Open mike 28/10/2013

Written By: - Date published: 7:03 am, October 28th, 2013 - 242 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy). Step right up to the mike…

242 comments on “Open mike 28/10/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Matthew Hooton 1
    28 October 2013 at 7:24 am

    Interesting new poll: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9332786/Poll-a-major-blow-to-Labour
    Personally, I struggle to believe National could get more than the 47.3% it won in 2011. Governments tend to lose votes over time. Having said that, National won only 44.9% in 2008 so John Key has already broken the rule once.

    • lprent 1.1
      28 October 2013 at 7:49 am

      Umm, so what was the polling from Fairfax just before the 2011 election?
      http://curiablog.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/fairfax-research-international-poll-23-november-2011/

      Oh yeah Fairfax had National at 54%. They got 47%. So they had about a 7% drop in how many days? Fluke?

      So lets look at 2008?

      http://curiablog.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/fairfax-poll-november-2008/

      National at 49% – but in the election they got 45%! 4% of their vote just disappeared

      Basically the Fairfax poll has always massively overstated the National potential to win votes. I guess that is why you cling to it like a child wrapping themselves around their comfort blankie…

      • big bruv 1.1.1
        28 October 2013 at 8:15 am

        BBQ season in Wellington Central me thinks…

      • Matthew Hooton 1.1.2
        28 October 2013 at 8:29 am

        Well, exactly. The polls always seem to overstate National’s support. Although you are not comparing apples with apples. This poll was by Ipsos, the 2011 one was by Research International and the 2005 one by Nielson.

        • lprent 1.1.2.1
          28 October 2013 at 8:44 am

          See my reply to Andrew

          But you have just successfully made the case for ignoring Fairfax polls.

          That three different companies have consistently managed to follow practices that massively overstate Nationals support tends to indicate that there may be a systematic bias from that source? It is a small sample but it certainly does indicate that to me…

        • ScottGN 1.1.2.2
          28 October 2013 at 9:00 am

          It’s not just Fairfax though. All the main polls (Herald, Fairfax, TVNZ, TV3) have tended to overstate National’s support. It’s as if their sampling has some sort of inbuilt bias against the smaller parties. One thing’s for sure though the latest Roy Morgan with Nats on 41.5% (and no chance of forming a majority) and this Fairfax poll with Nats on 50% can’t both be right.

      • Andrew 1.1.3
        28 October 2013 at 8:32 am

        Something to keep in mind when making that comparison, is that pre-election poll was carried out by a different polling company. Ipsos started polling for Fairfax after the election.

        • lprent 1.1.3.1
          28 October 2013 at 8:40 am

          I know. But if you look back in the record for fairfax polls you’ll find at least one other company doing their polls that I’m aware of. It never seems to make much difference to the overall outcome that the “Fairfax poll” gets. They massively overstate the right to suspicious extent. I suspect that the polling companies that Fairfax uses all operate by the maxim that the customer is always right(ish).

          That plus their sporadic schedule means that they are essentially useless when divining the tea leaves for election results. Probably why Matthew dribbles on about them.

          I prefer the much more frequent polling by Roy Morgan that isn’t done for any organisation with a hidden agenda. Despite the usual statistical variation and sampling biases, it is possible to see actual trends in that rather than the need for interesting headlines.

          • Andrew 1.1.3.1.1
            28 October 2013 at 8:52 am

            Good point about poll frequency.

            I don’t think though that any polling company would let a client influence the results in any way, shape, or form. The interpretation maybe, but not the results themselves. If polling company did, they could be thrown out of the MRSNZ.

            Given the expectation for how well Labour/Greens are doing at the moment, I suspect the people at Fairfax were a surprised by the result as people here are.

            • Andrew 1.1.3.1.1.1
              28 October 2013 at 8:53 am

              Excuse my typos. I’m not wearing my glasses and I’m using my iPad. A bad combination.

            • lprent 1.1.3.1.1.2
              28 October 2013 at 9:16 am

              I suspect the people at Fairfax were a surprised by the result as people here are.

              That is the daft thing. I wasn’t surprised. If you think of this thing narratively rather than statistically, then a completely different poll result that can spun as a reversal is one of those twists that makes for a good story.

              I don’t think though that any polling company would let a client influence the results in any way, shape, or form. The interpretation maybe, but not the results themselves. If polling company did, they could be thrown out of the MRSNZ.

              All that has to be done is to pick a technique that may follow statistical practices, but does not accurately reflect the voting population.

              For instance my favourite example is the way that using listed land line polling systematically overstates the right. Parts of Auckland have been down at or lower than 50% listed-land-lines per household against the electoral roll for nearly a decade. Whereas in other parts of the country are closer to 90% listed-land-line. Moreover apart from the urban/provincials split, in every region the poorer voters and the younger voters with a landline are distinctly more likely to not have a accessible land-line.

              So guess what is the sampling technique that Fairfax pays for?

              • Andrew …
                28 October 2013 at 9:29 am

                That’s some interesting data you cite there. Do you have a source?

              • Andrew …
                28 October 2013 at 9:34 am

                I’m pretty sure none of the main polling companies survey only listed landlines. They use RDD, so every landline is given a chance of selection, including the unlisted ones.

                Sampling from the electoral roll would be a silly idea for a phone survey, coz you would have to match with only listed numbers. That’s pretty daft for a political poll, as lists are biased in favour of home and vehicle owners.

                • lprent …
                  28 October 2013 at 11:11 am

                  Ah no. RDD is a bit of a myth. Even if you had the switch ranges, the number system gaps between exchanges mean that it is unlikely to be random. Without them in a 8 digit system covering less than 2 million households, your probabilities are low to even find a open number.

                  But more basically, try and find a person with unlisted numbers who has been called.

                  The electoral roll is the population that is attempted to be sampled in a political poll.

                  • Andrew …
                    28 October 2013 at 12:00 pm

                    I think you should look into RDD a bit more. You simply ping them to test if they are connected.

                    As I said, matching the electoral roll with published phone listings results in a bias toward home and vehicle owners, and an extremely small response rate if you factor in all the people you can’t match.

                    RDD ain’t no myth. I use it myself, and we update it to cover all known number ranges.

                    • Andrew …
                      28 October 2013 at 1:30 pm

                      Ha! I wrote this on my cell, but it didn’t show up initially, which is why there is a similar and better expressed post below. Apologies 🙂

                  • Chris …
                    28 October 2013 at 12:04 pm

                    This unlisted number has never been called.

                    I’d be extremely pissed off if I did get a call, with the caller likely to be called every bastard under the sun.

                    The whole point of having an unlisted number is to be selective in who you want to give your number to.

                  • Andrew …
                    28 October 2013 at 12:04 pm

                    I have an unlisted number, and I have been called.

                  • Andrew …
                    28 October 2013 at 12:21 pm

                    I hope no offence is taken by this, but I’m afraid you misunderstand the process of generating RDD sample.

                    Random numbers are generated within known number ranges. It’s not hard to work out the known number ranges from published listings. The random numbers are then pinged to find the connected numbers. There is a whole lot more to the process too, like selecting in proportion to the size of each area while factoring in the connection rate.

                    I use RDD for surveys I design, so I know exactly how it’s done, and how it shown be done properly. For my surveys we call people with unlisted numbers all the time.

                    Using the electoral roll for telephone samples requires tele-matching against published listings. These listings are biased in favour of home and vehicle owners, and they exclude unlisted numbers. Also, once you factor in all the people you can’t match, either because they have no landline, they have moved, or their number is unlisted, then the response rate for this type of survey is *extremely* low.

                    I can guarantee you that RDD sampling isn’t a myth. Just send me an email if you’d like to know more about it.

              • bad12 …
                28 October 2013 at 9:45 am

                A case in point was John Armstrong in a column a month or so ago,(sorry i havn’t got a link for it), openly admitted that He ‘thought’ the Reid-poll skewed it’s results by asking respondents a series of leading questions designed specifically to have respondents favor one party over another…

                • Andrew …
                  28 October 2013 at 10:01 am

                  If it’s true that Armstrong said that, then I believe he’s wrong.

                  The polling code, which is soon to be ratified by the MRSNZ, requires the principal voting question to be asked early in the interview. The person who runs the Reid poll was involved in putting the code together. I know him, and I don’t believe he would do this.

                  • bad12 …
                    28 October 2013 at 12:30 pm

                    Andrew, i like naive people, you know the person involved in putting the Reid-poll together, explains your explanations then doesn’t it, care to explain what connection you have to these polling organizations…

                    • Andrew …
                      28 October 2013 at 12:53 pm

                      Well I’ve worked in the research industry for ten years. I’m also a Labour Party supporter – is it still okay that I post here?

                    • bad12 …
                      28 October 2013 at 4:00 pm

                      Both your assertions are to say the least questionable without the addition of the magic stuff that makes the pie taste sweet, ‘Proof’,

                      By ‘research’ are you alluding to the particular branch of alchemy which produces political polls???,

                      i do not know whether the question you ask is directed at me personally as i have no say what-so-ever in who comments here at the Standard, but, as an indicative signpost i usually distrust those who’s writing tends to portray them in a light of a somewhat different hue than the musings of your average Labour Party supporter,

                      In other words suit yourself an examination of a continued commentary from you would in effect show us all where your true political allegiances should or do lie….

                    • ghostrider888 …
                      28 October 2013 at 6:19 pm

                      really bad 12 ? (do you contemplate before you press ‘enter.?)

                    • ghostrider888 …
                      28 October 2013 at 6:35 pm

                      the answer to “Andrew” – try harder

                    • bad12 …
                      29 October 2013 at 8:15 am

                      Ghostrider, for a negative comment directed at me it contains not enough information to give you a full reply so i will just resort to yes dickhead i do…

                    • ghostrider888 …
                      29 October 2013 at 10:58 am

                      my bad 12

              • Foreign Waka …
                28 October 2013 at 11:46 am

                Maybe the answer is a lot simpler – bully tactics, long practiced at school level and beyond. If you can convince a many of the validity of a few you can win the argument. Publish that party xy is the top dog and bob is your uncle. All you need is some gullible folk and unveiled threat of doom.
                Participation in the political process would demand some interest in the community and nation at large. Look around you and be honest. My experience is that if I just make an innocent comment in my work canteen such as:” it will be difficult for west coasters to find a job”, blank stares is all I get. I don’t bother with conversation about the social/political life really, there is no vigorous thought process out there and I don’t want to provoke some banjo playing. Best to stick to the weather, family, sport and hmmmm…. food perhaps is another one.
                This is why such pols become self fulfilling prophecies.

            • ghostrider888 1.1.3.1.1.3
              28 October 2013 at 3:36 pm

              Dreaming

      • miravox 1.1.4
        28 October 2013 at 8:50 am

        Seems to me they could have headlined that article “Labour up 2 percent since leadership change”.

      • Sosoo 1.1.5
        28 October 2013 at 9:15 am

        I don’t have any trouble believing that the poll has National able or nearly able to form a government. There are an awful lot of people who honestly think the opinions expressed on Whaleoil and Kiwiblog are rational.

        • lprent 1.1.5.1
          28 October 2013 at 9:32 am

          There are an awful lot of people who honestly think the opinions expressed on Whaleoil and Kiwiblog are rational.

          That is what makes National the largest party. They have been consolidating the nuts over the last decade as the other conservative parties die from voter starvation. But even with the 800k non-vote, they have pretty well hit the limits of how much the right accretion in the upcoming election.

          That lack of accretion is the underlying reason for the SOE asset sales. They were hoping to widen the base of shareholding voters to increase their pool of voters.

    • mickysavage 1.2
      28 October 2013 at 7:50 am

      So Matthew what do you think National should do about Slater? Looks like his promised expose on Brown has not occurred …

    • phillip ure 1.3
      28 October 2013 at 8:05 am

      matthew hooten..how can it be..?

      ..that you claim..

      ..to have never eaten..

      .. a frozen pea..?

      ..we’ve heard you’ve said:..’they’re not for the likes of me!..

      ..it’s my delicate palate..you see..’

      ..(and should we call you..

      .. ‘new zealands’ marie’..?..)

      ..and what a great campaign/election slogan (in epsom) that would be..

      “frozen peas..they’re not for the likes of you and me..!

      ..vote hooten/act..!..”

      phillip ure..

    • bad12 1.4
      28 October 2013 at 8:19 am

      Keep clutching at them straws Hooten, i thought even you wouldn’t be so stupid as to keep trying to flog the ‘Governing alone’ ghost back to life,

      It’s good to see such desperation across the whole written media spectrum with the Herald writers now producing only advertorials extolling the National Government this should give them a little more oxygen…

      • phillip ure 1.4.1
        28 October 2013 at 8:36 am

        a clear marker of the widespread panic in the right..

        ..(aside from the corporate-media editors desperately searching for little shards of rightwing-light..anywhere they can..funny to watch..that one..eh..?..)

        ..is that they are viewing (E.T.-impersonator/christian-fundamentalist in neo-con-drag) colin craig..

        as some kinda ‘solution’..

        ..whoar..!

        ..eh..?

        ..have they even read his policies/beliefs..?

        ..’woof!-woof!’..

        ..desperate times..indeed..!

        ..phillip ure..

      • bad12 1.4.2
        28 October 2013 at 8:51 am

        It’s easy tho to see why clutching at the very thin straws other’s have plucked from the bale is more to Hootens liking than the political prediction site which He now claims,(since it started producing results He don’t like), to not have anything to do with,

        From ipredict this morning,

        Prime Minister after 2014 election, Cunliffe 53.3%, Slippery(Key) 48%,

        Finance Minister after 2014 election, Parker 50%, English 37.8%,

        Party Vote 2014 election, National 40.1%, Governing alone, nah laughably Governing non-one…

        • bad12 1.4.2.1
          28 October 2013 at 9:01 am

          Mind you the ‘Loons’ over at ipredict don’t get into trying to ‘lead’ the voters round by the nose with the simpletons ‘National can Govern alone polls’ of the boring old mass media,

          The ‘Loons’ over at the other place like to plumb the depths of their affliction by producing suggestive ‘predictions’ of a National/NZFirst/Conservative grand coalition,

          NZ First and the Conservatives with 4.7% of the Party vote each, come in ‘spinner’…

          • Matthew Hooton 1.4.2.1.1
            28 October 2013 at 6:07 pm

            As bad12 alludes to, I no longer do the PR for iPredict, but I still think it provides far better indications of future events, including elections, than polls. As bad12 points out, it says Labour is favoured and that its probability of leading the next govt has increased since the change of leader.

            • Rhinocrates 1.4.2.1.1.1
              28 October 2013 at 6:13 pm

              “Look at me! I’m relevant! I’m a serious political commentator that people take seriously!”

              Christ Hoots, could you be any less obvious?

            • ghostrider888 1.4.2.1.1.2
              28 October 2013 at 6:38 pm

              Very Good, carry on.

            • bad12 1.4.2.1.1.3
              29 October 2013 at 8:21 am

              ”Come in spinner” and lo and behold He does, spinning ever faster Hooten now flips the coin and speaks from the other side of His mouth,

              The Fairfax poll gives the next election to National and the ipredict gives the next election to Labour/Green and you believe the both of them Hooten???,

              Things must get really interesting inside your head…

        • ghostrider888 1.4.2.2
          28 October 2013 at 3:44 pm

          😎

      • andy (the other one) 1.4.3
        28 October 2013 at 9:47 am

        Quick, look over there…

        If it aint beneficiaries, its asylum seekers (today) to use as a distraction. Because John Banks ‘has nothing to fear and nothing to hide’.

        Good Work Audrey, nothing like keeping the embers of stupidity warm.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11147302

      • Rhinocrates 1.4.4
        28 October 2013 at 10:53 am

        Hoots should be fitted with a tachometer.

    • karol 1.5
      28 October 2013 at 10:02 am

      Bejeezus: 21.9% of those polled “don’t know or don’t intend to vote”

      One fifth!

      • Tat Loo (CV) 1.5.1
        28 October 2013 at 10:17 am

        Great they actually published the “Dont Know” number, for once.

      • QoT 1.5.2
        28 October 2013 at 10:20 am

        And that’s why Labour should can any ideas about converting “centre” votes from National. There are far more votes to be had winning the disengaged, and you don’t have to be a sellout to do it.

      • Matthew 1.5.3
        28 October 2013 at 10:32 am

        In her opinion piece, Tracy Watkins says “That is the shifting ground beneath undecided voters. Among the 12.5 per cent of voters we questioned, 29.7 per cent lean toward Labour, while 22.2 per cent lean to National.”

        So assuming that 12.5% = the undecided voters, that still leaves 9.4% of people not intending to vote. 9% is still a lot, but I think that would be a better turnout than last election which is something (assuming all undecided voters vote).

    • QoT 1.6
      28 October 2013 at 12:33 pm

      It’s adorable how you say “Interesting new poll” as though you’re not pushing a very specific narrative by posting it. No no, this is just Matthew Hooton, naive, unbiased commenter, linking to something he thinks will be of interest to his fellow Standard commenters, honest, pay no attention to the rightwing spin behind the curtain. 🙄

    • David H 1.7
      28 October 2013 at 4:54 pm

      More of Hootens Horseshit. He spouts it here, he spouts it there, he spouts it everywhere, FFS Hooten. The only ones that believe this crap, are you, BB, and the Knuckle dragger. The rest of us are waiting or the REAL poll. From Morgans.

  2. phillip ure 2
    28 October 2013 at 7:39 am

    lou reed has died..

    (..shit..!..)

    ..and vale..!

    phillip ure..

    • just saying 2.1
      28 October 2013 at 8:00 am

      My last comment went into moderation.
      Will try again:

    • northshoredoc 2.2
      28 October 2013 at 8:05 am

      Ahhh time to remember some great music.

    • big bruv 2.3
      28 October 2013 at 8:13 am

      [deleted]

      [lprent:I see you haven’t lost your ability to be outright stupid is still intacft. The question is if I want to have the pointless abuse it generates between here and next years election? ]

      • mickysavage 2.3.1
        28 October 2013 at 8:18 am

        You are all class BB. Phillip marks the passing of one of the most important musicians of the last 50 years and you abuse him …

        • big bruv 2.3.1.1
          28 October 2013 at 8:19 am

          Just asked a fair question Micky.

          By the way, not good poll ratings for your man is it. The ABC sect will be very encouraged.

          As for Lou Reed, highly over rated.

          • Te Reo Putake 2.3.1.1.1
            28 October 2013 at 9:09 am

            Yeah, the squares were always frightened by Lou. I think it was the honesty; he lived his own life and never tried to live someone else’s.

          • tc 2.3.1.1.2
            28 October 2013 at 9:12 am

            And yet when people who review and produce music for a living rate artists and albums across decades and genres Lou features twice (berlin and transformer) and the velevet underground 3 times.

            So between them and the punters he appears universally overated, I guess we cant all have your refined tastes BB.

            • miravox 2.3.1.1.2.1
              28 October 2013 at 9:18 am

              I prefer to pay attention to Brian Eno rather than BB – and not just on music:

              The band’s influence on rock, art rock and punk was memorably summed up by Brian Eno’s observation that although the first Velvet Underground album may have sold only 30,000 copies in its first few years, “everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band”.

            • mickysavage 2.3.1.1.2.2
              28 October 2013 at 9:32 am

              Yep you can trace punk music to the stuff he was doing 10 years before …

              • tc …
                28 October 2013 at 9:54 am

                We are at that point where alot of the ground breaking artists of the 60-80’s are passing on. Bowie is heading toward 70 and a decade or so of cocaine abuse will probably catch him also.

                Just watched sorcese’s excellent doco on George harrison, well worth a look.

                eno is a legend with an intellect most artists would kill for.

                • phillip ure …
                  28 October 2013 at 11:36 am

                  “..and a decade or so of cocaine abuse will probably catch him also..”

                  um..!..a bit of a fact-check here..a decade of heavy abuse of alcohol..

                  ..will permanently fuck you more than a decade of coke..

                  ..and funnily enough..

                  ..i found cocaine one of the easiest drugs to kick..

                  ..i just decided to stop..that i had had enough to know all i needed to know..

                  ..and that was it..

                  ..no major physical/mental withdrawals etc as you get from alcohol/heroin/cigs/barbiturates etc..

                  ..and he might get struck by lightening..

                  ..but i can’t see his past coke-habit directly contributing to his eventual dropping off of the twig..

                  …eh..?

                  ..phillip ure..

                  • tc …
                    28 October 2013 at 12:02 pm

                    Who can say for sure but stressing up your system isnt good in any form over a long period and Bowie has already had heart issues.

                    • phillip ure …
                      28 October 2013 at 12:11 pm

                      ongoing poverty ‘stresses’ more than cocaine use..

                      ..that i can say ‘for sure’..

                      ..and of course..the poor die younger..

                      ..phillip ure..

                • ghostrider888 …
                  28 October 2013 at 4:07 pm

                  or, die for…

          • CnrJoe 2.3.1.1.3
            28 October 2013 at 12:07 pm

            Big Bruv writes – ‘As for Lou Reed, highly over rated.’
            By who? You? Who are you to state such a vacuous thing on the day he died? Fuck Off The Planet you Dick.

          • ghostrider888 2.3.1.1.4
            28 October 2013 at 4:05 pm

            No, and Yes

    • Te Reo Putake 2.4
      28 October 2013 at 8:23 am

      Gutted. Whenever I pick up a guitar, the first song I play is inevitably one of Lou’s.

    • David H 2.6
      28 October 2013 at 5:03 pm

      Time to mourn the passing of one of the best muso’s of the late 20th Century. May he rest in Peace.

  3. Tracey 3
    28 October 2013 at 7:41 am

    Hard to believe poll really. The fact of the matter is that polls and politics are full of professional liars and manipulators so the voter has little chance to make genuine choices anymore and the fact of the matter is they havent since the rise and dominance of polls and professional liars over the last few years.

    I find all polls distasteful and unnecessary. Deliberately operating to tell people what to think.

    lets trial having no polls for 3 years. The fact of the matter is that Life wont decline for anyone but the professional liars and pollsters.

    I propose that everytime the professional liars come up with a new bullshit word strategy that all parties and people start using it liberally to neutralise it.

    • karol 3.1
      28 October 2013 at 7:47 am

      One poll with a shift within margin of error, is not much of an indicator on its own.

      • Tat Loo (CV) 3.1.1
        28 October 2013 at 8:27 am

        If Nationals internal polling was indicating that Key was really going to beat his 2011 result… Hooten wouldn’t be working early on Labour Day.

        The problem for Key is that despite the media bullshit, Key only won the last election by 45,000 votes. Maybe less. He has no margin of safety to lose.

        Nonetheless, the point is made: Labour and the Greens have to play a sharp game over the next 12 months, National is going to Fight back hard. They’re not just going to walk away in 2014.

    • Dumrse 3.2
      28 October 2013 at 9:09 am

      One poll and you perform like a seal.

    • ghostrider888 3.3
      28 October 2013 at 4:10 pm

      SHIT, would be that word Tracey

  4. Philgwellington Wellington 4
    28 October 2013 at 8:47 am

    Xox
    Firstly. Polls are unnecessary, distracting and manipulative.
    Second. No surprise there, they are right leaning and publicise a right wing view.
    Third. This tactic was successful for the Right wing at the last election, as evidenced by the low voter turnout, which clearly indicated disengagement from the democratic process.
    Russell Brand has a valid point. Voting for the corporate backed
    current democratic process is failing. USA, GB, France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland etc etc. Why don’t we try something new called Democracy. Cf corporate crazy.. Dumocrupcy!

  5. Tracey 5
    28 October 2013 at 8:58 am

    Agres phil. Shooten up is here trumpetting it cos he knows polls work like other advertising.

    funny how any crusade to ban polls gets no support from most pollies or media. Polling us a form of pimping

  6. rich the other 6
    28 October 2013 at 9:50 am

    Forest and Bird,
    Any truth in the rumour that forest and bird are buying shares in Bathurst Resources to try to regain some of the money they have thrown away on frivolous court challenges ???

    [lprent: seems unlikely. Changed an unlinked attempt to create a rumour to an appropriate color. Next time you try it, you disappear for a while. ]

  7. Matthew 7
    28 October 2013 at 9:54 am

    In the new poll, 1/5th of voters hadn’t made up their minds yet, and most of those undecided voters were leaning towards Labour. Shows how much Labour needs to increase voter turnout.

    Is another Roy Morgan poll coming out soon? Seems we are due for one.

    And I agree with some of the above sentiment about opinion polls. They should be banned during campaign season. They just encourage people to either vote for the winner (bandwagon effect), or vote for the loser (underdog effect). People should be voting on their preference. Also waste time on the news when they could be reporting about actual issues.

    • Tat Loo (CV) 7.1
      28 October 2013 at 10:12 am

      I’d advocate for a ban on polling activity and poll reporting for the 72 hours before election day, to force people and the press to focus on debating the issues, not the polls.

      • weka 7.1.1
        28 October 2013 at 10:45 am

        Why 72 hours? Why not a week?

        Or 6 weeks? 😈

      • Matthew 7.1.2
        28 October 2013 at 10:52 am

        I think that’s not enough time before the election day to be considering issues. If you’re interested, Bryce Edwards did a series of interesting blog posts based on someone’s Honours thesis about how opinion polls influence the way individuals vote (Link: http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2011/11/do-opinion-polls-influence-voters-1-introduction.html)

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.3
        28 October 2013 at 11:08 am

        Needs to be over the entire electioneering period which also needs to be longer than the present 6 weeks.

        • greywarbler 7.1.3.1
          28 October 2013 at 1:28 pm

          DTB
          I think that the polling etc keeps the election before the public. It wouldn’t be good to have it pushed onto the backburner in people’s minds. Maybe stop polls etc for two weeks before, not longer. People who are particularly susceptible to poll reports will be making their minds up in the last two, even one, week.

          • Draco T Bastard 7.1.3.1.1
            28 October 2013 at 1:46 pm

            There are better ways to to keep the election before the public such as informing them of the parties policies.

      • Tat Loo (CV) 7.1.4
        28 October 2013 at 11:16 am

        I picked a 3 day poll blackout period in order to balance concerns around freedom of press. If there was widespread support for a longer period say 7 or 14 days then yes, it should be implemented.

    • Matthew 7.2
      28 October 2013 at 10:37 am

      Tracy Watkins has said that “That is the shifting ground beneath undecided voters. Among the 12.5 per cent of voters we questioned, 29.7 per cent lean toward Labour, while 22.2 per cent lean to National.” (Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9332783/National-sailing-on-unchecked)

      If we add those voters in and assume they vote for who they lean towards, National lose a seat, but still have 62 seats in a 124 seat House (assuming all electorate seats are held). This might be some consolation to any of you who are worried about a National government that can govern on its own.

      An also interesting fact is that this poll is the third most viewed item according to stuff. I don’t know if that bodes well for Labour or not, but it is interesting given that I assumed the average voter didn’t give a crap about polls this far from an election.

  8. Doug 8
    28 October 2013 at 10:03 am

    Asylum ‘cruises’ to NZ touted

    People-smugglers in Indonesia are promoting a passage to New Zealand in
    shipping containers for up to $17,000 a person and are describing it to
    would-be customers as “the cruise ship option”, an Australian news
    investigation has found.

    I thought Labour said this was impossible.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 9.1
      28 October 2013 at 10:23 am


      According to the video at the bottom of the link above 52% of fast food families use public assistance benefits to survive (time stamp 1:35- 1:42 but watch until the end it’s only a few seconds and it makes a valid point)

      What percentage of NZ families that work in similar jobs are reliant on the state for assistance just to pay basic living costs? If welfare is known to be dangerous to your health, why is the burden not shifted back onto the employer instead of the state?

      [lprent: too much shouting ]

      • Tat Loo (CV) 9.1.1
        28 October 2013 at 10:34 am

        Big business and big money rules US politics now. Has done for about 40 years. Extremely bad in the last 10 years. Their ability to maintain their Union will come into real question one day.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1
          28 October 2013 at 2:29 pm

          Same seems to be true in NZ as well although not to the same extent as in the US – pretty sure we’re getting there though.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2
        28 October 2013 at 2:28 pm

        Well, duh, then the employer wouldn’t make as much profit and they would only have one income stream rather than two. The second being all the money that they’re loaning the government to pay for the costs induced by their low wages.

      • greywarbler 9.1.3
        28 October 2013 at 2:42 pm

        McD’s USA
        These comments are at the bottom of the item at No.9 on low pay. It seems that all of us brought up under the western free market propaganda model respond to complaints by finding fault with the complainer. Being able to coolly look at the situation in its context is not a skill learned at school or home.

        fidel 27.10.2013 19:15 – reply to
        Ed Walton 25.10.2013 01:58
        She’s worked at an entry level job for ten years; yet has no skills to move up. McDonalds isn’t the problem.

        Reply – Hey Ed, I’ve worked in this type of environment years ago and it hasn’t changed. As soon as you get the smarts on doing your job and show any initiative, they lay you off. They have a wage ceiling and as soon as you arrive at it, the next step is the door. A lot cheaper to hire 15+ year olds and pay them squat

        fidel 27.10.2013 19:05 – reply to
        Jp 27.10.2013 06:19
        This is smoke screen… Mcdonald that’s for young adults, just to learn how to work… That was my first job 32 years ago! Why are they still working there?

        Reply – Th ere aren’t any other jobs you idiot, or do you ever get out or read a newspaper? The real unemployment rate in the good ole USA is almost 10%!

  10. Brett Dale 10
    28 October 2013 at 10:54 am

    Ya know, you cant pick and choose the polls you like and dont like, you can talk of trends, over and under polling, but when a majority of polls are pointing to one thing, then that thing is probably going to happen. The only thing that is a certainly is that the greens always poll way higher than the numbers they actually get on election day.

    Third term for national for sure, but then Labour will get in the next time, because they will stop this communist stance that they’re promoting to make all the unionists and pta members hard.

    • Lanthanide 10.1
      28 October 2013 at 11:11 am

      “The only thing that is a certainly is that the greens always poll way higher than the numbers they actually get on election day.”

      Lolwut?

      Counterpoint for you, Brett:

      The only thing that is certain (sic) is that National always poll way higher than the numbers they actually get on election day.

    • ghostrider888 10.2
      28 October 2013 at 4:41 pm

      time for you to find a blog where U are appreciated Brett Dale (cos it may not be here).
      just saying.

    • Murray Olsen 10.3
      28 October 2013 at 6:10 pm

      “Ya know, you cant pick and choose the polls you like and dont like”

      Why not, as long as you pick and chose on the basis of faulty method or demonstrated bias. Picking and choosing on the basis of the results would be stupid.

    • millsy 10.4
      28 October 2013 at 9:29 pm

      Brett:

      So I take it you support a Final Solution for trade unionists.

      Given that you supported the anti union thug, Peter Jackson, who would rather take production of his crappy overlong movie offshore than deal with a trade union and give his workers sick leave and ACC, that pretty much makes you anti union. And who cares if banning unions would guarantee a sweatshop economy, like in China.

      Peter Jackson should be in court for his anti democratic thuggish behavior, and the systematic black listing of unionists in the movie industry is something that needs a Royal Commission to look into, and others to be procecuted. Even if every producer, director and film boss in the country was hauled before the ERA and every dollar squeezed out of them in fines.

      BEING IN A UNION IS A DEMOCRATIC RIGHT.

      Had PJ made the Hobbit in China, all he had to do was ring up the local PLA barracks, and AE members would be sent to the nearest labour camp, or worse.

  11. Te Reo Putake 11
    28 October 2013 at 11:13 am

    “Ya know, you cant pick and choose the polls you like and dont like, you can talk of trends, over and under polling, but when a majority of polls are pointing to one thing, then that thing is probably going to happen.”

    And the majority of polls point to a change of Government. So what was your, er, point, again?

    • Brett Dale 11.1
      28 October 2013 at 11:20 am

      Te reo Putake:

      You mean the three polls after the labour leader election, that pointed to the labour/greens victory and not the 75 polls that pointed to a national victory?

      75-3, now Im no good will hunting, but ya dont need to be, with those numbers.

      Opps, make that 76-3 now.

      • Lanthanide 11.1.1
        28 October 2013 at 11:25 am

        Yeah, ’cause political opinions don’t change over time, and a poll that is 3+ years out from an election is going to be more accurate than one taken 1 year out from an election.

        It must be a very confusing place inside that little brain of yours, Brett.

        Of the last 14 Roy Morgan polls, the left bloc have come out ahead in 10 of them, and the last 5 in a row. So there’s that.

        • QoT 11.1.1.1
          28 October 2013 at 12:36 pm

          According to Brett’s logic, National did not actually form a government in 2008, because the majority of polls conducted over 1999-2008 showed Labour would be able to form a government.

          Hallelujah!

          • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1.1
            28 October 2013 at 12:52 pm

            His mental dysfunction goes even deeper than that: clearly we only need to conduct a single political poll, because nothing ever changes. That’s why Brett was so surprised to see *another poll* conducted, because what would be the point of that?

          • Brett Dale 11.1.1.1.2
            28 October 2013 at 3:15 pm

            QOT:

            Actually they didnt QOT. Key was the firm fav, headed into 2008.

            • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1.2.1
              28 October 2013 at 4:01 pm

              🙄

              No Brett, Key was the firm fave in about 20 out of the 144 polls conducted over the 1999-2008 period, so therefore Labour was obviously going to win 2008, based on the exact same logic you’ve displayed in this thread.

      • Te Reo Putake 11.1.2
        28 October 2013 at 11:25 am

        Brett, just about every recent poll, including the historically inaccurate ones like this, show National’s slow slide to the opposition benches. Like it or not, this is MMP and there is no poll saying that National is going win more votes than they did at the last election and without UF, ACT and the MP to prop them up, that’s what they have to do to win.

  12. captain hook 12
    28 October 2013 at 11:33 am

    Donkeyote is beginning to look more and more like the “MUMMY” on teevee last night.
    When the magic formula is read he will disappear like a puff of dust.

  13. Tracey 13
    28 October 2013 at 12:24 pm

    If polls are no more than advertsing using covert and overt methods to shift opinion ghere is no place for them.

    If you advocate 72 hours you are fundamentally agreeing they undermine something so cannot logically rely on freedom of press argument.

    Why is the press interested in them??

  16. Tracey 16
    28 October 2013 at 2:22 pm

    From matthews link to research above

    “simultaneous to this increase in election poll incidence and coverage has been a worldwide decline in issue based political reporting.[3] The increased focus on election poll results and coalition possibilities is said to have “squeezed” out more relevant types of political information.[4] Factual reporting on parties’ and candidates’ policy positions, track records and capabilities is in sharp decline.[5] This holds true in regard to the 2008 New Zealand election campaign: of the top five most covered topics in the media (accounting for 50% of all election campaign coverage), only one topic, the economy, involved discussion of policy, track records and capabilities.[6] While media coverage of election poll results and coalition possibilities is increasing, reporting of political issues is becoming increasingly superficial and trivial.[7]””

  18. risildowgtn 18
    28 October 2013 at 2:47 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9295689/Labour-and-Greens-see-support-grow

    See nothing to get your knickers in a twist about lefties…

    BUT plenty for the right to be worried bout

    Any comments Hooten?

  20. rockape 20
    28 October 2013 at 3:47 pm

    Iprent, you seem to forget how Labour did over the same period. If you look at the average of polls you will see in 12 months before the 2011 election National dropped 4% but Labour dropped nearly twice that at 7.5%.
    I know its hard to bare but when the cold light of argument shines on Labours policies and record they dont seem to do so well. Cunliffes honeymoon only lasted a month, JKs seems to be going on forever. Remember all that rubbish in 2009 when all were saying JKs honeymoon is over!

    • bad12 20.1
      28 October 2013 at 4:13 pm

      A link to the proof of your assertions will go a long way toward making the debate more meaningful or did you just read the comments in the post and think to apply Nationals 2011 pre-election polling from the same organization being presently discussed to the Labour Party instead…

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 20.2
      28 October 2013 at 4:15 pm

      “Cold light of argument” 😆

      You mean screaming blue murder about “Socialism” and making throat-slitting gestures? Argument, you haven’t got one.

      As for Labour’s record, do we have to remind you who said they left the economy in good shape in 2008? It was Bill English. Oh, and John Key.

      • rockape 20.2.1
        28 October 2013 at 4:28 pm

        Did you forget that once the books were made public Cullen said”the cupboard is bare” a great achievement after 9 years when the economies of every country in the OECD boomed. After 5 years of National Government when the World has been in recession, we have Growth in NZ,the envy of most OECD countiies. Under the last 6 months of Labour Negative Growth,of as Labours finance minister said” a technical recession”

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 20.2.1.1
          28 October 2013 at 4:41 pm

          Did you forget that you wingnuts spent nine years complaining that Cullen was running a surplus and paying down debt?

          When you say “the cupboard is bare”, you do recall some tax cuts eh? You see, government raises revenue (that means money) by levying “taxes” (like tennis club fees) and then uses them to provide services as approved by Parliament – things like roads and schools and hospitals and remedial education and support teachers, and all the other things you are a beneficiary of.

          So when a government voluntarily slashes its own income who emptied the cupboard?
          Please try and keep up.

          • rockape 20.2.1.1.1
            28 October 2013 at 5:16 pm

            what a blinkered opinion, Cullen said the cupboard was bare before National had a budget and lowered taxes,did you forget they also put up GST to compensate for the loss of income or is your memory just a bit selective. Remember also that increasing taxes isnt the only answer, it was labours only answer but try growth. You know that thing thats happening under a National Government. More growth =more income = more taxerevenue. Just trying to Tax Rich pricks is a failed Labour policy. If you want a succesful economy it has to grow pushing up wages without growth and taxes without increasing income just leaves you and your policies on the opposition benches,funny that isnt it!
            If you dont believe me check Greece and cyprus and most of Europe,especialy the bits with a leftwing Government.

            • Draco T Bastard 20.2.1.1.1.1
              28 October 2013 at 6:12 pm

              what a blinkered opinion, Cullen said the cupboard was bare before National had a budget and lowered taxes

              Yeah, slashing income when the “cupboard is bare” is such a rational thing to do.

              did you forget they also put up GST to compensate for the loss of income

              And that putting even more taxes onto the poor didn’t work either as the total change left the government around $1b to $2b dollars a year worse off.

              You know that thing thats happening under a National Government.

              As history shows growth is something that happens despite National and not because of them

              Just trying to Tax Rich pricks is a failed Labour policy.

              History shows that taxing the rich causes more growth and now even the IMF is suggesting that we tax the rich more.

              If you want a succesful economy it has to grow pushing up wages

              We’ve had growth over the last 30 years, overall, wages have gone down while profits have gone up.

              All you’ve really shown here is your complete disconnection from reality. Everything you’ve said is wrong.

              • rockape …
                28 October 2013 at 6:26 pm

                What a strange answer. Have wages realoy gone down over the last30 years , thefacts say different.
                evidence for “despite national” In recession National has done as well as Labour in the boom years. You explain why we were 2 places lower inOECD rankings after Labour got in and since National got in WE have gained 2 places! ! to 2 billion ,which, its quite a big difference. Are you saying we are better off because National reduced our total tax gift to the Government and yet improved policing ,health and the economy. More of that please!

                • Tat Loo …
                  28 October 2013 at 7:00 pm

                  Sorry mate, you are dreaming. Most people reading this blog understand that prices have gone up while wages and hours have struggled and fallen behind.

                  Shame you are so out of touch, you almost had prospects (well, not really).

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  28 October 2013 at 10:29 pm

                  What a strange answer.

                  Must be all those facts that you’re not used to seeing.

                  In recession National has done as well as Labour in the boom years.

                  Citation needed and, no, linking to National Party website, Kiwiblog or WhaleOil will not be regarded as reliable source.

                  You explain why we were 2 places lower inOECD rankings after Labour got in and since National got in WE have gained 2 places!

                  Oh, that’s easy. We were, and still are, following neo-liberal policies, i.e, the free-market. This resulted in our economy turning to custard over the last thirty years. The reason why we’re relatively up now is because a few other countries, following the same delusional economic prescriptions, have suddenly become worse off (really, this is only a surprise to the neo-liberals and RWNJs).

                  Are you saying we are better off because National reduced our total tax gift to the Government and yet improved policing ,health and the economy.

                  Nope, I’m saying we’re worse off because of those things. More poverty, more money going to the non-productive rich and debt sky-rocketing.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  28 October 2013 at 10:34 pm

                  I think my reply there disappeared into spam.

            • Pascal's bookie 20.2.1.1.1.2
              28 October 2013 at 6:30 pm

              what a blinkered opinion

              You spelled ‘Want’ wrong, and should have finished with a question mark not a comma.

              Cullen lowered taxes you nonce, hence the ‘cupboard being bare’ comment.

              As for National’s growth, if you factor out record dairy prices, you start to get what they can take credit for. Building roads that don’t make the grade in terms of the Ministry’s own method for determining good value spending, rebuilding ChCh which has to happen but falls under ‘broken windows’, and a housing boom that English spent the first few years telling us was what his ‘rebalancing’ of the economy was supposed to move us away from.

              And who said we should be ‘more like Ireland’?

            • millsy 20.2.1.1.1.3
              28 October 2013 at 9:23 pm

              Rockape — how many hospitals were closed under National between 1990 and 1999? And how many were closed under Labour between 1999 and 2008?

        • McFlock 20.2.1.2
          28 October 2013 at 4:51 pm

          rockape, why are you quoting OECD stats as if they’re not online (www.oecd.org)?

          I really don’t mind you making shit up, but when it’s so easily seen to be bullshit, that’s just an insult.

          • rockape 20.2.1.2.1
            28 October 2013 at 5:50 pm

            Well you must be looking at a socialist version. When Labour came to goverment the last time we were rated 20th on our economy in the OECD. Clarks plan was to increase our ranking. In 2004 we had dropped to21st, 2007 to 22nd were we remained until National took over. We are now back to 20th under National. Its taken 5 years to undo the damage Labour did last time.

            • McFlock 20.2.1.2.1.1
              28 October 2013 at 6:23 pm

              For the bulk of the Clark govt, NZ averaged a quarter of a percent above the OECD quarterly growth figure, with about a quarter of the data points being lower than the OECD average..

              For Key’s government, that’s not less than a tenth above the OECD figure on average, with a ratio of 7:11 under:over the OECD average.

              “Brighter future” my arse.

            • Lanthanide 20.2.1.2.1.2
              28 October 2013 at 7:06 pm

              We’re only at 20 in the OECD list because the other countries in the list dropped farther after the GFC than we did.

              I don’t think this is to any particular credit to National, because they basically did nothing in response to the GFC – not really difficult. I think it’s more a reflection of our economy: we’re a primary producer of agricultural products with very little in the way of value-add. This makes it difficult for us to rise up the OECD rankings, but conversely also means we won’t fall as far when troubled economic times hit, because we simply don’t have a very complex or dynamic economy.

    • Draco T Bastard 20.3
      28 October 2013 at 5:51 pm

      I know its hard to bare but when the cold light of argument shines on Labours policies and record they dont seem to do so well.

      And when the warmth of sunlight and reality hits them they do quite well. It’s only on Planet Key that they don’t do so well.

      • rockape 20.3.1
        28 October 2013 at 6:28 pm

        Reality Draco. Labour in the wildest dreams cant expect to come near 50% in the election. National are going to be bloody close! Labour see it as a great success to get above 30% in the polls and see it as a failure if National get less than 50%. What a strange World to live in.

        • Pascal's bookie 20.3.1.1
          28 October 2013 at 6:36 pm

          A world with MMP in it? Yes, what a fanciful dream.

        • McFlock 20.3.1.2
          28 October 2013 at 6:48 pm

          National need 50% in order to be able to form a government.

          It’s an ideal example of why neoliberalism fails: by refusing cooperation and basic social interaction with anyone of a different creed, National now need to provide pretty much all their electoral support for themselves. If they fail to achieve an outstanding victory, they will sit on the opposition benches until they learn to play with others. The left, on the other hand, can work together, respecting, accepting, and accommodating different policy objectives. Each party might not achieve dominance and the power to ram through their particular policy fetish, but by working together, they have a much better chance of sitting on the government benches. While scrooge mcfuck yells “humbug” from the other side, while getting his woodlice to sniff underwear in the search for scandal.

        • Tat Loo 20.3.1.3
          28 October 2013 at 6:48 pm

          Reality Draco. Labour in the wildest dreams cant expect to come near 50% in the election. National are going to be bloody close!

          Fortunately, Labour has a coalition partner in the Greens who sit over 10% themselves. Who does National have at the moment?

          • Foreign Waka 20.3.1.3.1
            28 October 2013 at 8:52 pm

            I am not so sure how the next election will go to be honest. Mr Cunliffe is as silent as Shearer was. The general public needs to know what Labour stands for as many have forgotten. One needs to remember that the ordinary folks out there are scared to loose the job, being able to raise their kids, pay the doctor, go onto retirement etc… once people are in that predicament its very difficult to get them changing their opinion and vote, if they vote at all.

            • Tat Loo 20.3.1.3.1.1
              28 October 2013 at 8:56 pm

              I am not so sure how the next election will go to be honest. Mr Cunliffe is as silent as Shearer was.

              Huh???

              • Foreign Waka …
                28 October 2013 at 9:10 pm

                What do you mean with Huh??? – Maybe academic and political circles talk a lot about him, but Joe blogs does not hear much. I know he is traveling the provinces but what are the policies re employment, growth, sustainability, debt and taxes etc…try to ask people in the street and you will quickly realize that not many can give any answers.

          • risildowgtn 20.3.1.3.2
            29 October 2013 at 7:15 am

            Colon Craig

  21. Tat Loo 21
    28 October 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Cunliffe poll on Stuff.co.nz

    Scroll down, make your opinion count, let’s push the man up a couple of notches.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9332786/Poll-a-major-blow-to-Labour

    • rockape 21.1
      28 October 2013 at 6:55 pm

      Aint going to work as he hasnt done well. Do you realy think trying to rig the poll will help Labour. See colmar Brunton. Labour 34% and only a third of them think hes a good performer. Do I see another Labour leader before election day.

    • felix 21.2
      28 October 2013 at 7:26 pm

      Bunch of right-wing monkeys don’t like Cunliffe?

      I’m ok with that.

      • Brett Dale 21.2.1
        28 October 2013 at 8:55 pm

        felix:

        Seems only 12% of people like cunliffe.

      • mickysavage 21.2.2
        28 October 2013 at 9:18 pm

        Yep I would be worried like hell if they liked him.

        • chris73 21.2.2.1
          28 October 2013 at 11:00 pm

          His wife seems pretty sharp, hopefully she’ll be advising him

          • felix 21.2.2.1.1
            28 October 2013 at 11:14 pm

            Oh look, creepy right wingers getting creepy about people’s families again.

            Creep.

            • chris73 21.2.2.1.1.1
              29 October 2013 at 7:09 am

              Ok you’ll need to explain why that comment was creepy because apart from what I’m guessing is your inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy I’m not sure how something that was complimentary could be taken as creepy

              But I’m sure you’ll have some totally plausible explanation

              • felix …
                29 October 2013 at 8:58 am

                Oh look, creepy right wingers creeping backwards away from their creepy behaviour.

                Again.

                • chris73 …
                  29 October 2013 at 5:37 pm

                  Lets see, I asked you to explain why what I said was creepy and instead of telling me why you instead try to continue on by saying its creepy

                  You might want to consider that just because you think somethings creepy doesn’t ackshully make it creepy

                  • felix …
                    29 October 2013 at 6:29 pm

                    Bringing the family members of your opponents into the discussion is creepy, creep.

                    Kinda weird that you think that needs explanation.

  22. amirite 22
    28 October 2013 at 6:54 pm

    When the economy is fucked, the unemployment is on the rise and the living standard keeps dropping, let’s keep the masses distracted with scaremongering about boatloads of asylum seekers heading for our shores:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11147302

    • rockape 22.1
      28 October 2013 at 6:58 pm

      Economy F8888d not according to every economic indicator.A world reccession and National are dragging NZ up the OECD scale, unlike Labour were we dropped.

      • Lanthanide 22.1.1
        28 October 2013 at 7:08 pm

        See my reply at 20.2.1.2.1.2.

      • Tat Loo 22.1.2
        28 October 2013 at 7:09 pm

        DNFTT

      • Foreign Waka 22.1.3
        28 October 2013 at 9:01 pm

        And your comment shows very much what manipulation is being applied. Of cause the US is in a very bad state due to the money press running since quite a while. What will happen when it stops? The contraction in the world markets will certainly be felt. Japan, another one that is in a similar situation and China’s economy is coming off the boil. Of cause NZ looks good against this backdrop, even Bangladesh would. To compare this to a NZ when all 3 major trading partners had not yet seen the banking crush of 2008 is simply deceit. None of the NZ parties will or have ever been able to influence any of this. To sell this to the NZ public as an achievement is almost treachery.

  23. ghostrider888 23
    28 October 2013 at 6:57 pm

    Just like Sister Ray Says Have a Good Night have a good night, have a good night…have good night…

  24. ghostrider888 24
    28 October 2013 at 7:07 pm

    Just Like Sister Ray “Says”
    (eat my dust).

  25. ak 25
    28 October 2013 at 9:49 pm

    This might appeal to all those upright ethical tory lads suddenly so concerned about leadership ethics and morality……

    From NRT: John Key [p 13] spent $110 on very expensive skin-care products, tagged as “NZ skin care for protocol officer”. Was it a gift? Because if it wasn’t, it seems extravagant. Not to mention odd

    Indeed. Odd…..

  26. AsleepWhileWalking 26
    29 October 2013 at 7:47 am

    Children’s Commissioner funds study into child poverty from outside non-cooperative government

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11147721