Polity: New Polls

Written By: - Date published: 11:43 am, July 17th, 2014 - 161 comments
Categories: election 2014, labour, national, polls - Tags: ,

polity_square_for_lynnReposted from Polity

The Roy Morgan and Fairfax/Ipsos polls out overnight are both bad news for the cause of positive change in New Zealand. Labour is below 25% in both polls, which is disaster territory if is solidifies. And even the broadest possible left-bloc (Labour, Greens, NZF, I/M) is only drawing 46% in the Morgan poll and 41% in the Ipsos poll. A couple of weeks ago, this bloc was averaging 47% in the poll of polls (which I will update later in this week).

Some are suggesting online that the vote split in the Ipsos poll (males 61% National, females only 49% National) shows that David Cunliffe’s apology regarding domestic violence hurt Labour in the polls. That does not follow from the evidence in these polls, as the substantial gender gap in support is fairly stable across multiple polls. In fact, the poll-to-poll change for Labour over the period of the apology was +1.7% among men, and only +1.5% among women.

While I think it would be irresponsible to blame single comments (whether about manhood or moas or whatever else) for the state of things, it is obvious now that there is no room for further slips. Closing this gap within 9 weeks will – at a minimum – require everyone of the left working hard, seamlessly, together, and well.

 

 

See also

 

161 comments on “Polity: New Polls ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. SPC 1
    17 July 2014 at 12:03 pm

    On current polls it is very close.

    National secure at or above 45%
    Labour limited to 30% with Greens and IM taking the total on the left to 45%.

    NZ First can take this to 50% if they make 5%.

    But National’s allies are struggling at 2% between them. And will Epsom voters elect an ACT MP with their no school zoning policy?

    Thus East Coast Bays – where Gary Knapp beat Don Brash – the Conservatives will exercise the minds of strategists on the right.

    Given the lack of reinforcements, once National slips under 50% during the campaign period it then becomes a close race.

    • Tracey 1.1
      17 July 2014 at 1:34 pm

      i think keys message, well circulated by media, that it is going to be close was his ” cup of tea” to epsom and ohariu national voters.

      • Wreckingball 1.1.1
        17 July 2014 at 3:02 pm

        Oh come on, there is no media bias going on. If you look at any right wing blogs they complain about a left-leaning media bias. The media obviously don’t get it right every time but who does right? You cannot blame the media for Labour’s dysfunctions. It is going to be a tight race, that is for sure.

        • Tracey 1.1.1.1
          17 July 2014 at 3:05 pm

          FFS

          Learn to read. I am not saying they are biased, i am saying they reported his comment about not being complacent and need every vote AND that could have been a tea cup type message to nationals epsom and ohariu voters to vote for dunne and three legged pig with lipstick..

        • framu 1.1.1.2
          17 July 2014 at 3:23 pm

          ” You cannot blame the media for Labour’s dysfunctions.”

          but we can blame the media for how much they focus on these compared to the nats and how much the media just plain makes shit up or mis-represents

          • cleangreen 1.1.1.2.1
            17 July 2014 at 11:38 pm

            Your right your right your bloody well right.
            Every day we turn on the TV at 7am and between TV1 & TV3 the news is identical, right down to the time the items are covered especially when Joyce gets in close play with the camera buy he’s a slimy one, he just walks over everyone and thing as if he has to get the message out there watch him they use him and Key to pull any opposition plan apart with such arrogance, and never does the opposition get that same deal so we know the Government is manipulating the press big time..
            Who knows about the TVNZ & Radio NZ having all their broadcasting items now put though a screening program by Government selected critics first before release?
            Like I said it is looking more like Goebbels era revival by this mob.

        • mickysavage 1.1.1.3
          17 July 2014 at 8:07 pm

          Have you seen the msm grudgingly apologise for getting a story completely and utterly wrong lately?

    • lurgee 1.2
      17 July 2014 at 4:51 pm

      On current polls it is very close.

      You are making the classic mistake of assuming that the Greens have to go with Labour. They dont. Labour haven’t exactly made it easy for them. Their policies aren’t exactly going to set green hearts racing, and they will not be too willing to make concessions, as they don’t want to be portrayed as ‘beholden to the radical eco-Nazis.’

      The Greens might well decide against a coalition with Labour. The voters clearly don’t like it – he more it gets talked about, the smaller both parties’ support gets! Faced with putting an unwieldy coalition of three or four antagonistic parties into government (and getting the opprobrium that would go with it) and ‘constructive opposition’ to a minority National government, they might be better off going with the latter.

      Labour have treated the Greens badly over the course of several elections. they might think it is time for a bit of utu.

      • DS 1.2.1
        17 July 2014 at 10:20 pm

        The Greens want power. The only way they can get power is to go with Labour, and they (and their voters) don’t want a day more of Tory Government.

        • lurgee 1.2.1.1
          18 July 2014 at 8:02 am

          The Greens want to preserve the Green party. A short term alliance with a deeply unpopular Labour party and two or three other antagonistic parties is likely to produce a dreadful government that will struggle to achieve anything and will be deeply loathed. The Lib Dems in Britain have suffered dreadfully for putting in the Conservatives; the Greens would become even more loathed than that if they put in a Labour Party that was polling 25%.

          Bear in mind that both parties have seen declining support in recent polls. The more the Lab-Green coalition gets talked up, the less inclined people are to vote for them. Labour supporters who want a strong government, left or right, and who reject the flakey kooky enviro-whacky Greens (and there are som of those out there) looking to National, on the (dubious and short sighted) reasoning that they’ve been in charge for six years, the country hasn’t fallen to pieces and at least they are getting things done without having to be beholden to crackpot fringe groups; and Green voters are perhaps feeling disappointed that their party is being treated as a de facto extension of Labour, rather than a distinct entity representing their interests. After all, there must be reasons why they are voting Green rather than Labour in the first place, and if they feel these needs are not being met an more …

          With all this in mind, the Greens might prefer to hang back and wait until the situation changes and they can form a less demented, two party coalition; or until they actually replace Labour as the main opposition party. Which no longer seems as fanciful as it once did.

          Given that Labour’s policies are not massively more pro-environment that National’s, the Greens might feel they were not worth supporting – a harsh lesson to Labour on the reality of the disparate nature of the left these days, and the need to be more accommodating to left wing partners.

          After all, Labour have consistently treated the Greens shabbily, and there is no reason for the Greens to think that will change now. Not just utu, but survival instinct may prompt the Greens to frown, purse their lips and say, “Thanks … but no thanks” when Labour offers them a chance of a quick grope and snog.

          Bottom line is, Labour can not and should not be counting on the Greens to get them across the line. It’s a measure of how shamefully useless they are that this is the case. A substantial portion of National’s vote is soft, made up of centrists who might instinctively vote for Labour, but who have been come inured to National because, bluntly, Labour are not offering them anything worth voting for – a tired, scheming caucus, out of touch leadership, a vague and muddled policy program. And this at a time when National have been blessed with the most formidable political operator in New Zealand’s recent history, and a caucus scarily intent on winning and holding power.

          It’s almost as if Labour have decided to sit this one out. Not Cunliffe – he knows he’s only got one shot – but too many of the old crew are sitting back and happy enough to draw their salaries. And too many of the ‘new blood’ are reluctant to be associated with what looks like a doomed campaign. Might be career limiting move, you know.

          Idiots and scum the lot of them.

          • DS 1.2.1.1.1
            18 July 2014 at 3:18 pm

            The Lib Dems are deeply unpopular because (like NZ First in 1996) they conned anti-Tory voters into voting for them, then jumped into bed with the enemy. The Lib Dems had marketed themselves for a good decade as a nice centre-left party, and so Labourites grumpy at Blair and Brown were happy to switch over – until Clegg betrayed them.

            The Greens are utterly different. People vote Green expecting it to support or be part of a Labour Government. This is because the Greens market themselves as a socially-liberal left-leaning party. It would be a betrayal of the vast majority of Green voters to allow a National Government to continue.

            • lurgee 1.2.1.1.1.1
              20 July 2014 at 9:44 am

              The Greens are utterly different. People vote Green expecting it to support or be part of a Labour Government. This is because the Greens market themselves as a socially-liberal left-leaning party. It would be a betrayal of the vast majority of Green voters to allow a National Government to continue.

              You could say the same of the Alliance, and coalition didn’t really work out for them. NZ First suffered in coalition as well. It can be a very unpleasant place for minor parties, and especially ones putting second placers into power.

              Also, as I pointed out before, the polls are suggesting that Labour/Green ‘bloc’ is declining the more it is talked up. The Green supporters, it seems, are lukewarm.

              Finally, Labour have consistently treated the Greens like crap – shutting them out of government and even preferring United Future and NZ First. The Greens would be stupid to expect to be part of a Labour government. They haven’t been before. They might get lucky this tme, simply because Labour are in such dire straits. But any green supporter who thinks there is any natural bond between the two parties is a fool. Labour is only interested in Labour, and the Greens need to look to themselves, rather than sitting about hoping that one day maybe Labour will ask them out.

              I even wonder if the Greens might serve their long term strategic interests by signalling they are willing to consider working with National. hence, in the short term, I think a willingness to play ‘constructive opposition’ with a minority Nat government is about as likely as a Labour-Green-NZ First + maybe others coalition.

  2. kenny 2
    17 July 2014 at 12:12 pm

    I find it impossible to believe these polls; John Key certainly doesn’t.

    What’s going on? Evidently the UK GCSB can now manipulate the polls…….

    • Chooky 2.1
      17 July 2014 at 12:58 pm

      +100 “I find it impossible to believe these polls; John Key certainly doesn’t.”

      Polls and polling statistics are being used as ‘sophisticated’ brainwashing by the manipulators

      …the sooner people wise up to this and stop self- flagellating themselves the better !

      ….the focus should be on ignoring the statistics and polls and getting out to vote…absolutely everyone’s vote matters on the day!

      • infused 2.1.1
        17 July 2014 at 5:03 pm

        Seems to be a line repeated all around here.

        Everyone else is wrong.

        Labour is all holy.

      • poem 2.1.2
        17 July 2014 at 7:10 pm

        Yes, totally agree Kenny and Chooky and who said the polls are true anyway?
        The 2011 election sure proved the polls wrong. There is no doubt that the polls are being used as electioneering tools to hoodwink .

        Who are the pollsters contacting exactly? when alot of people no longer have landlines, particularly in the poorer areas, there is no “whitepages” directory for mobile numbers so how did RM for example, who is the only pollster to admit they use mobile phone numbers get the numbers to “randomly” select and call? The phone companies have said that the majority of mobile phone users are prepaid and they dont share that info. So you can easily deduce as did even TV 3 on their recent expose on polls, the change in technology has made polls dodgy and that they are far from being accurate, or reliable and can be easily manipulated.

  3. Anne 3
    17 July 2014 at 12:19 pm

    Yes. It’s the accumulation of the gaffes and slips that is creating the wrong perception assisted by the MSM who gleefully hammer Labour with them day in and day out. It is so frustrating and, given the media climate towards Labour, you would think the culprits would be doubly careful not to make them in the first place. So far, I have shown restraint and not fired off any emails, but if there’s any more….

    What’s the use of knocking on doors, delivering leaflets and mail or phone canvassing if they are going to spoil everything for us.

    • Blue 3.1
      17 July 2014 at 12:30 pm

      Let’s be honest, it doesn’t really matter what anyone in Labour says or does, the media is going to find a way to hammer them regardless. If a National MP said the same thing it would be either celebrated or glossed over.

      If John Key apologised for being a man the MSM would be hailing him as a hero and celebrating his courage in standing up over a difficult issue then starting a poll as to whether he should be nominated for sainthood.

      • TightyRighty 3.1.1
        17 July 2014 at 12:39 pm

        hahaha, if you don’t want people to see the reports on the stupid things you say, you don’t say stupid things. it’s not the media’s fault. it’s your chosen team.

        constantly belittling the media for doing it’s job of fair and impartial reporting (remember the right wing blogs think the media are left wing patsies, they use union membership as evidence) doesn’t endear the media to your cause. you play nice with those you want on your side. you don’t stridently abuse them at all opportunities.

        • framu 3.1.1.1
          17 July 2014 at 3:27 pm

          “belittling the media for doing it’s job of fair and impartial reporting”

          but they arent doing their jobs – and pointing to RW blogs as some kind of balance is the same lightweight BS that the media does

          its not about belonging to a union – its about the quality of the output. remember when the MSM went apeshit over a standard run of the mill letter from 11 years ago and then engaged in an orchestrated attack that flopped once the truth was revealed?

          can we blame labour for their fuckups? – yes
          can we blame the media for their woefull poll driven “look at me” fantasy reporting? – yes

          • Bob 3.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2014 at 5:12 pm

            Yeah, and the media didn’t fall over themselves making up bullshit about what was recorded on the ‘cup of tea tape’ prior to the last election? I’m guessing you just ignore the other side of the same story. The MSM are useless, but Labour are their own worst enemy when it comes to their poll results.

            • David Cunliffe apologising for being a man.
            • Damien O’Connor and Rino Tirikatene are forced to cross the floor to support good legislation for their constituants as Labour can’t bring themselves to support anything to do with this Government and come out looking out of touch.
            • Kelvin Davis going against Labour policy by backing National’s Puhoi to Wellsford highway as it is what his constituants want.
            • Trevor Mallard wanting to bring back the Moa, not as stupid as it sounds, but not on the Labour policy outline.
            • David Cunliffe refusing to rule out giving the Internet Party a Ministerial seat.

            These are not issues of MSM beat-ups, these are issues of the Labour Party being out of touch with middle NZ, and these are just from the last month!

          • ander 3.1.1.1.2
            17 July 2014 at 6:06 pm

            fraua @3.1.1.1. What are Labour’s F’ ups???? Pretty trivial c/p to National.

            Williamson interfering with the police investigation, Collins and Oravida oh and Collins and the crime stats, political pressure put on immigration to allow Dot.com residency, the Aaron Gilmore replacement mistakes, Anne Tolley and her record re employees, Anne Tolley and her handling of proposed Chch school closures and increased class sizes, JK amongst many other things refusing to pay out Pike River Miners families. The list is endless. Either the polls are horribly wrong (hopefully) or NZders thanks to the msm are asleep….

      • srylands 3.1.2
        17 July 2014 at 12:42 pm

        “If John Key apologised for being a man the MSM would be hailing him as a hero ”

        That will never be tested. However I think in those circumstances the MSM would think he had gone mad, and/or heap scorn upon him. While Cunliffe suffered for his gaffe, the electorate has come to expect some craziness from him, so it was amusing but not a total shock.

        Conversely, if John Key had apologised for being a man, it would have been a bombshell, and probably brought down the Government at the election.

        so I think you are totally wrong in your assessment.

        • Rupert 3.1.2.1
          17 July 2014 at 1:23 pm

          ”Conversely, if John Key had apologised for being a man, it would have been a bombshell, and probably brought down the Government at the election.”
          My theory would be that Key could say it because men don’t have a problem with National. But Labour is polling 20% among men which suggests many already feel pissed off at Labour and welcomed the opportunity to throw tomatoes.

      • lurgee 3.1.3
        17 July 2014 at 12:43 pm

        Media bias favouring the right happens pretty much everywhere; only in New Zealand does it seem to massively disadvantage the left. Perhaps the fault is with our left, not the media.

        I must say the right wing of the Labour Party must be congratulating themselves n letting Cunliffe go down to inevitable defeat in 2014, getting him handily out the way for the post-Key environment.

    • TightyRighty 3.2
      17 July 2014 at 12:37 pm

      it’s taking you this long to realise that?

      • Pasupial 3.2.1
        17 July 2014 at 12:42 pm

        TR

        It has been evident for quite some time, but does bear repeating. Given the pro-right bias of the MSM, this just makes alternative forms of engagement (online, leafleting, public talks) all the more important for the left this election.

        I find the poll results more of a spur to action, than cause for despair.

        • The Real Matthew 3.2.1.1
          17 July 2014 at 1:48 pm

          Oh Please

          The Herald has so many left wing writers I’ve lost count. And they’ve just added Lucy Lawless to their payroll just to shore up their reputation as one of the most left leaning newspapers in New Zealand.

          The fact that National is overcoming this is a testament to their strong policy and the direction they are taking New Zealand.

          • Tracey 3.2.1.1.1
            17 July 2014 at 2:01 pm

            Wasnt she just celebrity editor for a day?

            • Lanthanide 3.2.1.1.1.1
              17 July 2014 at 2:23 pm

              Yes.

              • Tracey …
                17 July 2014 at 2:28 pm

                Why do these guys just make shit up?

                • TightyRighty …
                  17 July 2014 at 2:43 pm

                  imagine the outcry if peter jackson was guest editor for the day

                  • Tracey …
                    17 July 2014 at 2:45 pm

                    The real matthew made it up because there would be an outcry if peter jackson was editor for a day?

                    • The Real Matthew …
                      17 July 2014 at 5:18 pm

                      I read an article of hers in the Herald either this week or last.

                      I’m sure it was prefaced that she was coming onboard to the NZ Herald to write regular columns.

                      If that’s not the case I apologise for making the error.

          • framu 3.2.1.1.2
            17 July 2014 at 3:30 pm

            “The Herald has so many left wing writers I’ve lost count”

            list them – cmon chump. either your wrong or your not that good at the county thing

            who is a regular prominent left wing political commentor @ the herald?

            one offs and guest celebrity dont count – as they will likely be given the weight they deserve in most peoples minds

            • blue leopard 3.2.1.1.2.1
              17 July 2014 at 5:50 pm

              +1 Framu, yes I am keen to see a list of some of the ‘countless’ left-wing journos that The Real Matthew’s cites too.

            • Anthony B'stard 3.2.1.1.2.2
              18 July 2014 at 2:19 am

              I’ll give it a shot, political commentators only:

              Left wing:

              Brian Rudman
              Claire Trevett
              Audrey Young

              Right wing:

              John Armstrong
              Fran O’Sullivan
              Bob Jones (although I don’t think anyone takes what he says seriously, he is crazy and intentionally inflammatory)

              Neutral:

              Bryce Edwards
              Brian Fallow (doesn’t really talk about politics, just economics)

          • Brian Smith 3.2.1.1.3
            17 July 2014 at 9:21 pm

            “The Herald has so many left wing writers I’ve lost count.” Typical bullshit statement from an RWNJ. All the regular columnists, particularly concerning politics, and the editorial pieces, are strongly right-wing, firmly backing National/TeamKey and critical of Labour (in particular) and other left-wing parties. How often does Lucy Lawless write? Not daily, like Armstrong, O’Sullivan, Trevett, Young, Roughan and the rest of the John Key/National fan club- which is the NZ Herald! Left Wing media-my arse!!

            • McFlock 3.2.1.1.3.1
              17 July 2014 at 9:43 pm

              it does raise the question as to how high a tory can count.

            • Anthony B'stard 3.2.1.1.3.2
              18 July 2014 at 2:29 am

              @Brian, Claire Trevett is massively pro-Labour:

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/claire-trevett/news/headlines.cfm?a_id=74

              Of her most recent 20 articles, only 1 of them is not an article promoting or talking about Labour. She also just did a massive front page piece called “The Man who would be PM” about Cunliffe.

              Likewise, Audrey Young, the actual political editor at NZH is very left leaning – one only needs to read the general Political “Editorials” that she does (and doesn’t attach her name to), which are very left leaning.

              I’ll give you O’Sullivan, Roughan and Armstrong though.

              • Colonial Viper …
                18 July 2014 at 6:57 am

                What’s that smell? Ah yes, the fictional crap you just pulled out of your arse.

              • Brian Smith …
                18 July 2014 at 7:30 am

                I repeat ‘typical bullshit from a RWNJ’. Not even worth a retort. Just keep those lies coming- the RWNJ mantra!

    • blue leopard 3.3
      17 July 2014 at 3:03 pm

      I agree with you Anne.

      The only major criticism that I have of [some candidates in] Labour is their lack of discipline. They are pulling their party down IMO.

      I really don’t like the trend of the thoughtless comments that conflict with Labour party policy coming from a handful of Labour candidates .

      I deem it a highly important goal for Labour (and the left in general) to ensure that clear messages and the vision of a stable and coherent government are provided for the voting population. I really don’t think what quite a few Labour candidates have been displaying to date is achieving this end.

      I really have very little to criticize on Labour’s policies and fail to understand how they could poll so horribly low* because it is obvious to me that a Labour-led government would ensure a New Zealand that is light years better than this National shambles.

      *For example, how could people vote back a government that actually obstructs people from education?? And worse, one that while obstructing peoples’ options, their only real response to poverty issues is one of spouting the meme that poor people need to ‘upgrade’ – just one example of what an utter nonsense this government is.

      Do we really have to wait until the damaging effects of obstructing people from getting an education shows materially before people will see what it is they have voted for?

      So please, Labour party candidates, show some loyalty and discipline to your party’s message and stop confusing people. We have enough confusion being created by National propaganda without you adding to it.

      …and to those of you who are being diligent and disciplined – keep up the good work.

      • jenny kirk 3.3.1
        17 July 2014 at 4:32 pm

        Sometimes the comments from Labour MPs is misinterpreted and played up by the mainstream media. Take the recent case of Kel Davis and Duncan Garner. Kel was talking about the need for much better infrastructure and a coordinated transport plan for the north (incorporating road, rail and coastal shipping) when Garner slipped him a comment re holiday highway. kel was starting to reply that some of his iwi had suggested he stop taking potshots at the holiday highway, Garner cut him off, and used that as the basis for his story – then taken up by the rest of the media.
        What can you do when that happens ? ? ?

        • blue leopard 3.3.1.1
          17 July 2014 at 5:02 pm

          Thanks Jenny Kirk,

          I did wonder whether something like that might have occurred. It is not excellent what is going on with the media….I find it pretty devastating.

          How to address it is perfectly clear though – be disciplined in keeping to the message.

          Rule one: KISS

          Keep
          It
          Simple

          Some ways to achieve a clear message is:

          Only speak about Labour policies.

          Don’t contradict Labour policies.

          Don’t misrepresent Labour policies.

          Don’t even mention National

          … and definitely don’t say anything that can easily be interpreted as being ‘for’ a National policy that contradicts a Labour one.

          The left like to be ‘fair’ – but when the media are being so very binary/hostile those delivering the message need to adjust.

          For example why bother handing Garner that comment at all? That is what I call ‘being fair’: Davis may have wanted to acknowledge those in the Iwi thinking such things – but are people saying such things going to vote Labour? Why represent them? Are they even correct in their view? i.e. as others have said – if the National highway is not going to be built it doesn’t mean that that road is not going to receive an upgrade.

          Aren’t these people supposed to be good at what they do? Isn’t that why they have been chosen to represent certain electorates? There have to be better responses than what we have been getting recently.

      • Saarbo 3.3.2
        17 July 2014 at 6:57 pm

        “I really have very little to criticize on Labour’s policies and fail to understand how they could poll so horribly low* because it is obvious to me that a Labour-led government would ensure a New Zealand that is light years better than this National shambles.”

        Exactly Blue Leopard.

        From Labours clever Monetary Policyto reduce the exchange rate; its outstanding education policy reducing including reducing class sizes and free reading recovery; Housing policy, to build affordable houses; NZ Power to reduce the cost of electricity; CGT to rebalance our economic settings…these are outstanding policies and will clearly leave the country better of.

        But when the media constantly parrot HSBC’s comment about the “rock star” economy (driven by Dairy/Chch insurance proceeds) combined with National’s luck to coincide the election with a commodity slowdown in Australia slowing the migration of people to the Lucky Country I think this is enough for many to stick with the status quo. I suspect if Labour had shown more discipline and appointed DC instead of Shearer in 2011 we would have a much better chance.

  4. Adolf Fiinkensein 4
    17 July 2014 at 12:26 pm

    There’s an old saying in financial services.

    “Past performance is no guarantee of future returns,’

    I wouldn’t count on National slipping below 50% if I were you.

    “Closing this gap within 9 weeks will – at a minimum – require everyone of the left working hard, seamlessly, together, and well.”

    There’s not too much evidence of this happening lately.

    • SPC 4.1
      17 July 2014 at 1:40 pm

      It is more likely that if National do govern alone, it would be with National winning less than 50% of the vote.

    • Lanthanide 4.2
      17 July 2014 at 2:31 pm

      “Past performance is no guarantee of future returns,’

      I wouldn’t count on National slipping below 50% if I were you.

      Actually, in a political environment that is more likely to mean “past poll results are no guarantee of future election result”, ie, National won’t get over 50%, as the polls are currently saying.

    • DS 4.3
      17 July 2014 at 10:23 pm

      If you didn’t vote National in 2011 (after the collapse in ACT), you won’t vote National in 2014. National will get less than 47.3 percent this time.

  5. Rupert 5
    17 July 2014 at 12:33 pm

    The Ipsos poll shows that , among women , the difference between National and Labour-Greens is just a few percentage points. Among men though , National has double the amount of support which Labour-Greens have. Labour has 20% of the male vote compared to National’s 61% .

    • lurgee 5.1
      17 July 2014 at 12:47 pm

      That might be an indication that more ‘bloke focused’ policies would be the way to go. If 80% of half the electorate are rejecting you, that’s a problem.

      • Tracey 5.1.1
        17 July 2014 at 2:46 pm

        Yes, labour should recruit the roast buster lads as their hat tip to blokes

        • lurgee 5.1.1.1
          17 July 2014 at 4:54 pm

          Well, that was a mature and sensible contribution. I can really see that sort of supercilious attitude helping lots.

          Have you got some good jokes about Rolf Harris to share as well?

        • McGrath 5.1.1.2
          17 July 2014 at 7:20 pm

          And that is why Labour polls at 20% with the male vote…

  6. swordfish 6
    17 July 2014 at 12:37 pm

    “And even the broadest possible left-bloc (Labour, Greens, NZF, I/M), is only drawing 46% in the Morgan poll and 41% in the Ipsos poll. A couple of weeks ago, this bloc was averaging 47% in the poll of polls.”

    So, not much change there, then. I think we need to be wary of the Fairfax-Ipsos. All of the other most recent polls have this broadest possible Left Bloc on 44-46% (barely a drop from 47% 2 weeks ago, particularly given sampling error). It’s only the Ipsos that has this Oppositional Bloc down around the late 30s / early 40s.

    Obviously, 24/25% aint good for Labour, no question. And we (the Left in general) are not where we were back before mid-May (although we are in a very similar place to where we were in Feb). But, once again, discard the somewhat iffy Ipsos polls and Lab+Green support is pretty much where it has been for the last couple of months – down 1 or 2 points at most. Latest Roy Morgan Lab+Green 39%, All Polls immediately before that (excluding Fairfax-Ipsos) 40%, 41%, 40%, 41%, 40%, 38%, 40%, 41%

    Also, of course, need to take into account National’s history of nose-diving at the last 2 Elections. (I’ve put a few stats on Open Mike, as one or two of you may well have noticed).

    Which isn’t to say I’m happy with he present poll situation, mind thee.

    • lurgee 6.1
      17 July 2014 at 12:50 pm

      Give him six more months …

      • swordfish 6.1.1
        17 July 2014 at 1:05 pm

        Could you be more specific, lurgee ?

        Give who six more months ?

        And to do what, exactly ?

        You’ve gone all enigmatic on us.

        • lurgee 6.1.1.1
          17 July 2014 at 5:03 pm

          Cunliffe.

          When David Shearer was leader, it was a standard refrain from his supporters hereabouts – “He’s still getting the hang of this, give him six more months.”

          Funny thing is, of course, with hindsight things were moving in the right direction. Remember the heady days when Labour was polling in the low 30s? Something to tell your children about, perhaps.

          Other funny thing, I’ve never talked to anyone outside of the activist lunatic fringe hereabouts here who disliked Shearer or was going to vote against him.

          Third funny thing is remembering all the wild predictions people made but how Labour would do under Cunliffe. I think I remember someone saying that the party would be polling over 40%.

          People should study their Roman history, or at least their Shakespeare. None of the conspirators who assassinate Julius Caesar go on to win. If Cunliffe was Shearer’s Brutus, the question is, who will be the Marc Anthony or Octavius for the Labour party?

          • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2014 at 5:18 pm

            “Funny thing is, of course, with hindsight things were moving in the right direction.”

            And then Shearer brought 2 dead snapper to Parliament. And then he resigned.

          • the pigman 6.1.1.1.2
            17 July 2014 at 6:09 pm

            Standard Lurgee refrain.. change the record, won’t you?

            People predicting a higher than 40% return weren’t exactly heretics given that immediately after Cunliffe’s selection, Labour was polling high-30s.

            Since then, there has been a sustained attack on Cunliffe by the rightwing blogosphere to which the Duncan Garners of this world have happily played second fiddle. Meanwhile, the government and its agencies have been busily plastering over the gaping holes in the country’s economic outlook, crime and poverty statistics. Nothing to see here.

            From the outside, New Zealand looks like a country afraid to know itself for what it really is. An electorate that would happily vote for the status quo knowing that, if things continue as they are, most of their children and children’s children will never own their own homes. A complete desertion of social mobility. Blue-sky feudalism.

            Godzone, innit?

            • blue leopard 6.1.1.1.2.1
              17 July 2014 at 6:13 pm

              +1 Pigman

            • McFlock 6.1.1.1.2.2
              17 July 2014 at 6:34 pm

              People predicting a higher than 40% return weren’t exactly heretics given that immediately after Cunliffe’s selection, Labour was polling high-30s.

              those were the days, eh?

            • lurgee 6.1.1.1.2.3
              18 July 2014 at 8:49 am

              Standard refrain? I think I’v made the joke a couple of times before. In amongst many other, exceedingly long winded posts.

              If it was a ‘standard refrain’ wouldn’t Swordfish have recognised it, and not asked for clarification?

              If Labour have failed to make any progress – indeed gone backwards – since Cunliffe was elected, inspite of “the gaping holes in the country’s economic outlook, crime and poverty statistics” it would have taken a bit more than a “a sustained attack on Cunliffe by the rightwing blogosphere” because most people don’t actually care what goes up on Whaleoil, Kiwiblog or the Standard.

              Given that left wing parties around the world face the same sort of bias as the NZ Labour party does, you can’t blame the media for our current woes.

              The fact is the government has played a poor hand (useless ministers, sluggish growth nd collapsing infrastructure and frayed social fabric) fairly well, and Labour have played a good hand (new leader, being on the side of sanity, giving a fuck about people and not wanting to sell off the nation’s shit) badly.

      • deep throat 6.1.2
        17 July 2014 at 1:58 pm

        @lurgee
        b4 shonkey spits the dummy and lights out of here.

    • McFlock 6.2
      17 July 2014 at 1:54 pm

      aye, pretty much.

      My immediate reaction was “fuck, not again”, which goes to show the power of a headline I guess 🙂

      But then fairfax is pretty much always the most tory of tory polls. I wouldn’t wipe my arse with it.
      Roymorgan is more interesting – National’s peak 2 months out was 57% in 2011. And Labour doesn’t seem to poll well in midWinter.

      Not good for Labour, but not “disaster territory” for the anti-neolibs. Greens on 15%, NZ1 actually polling above 5% well before the election, Maori Party on trace support (and possibly losing electorate support), ACT likewise… basically, Labour looking like shit is the only downside. And even then that’s because of desperate attack after desperate attack with the Herald leading the charge.

      I don’t think Labour are really on 40% or anything like that, but unless the tories are careful they’ll end up with the Greens taking half the Cabinet portfolios come October. lol.

      • Tracey 6.2.1
        17 July 2014 at 1:59 pm

        At least one of the reports quoted undecideds

      • Bearded Git 6.2.2
        17 July 2014 at 2:42 pm

        I was pondering that too McFlock. Labour 27 Greens 16 IMP 6 would mean a lot of Green ministers. But this is excellent news.

        I’m sticking to my Lab31/Gr11/IMP7 split for 20 Sept. I’ve got $400 that Cunliffe will be PM on ipredict.

        • Tracey 6.2.2.1
          17 July 2014 at 2:48 pm

          IMP ON 6 or 7 per cent???

          • Colonial Viper 6.2.2.1.1
            17 July 2014 at 2:55 pm

            yeah that’s way too high…I think between 3% and 4% would be the top possible result for IMP, and even then it’s optimistic.

            • Tracey 6.2.2.1.1.1
              17 July 2014 at 3:02 pm

              Me too…Hone needs his seat… Then it is a bonus thereafter.

              • lurgee …
                17 July 2014 at 5:06 pm

                Interestingly, the IMP tie up seems to have had a slight effect. IMP are polling 2.5%, poll on poll, where as they used to be 0.5% or 1% if they were lucky (perhaps the polls showing 1% were when I got polled).

                So the money and headlines and Harre seem to have had some effect, perhaps enough for a couple of extra MPs in September.

          • Bearded Git 6.2.2.1.2
            17 July 2014 at 6:08 pm

            Yep-watch them rise with an outrageous, funny and iconoclastic campaign.

            They will take the Mana voters switching from Maori Party, young, disaffected, bored, first-time, technocrat, personal freedom, party voters etc etc

  7. Rupert 7
    17 July 2014 at 12:39 pm

    The good news on the other hand , is that Labour’s share of the male vote could probably not go any lower.

  8. Chooky 8
    17 July 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Ignore the polls!

  9. Pasupial 9
    17 July 2014 at 12:59 pm

    The Ipsos poll only has National at 54.8% because they ignore the nonresponsive people. The total sample size is 1024, and the party vote n = 823. This allows us to calculate the actual replies as:

    National 44.0%
    Labour 20.0%
    Nonresponsive 19.6%
    Green 10.0%
    NZF 2.1%
    Other 4.3%

    http://origin-interactives.stuff.co.nz/polling/

    But for all its flaws (eg sampling bias), at least the Ipsos poll gives us the minimal amount of information necessary to calculate these figures. I’m yet to discover it on Roy Morgan, and suspect the numbers I want may be behind a paywall.

    • Bearded Git 9.1
      17 July 2014 at 2:44 pm

      Good work Pasup. That 20% non-responsive number is crucial. If they liked Shonkey they would already have made up their mind.

      • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1
        17 July 2014 at 2:50 pm

        Or they’re labour voters that’ve been turned off and won’t vote for anyone

      • Anthony B'stard 9.1.2
        18 July 2014 at 2:52 am

        Its highly likely a good chunk of them won’t bother voting come election day. The people most likely to vote are the dyed in the wool voters.

    • JonoN 9.2
      17 July 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Roy Morgan doesn’t give it’s precise number of undecided, but states it as a percentage to the nearest 0.5%. The latest Roy Morgan had undecided voters at 5.5%. For some reason, the Roy Morgan level of undecided voters is always well below the other polls. Not sure why, as they don’t publicise a lot of elements to do with their methodology.

      • Pasupial 9.2.1
        17 July 2014 at 5:58 pm

        JonoM

        I seem to recall RM having more details back before they started with the “Tableau” presentation format. But all they say now is:

        Poll on voting intention was conducted by telephone – both landline and mobile telephone, with a NZ wide cross-section of 819 electors from June 30 – July 13, 2014. Of all electors surveyed 5.5% (unchanged) didn’t name a party.

        http://www.roymorgan.com/~/media/Files/Findings%20PDF/2014/July/5684-NZ-National-Voting-Intention.pdf

        That; “Of all electors surveyed”, line makes me suspect that the 819 electors were the combined total of those who answered either the Party or Confidence question (where 11.5% “can’t say”). Those who didn’t answer either question would not have been “surveyed” and so excluded from the report. I imagine the total they aimed for was 1000+; giving again an approx 20% nonresponsive rate.

        While I’m on the topic – that Government Confidence Rating question is just a confidence trick. I wonder what result they could have got by reversing the loaded adverbs thus:

        “Generally speaking, do you feel that things in New Zealand are heading in the wrong direction or would you say things are seriously heading in the right direction?”

  10. David H 10
    17 July 2014 at 1:03 pm

    The words “Oh shit” came to mind when I saw that.

  11. Colonial Viper 11
    17 July 2014 at 1:48 pm

    Operating at the top level of Labour’s campaign management, Rob Salmond has access to Labours internal polling. I’d like to hear how Labour’s push into gender/domestic violence issues has played out with female voters. I don’t think it’s likely that any net votes were won.

    IMO voters are looking for strong education, economic and industrial policy from Labour. Anything else will be seen as an off target distraction which does not connect at all with what undecided voters see as the essential issues that the next government must have a plan to deal with.

    • Tracey 11.1
      17 July 2014 at 1:58 pm

      By push you mean their policy announced recently on violence? National did that too, are they pushing into domestic violence/gender issues.

      Labour has announced a few policies, the violence policy seemed to me to be no more or less overarching than any others.

    • Kiwiri 11.2
      17 July 2014 at 2:01 pm

      “an off target distraction”

      How about more publicity for the ‘no animal-tested cosmetics’ policy?

      Or, even better, widely proclaim the policy to push out the retirement age?

      The workers’ Labour Party will definitely NOT chop off two years from superannuation entitlement.
      But the Labour Party will phase in many little lacerations over many years and age groups.
      Maybe with a little anaesthetic that will be announced soon?

      It’s all for our own good and, to make us feel better for the sacrifice, y’know, for the good of future generations.

      Aahh, the view is quite nice from up here on the moral high ground.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 11.3
      17 July 2014 at 8:49 pm

      That may be your opinion, but my experience over the past couple of weeks is that a large number of women who felt disillusioned about Labour and considering voting Green, Maori or Internet/Mana have swung back to Labour.

      Women’s lives are about far more than the schools their children go to, and it’s not “off target” for a major political party to take an issue seriously which affects a huge number of people, especially when it allows them to draw a comparison to a government which has stood by and nearly let vital sexual violence services collapse through lack of funding.

  12. Tracey 12
    17 July 2014 at 1:53 pm

    “Paintgate

    Helen Clark could have dealt with this issue by taking responsibility for her actions. Instead she widened the credibility gap by making excuses – that she was too busy, the charity made her do it, and everyone else does it too. The last statement could find her in front of a privileges hearing in Parliament. It turns out she made statements smearing every politician and celebrity, knowing they were wrong. It might look smart, but it’s wrong. Prime Ministers should not lie to the public or to Parliament. The dishonesty is so brazen as to be unbelievable. Clark finished the week blaming her staff for the lies, so it won’t be a happy office come Monday.” bill english

  13. Michael who failed Civics 13
    17 July 2014 at 2:46 pm

    Better luck next time. Hopefully, Labour will have sorted itself out by 2017 or will have been pushed aside by people who know what they are doing.

  14. blue leopard 14
    17 July 2014 at 3:13 pm

    It would be good to have an informed analysis on exactly what these polls are responding to.

    I looked it up last night and it is not altogether easy to find all the issues that were occurring at the time yet gather that the ‘Liu’ affair was going on around the time that these stats were collected. Labour had their meeting – but that may have been halfway through the week that RM were collecting their data. I am unsure when Ipsos were collecting their data.

    Anyone else remember what was going on?

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      17 July 2014 at 10:21 pm

      Looking back through the Open Mikes of the relevant time period should give a pretty good idea…

  15. Sabine 15
    17 July 2014 at 3:13 pm

    Labour a lot of talk about poverty, children, women, and stuff, and then excusing themselfs for being men…..not going down well in a country where macho-ism is the default mechanism, and everyone plays for keeps and win.
    I am sorry but that what it is.

    Unless Labour starts hitting National where it hurts,……i.e. Where are the Jobs (remember that one?), How many of you still have HOPE (remember that one), decreasing Tax Revenue because Peeps aint working, and those that do can’t pay for all etc etc. Labour is going to loose.

    National is lockstep. No excuse for dinners whit chinese officials, no excuse for whitewashing Police Statistics, no excuse for throwing peeps of the welfare/unemployment role, no excuse for nothing. And so the country gets to vote for a strong man who plays for keeps and win.

    Someone please wake up Labours Campain Managers.

    If you don’t believe me …. this is the geezer that runs for Te Atatu Electorate on the National Side
    https://www.facebook.com/AlfredNgaroForTeAtatu

    the man drives a 2002 Doge GasGuzzler…..but hey we need to drill on the West Coast :), no excuses with National.

    So for Labour, please start going after National hard, and don’t offer excuses for anything you said unless really it was wrong.;

    • blue leopard 15.1
      17 July 2014 at 3:17 pm

      I can understand why men might ignore the issues you cite at the start of your comment but why would women ‘check out’ over issues that directly concern them?

      • Colonial Viper 15.1.1
        17 July 2014 at 3:40 pm

        Because most NZ men and most NZ women don’t have vastly different views on where gender issues are at.

        I’ll reframe: IMO a very significant proportion of NZ women are fairly fine with patriarchy, even do their bit to support it, happily voted National in 2011 and they will do so again this year.

        • Sabine 15.1.1.1
          17 July 2014 at 3:58 pm

          You could say that fairly signigicant proportion is fine with patriarchy because its the only option really to survive in this country if you are born female.

          Yes, the education is the same, but the pay is not. Yes, supposedly we have the same career option, but we don’t and it is understood that we don’t. Where does NZ stand in the ranking of Female Board Members?

          Because the largest fear of women pretty much anywhere is to grow old and be poor / homeless.

          Have a look at the Welfare stats….Who is poor, who is poor with children, who is poor with children in substandard housing, who is poor with children in substandard housing working full time for minimum wage?

          I would say that the largest part of those are women.

          Whats not to like about Patriarchy….:)

          • Kiwiri 15.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2014 at 4:10 pm

            Oh by the way, the day before polling day is NZ’s suffrage day.

            • Stephanie Rodgers 15.1.1.1.1.1
              17 July 2014 at 8:50 pm

              It’s a great opportunity to turn out women voters – who are the difference makers for the Left. No women voters, no Labour government.

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 July 2014 at 10:25 pm

                Women voters are much more likely to vote for National. Consistently. “National Mum and Labour Dad” don’t you know. What you are talking about is trying to turn out women non-voters. That’s a different challenge.

                • blue leopard …
                  17 July 2014 at 10:44 pm

                  @ CV,
                  More likely than what?

                  I have already linked to articles that indicate that there is a trend for women toward the left. Unsurprisingly there is a dearth of information on how NZ women or men are voting (I can’t find the info anyway), -however the Ipso poll breakdown also show that more women are voting left than men. so please do share, CV where you are getting the ‘Women voters are much more likely to vote for National’ statement from.

                  I suspect that women are the most likely to vote left and shift from National to Labour and I also note that it is a collapse of the female vote in the last month or two that has caused the drop in Labour’s numbers (according to Ipso). Considering that the policies of Labour have been female friendly I am suspecting that the competitive/aggressive tactics from both National and Labour may account for the drop. (That really is my own assumption and am very interested in others’ ideas on the matter).

                  I wonder if Rob Salmond would help us out on the demographics query?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    18 July 2014 at 7:07 am

                    “More likely than what?”

                    Women are more likely to vote National than to vote Labour or Greens.

                    • blue leopard …
                      18 July 2014 at 10:27 pm

                      Why are you wasting time on weasel words like that CV?

                      Labour + Green have been getting higher support than National from women for most of the year according to Ipsos.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 July 2014 at 10:40 pm

                      My comment is based on actual gender voting preferences as demonstrated in the 2011 election. Time will tell, post Sept 20, whether or not the Ipsos methodology has any validity in predicting actual gender preferences at the ballot box.

                    • blue leopard …
                      18 July 2014 at 11:38 pm

                      If it is based on that study you linked to I really don’t think the conclusions you are deriving from it are very accurate at all.

                      For one thing – the raw data wasn’t supplied therefore one can’t add up any left/right divide; the comparisons were between National, Labour, Greens and NZ First – not left/right.

                      For another – because there was little statistical proof that there was any gender difference in voting patterns (apart from NZ First) for that election and considering National won the largest proportion of the vote of any party then I guess you can safely say that both men and women were ‘more likely to vote for National’ but how meaningful is such a statement?

                      It sounds like you are suggesting ‘because women (or men) were statistically more likely to vote National last time around then they are most likely to vote National in this year’?

                      Yeah nah to that.

          • Rupert 15.1.1.1.2
            17 July 2014 at 4:10 pm

            ”You could say that fairly signigicant proportion is fine with patriarchy because its the only option really to survive in this country if you are born female. Yes, the education is the same, but the pay is not.”
            So as a male living on a benefit , I’m better able to survive than a female lawyer or politician thanks to the patriarchy.

          • Rose 15.1.1.1.3
            17 July 2014 at 5:59 pm

            The reason a law hasn’t been passed that requires men and women to get equal pay is that it would be expensive. The government likes the status quo and doesn’t want to spend the money.

            How wonderful it would be if Labour passed that law. We would be a world leader in equal rights.

          • greywarbler 15.1.1.1.4
            17 July 2014 at 8:03 pm

            There have always been a large number of women who accepted the advantages gained through protests and activity by feminists, but have not wished to be thought as even slightly connected with them. Sort of like anti-unionists get the advantage of union negotiated wages.

            Many have woven the gains resulting from feminist activity into advantages and a platform for them personally, which mixed with positions within patriarchal culture has resulted in satisfactory personal advancement. They don’t feel obligation to assist other women or embrace most feminist principles.

        • blue leopard 15.1.1.2
          17 July 2014 at 5:18 pm

          @ CV

          “IMO a very significant proportion of NZ women are fairly fine with patriarchy, even do their bit to support it, happily voted National in 2011 and they will do so again this year.”

          I would ask whether you have seen anything that supports that view – yet I see you have put IMO at the start – so I am guessing you don’t?

          Do you know the break down of the last election by gender?

          Because I have just been reading articles (akin to what Sabine mentions) that indicate there is a real trend overseas of women moving to the left in substantial numbers:

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/05/women-left-of-men-historic-shift

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8555358.stm

          There may be a different trend in NZ – (The ipso breakdown, though, indicates a larger proportion of men than women are supporting National) yet I don’t think it is foolish of Labour to attempt to plug into that trend. Nor, apparently do National….judging by the ‘goodies’ in their latest budget…

          • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.2.1
            17 July 2014 at 6:25 pm

            AFAIK women voted National 2:1 to Labour, in 2011.

            • blue leopard 15.1.1.2.1.1
              17 July 2014 at 8:02 pm

              Have you got a link for that?

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 July 2014 at 10:46 pm

                The result of this study is that support for National is equivalent between men and women. Labour has zero advantage amongst women voters. More men than women will vote NZF.

                My interpretation – going for the female vote will yield no net votes. Women are quite happy to vote for a political party where 70% of the Cabinet are men.

                http://pnz.sagepub.com/content/65/1/25.full.pdf+html

                • blue leopard …
                  17 July 2014 at 11:09 pm

                  Thanks that is interesting -what I read out of that is that study finds there is not the marked gender difference in NZ that is occurring in other post-industrial countries in the 2011 election and the researchers put forward that more studies are needed for NZ.

                  Take a look at the gender differences under ‘sentiments’ (whether the country is going in the right direction or wrong track) in the Ipsos stats:

                  http://origin-interactives.stuff.co.nz/polling/

                  Which gender appears more convinced that National are doing o.k by those stats?

            • DS 15.1.1.2.1.2
              17 July 2014 at 10:41 pm

              Not sure about that. Labour’s done relatively better with women since the 1970s. Before that, Labour was the party supported by men, National by women (“National Mum and Labour Dad”).

          • Puddleglum 15.1.1.2.2
            17 July 2014 at 8:15 pm

            In the latest Ipsos, both Labour and the Greens increased their popularity with women (1.5 and 1.8%, respectively). Labour’s popularity with males increased by 1.7% points while the Greens decreased by 0.9% points. All pretty marginal.

            Slightly more significant was that National went down 3.7% points with women.

      • Rupert 15.1.2
        17 July 2014 at 4:02 pm

        ”I can understand why men might ignore the issues you cite at the start of your comment but why would women ‘check out’ over issues that directly concern them?” Good point although…to get the male vote back to its high point of many months ago you need to increase it by 50%. To get the female vote back to where it was only requires a 33% increase. So men have deserted Labour to a higher degree than women over that time. Probably a bit nit picky but stats are fun to theorize about

        • Sabine 15.1.2.1
          17 July 2014 at 4:11 pm

          As i said in my first comment. I would assume it really boils down to back the Winner, the NON – Apologist, the Doer, the Maker and the Shaker.

          And John Key is all that, the Ladies in his party swoon over him, the boys do as they are told.
          And the Men are going to vote for him, and not for their interest.

          The think that has hurt Labour more than anything in my eyes are

          a. Apologizing where it was absolutely not required, and generally being to wordy, remember soundbites that can be downed with a beer over a game of rugby/cricket/stuff with a ball or two – Loosing the Blokes
          b. Not going after the Female Vote, Not grooming Female Representatives – Loosing the Ladies, not inciting the Ladies.

          It is interesting to note, that the Female Vote and the Youth Vote was what carried Obama in the states. Once the Democrats stopped going after the white/evangelical/southern vote they could frame issues to make them palatable for the women and young ones. Namely, reproductive rights for the you ladies, social security for the older ladies, and student loans/jobs/prospects for the young ones of both genders. And for all HOPE.

          White, middle class Male are not going to vote for the Party that is most likely to increase Taxes. And this is what one sees everyday with the Stenographers at the Herald. They want to keep the cake and eat it.

          • blue leopard 15.1.2.1.1
            17 July 2014 at 5:45 pm

            …actually I think that its the Boys that are the ones swooning – from observation…they love him so much they are all copying how he speaks too….

            I agree about the apologizing bit.
            I think Labour have been going for the female vote though. (It appears to have backfired badly if one looks at the gender breakdown on those Ipsos polls – it is the female vote that has dropped over the last couple of months…)

            I wonder if females in general don’t like the attacking style that has been going on? as in the Liu affair (although initiated by National this round) or perhaps that drop has gone into the undecided category?

          • Tom Jackson 15.1.2.1.2
            17 July 2014 at 5:47 pm

            As i said in my first comment. I would assume it really boils down to back the Winner, the NON – Apologist, the Doer, the Maker and the Shaker.

            The problem is that this is essentially thoughtless. If elections are going to be decided on such flimsy grounds, then we’re probably better off doing without them. It’s no more than X Factor for ugly untalented people.

            The government has no real plan other than to enrich its wealthier constituents. No doubt there will be moves towards further partial privatisation or public/private partnerships as English stated he wanted to cut government spending as a percentage of GDP. Nothing substantial on the unbalanced economy, etc.

            What else do they have? A failed rebuild of a major NZ city and an education policy that defies analysis. Punitive welfare measures that serve only to immiserate people and provide a sense of smug satisfaction to the more authoritarian sectors of society.

            • blue leopard 15.1.2.1.2.1
              17 July 2014 at 6:03 pm

              I agree with you Tom,

              If things are the way you want them to be, however, how do you explain the current trend in polls?

              I read Sabine’s comment as stating what they think is occurring and what may work rather than how they wish things were.

            • McFlock 15.1.2.1.2.2
              17 July 2014 at 6:14 pm

              Well, that was Plato’s position, anyway 🙂

              The thing is that at the moment we have a democracy where the rulers have figured out how to manipulate the electorate, mostly because (in my opinion) the corporate media has become almost the sole source of information dissemination among the populace as other community structures have decayed.

              But I believe in swings and roundabouts, rather than an inexorable decline into Orwell or Huxley.

              • Tracey …
                17 July 2014 at 6:54 pm

                Plus 1 to your para 2

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 July 2014 at 11:41 pm

                But I believe in swings and roundabouts, rather than an inexorable decline into Orwell or Huxley.

                ? We are well into the transition from Huxley to Orwell. The US is already 90% there; we are just 15 years behind.

                • McFlock …
                  18 July 2014 at 12:14 am

                  that’s your belief.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    18 July 2014 at 12:32 am

                    Writers like Chris Hedges and Sheldon Wolin agree on the broad details. The idea that we are living in a total surveillance state is no longer controversial in the least.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 July 2014 at 12:46 am

                      Surveillance was only one aspect of Orwell’s dystopia, and ours is largely retrospective rather than actively supervising all activity in realtime, like the morning PT instructor specifically yelling at Smith. And our substitutes for soma aren’t as effective as the Huxley ideal.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 July 2014 at 1:21 pm

                      Huxley and Orwell didn’t write their novels as pieces of fantasy fiction. They wrote them based on the disturbing trends that they were already observing around them in 1931 and 1948 respectively.

    • Anthony B'stard 15.2
      18 July 2014 at 3:01 am

      “….decreasing Tax Revenue”

      Are you sure on that one? According to Treasury, its increased every year for the last 5 years, after the initial drop in their first year.

  16. TightyRighty 16
    17 July 2014 at 5:16 pm

    I remember when all us non-left posters were told to watch out when cunliffe became leader of the labour party. the new messiah was approaching and nationals reign at the top of the polls was over as a new management ethos focused on left wing policy was coming.

    wasn’t too long ago. remember it cv? TRP? anne?

    • blue leopard 16.1
      17 July 2014 at 5:33 pm

      Yes guilty too Your Honour 🙂

      • Anne 16.1.1
        17 July 2014 at 6:05 pm

        Really? I don’t talk or write like that TR. Another piece of disingenuous claptrap? My most likely contribution was to state that Cunliffe has the brains and the ability to be a great prime minister and I’ve seen nothing to change my mind. What I do see is a pathetic, often venal media scrum and a lot of dumbed down confused Kiwi bunnies who don’t know their A#*e from their heads. You’re one of them!

        • ander 16.1.1.1
          17 July 2014 at 6:31 pm

          Anne @16.1.1

          I think the media and the likes of Hooton and Whale Oil have targeted Cunliffe from day one.

          I can barely remember a positive piece about him baring the Campbell at home item and a review by Jane Clifton about it.

          Most media articles have taken a very negative angle on him and done the opposite for Key. For a lot of people who follow politics superficially they buy this spin.

          Cunliffe has a track record as a Minister of being competent and is highly intelligent and articulate. He outshines Key 100+++in these areas. One has to ask then why is he much less popular than Key. The answer is as I have outlined above.

          I like to remind people that at one stage when the great Norm Kirk was leader of the opposition he was rated preferred PM by only 6% and Muldoon was polling in the 30’s. Need I say more.

          • Anne 16.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2014 at 8:02 pm

            They started targeting Cunliffe big time after the 2011 leadership campaign ander. They certainly weren’t getting their instructions from Labour’s ABC Caucus club (although we know a few of them were babbling to the media) so who WAS giving them instructions? Not John Key in person of course but someone on his behalf? I’d say so.

    • Tracey 16.2
      17 July 2014 at 6:57 pm

      With a memory like that you could never become leader of the National Party.

    • Colonial Viper 16.3
      17 July 2014 at 11:13 pm

      Cunliffe didn’t stay with the left wing tack he started with, too many Thorndon bubble types remained in the offices and are running the campaign, caucus is still full of capitalist neoliberals, too many members think that they’re job is to do what MPs say instead of challenging MPs, and while some people cheered Labour on apologising for [whatever, insert here] most voters were saying wtf.

      • just saying 16.3.1
        17 July 2014 at 11:53 pm

        He’s our new David Lange.
        And he can’t weasle his way out of responsibility any more than Lange should have been able to.
        I see Labour has announced its policy on cosmetics.
        Could they be more full of shit?

  17. Charlieboy 17
    17 July 2014 at 5:56 pm

    Just keep one thing in your mind in the run up to the election, the consequence of not voting in some form of left wing coalition government is three more years of the Natz. That’s three more years of the Natz. Got that?
    It will be a very painful disaster for this country and we will have let it happen because because we have been divided and ruled.
    I am voting left. I will not be a party to the destruction of the country I love.

  18. deep throat 18
    17 July 2014 at 8:33 pm

    does john key have a clause in his contract with hooton boagey that he must win this election before he shoves off and leaves us in the hands of bill english and steven joyce?

    • Binders full of women 18.1
      17 July 2014 at 9:19 pm

      It won’t be English or Joyce. Didn’t you know us righties are dreaming of a pistol toting femme that will make Thatcher look benign.
      Also I can’t figure out the cyclist for Hutt South- I thought he craved the idea of being speaker??? This moa stuff? wtf.. He must hate Cunliffe more than he wants to be speaker.

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.1
        17 July 2014 at 11:20 pm

        Didn’t you know us righties are dreaming of a pistol toting femme that will make Thatcher look benign.

        Dressed in thigh high, high heeled leather boots, if I understand correctly.

  19. Puddleglum 19
    17 July 2014 at 9:22 pm

    From the General Social Survey, here are the characteristics of people who didn’t vote in 2008 and 2011.

    Labourers, the unemployed, those who thought their incomes were not adequate, etc. were the most likely not to vote.

    The reasons given were various ways of feeling disengaged (vote won’t make a difference, didn’t get around to it/not interested – 43.2% of non-voters in 2011), perceived barriers (overseas, didn’t know enough about candidates or issues – 30.0%), not registered (12.3%).

  20. Whatever next? 20
    17 July 2014 at 11:17 pm

    Vote won’t make a difference is very different from “not interested”

  21. RedBaronCV 21
    18 July 2014 at 7:49 am

    Last time we actually polled – the local body elections – there seemed to be a small but discernable shift towards the left/green (unless you were Christchurch where it was large). While I don’t like some of the rightie things the council has done here, they have acted to insource, living wage etc and there seems to be a solid drift of this throughout the country.

    Now the polls are asking us to believe that there is a very large Nact vote that didn’t turn out last time or the committed local body voter is going to vote differently this time. To me something does not compute.

  22. Sabine 22
    18 July 2014 at 10:09 am

    not sure if anyone here follows Daily Kos in the US…but this is an interesting dairy from today.

    The rich are voting for their interests, the poor don’t

    How a man went from being a staunch poor conservative to a flaming liberal

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/17/1314575/–Rich-People-Vote-their-Self-Interest-in-Every-Single-Election-Why-Don-t-Poor-People

    He boils it down to shame, shame of being poor, shame of being not well educated, shame for not succeeding, so hence the rich must deserve all the tax cuts on the planet because t hey are so much better then the poor.

    Nevermind that quite a few and soon a majority of all the very rich people on the planet are so because they inherited their wealth (i.e. all six walton heirs control as much wealth as some 40% of the US population) than having made their money by themselves. So we are now coming into an age of Monetary Aristocracy.

    In NZ i assume we have the same issue, with more and more people far removed from old NZ Settler and pull up yer boots spirit, and if yer poor its your own fault/choice. Not that working at minimum wage and full time is not going to pay for rent and food.

  23. Sabine 23
    18 July 2014 at 10:12 am

    I might be overly hopefull, but I do remember that the only one who called the last Election Obama/Romney correct was an obscure fellow named Nate Silverstein.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

    During the U.S. presidential primaries and general election of 2008, the site compiled polling data through a unique methodology derived from Silver’s experience in baseball sabermetrics to “balance out the polls with comparative demographic data”[3] and “weighting each poll based on the pollster’s historical track record, sample size, and recentness of the poll”.[4]

    maybe we need to throw a few grains of salt over either side of our shoulders in regards to polls that are published in our News.