked. Frequently former leaders show up in the poll for quite some time after they’re gone, either due to nostalgia or simply because the public haven’t registered entirely that there’s a new PM.
Right now the question is less than worthless. I would actually prefer a straight approval rating for the PM and leader of the opposition to this “preferred PM” nonsense, which is all about trying to say “oh, you should roll your leader because they don’t have insane levels of name recognition in the public.”
Jacinda appears because, to be frank, she’s very popular, and people don’t care much for Little yet. That might change if he becomes PM, but not if he leads the way he’s been campaigning so far.
If it is an open question how come John Key can be 40% + then disappear a few months later?
Because, and this one is crucial, John Key was only ever popular because he was PM after people got tired of Clark, not because people liked him as a politician. He did nothing of significance and will be promptly forgotten, and he handed the reins to English saying “good luck at not losing this one, buddy.”
People noted the transition to English fairly well, (I think only a few percent still picked Key in that first poll, then none?) and there was no nostalgia for Key, unlike for Clark. That 40% for English is basically the right-wingers who desperately want to cling to power- they’re very good about uniting around a “strong leader” if they want to win, never mind that English is already a proven loser and as the debarclay has made clear, couldn’t lead his way out of a paper bag.
If they weren’t being optimistic that English will somehow wing a coalition deal with Peters, who hates him, then they’d be all for stabbing him in the back, which they likely will when we change the government. Then it’s back to ACT polling 7%, the conservatives polling 5%, and National in the sub-30s, where they were last time after English lost, because they won’t have the treasury benches to give them legitimacy, and good luck getting the party to agree on whether Bennett or Collins or someone with a bit more Y chromosome should lead, they’ll have the same leader troubles Labour did if they’re out of Government.
Well said Matthew. Thanks. You covered it all.
Perhaps the combined vote of Andrew/Jacinda should be a good sign. They are a pair and acceptable. Where-as Bill/Paula not so obvious.
Ian and Matthew, strongly agree with both of your comments above.
Re Paula, she is a very polarising person, and appears to be rather unpopular with the general public.
Your crucial difference is a complete nonsense. You may as well say Helen Clark was only popular because people were tired of Shipley.
The data shows that Key and Clark had very similar start points, end points and tracks in terms of favourability in polls. To say key was only popular because of Clark ignores the upticks in Keys support that came in the middle of all three terms.
Id suggest the reason Clark remained popular after she quit is the succession of comparative no hopers labour installed as leader, combined with Clark’s high profile on the global stage (something Key promoted). The last two elections showed that Labour’s leadership were not seen as credible by the electorate. The current one is following that model.
No, Clark and Key did not have similar starting points. Clark was much less popular than Key before she was in office, and then had a meteoric rise after her policies actually her government really started kicking, never really having a huge dip again until just before she lost to Key.
In contrast, Key’s rise in popularity tracks very well to Clark’s decline, even within the limitations of the Preferred Prime Minister poll, which, I must stress, is like trying to construct a graph using charcoal and without a straightedge or measuring device. This sort of trade-off is what you would expect to see when the public are getting tired of a Prime Minister, and it’s largely what’s happened since the recent election in the UK, with Corbyn now being their preferred PM. If Key was genuinely popular on his own, rather than being seen as The One To Lead National To Victory, he would have experienced a sharp jump in popularity at some point as more partisans heard about him, but instead he had a steady rise over time.
And have a look at English’s figures when he was running against Clark, vs now. There is a considerable boost simply to being Prime Minister, and that boost tends to work better for left-wing leaders than right-wing ones.
“and people don’t care much for Little yet.” Yeah – they have only had what? 2.5 years to get to know him.
You don’t get comparable figures between the left and right for Preferred PM until they’ve actually been in office for a few months. If Andrew Little gets handed the election by the Greens and NZ First, then we can see how he tracks afterwards. I expect him to jump to 30% or so if he does some good sensible things right away, but it’s a bit difficult to predict any further ahead without actually seeing the mood after the election, so I’ll stop there.
If Bill holds onto the Govt, then I expect a similar spiky decline in popularity to what he’s already experiencing, and for him to very clearly be a drag on the vote by the time of the next election, and possibly for the cause of it to be a crisis of leadership, or a coalition crisis in, say, holding onto crucial votes from the Māori Party, or falling out with New Zealand First if Peters decides to buck what he’s been setting his voters up to expect.
Polls are used by their owners to influence opinion.
Best thing one can do is ignore them and undermine their credibility.
They’ve got about 3 elections badly wrong now – why do people take them seriously?
Name one NZ election that they have gotten badly wrong?
Also – how do they ” influence opinion” if they are simply reporting the feedback that they get from demographics?
Do you have any evidence that any (all) of the companies deliberately select people for a pre determined outcome? Of course you dont.
So in short you are saying that they are reporting feedback from people for their own ends? What made all these companies change from influencing people to vote labour when labour was polling higher to all on mass switch to National when they started polling higher?
Were you at the meeting when they all decided to do this?
One name; Farrar
And he impacts Roy Morgan, Colmar, One News etc etc etc?
Gee you guys need tin foil hats.
And for the record – Farrar dosnt publish his polls – so the one guy you blame for framing public opinion for polling dosnt release his poll to the public.
Can you see how stupid your answer is.
In fact the only ‘loaded figures’ released have been by labour. All the others are independent.
Touched a nerve, eh, James!
I knew it!
And for the record – Farrar dosnt publish his polls – so the one guy you blame for framing public opinion for polling dosnt release his poll to the public.
Touched a nerve, eh, James!
I knew it!
Now you just look like an idiot
Let it go, James.
Let it go.
Why dont you get off sites like this Robert and get back to what the people elected you for, working for us at Environment Southland!!.
“Sites like this”?
This is my regular, Sara and from here I learn a lot about what’s happening around the country and how people think about issues like water quality, farming and so on. I keep The Standard open as I write for my various magazine columns and find it enjoyable to debate when I’m working at home by myself. That said, you are right to challenge my time spent here, Sara and I’m going to take your advice and spend less here and more on local actions; I’m especially interested in the oil tanker issue, the aquaculture push here, the SWoRDs “takeover” and of course, the Land & Water plan progress (or otherwise). My trouble is, I’m lively when it comes to these things and if I haven’t got a forum like The Standard to engage with, I begin writing letters to the editor and The Southland Times readers might tire of that 🙂
Further more..it would do my fellow councillors a great deal of good to spend some time reading The Standard. I do my best, by emailing them the most provocative posts from here, but they don’t often have much to say in response 🙂
Ed you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Polls have a use. That is the reason why all parties poll regularly. A one off poll is risky but if you look a series of polls it begins to paint a fairly clear picture.
Look at the UK. The polls clearly showed that over the course of the campaign Corbyn was closing the gap. The headlines in the last week were all based on what the polls were telling them, and in the end those polls were telling the correct story.
I’d love to be able to vote for a centrist Green Party dedicated to environmental issues. Get rid of Turei and there may be a chance
I’m sure Labour will appreciate your vote, Hum. They are centrists with moderate environmental policies. The Greens aren’t budging, however.
Matthew, you get riled when people mischaracterise your party. Well, guess what? I get riled when you do the same to mine. Labour aren’t “centrist” – we’re a party of the left. Have a good look at the policies around workplace relations, housing, health, families’ support… If we’re so “centrist” how come we’re the only party you Greens are willing to work with? The fact is that the only way for the parties of the left to make progress is to work constructively together. It’s time to stop bagging each other.
Labour haven’t been a left wing party since 1983.
If you want to call Labour left, that’s your business. I was being honest that I feel Labour of today is a centrist party which likes sensible, moderate policies, but in their stronger areas, like workplace relations and health, they are left-of-centre. Seeing you politely asked me not to “bag” Labour, I will not touch the topic of income support, but I would suggest you not trumpet that record around anyone seriously Green as a left-wing success for Labour.
(I would also note that telling people not to debate with you is the kind of thinking that has got Labour into its current messes- if they want the chance to work together in government, a swift dose of public opinion would do their candidates a world of good. You can have a good long yell at each other for a while about strong feelings, and if both sides actually listened to each other and actually got constructive, still end up pretty friendly at the end, and I really wish that Labour, the Greens, and even NZ First would actually sit down in private and do so rather than Little cheerily pretending there’s no big differences. The parties are different and if you want to win you need to embrace that)
My point was that for people who want to “balance” jobs and the environment, (where “balance” means “start from the assumption that economic activity is more important than having a livable environment to perform it in) their vote should be with Labour, not with National, as Labour do actually care about doing some work on the environment and don’t have too bad a record, but the important thing is that they’re very reluctant to ever trade in any job losses to do so. (I’m sure I’ve told my story before of Mallard being unable to accept the fact that growth can’t be infinite and has to eventually transition to productivity gains only because, is his own words, “that would cost jobs!”)
To all you people wanting Blue-Greens …get stuffed. The Green movement is based on 2 tenets, being a sustainable environment and social justice.
It may not be apparent to you right wingers but neither of these are achievable under our current direction.
If you want a right wing environmental oxymoronic party then go form your own!
Nothing stays the same for ever garibaldi, embrace the change or be left behind
“Nothing stays the same forever”. You are dead right there Red , and that is why the whole world has to change. We are on a rapid path to extinction thanks to human stupidity.
“Embrace the change “…… there’s change coming alright and it aint pretty.
David Slack @DavidSlack 14h14 hours ago
“Oh look I totally get what you say about wanting to be Blue Green. You want to be an asshole without having people call you one.”
Why don’t you vote for Gareth Morgan?
Presumably Hum either likes cats or dislikes his parties sitting on the cross-bench for no apparent reason.
Nice humour. Hats off to you, Matthew Whitehead. The usual trolls (James, BM, Red et alia) obviously thought this thread would be rich pickings, and are here in force today. Your sane, honest, rational replies are a relief to read. Sincerity makes the formulaic, provocative style of the trolls stand out by way of contrast, as they project their own petty cynicism onto others. It looks pretty clear at this stage that they have failed today, and look trite. Largely thanks to you.
You can’t support neoliberal economics ( centrist) and care about the planet.
I guess you haven’t read Naomi Klein’s ‘This changes everything.’
You reflect that your statement is some How fact Ed here is why you can’t be taken seriously
Good post, with graphs clearly demonstrating the downward trend of National.
Your optimism Cinny is to be admired , our little wager still stands I hope 😀
Absolutely our wager stands Red 😀
What a pack of wankers!!! For the past while I have heard nothing but BS being sown to create a divide between Labour and Greens along with NZF.
I firmly believe that from now until election time, if Labour presents itself before the voters in a masterful way, they will increase their vote-take significantly. Haven’t enough people suffered enough under National in the last 9 years to want an alternative?
Naom Chomsky nails it.
“The public relations industry, which essentially runs the elections, is applying certain principles to undermine democracy which are the same as the principles that applies to undermine markets. The last thing that business wants is markets in the sense of economic theory. Take a course in economics, they tell you a market is based on informed consumers making rational choices. Anyone who’s ever looked at a TV ad knows that’s not true. In fact if we had a market system an ad say for General Motors would be a brief statement of the characteristics of the products for next year. That’s not what you see. You see some movie actress or a football hero or somebody driving a car up a mountain or something like that. And that’s true of all advertising. The goal is to undermine markets by creating uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices and the business world spends huge efforts on that. The same is true when the same industry, the PR industry, turns to undermining democracy. It wants to construct elections in which uninformed voters will make irrational choices. It’s pretty reasonable and it’s so evident you can hardly miss it.”
Some in my family believe some of those ads. I say, “Show me the evidence to back the claim.” They look blank.
Yup nailed it,
If we want to make a change the place to START is not the polling booth, Its in providing a genuine alternative journalism and media.
These tools are available to us should we choose to coalesce and work on this task.
“If we want to make a change the place to START is not the polling booth, Its in providing a genuine alternative journalism and media.”
Thats why I tell people to read this blog and the daily mail to see what the left are like.
Sadly i have to agree with that james
Yes, it is sad to have to agree with James when he unwittingly forgets to make his message clear.
A democratic grassroots media.
We must take back the commons – the airwaves being one part.
The airwaves are not something that should be owned by the wealthy.
Thanks for that Ed – Chomsky’s very perceptive and his assessment is accurate, imo.
Yes , all credit to Chomsky’s wisdom.
You have a bad case of expert fallacy Eddy , a so called expert ( who happen to fits your framing ) says so, so it must be so, ignoring other experts say different
Eeeeeeeeeeek.. a troll!
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Labour acting credible is well beyond them, let alone acting masterful, too Little, to late, excuse the pun
Perhaps a more apt comparison would be to compare Governments towards the end of their third term – what was Labour polling two months out before they lost the 2008 election? Mid 30s.
Throw in the Greens for fun, what were they polling together? 40%.
National has a lot to fall yet.
Labour’s blown its chances for 2017, whether by accident or design (it was the latter, to a large extent, in 2014, as many MPs preferred life in Opposition to government under Cunliffe). The best outcome for it, and the Greens, is for the Nats to need Winston to make up the numbers after 23 September. Effectively a replay of 1996, with Crusher Collins playing the role of Dame Jenny in 2018-19. If, and only if, Labour the Greens convincingly repudiate neoliberalism (that requires changing their leaders, among other things), they might be acceptable as an alternative government in 2020. Otherwise, get used to authoritarian, xenophobic populism.
Well yeah – but, of course, focussing on just the one Poll is a little meaningless
You could make a reasonable argument, for instance, that the late June 2014 Colmar Brunton is the relevant comparison (rather than Manhire’s late July)
Nat then: 50% Now: 47% (So Down 3 rather than Manhire’s 5)
Lab then: 29% Now: 27% (So Down 2 rather than 1)
Green then: 12% Now: 11% (So Down 1 rather than Up 1)
L+G then: 41% Now: 38% (So Down 3 rather than =)
NZF then: 3.8% Now: 11% (So Up 7.2 rather than 6.5)
Better to focus on Monthly or Bi-Monthly Poll averages
Still – given the highly negative headlines generated for Labour and Little by this latest Colmar Brunton – Manhire’s quite right to highlight the Nat’s relatively poor performance (even worse if you compare with 2011 Nat then: 56% Now: 47%) and 2017 English’s obvious weakness vs 2014 Key
Wasn’t the line “it’s all just noise” yesterday?
The conclusion from the numbers is that voters some voters have gone from supporting one centre party (National) to supporting another (NZF). The centre left has gone precisely nowhere.