- Date published:
6:00 am, July 30th, 2017 - 215 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Read Willie Jackson’s excellent Orewa speech https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/07/29/breaking-willie-jacksons-explosive-orewa-speech-attacking-don-brash/
Great to see Mr Jackson put serious words to a serious speech.
Self serving wormtongue IMHO!
GP speaking truth to power, even if some voices shake:
At the link, a tweet with graph. Text says:
Aye. Go the Greens!
Now pair this up with a good cartoon…
Text of Willie Jackson’s speech at Orewa Rotary House last night. The event was a fundraiser for Marja Lubeck, the Labour Rodney candidate.
Willie Jackson challenges the Greens to work with Labour on winning the Maori seats.
Metiria Turei stated the two (Labour & the Greens) have already had this discussion, both agreeing there would be no deal or endorsements, thus Willie should go back and talk to his boss.
Willie highlighted that failing to work together may allow the Māori Party to win a seat and go on to prop up a National Government.
Should the two do a deal?
[citation needed for where MT said that there would be no deal and that Willie should go back and talk to his boss. Not moderator intolerance for wasting moderator time – weka]
But haven’t other people on this site stated categorically that Labour would ‘never do a deal’
Clearly Willie is attempting to negotiate one.
Clearly you are trying to flog a dead horse.
I’m not flogging anything.
I’m merely seeing what the feeling is out there for such a deal.
“Metiria Turei stated the two (Labour & the Greens) have already had this discussion, both agreeing there would be no deal or endorsements”
“Should the two do a deal?”
That’s right. Seeing what the feeling is out there for such a deal.
Hence, your point is?
Additionally, you are aware Willie is having discussions with a number of Green Party candidates on the matter?
“… both agreeing there would be no deal or endorsements“
Yes, the leadership have both agreed there will be no deal. However, I’m asking the public how they feel about it – not flogging it to them as you incorrectly asserted.
Additionally, even though the leadership have ruled it out, Willie (who is also Labour’s Maori campaign strategist) is holding discussions with Green Party candidates on the matter. Hence it’s not a totally dead horse, and it’s Willie that is attempting to flog it.
Where do you stand on the matter?
See moderator note above.
Labour and GP “working togetehr” is not the same as a deal.
From your link:
Jackson may talk about an agreement to not stand candidates, but the reality is the GP and Labour candidates each present and promote a different focus in their campaigns.
Yes, but in this case they would be “working together” to do a deal.
And it’s an endorsement he is seeking, not for them to stand down.
Yes. And The Chairman is right on this one. On Q&A (just finished) Willie Jackson reiterated the proposal in the Maori seats. He’s in discussions with the Labour leadership and members of the Green Party as we speak.
He is correct. The Greens have got to get over their “no deal” stance –
at least in the Maori seats. Some of those electorates are very tight and the Green’s could end up being the spoiler… thus allowing the Maori National Party to come through the middle and, together with their Pakeha counterparts, taking the treasury benches again.
Simon Wilson thinks the Greens are scared of NZ First being given priority over them should there be a Labour-led government elected. Well, the Greens need to decide what is their number one priority. Is it to be part of a left leaning government that in general terms will reintroduce a government of balance, fairness and justice for all its citizens? Or do they wish to remain in the wilderness with no chance of their more radical policies (and I agree with most of them) ever being put into practice? I know which is the more important. Do you Greens?
Q&A is worth a watch today. Both Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis showed the Labour leadership how to conduct an interview that will resonate with the punters? Here’s hoping they take notice!
Labour also needs to consider why it is so weak that it continually needs the Greens withdrawing to prop it up. Better policies perhaps?
Also unless there is a significant overhang then Maori as a whole may well be better off under a general left government that does include Maori as MP’s even if the Maori seats are held by a variety of parties. And that left government may come about through campaigning in the Maori seats.
But lets try another scenario on for size. It’s possible that Metiria has dragged a huge chunk of vote towards the Greens from women ( who have always had to deal with WINZ or have a friend who has)
and young people – who have to deal with WINZ/studylink).
If the Greens plus NZF outweigh the Labour vote then we have a whole new game in town. Labour may be on the back foot -perhaps they got rid of Cunliffe too soon.
Labour also needs to consider why it is so weak that it continually needs the Greens withdrawing to prop it up. Better policies perhaps?
Nope. Labour has some damm good policies. It’s just that nobody is listening and that is – in part – because they’re not selling them well. It’s been a bug bear of mine where Labour is concerned for the past 8 years.They seem incapable of condensing them into succinct and simple packages that voters can readily understand.
The Jackson/Davis interview is now online:
Labour has conceded it is no longer a major party, that now sits only with national
[That was really stupid Red. Your ban’s now permanent]- Bill
[to clarify for others, Red changed their details to circumvent a short ban – weka]
[lprent: Really really dumb.. ]
That interview was terrible. Unconvincing in the extreme.
And they also have some really, really bad ones that puts people off so much that their good ones can’t save them. I.e, their knee-jerk reaction of not supporting raising benefits by 20% despite knowing that National purposefully dropped them 20% below what’s liveable.
Here is a interesting interview from this morning on RNZ with economist Bill Mitchell, who calls out NZ Labour for being “neoliberal light” and the Greens as being neoliberals on Bikes, which I thought was quite funny….
Also here is Ken Loach making it pretty clear that our ‘neoliberal light’ Labour party is a pretty sad state of affairs….
Turn labour Left!
Most of the Green radical policies will not become part of government policy even if they are in coalition (Lab/NZF/Green). Certainly not the one relating to welfare entitlements.
Probably they will get some of their environmental policies, but not those that will directly hurt Winston’s rural/provincial supporters. So more money for DOC, more public transport and perhaps incentives for electric cars. Also more water quality expenditure.
We don’t need more water quality expenditure. We need farmers to stop polluting and we need a water market to stop over extraction.
As for the Greens welfare policy, it will never happen. They may as well had a policy launch about improving the quality of oats to feed unicorns.
That’s funny because the most extreme policies proposed by ACT managed to make it into National’s Agenda. Why would you not think that Labour would adopt the Green’s policies as well as those of NZF to put together coherent programme? You seem to suggest that there is a conflict between the green’s policies and those of NZ First but provide no evidence of this.
Wayne’s playing standard RWNJ scare tactics. Inventing BS up out of whole cloth to try and scare people into voting National.
It was in the clip in the link I provided.
It also aired on 3news last night.
By the way, where do you stand on the matter?
[2 week ban for wasting my time. Next time, provide a link, and if it’s in a video provide the time. Don’t expect other people to do that work for you. – weka]
Metiria Turei stated the two (Labour & the Greens) have already had this discussion, both agreeing there would be no deal or endorsements, thus Willie should go back and talk to his boss.
Weka, I read that to mean that Metiria Turei has declared the parties have already had that discussion and TC is saying that its up to Willie to go back and talk to his boss. Btw, I recall Turei making a statement a day or two ago but not where I saw it. After all there’s been so much said over the past 10-12 days its impossible to remember where one read or saw anything.
I don’t care. It was ambiguous, I asked for clarity. He chose not to clarify. I’m sick of running interference on people’s comments that are misleading. People get 1 chance to make it really clear what they are meaning and what their source is, and they need to do the work on that not expect other people to, especially not moderators. I don’t have the time to do any backwards and forwards on this as a moderator. This is time I want to use writing posts.
This is only going to get worse closer to the election, and probably afterwards, so people need to take more care in how they frame their comments about political parties especially when presenting facts. In an environment where there are very large attempts to undermine the left by misleading statements, spin or outright lies, I have zero tolerance for it here.
TC used that part of his comment to set up a discussion in the way he wanted it to go. It’s deliberate. Which is fine, but it’s needs to be backed up clearly so that people can see it in context and make up their own minds.
Well done Weka.
🙂 We all get there in the end as moderators. Especially when the season of spinners is upon us.
You may have noticed that this is my general policy as well. If people can’t be unambiguous about what they are saying and choose to be obtuse about it, then I will often take the policy of spinning the absolute worst possible interpretation on there spinning and then using that to provide a reason to get the idiots out of my face and out of my valuable time.
It helps clear the deadwood out who are apparently incapable of robust debate because they can’t say what they think and why. I despise the meme pushers who are only interested in pushing a catch phrase and too gutless to stand up to try to defend their use of it.
I find that expressing my worst fears about what I think that they could possibly be saying helps both clear my head, and clears the forums for some better agree to disagree debates.
Be clear about what you are saying folks. The moderators are getting tired as the baseload of comments rises up towards election month. If you try to confuse it, you’re likely to lose your ability to say it here.
thanks for that Lynn.
I am pleased to agree with Karen.
Sorry, my intent wasn’t to waste your time. I provided a link. However, I was unaware a time frame was also required for such a short clip. Moreover, the comments aired within the first minute of the clip.
Again, time wasting was not my intent and now that I know, it won’t happen again.
See you all in a couple of weeks.
Interesting 2 min vid. Methinks someone is losing the plot 😉
If that’s a comment directed at my moderation, I’d prefer it be dealt with in the backend.
ffs dial it back a tad, aye? Willie Jackson is losing the plot.
Your comment could be read either way. Good that you clarified.
I see that the document that Jonathan Coleman “tabled” when answering the excellent questioning by Julie Anne Genter is now 9 months overdue.
Official Information requests
Document containing advice re Sugar Tax from MOH tabled during question time 13.10.2016
Request sent to Minister of Health by John Gray on October 13, 2016.
Document tabled during Question Time on 13.10.2016 which contained advice from the Ministry of Health saying that there is no conclusive evidence around sugar tax.
Document tabled on 13.10.2016 during Question 8 of Question Time re advice from MOH on Sugar Tax
Request sent to Minister of Health by John Gray on October 14, 2016.
Long overdue. (9 months overdue)
Lifting the lid on what they’ve been up to in health is the last thing national want.
What is most annoying about the idea of sugar tax is that sugar is a highly addictive substance. It’s not like it’s easy to choose differently overnight and the people most affected are low income earners (just check out any WINZ waiting line – full of carb and sugar addicts).
This is particularly offensive because the government has promoted a moderation approach to sugar which doesn’t work.
Essentially sugar tax just takes money from people the government themselves have mistrained people to think a little bit sugar is OK,
I’m getting a bit pissed off with the notion that the behaviour of the poor can be modified by taxing the shit out of them. The middle class don’t care about a sugar tax.
“The Greens are neoliberals on bicycles”. I love it! Serves them right for signing a silly fiscal responsibility agreement with Labour.
Maybe that is now immaterial since the Greens social welfare policy was released ( along with Metiria’s colossal fall from grace with the Right).
Surely the welfare policy would take us out of the fiscal responsibility parameters? After all we can’t have our cake and eat it too, or can we?
Labour plan to maintain a $4 billion plus surplus after their own welfare spend. The Greens costed increasing core benefit rates at $1.4 billion. Hence, they have the fiscal scope to commit to both and still maintain a reasonable surplus, thus still come across as being fiscally conservative.
That’s a good point and its true. They also have a higher ceiling of public spending compared with National who are headed on a track of greater and greater austerity down to 26-27% of GDP. A Labour Green government would be spending an additional $2-3bn in the first year more than National, 4-6bn in the second year and 6-9bn in the third year while National removes itself completely from universal provision in health, education and welfare in favour of so-called Social Investment approaches which rely on big data.
Prof Bill Mitchell mentioned above talked convincingly about why surpluses are bad for people when he spoke in Wellington on Friday. A link to the lecture is here.
We really can’t have our cake and eat it to. It’s just a pity that most people, including most economists and politicians, don’t understand that particular truism.
Think of it like this:
You have a cake, it’s sitting there on the plate. It’s a tasty cake so you eat it. After you’ve eaten it it’s no longer on the plate and thus you no longer have it.
Off the coast of Taranaki we have somewhere between 300 million and two billion tonnes of iron sand. This is presently being ‘eaten’ (Extracted and sold offshore) by an Australian firm at approximately twenty million tonnes per year. Once they’ve finished eating it we’ll no longer have it.
This applies to every single resource in a country.
But we can utilise our resources better so that we don’t have poverty. Of course, that would mean that we don’t have rich people either because rich people are the misuse of our resources.
Some resources are renewable and as long as they are used sustainably we can have our cake and eat it too.
I think the key to this is the ownership, i.e. who controls the resources, and I think that only public ownership has a chance of providing open & transparent processes and sufficient control. Private ownership inevitably leads to maximising profits and thus unsustainable use of resources; the cake will be gone before we know it.
Externalities and unintended consequences are passed on to others, be it, in no particular order, the next owners, the public, the neighbours, the next generation, the paying customers, etc. Public ownership is the best option IMO to deal with externalities in a holistic way.
In general, (natural) resources should only be used to benefit society as a whole, not to the advantage of a small minority. If it is owned by the public and used for the public then the profit motive won’t be the dominant force.
SOEs, or whatever shape they might have, will not compete but collaborate because they share the same owners and serve the same mission. Efficiency and productivity are equally guided by the same mission, which is to serve the needs of the whole of the nation, not just a (the) few.
Our current political system is not suited to such Utopian ideals. Our laws, or Constitution for that matter, are not either. And least conducive of all is the stranglehold of (neo)liberalism that still seems to mesmerise our politicians and a large segment of the population.
Is it possible to extend the cohesive bonds of family and local community to a national level? If so, how do we achieve this? And then at/to the next level …
Well, no. They’re sustainable within limits. If we exist within those limits then they’re permanently sustainable. If we go outside of those limits then they get whittled down even if they regenerate.
Almost, but not quite. We actually have public ownership of all natural resources in NZ. Even ownership of a house doesn’t convey ownership of the land or anything in it.
But we licence out the extraction of those resources and we don’t put in any restrictions on who it’s sold to. And although we put in place restriction on the speed of the extraction often times that ‘restriction’ means that the entire resource deposit will be completely extracted by the time the licence is up.
Those licences are, in practice, transfers of ‘ownership’ with little democratic oversight and thus with little control. The OIA is a farce and no help (commercial sensitivity is off-limit); without having the right information it is almost impossible to ask the right questions, which is how counter-intuitive the whole OIA is. IMHO all information relating to publically owned resources must be made publically available without delay and restriction. At the moment the situation is the exact opposite but some people do know!! This is principally un- or even anti-democratic.
One genuine Q: has the ownership of water been sorted here in NZ or is it still “nobody owns the water”?
It’s still ‘nobody owns water’. National won’t change that as it would mean that we would charge for it if state ownership was recognised and that would kill off many of National’s donor’s businesses as they’re predicated upon not paying their full costs.
“along with Metiria’s colossal fall from grace with the Right”
I didn’t know they had held her in such high esteem…
We often hear the catch-cry a vote for Winston is a vote for National. But with Hone also unwilling to commit, does it mean a vote for Mana is a potential vote for National?
How badly do you think his unwillingness to commit will impact his support?
Party-Vote for either Mana or TOP = Wasted Vote … in my ever so humble opinion.
Neither are likely to cross either threshold – hence Left vote down plughole in a (hoping against hope) potentially tight Election.
“Party-Vote for either Mana or TOP = Wasted Vote … in my ever so humble opinion.”
That looks correct. The only guaranteed way to change the government is party vote green or labour and to tactical vote in the electorates to remove the national candidate.
It’s so simple, even voters can understand it.
Only remotely plausible chance of either Party crossing threshold is Harawira winning Te Tai Tokerau … but – despite deal with Maori Party – Davis still odds-on.
A remote possibility, yes, but I can’t see that happening so hold with the opinion of a wasted party vote.
Top are more likely to get a higher vote than Mana, though what percentage of that will come from the left is an unknown.
Left leaning voters who don’t vote green or labour could potentially, in a really tight race, result in a fourth national government. They could, even with a three party coalition, mean more influence for NZ1st than I’m sure most of us would ever want.
I don’t trust them to do the right thing, easy as it is, but I do hope, futile as it may or may not be, for the greater good wins out.
When it comes down to the election, I don’t think that Mana, TOP, United Future, Act and probably even the Maori party will get more than 1%.
In the 2014 election the Conservatives got almost 4%, and then did the usual thing that our conservative religious parties did and started a standup pissing contest all over each other – probably funded by the National party and performed via the usual sources. Unlike NZ First who had a similar fate back in 2008, I don’t think we will see them this election.
Internet Mana and the Maori party both got slightly less than 1.5%, and I don’t think that their standing in front of voters has improved since then.
Act managed got 0.69%. Which is the same territory that I think TOP will get into. While Seymour has probably been less of a complete dickhead than his predecessors in the role, I don’t think that any strange multi-millionaire will be bothered to prop them up this election.
United Future managed to just edge out the Ban1080 party when they got 0.22%. That definitely puts them in the loopy brigade.
Plus I think that kiwi voters are just plain uninterested in the nutter fringes of politics this time around.
But with Hone also unwilling to commit, does it mean a vote for Mana is a potential vote for National?
Well, that would depend on the likelihood of Mana being willing to do a deal to keep National in power, wouldn’t it? And, given that that likelihood approximates to 0, the answer to your question is “No. No, it doesn’t. Have you been drinking?”
Here is another reason to vote Labour-read about it:
National is continuing with the Tenure Review process that involves a massive transfer of state owned precious and highly sensitive high country to their farmer mates who then sell off parts of it to developers at a huge profit. And I mean huge.
Labour’s policy is to immediately stop the Tenure Review process.
Beatriz at Dinner is currently showing at the Film Festival. It’s a little heavy handed but worth a look.
Here’s the trailer.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
Australian terrorist plot to bring down an airplane foiled:
Both Qantas and Virgin will start increased security measures as a result – that’s for all of you considering flying shortly – whether to Australia or passing through.
I thank all I hold holy that this kind of plot hasn’t happened here yet.
How to know that it happened, over there?
Because someone said so…
Not enough. Is it…
Then its best you play it no mind and just run along now….
Why would you think posting different links from the same source proves anything more..
Wait to see how many arrested, are released…
Exactly as has happened over there many times, in recent years…
Looking at the poll tonight Labour are in serious trouble. The support they have lost has seemingly moved over to the Greens who are on 15%, but at 24% Labour are in deep trouble. I’m wondering if their support is likely to fall another 2-3%, and I believe there is a serious risk of this, and meanwhile National continue to hold steady on 47% which is where have been more or less for nearly a decade. THe Labour leadership need to ask why their party has stubbornly remained 20ish points behind National for a decade
The polls didn’t get it wrong – they were designed to shape public opinion.
They reflect public opinion. IFIFY
They shape public opinion:
24% (Labour) + 15% (Greens) + 11% (NZFirst) = 50%. The current National Party + mates arrangement is toast on this poll and Colmar Brunton is known to favour the centre-right. I’m not sure what the problem is…?
I’m well aware of voting Blocks, but I think that it is more complicated than simple blocks. labour now have andrew little publicly admitting that he has considered resigning. That is almost the worst thing to ever admit less than eight weeks from the election. With the Nats on 47% and Labour on 24% there simply cannot be a mandate for a party returning their worst ever election result to then proceed with forming a government. But the bigger immediate issue for Labour is being seen as a lost cause and voters simply don’t turn out to support a party that is perceived to have lost before polling day. Will this start a bleed of support for Labour?
You say you’re aware of voting block but then go on to single out labour’s vote.
47% plays 39% on this poll, so a swing of 4% ties it all up. Still all to play for on the run in as polls traditionally close up.
Good for the greens. Hope it continues. At least we can now put to bed the doom and gloom of MT’s ‘damaging’ winz admission.
Yawn. the National Party has to get more seats than the pro-New Zealand parties to form a government. Thanks for letting everyone know that you won’t respect the election result if that doesn’t happen.
I think it was Andrew that indicated that in that interview…
Of course I’ll always respect the outcome of the election. We live in a democracy. But I can’t see how it is tenable for a party that is currently on track for its worst result to then proceed to form a Government that would deliver three years of stability, economic growth, and investment is social and infrastructure programmes. what I’d love for Labour to understand and importantly address is the core reason why they have been behind National by about 20 points for nearly a decade. I’m also a firm believer in NZ electing the government and Prime Minister. NOt Winston having the final say depending who will deliver to him the best baubles
You can’t see it. True.
I note your confidence in Colmar Brunton.
Andrew little did not deny the poll, but I usually rely more on the poll of polls. The election is now less than eight weeks away, and I can’t see a reason for people of nz to change. The message Labour have been giving is not reasonating with the good people of NZ. I do want to ask my Local MP Grant Robertson , and also candidate Paul Eagle. In truth I don’t believe that Labour are being honest with themselves. This is not just some temporary slump, but a persistent feature for the past three elections and nine years. THere are several reasons, but I just can’t see any game changer ahead for Labour.
If Colmar Brunton’s track record is any indication (which it probably isn’t), the National Party will get about 42%.
As for Labour, the more Greens in Cabinet the better.
I love how honesty from politicians just blows some folks’ minds.
Acknowledging your flaws and asking colleagues whether you’re the best person for the job is actually a good thing – I’m fed the fuck up with incompetent ministers who sign off on shit that fouls up the pay of tens of thousands of people, or even endangers or kills people, and then they go on TV and say that it was someone else’s fault and they themselves are doing a good job. Was it Wilkinson who looked visibly surprised at the thought that she should resign after people died (Pike River ISTR?)?
Fuck it, we actually need politicians who admit their faults, who admit the decisions they made 20 years ago or the decisions they made 20 days ago maybe weren’t the best, or weren’t legal, or weren’t what one would expect of a leader. But they just fucking come clean if it’s relevant. I’ve had enough of bluster.
And that’s something that we will never again see from National.
It isn’t actually more complicated than “simple blocks” though is it? If after the election National, say, can’t command a majority of votes in The House then either the Opposition Parties get to have a go at forming a government or we have a new election depending on the GG. Simply winning the biggest share of the vote doesn’t give any party the right to form a government.
In an MMP environment there’s no such thing as a mandate for one particular party over any other. If Peter Dunne could put together a governing coalition with him as the leader then we’d have the first Peter Dunne led government.
Once I got ‘educated’ on this topic by no other than the SYSOP:
Here’s a little more:
Really can’t see the problem?
Let me help.
The problem is that Peters loathes the Greens, and they have completely opposed support bases.
There is no way a Lab/Green/NZFirst coalition can come together.
Besides, if Peters becomes kingmaker, would his supporters really want him to prefer Lab/Green to Nat?
The majority of NZ1st and Greens policies mesh quite well.
Yes there is.
NZ1st/Green mesh quite well. NZ1st and labour mesh even better.
NZ1st and National policies don’t mesh at all.
“Besides, if Peters becomes kingmaker, would his supporters really want him to prefer Lab/Green to Nat?”
The New Zealand Election Study has shown that NZF’s new supporters (at 2011 & 2014 Elections) have come disproportionately from Labour.
Colmar Brunton’s 2015 vote-switching analysis suggests that, more recently, NZF have been attracting support from Labour and National supporters in fairly equal proportion … but that still means a particularly large % of current intending NZF voters are former Lab supporters (they certainly greatly outnumber former Nats).
In addition (indeed, as a consequence of the above) … NZF supporters consistently show unusually strong antagonism towards the National Govt in various Issue Polls (eg 2014 attitudes to Key Govt’s Dirty Politics / Asset Sales / TPPA / Flag change etc). Interestingly enough, this antagonism towards the Tories is rivaled only by that of Green supporters.
So, in a word, Yep.
Labour are on 24% and you cannot see that the problem is?
Lab down three.
Greens up four.
The problem for you is that the more progressive party on the left is growing its share of the bloc, and the bloc doesn’t seem to be any the worse for it.
Love your optimism.
But if you cannot see the issue of the main opposition party being on 24% (or less) – they are simply not credible for opposition – little less government.
You do realise that there’s three main opposition parties don’t you? And that together they get more support than National and it’s cling-ons.
you are being very generous if you think one of those parties will oppose the Nats after the election.
The only way of ensuring a change of government is getting Labour/Green to 48ish % – Labour 32%, Green 16%.
Any scenario which involves Winston is essentially a flipping the coin to see what happens
you miss the entire point – again.
Oh, I got your ‘point’ – I just didn’t think it had any relevancy.
Unlike like the authoritarians of the Right-wing – the Left doesn’t need nor want a ‘main party’.
Hell, you’ve been polishing the national turd for years.
“Main opposition party” is valid in FPP. It’s sad you haven’t figured out that MMP can do a true coalition of equals. It doesn’t need to be 47:1:1:1.
It can be 30:20, 25:15:10, or even 20:20:20.
I just want you bastards out of government, and replaced by something vaguely left wing – the more left the better. I don’t care what the party names are.
In that case you are going to be very disappointed.
Bold words for someone who’s most optimistic pollster still has them relying on winston peters.
BTW – if there wasnt an issue – why would Little talk about stepping down?
Because Corin Dann asked him.
Well we know that’s not true.
Not sure if you are using humour or telling porkies ?
Do you care about the poor of New Zealand?
Are you concerned by New Zealand’s youth suicide rates?
Corin Dann didn’t ask little about stepping down?
Damned sure I saw a clip where he did…
My recollection, too McFlock. Then, having asked that question, the same interviewer said on TV1 news that Little introduced the topic, IIRC.
Exactly which was a lie.
Its true. Remember media headlines around this? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11865741
Andrew Little’s response to Corin Dann confirmed he has the support of his mps/party.
Polls move around. Better to look at the trend over time.
“THe Labour leadership need to ask why their party has stubbornly remained 20ish points behind National for a decade”
It’s MMP, we’re way beyond that question. More important is the left bloc.
On the back of the Barclay scandal and the media finally highlighting the homelessness crisis, this is nothing short of an absolute fucking disaster of a poll.
Trends are obviously what is more important, but the fact any single poll shows National at 47% on the back of the last month of negative headlines for them should be a huge cause of concern for anyone who wants to change the government.
I am stressed and flattened by this.
This time in 2014 (h/t Swordfish on the National List post) Colmar Brunton had the National Party on 52%. They got 47%.
What does that tell you?
That tells us that the current Poll of Polls with National drifting down to about 42% is probably about right…
And where did it have Labour?
It also tells me that Labour were polling at 28% then and came in at 25% – using your Logic Andrew Little should be sharpening his CV.
Exactly. If the election gives this result with no left wing party even close to 30% … then National sitting well over 40% would absolutely be expected to have first shot at forming a govt.
Given the Greens have ruled out going into coalition with National this leaves a very sad coalition with NZ1 as the likely outcome.
“If the election gives this result with no left wing party even close to 30% … then National sitting well over 40% would absolutely be expected to have first shot at forming a govt.”
Why? I mean, some FPP people think that, but I can’t see any reason why National should have first crack if they’re on 42% and L/G are on 42%.
“why National should have first crack if they’re on 42% and L/G are on 42%.”
Because National IS on 42% and Labour are 24% and Greens 15%.
Labour (the lead party) on 24% is simply not credible.
You haven’t said why James. All you’ve done is assert something without rationale. It’s MMP, why does it matter if there are two parties closer to each other in MP numbers? I could see that as an asset.
Do you understand MMP?
Only if you buy into National self-serving delusion.
If Labour were on 42 % and National on 24% – I bet you would be saying that Labour should have the first shot at forming a government.
not so much if act were on 14% and rising.
But national has no friends…
I think that no party should have ‘first shot’. That’s not how MMP works.
It’s the parties that come together to form a coalition that is greater than 50% that forms the government.
There’s no ‘second shot’. There’s ‘have you got it or not’.
You are wrong. MMP has not changed the principle of Government formation. The Governor General determines who will be invited to form a government based on the advice of the prime minister. The PM will advise that he should be invited to form a government. Alternatively he will advise that the Leader of the Opposition be invited to form a government. In either case the support will need to be tested in the House. If the new government loses a confidence motion the new PM would resign.
The governor General would then ask the Leader of the opposition if he could form a government. If he said no, there would be a new election.
So in summary, MMP has not changed those conventions. Someone always gets ‘first shot’.
Yes, the prime minister. Not based on relative percentages at the ballot box, which seems to be James’ position.
What you describe is that one person gets asked first and then someone else gets asked second and then we go for another election. But it’s not a first shot at forming the government but just first at being asked if they’ve already done so.
Before the GG asks the parties have already negotiated and have an answer and there’s no ‘first shot’ in those negotiations.
The MMP legislation makes a coalition of say 10 minor parties all on 5.5% equally possible as a coalition of one other party on 45% plus one of the other minors.
In one case you would have 10 parties trying to form a stable govt, the other just 2. While you are correct technically, I damn well know which would be accepted by the public.
And which one any sane GG would give assent to.
Lucky we have only three parties with a track record of cooperation and a fair amount of common ground, eh.
I damn well know which would be accepted by the public.
The one that ends up as government. There’s nothing that the public can do to stop it.
The GG doesn’t get that choice. If there’s a coalition in front of him saying that they can form a government then he has to accept that. If he doesn’t then he’s breaking the constitution.
Colmar Brunton poll (2/3): Refuse to answer 4%, undecided 16% (+1).
Tweets by ColmarBruntonNZ
So 20% unaccounted for. Also what is the margin of error?
your onto it…20% of a weighted (probably incorrectly) result…the poll is almost worthless.
There is only one poll that matters
If the undecided percentage is near 20%, surely it is utterly necessary for a state-funded TV news service to say so? Only 2 parties scored higher than 20%, which makes their speculation about what the make-up of parliament might be a big load of rocking-horse effluent.
I have no idea whether there is any regulatory requirement for such information to be reported, though i suspect probably not…especially if it upsets the narrative.
as indicated previously, these polls are almost worthless….turnout will be the key.
Quite frankly it should not be allowable to discuss a poll in the media unless you state the margin of error and the undecided. Corin Dann needs a strong reprimand.
Now I see that Tracy Watkins repeats the same in Stuff. It is simply not good enough! https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95260532/labour-bleeds-while-greens-profit-from-metiria-tureis-fraud-bomb
Dann is one of the biggest shit stirrers that the MSM has.
It’s reasonable to assume the ‘undecideds’ in any poll result will eventually vote in a pattern similar to all those who have already made up their minds.
The good news is that in principle they’re ‘persuadable’ and are amenable to some event between now and the election causing them to swing. The bad news is we have no idea which direction such a ‘swing’ might be.
“It’s reasonable to assume the ‘undecideds’ in any poll result will eventually vote in a pattern similar to all those who have already made up their minds.”
Not sure about that. I can think of variables that would swing the balance differently.
Anyone know if there’s been research on this?
Well personally I might hope they’ll all finish up voting for Gareth Morgan … but that’s not terribly likely is it? 🙂
So he can get the nats over the line instead of NZ1st. Thanks for that.
To be perfectly straight about it, I’d much prefer the Nats had to go into coalition with TOP than NZ1 … but in reality that’s pretty unlikely.
Also keep in mind that TOP’s stated preference is to stay on the cross-benches and would only sign up to Confidence and Supply if they were the sole cab off the rank.
Interestingly TOP do seem to have doubled from just under 1% to 2% … but that could be equally just noise.
Even more than with NZ1st, a vote for TOP seems like a vote for national.
I don’t understand why any supposed lefties would wilfully and knowingly vote for the enemy.
We can only hope they come to senses on election day, do the decent thing, and resist propping up the nasty party by voting green or labour to change the government.
Even more than with NZ1st, a vote for TOP seems like a vote for national.
Their policy objectives have way more in common with the Greens than anyone else.
next election maybe 😛
I this this is akin to the Missing Million arguement. The reality is polls do move around, but the danger for Labour is that they get to a point where they are perceived a hopeless losers like happened to Bill English in 2002. And the consequence of this is voter stay away in droves. GReen support at 15% gives them reason to be optimistic, but it is at the expense of Labour. THe Labour Green block cannot penetrate into Nationals steadfast baseline support that is constantly at 47% in nearly every poll
Except this time in 2014, when Colmar Brunton had them on 52%.
I wonder how many of those million appear in their sample.
OK I’m happy with that observation. So let’s assume National lose 5% between now and the election and land up on 42%. The bulk of it will go to either NZ1 or maybe TOP. Still no problem forming a govt.
Even if Labour crawl back up over 30%, National are still in the driving seat.
Unless we have an unexpected change.
The problem here is that Peters won’t say if he will treat the L/G vote as a bloc or will consider National the first party to talk to. And NZF voters are ok playing roulette.
Except in the past two major polls which had it at 42%. I can understand you righties getting all excited but what has happened here is that the support for the left has increased slightly and I am sure the right’s support is less than CB thinks.
Um, from memory polls have seen National as low as 42%, what are you on about?
edit, snap micky. Plus one of the recent ones had L/G ahead of National.
nat/nz1 no change for either, lab down, grn up by slightly more, no real change for total labgrn.
Trend’s not looking so hot for labour, but nz1 still likely kingmaker
CB has a bias that reflects the leafy suburbs,and tends to over estimate both national and the greens 3.2 and 1-2.5% respectively.
They underestimate labour,NZ first and the maori party, which cumulatively is 4-5.5% being the overestimate for the former.
Interesting- on the RHS of Colmar Brunton twitter page, it suggests that I might also like (complete with twitter handles:
NZ National Party
That’s better than looking at where CB is on Labour’s poll of polls trend line (mostly below, I suspect)
Just useless noise.
I’m not so sure it’s completely useless. Mostly useless?
I hate to say it, but I’m thinking it might be showing that the Greens didn’t follow through very well on Metiria’s launch of the social security policy.
But yes. Just a one point snapshot in time. And the way NZ reports on polls is ridiculous (opaque). There should be two sets of percentages. One with undecideds removed from the sum total used in the calculation and one with them included in the sum total used in the calculation.
Might be too soon re the follow up (what’s the time lag on events and polls again?). But I tend to agree that the follow up has been dominated by defense against the reactionary forces. Two weeks seems reasonable, am hoping they’ve got some more cards to play soon though.
I’d have been looking for a shift beyond the specifics of social security to a broader platform espousing the general values that are in accord with the social security policy. So, to steal a phrase, hitting everything with a “for the many, not the few” refrain, as a clear indication that the status quo’s getting binned if the Greens have their way.
More policy releases in tune with the social security one could be in the pipeline (I hope so). But the policies on their own, without the engine that comes from generating a more general groundswell of sentiment within largish parts of society, are limited in their effect.
I’d be interested to hear if they’re engaging in any concerted recruitment drive at the moment – taking full advantage of any momentum they have at the moment and pushing it; getting feet on the ground to fight for every available vote.
“a controversial admission of DPB fraud has given the Greens a massive boost”
There ya go, bro.
Wanted to rent — Secluded Igloo or similar, for next two months. Depressed tenant, Rent paid in cash.
I think the poll was conducted at the beginning of July:
before Turei’s speech.
No that link you post is to an older poll. The Web site has not been updated to include the latest poll.
It isn’t just this poll. Labour are drifting to utter catastrophe. It is all well and good to talk about the undecided vote, but given the lack of inspiration and passion so far in this election campaign from Labour they’ll probably just not vote at all. I reckon we are heading towards a 65% turn out max.
What is it about neoliberalism that turns Labour PLPs into technocratic, out-of-touch, smug and entitled collections of careerists? They are too fucking arrogant to see what should be obvious – they are in deep trouble and need to PANIC, completely rethink their whole fundamental approach to politics and just… just fucking grow some balls and show us they believe in something other than muggins turn.
Their policy so far has been too technocratic and timid, full of thickets of ifs and buts and maybes. They’re thinking seems stuck in 1990s, wedded to neoliberal economic orthodoxy and, frankly, their main tactic at the moment appears to be relying on National losing.
The Labour caucus is – yet again – completely missing in action, 54 days out from the election. The current crop of Labour politicians are completely useless at politics.
The Greens have outflanked them on the left, exploiting the Corbyn-Sanders effect and showing they might actually understand ordinary folks problems.
NZ First is killing them in the provinces. There vote is is 3-4% higher than this poll, mark my words.
LABOUR FUCKING NEEDS TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!
When you recall that Phil Goff, and even the hated Cunliffe, were doing way better than this you really have to wonder.
Little’s best option is to see it through to the election and if Labour are under 35% then he, along with the rest of his front bench can resign with dignity, and give Adern a clean start.
Or they can wind the Party up and make a nice donation to the Greens with the proceeds 🙂
I think Labour might be hopeful of holding 25%. I’m thinking that their whole policy platform is simply never going to attract the vote of middle NZ.about 18 months or two year ago I had a good conversation with Andrew Little and we discussed capturing the imagination of NZ. In particular the centre where the election is won. But the influence of the left of the party, the unions, and I suggest also the lack of intellectual grunt that was present when Clark and Cullen were at the helm has prevented this from happening.
Playing musical cheers with the leadership is no good. The next losers up will be Gracinda, and they are lackadasical middle class careerists. All they represent is the inept PLP and their own technocratic ambitions. Little has got a useless caucus that is lazy and politically clueless. Labour has to re-think everything from the ground up, including how and who they select to be MPs, what they stand for and what the party exists to do.
At the moment, they stand for nothing and the PLP is full of under performing chumps like Ruth Dyson (remember her?) Jenny Salesa (who? never heard from her once, unforgivable when there are only 31 MPs) Megan Woods (Ever heard from her either? No? Me neither. Pathetically ineffectual on Canterbury issues and climate change), David Parker (last spotted in 2015 and heading for the exit), Trevor fucking Mallard (a burnt out political joke, it is a disgrace he occupies a valuable seat), Poto Williams (useless at scoring hits on the government, but that is OK because as far as i can tell, she was mainly selected to be spokesperson for political correctness and guardian of identity politics), Clare “vanishing majority” Curren, David Clarke, the invisible man in a caucus of hopeless invisible MPs, etc etc.
Labour has a caucus where six of their MPs are from Maori seats, and apart from Kelvin Davis none of them appear to do anything to justify their existence to the wider electorate. Given that these MPs represent fully 20% of the PLP, this is unacceptable. They need to pull their weight a lot more.
Labour only has 31 MPs. Only a handful seem to do anything, but with 31 MPs they ALL need to be working bloody hard. the rest are taking the piss out of their supporters and one can justly suspect they are lazy mofos in the best paying job they are ever likely to hold.
Well said, it appears that this current bunch of clowns want to lose this election just like last the one and some of the above are more worried about themselves than winning the election so we can bury this neo lib bullshit for good.
Some of these middle class toff’s within Labour need to be shown the door, if we get another piss poor result in this yrs election.
I’ll leave you some words of wisdom from my late grandmother who was born in Blackball and Labour Party member to the day she passed away in Nelson.
“If the Labour Party keeps bringing in these middle class toff’s, these middle class toff’s are going to wreck Labour for good forget it’s history/ roots (aka why it was formed) then it will be the fault of theses selfish middle class toff’s for driving away the workclass (the very backbone/ heart of the party as she would say) vote to possibly the greens or Winnie. Because they are too lazy and leave it up to tieless volunteers of workclass/ less privilege members of the party who believe in the party’s values, the very reason why the party exists, it’s endstate to a better place for a common good, as there is no I in team and the NZ Labour Party will be merely a party in name only by the time I’m passed away.”
Rosa Beaurepaire, née Rosa Balderstone.
Have to agree with you Sanctuary. The PLP – apart from Kelvin – has been entirely missing or misfiring in action. Lazy is one word for it, lacking intellectual leadership and fire is another.
Or perhaps the PLP has looked at the polling which has a corrupt, venal and nasty National still close to 50% at the end of three terms, on track for four or five – and just given up.
Yep, rather like a old Black powder rifle going off all smoke, but no shot coming out.
Well there is no question in my mind, the fundamental makeup of the NZ electorate has changed in the past decade or so.
Absolutely this is only one poll. At best it represents the Greens gaining a bit, completely at the expense of Labour. And Turei’s laudable outburst of honesty and political guts is almost certainly the reason for that.
NZ1 is categorically NOT a left wing party and counting on them for a left wing coalition is just magical thinking. Peters will do what Peters wants to do, and his parties policies are actually a bit to the right of, and more reactionary than National.
In total the left wing bloc that we can count on still only adds up to less than 40% and it’s been slowly but surely eroding for years. We can rearrange deck chairs to distract the panicking passengers all we like, but until we make an honest appraisal of what is really happening … the numbers will continue to disappoint.
You made an assertion of fact. Please provide a link and an argument to support it.
You’re going to have to dig deep: even the NBR is reporting that The party has slumped three points to 24% while the Greens are up four to 15%.
So the Left bloc increased its vote by 1%. Not enough but certainly not the sky about to fall on our heads.
Or perhaps that’s the death rattle of the “centre left” you can hear 🙂
Looking at the Labour PLP there is one thing that stands out like dogs balls – Like it’s Maori MPs, the Labour women’s caucus is not pulling it’s weight.
Having jumped up and down and demanded equal representation even at the cost of party unity, they’ve let the side down by selecting a bunch of useless do-nothings. It is as if getting women MPs into parliament is regarded as job done, rather than getting effective politicians into parliament who are hard workers, generate headlines, score hits on the government, and who happily also happen to be women.
I think you hit the nail on the head there and would throw a couple of the white middle class toff’s the so called political class in as well. My late grandmother had very strong views on the Labour Party’s women and Maori branches/ MP’s, but your comments sum it up very nicely as hers are probably not fit public comment. There is one thing that got grandmother going off like a belt feed mortar was the quota system and her favourite saying was “I bloody well don’t care if we 100 women, maori’s/ Pacific Islanders, LBGT or men as long as they were the best candidates at the time. Because you don’t see any NZ sporting teams have quotas base on race, gender or sexuality because they pick the best team to win also the quota system breeds lazyness and and sense of intitlement.”
Angry Andy was more impressive when he was bloody angry, being agreeable has made him bland, bland and more bland.There is so much going on with the Natz and he’s just quiet about it, he needs to be incendary, whats to lose.
Worst poll result in 20 years (since CB started polling in 1995), and Andrew Little talks of quitting to give Labour a chance.
Im just cannot believe that this is a shock to some people.
I was rubbished when I said that Little might not even make it back with his list position – now its looking quite possible.
Little is a disaster.
I believe the only reason he wasnt rolled is that nobody wants to take over.
Little is fine and will make a competent PM. The problem here is agitation on the left and with the swing vote, and Labour still not stepping up and trying to play it safe. We don’t do presidents in NZ, the issue here is Labour not Little.
He is the ‘leader’ of Labour – He’s quite responsible for this disaster.
And there isnt a hope in hell he will be a PM (assuming you mean Prime Minister).
Are you saying that Little could force the caucus and party to do his bidding on positioning and policy? Because I don’t think you are right about that. If the reason Labour are polling low is because they’ve chosen the safe path over the bold one, that’s not all in Little’s hands. The party as a whole needs to change.
“Are you saying that Little could force the caucus and party to do his bidding on positioning and policy?”
Im saying he’s incapable of that.
lolz. We don’t do dictators on the left.
I am agreeing with you James. LAbour are getting to the point whereby only their diehard supporters are going to vote. Everyone else will look for somewhere else ( maybe Winston First) to vote, or worse not vote and thereby propping up higher support for National. 100,000 Labour voters not turning out (missing 1.1million) translates into an effective increase in support for national of around 50,000 votes as they pick up a higher % off the overall vote. Also slightly higher support for greens and winston (as a %)
Before you overegg your custard, this poll is much better:
Both Greens and Labour lead the Gnats by a substantial margin.
Of course it could all be sampling bias – but so can the major polling companies’ work.
We really need a different sampling protocol if we want to make meaningful assertions based on the results.
From KB …
“Is it possible Little will resign in a desperate move to save his seat in Parliament, hoping Jacinda can keep them over 24%? They did this in 1990 with Palmer resigning for Moore six weeks out, and Jacinda is already on the billboards.”
Thats an interesting option.
So cement in a poor result with a leaderless party in the hope of preserving his job?
Sounds like something a nat would do.
Well, they say that dreams don’t cost much, James…
Noooo – thats not my dream – I want him to stay.
I want National to win – and IMHO Little is helping that.
Another cheap dream, huh?
Well – Some dreams come true you know.
Yeah, but sometimes they are nightmares.
A nightmare for the poor and vulnerable- but does James care?
I don’t know if you are poor or vulnerable Ed – but I don’t care about you in the slightest
Do you care about the poor and vulnerable?
Simple question which you avoided answering.
Is that a no then?
Your dream is your unconscious mind trying to tell you something and Andrew Little is not Andrew Little but an archetype. James, I think you’re on the cusp of something special and it has little to do with 23 September.
The Left vote increased by 1%. National are down five from the same point in 2014.
Facts James. 😀
WHEN are those parties who want to change this National-led Government going to pay attention and focus on this CORPORATE welfare MOUNTAIN instead of the SOCIAL welfare ‘mushroom’?
Here’s the ‘ball’!
How about picking up the bloody thing and ‘running with it’?
“WHERE’S NATIONAL’S ‘CORPORATE WELFARE’ REFORM?
This is the question I asked SIX years ago – and am still asking:
“PRESS RELEASE: Independent Candidate for Epsom Penny Bright:
“How many billion$ of public monies could be saved by ‘CUTTING OUT THE CONTRACTORS’?
3 November 2011
Where’s National’s ‘corporate welfare’ reform?
Which of the maor political parties are pushing for ‘corporate welfare’ reform and shrinking the long-term dependency of the private sector on our public monies?
2017 Independent candidate for Tamaki.
Exposing the $1.6 BILLION Tamaki ‘Regeneration’ – GENTRIFICATION $CAM.
2011- 2014- 2017 no where near 39 to 42 needed for Labour to govern.
Little and the ( little bit left ) neo liberal centrists have failed and its a bit rich to start talking about quitting when the numbers have been bad for ten years 8 weeks out from a general election that they should be winning.
Another three years of social and political corruption.
And Jacinda is NOT A LEADER IN WAITING !!!!!!!!!!!!!
STRENGTH UNITY AND BELIEF.
Wow – this is a headline that sums it up….
“The cost of replacing the billboards might be the only thing saving Andrew Little now”
“The most compelling reason offered Sunday evening for Little not to go sooner was that the party had already made its election year bill boards and campaign ads.
There was no more money for new ones so Little should be safe, was the rationale.”
omg NO WAY outfriggingrageous
another fizzer James – he’s staying, imo there is zero reason to change. Stupid polls as accurate as a bush. Only a fool would get worked about this like you are.
Yeah – 9 years of stupid polls (and three elections) – and yet you still havent grasped the basic concept that people dont like Labour.
And some claim that the news media are not biased in favour of the Rort – I mean Right..
Well – it’s not like they want him to stay on because he’s doing such a great job is it ?
Personally I doubt it’s the cost of billboards- more that nobody wants the job.
Does it worry you we imprison so many in our society?
When you have no argument for labour and Little’s disaster poll results – try to change the subject.
Are you perturbed by the level of homelessness in our country?
I have said it before . I believe that the “polls” are simply another campaign tool. The “result” is that which will (they think) do the most harm to the left.
Polls are there to manipulate the result not report it.
They are another tool of the 1%.
The hypocrisy of the rich.
And the right wing media.
The hypocrisy of Me Tu
And the left wing media
and all those people here that think Labour will get 30%.
The incomprehensibility of comments by RWNJs.
All would do well to consider that even if you trust these polling results, over 60% of eligible voters do not support the continuation of the current government.
Then those 60% needs to get out and vote.
over 60%…and yes thats where the change of government lies and is achievable… what the incumbents will fight with any and all means at their disposal, and they are substantial however they must be careful not to overplay their hand.
The opposition must ignore the noise and carry on engaging at a personal level and have faith in their argument that change is necessary….most believe that already.
Young Master Farrar becomes a little confused …
Verified account @dpfdpf
“The ONCB poll in late July 2014 had National 46%, Lab 30%. They ended up 5% lower in the election so based on 24% now Labour might get 19%”
Utter Bollocks ! …
CB late July 2014 … Nats 52%, Lab 28%
2014 Election Result: Nats 47% (- 5 from CB Poll), Lab 25% (- 3)
I bet Labour’s internal polling is giving them the same message as it did at this point seven weeks from the general election in 2011 and 2014.
They don’t have enough support to win and their leader does not appeal.
Something must be wrong when they can put up English who still rates poorly as he always has and is still ahead of Labour’s fifth leader in nine years.
I bet Bill can’t believe his luck.
Who or what will save the NZLP ???