Poll of polls looking good

137 comments on “Poll of polls looking good ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tom Gould 1

   14 February 2013 at 8:26 am

   Indeed, the trend is encouraging. It is no longer fantasy to suggest Labour slowly climbing to the high thirties and the Greens to the mid-teens over the coming year and into election year. The Tories only real hope is to scaremonger and abuse, and run the nasty stuff they find second nature, but maybe the public have had enough of that?
2. Te Reo Putake 2

   14 February 2013 at 8:27 am

   Great post, Anthony! I really wish I had the technical expertise to put up graphs like that (drove myself nuts last night trying to convert the Morgan Poll to seats, bah!).

   Both the Greens and Labour need to improve if we are to avoid the nightmare of dealing with Winnie. Not that he wasn’t a loyal part of the last Clark government, but he’s just not worth the risk and adds bugger all good policy to the mix anyway.

   The problem for the Greens is that their branding and policy base will always limit their potential. The public perception is that they are focussed on environmental concerns, whcih delivers solid double digit support, but stops it getting higher than the teens. The LP has broader support and therefore a bigger base to build on. It’s far easier for Labour to pick up 3% (as they did in the RM) than it is for the Greens.

   As always, I favour the bloc approach. Let the public know that a vote for either is a vote for a progressive government. The leadership of both parties need to be seen together more often (as they did at the EPMU’s manufacturing enquiry launch). But there will still need to be maturity from Green voters in the electorates. We need electorate MP’s who give a toss about their constituents and stopping Labour winning those seats does nobody any favours.
   • BLiP 2.1

     14 February 2013 at 8:49 am

     .

     But there will still need to be maturity from Green voters in the electorates.

     Yeah, Green voters need to grow up. Twat.
     • Te Reo Putake 2.1.1

       14 February 2013 at 9:03 am

       I wasn’t calling them twats, BLiP, that’s you. I appreciate that as a list only party, the Greens probably don’t give a flying one about the electorates, or even understand the value of having a good local MP, but for constituents its vital. Even in opposition, Labour electorate MP’s battle for the locals in a way will never happen with a Tory MP. Can you imagine the pointlessness of a beneficiary taking a problem to their National Party electorate MP?

       And 5 electorate seats are held by National’s support parties. Now you may personally be happy with Dunne, Banks and the the 3 useless MP MP’s but I’m not that big a twat. I want them gone.
       • felixviper 2.1.1.1

         14 February 2013 at 9:10 am

         Bottom line is if Labour want Green voters to cough up their electorate votes for Labour candidates then they’ll just have to put up candidates that appeal to those voters.
         • kiwicommie 2.1.1.1.1

           14 February 2013 at 2:19 pm

           The best way forward is to give electorate votes to whatever progressive candidate is most likely to win the electorate (no point voting green when it would take away from a Labour candidate beating the National one). Mana needs to win an electorate, Labour needs to win back Christchurch; and the Greens have to expand on their party vote to bring a strong majority come 2014.
           • QoT 2.1.1.1.1.1

             14 February 2013 at 6:48 pm

             As a former inhabitant of Hutt South, I have fairly strong feelings about this line of argument.

             Voters are not stupid. They know which box they’re ticking. It can be frustrating – see all those leftwing Epsom voters who chose not to demean themselves just to get ACT out of politics – but they knew what they were doing and they had their reasons and insisting that everyone vote purely strategically “for the good of the left” is just insulting.
             • Te Reo Putake …

               14 February 2013 at 7:16 pm

               Well it depends on whether you want to have a Tory as your MP, I guess. If you’re OK with it and you don’t mind inflicting one on your neighbours, be my guest. But I think its beholden on anyone who claims to “of the left” to understand the ramifications. Ramifications like the current Government, which would be in a bit of a pickle without Peter Dunne, for example. This stuff does matter and I would hate to be repeating this message 2 years into John Key’s next term.

               I applaud the many Green candidates who I have heard actively canvassing for the Party vote while suggesting that voters use their electorate vote tactically. I’m equally chuffed with Labour voters in Coromandel who took the hint from their local party and elected Jeannette Fitzsimons. That’s the kind of stuff that builds coalitions and wins elections.

               Edit: Hutt South? Are you saying you would do it as a protest, knowing it wouldn;t affect the outcome? That’s a little different from the scenario I’m talking about.
               • karol …

                 14 February 2013 at 8:43 pm

                 If I was living in Waitakere electorate, I would vote Sepuloni if she was standing. But if it was John Charter School-front bum Tamihere – I’d vote for the Green or Mana candidate. It wouldn’t make any difference to the overall Labour MPs and I would rather keep Tamihere out.

                 The electorate vote is for a candidate, and most of the time, it doesn’t impact on the party numbers in the House. There’s a few exceptions such as Epsom and Oharu (Dunne’s electorate) where I would think more strategically. But someone like Tamihere is not good for the left, IMO. And I’d want to send a message to the Labour selectors that he is not acceptable to me, and that it’s a slap in the face for women and GLBT people to be considering having him standing again..

                 I’m now also having second thoughts about voting for Twyford, whose electorate I’m currently in. He was great on supercity stuff, but I’m not impressed by his Team Shearer stuff or his (alleged) support for Tamihere. That one’s a hard call for me.

                 However, I’m hoping to be back in new Lynn for by the time of the next election, and will be more than happy to vote Cunliffe.
                 • Te Reo Putake …

                   14 February 2013 at 9:05 pm

                   Hard to disagree, Karol. JT is not needed either as an electorate MP or on the list. Not needed in Labour at all, come to think of it.
               • QoT …

                 14 February 2013 at 9:48 pm

                 Edit: Hutt South? Are you saying you would do it as a protest, knowing it wouldn;t affect the outcome? That’s a little different from the scenario I’m talking about.

                 I was responding to kiwicommie’s suggestion.
       • BLiP 2.1.1.2

         14 February 2013 at 9:31 am

         .

         I like having the choice to vote Green/Green. Its politically satisfying. How very Labour to want to remove that option from me – and on the arrogance-driven basis that a Green MP couldn’t possibly represent their constituents with the same vigour and skill as a Labour one. Paternalistic dribble. Its become something of an anathema this century yet infects the Labour Party, manifesting both in its internal and cross-party dialogue.

         HANDY HINT: maturity is no requisite for strategic voting.
         • Te Reo Putake 2.1.1.2.1

           14 February 2013 at 11:50 am

           It’s not arrogance driven to say a Green Mp couldn’t represent an electorate, its based on the simple fact that no Green candidate has ever got within cooee of winning a seat that way. You are wasting your second vote, BliP, but others will vote strategically, so I’m going to keep raising the issue.
           • Macro 2.1.1.2.1.1

             14 February 2013 at 12:00 pm

             Jeanette Fitzsimmons springs to mind?
           • BLiP 2.1.1.2.1.2

             14 February 2013 at 12:01 pm

             .

             Thanks. I’ll let Jeanette know.
           • felixviper 2.1.1.2.1.3

             14 February 2013 at 12:05 pm

             “based on the simple fact that no Green candidate has ever got within cooee of winning a seat that way.”

             Fitzsimons.

             But even if you weren’t bullshitting about that, how far do you intend to take your “hasn’t done = could never do” principle?

             For example, if someone has never got within cooee of being PM, does that mean they never will be?
           • Te Reo Putake 2.1.1.2.1.4

             14 February 2013 at 2:06 pm

             Yep, and to make my mistake worse, I voted for her in Coromandel. But I had forgetten that she stood as a Green for the first time in that election. The previous election she stood as an Alliance candidate and missed out.

             Of course, I wasn’t the only Labour voter to switch to Jeannette. The LP on the ground in TGA and Coromandel made a determined effort to help her, despite some public antipathy from the LP leadership. The same in reverse has been a feature of many Green electorate candidates in recent elections, making it clear they wanted the party vote, not the electorate vote. Which is very sensible.
             • Colonial Viper …

               14 February 2013 at 11:45 pm

               Of course, I wasn’t the only Labour voter to switch to Jeannette. The LP on the ground in TGA and Coromandel made a determined effort to help her, despite some public antipathy from the LP leadership.

               So you participated in a dangerous historical precedent.
   • Bearded Git 2.2

     14 February 2013 at 9:17 am

     Greens are actually polling well above their election result both in poll of polls and in Roy Morgan
     • r0b 2.2.1

       14 February 2013 at 9:20 am

       Yes – I had just made a minor change to the phrasing of the post…

       My main point was that for all we here often rip in to Labour for their polling, on the evidence they’re doing better than The Greens.
       • lprent 2.2.1.1

         14 February 2013 at 9:55 am

         Timescale r0b. If you pick the timescales correctly, you can damn near prove anything.

         From memory the latest Roy Morgan has Labour back at a level where they lost the treasury benches in 2008 – 4 years ago. The Greens and NZ First have risen. National has declined and their coalition parties have become increasingly irrelevant supplicants…

         The time I start praising Labour’s caucus is when they start consistently getting polls above the 2008 result. Because since 2008 they have essentially bounced around at just at or above their base support level, unable to encourage people to either vote or to vote for them.
         • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1.1

           14 February 2013 at 10:05 am

           Very very close, your memory. Wikipedia says Helen lost with 33.99%.
           • McFlock 2.2.1.1.1.1

             14 February 2013 at 1:17 pm

             So in the movie of “The Standard Story”, Lynn will be played by Dustin Hoffman? 🙂
             • lprent …

               14 February 2013 at 2:20 pm

               Frigging hell. Let’s just avoid that whole thought..
   • karol 2.3

     14 February 2013 at 9:21 am

     TRP@ 8.27am. It just looksd like you expect the Greens to be subservient to Labour, with their role only being to help push a weak LP over the line at the election

     The Greens are a whole package of which environmental issues are integrated with a fair, co-operative, democratic, egalitarian and caring society. They show it every week in the issues they take to the public. Your attempt to reduce them to some one-dimensional, neoliberal brand, in order to elevate Labour, is way too transparent.
     • Dr Terry 2.3.1

       14 February 2013 at 9:44 am

       Very good post karol. Sometimes I wonder if the country really (at bottom) prefers not to have quality government.
     • Te Reo Putake 2.3.2

       14 February 2013 at 9:47 am

       Point missed, Karol. I was talking about public perception and their branding, not my personal view of their policies (which align exactly with yours). The difficulty is breaking out of being seen as ‘green’ only. I know they’re more than that, and so do most people here, but we’re not the ones that need convincing.
       • Pascal's bookie 2.3.2.1

         14 February 2013 at 10:01 am

         Got polling data to support that?

         Anecdotally I’m always hearing that the Greens need to stick to their environmental kniitting and stop banging on about all the other stuff because blah blah.
         • Te Reo Putake 2.3.2.1.1

           14 February 2013 at 11:52 am

           You need to stop listening to anecdotes like that, P’s B. They’re not reflective of reality.
           • Pascal's bookie 2.3.2.1.1.1

             14 February 2013 at 12:07 pm

             So you have that polling then? Gizza look.

             And to be clear, I’m not saying these people are correct, or that you are wrong. I’m saying it’s currently unknown, and complicated.
             • felixviper …

               14 February 2013 at 12:10 pm

               He has some really good anecdotes, but he says they’re not reflective of reality.
               • BLiP …

                 14 February 2013 at 12:23 pm

                 .

                 Heh!! http://yournz.org/2013/02/13/curious-pseudonym-mix-up-at-the-standard/
                 • Murray Olsen …

                   14 February 2013 at 5:29 pm

                   Has that waste of bytes going by the name of Pete George ever complained about his new mate WhaleSpew publishing IP addresses and emails? Poor Pete, Hell hath no fury like a jellyfish scorned.
               • BLiP …

                 14 February 2013 at 12:26 pm

                 .

                 Looks like he’s picked up a stalker: http://tinyurl.com/b53u2tb
                 • Pascal's bookie …

                   14 February 2013 at 12:48 pm

                   Evil use of bitly there, but jesus.

                   ‘In which Karl Pilkington puts on a Sherlock Holmes hat, puffs on a pipe, coughs, and tries to determine fucking magnets, how do they work?’
                 • Te Reo Putake …

                   14 February 2013 at 1:52 pm

                   Yep, Pete’s my special Valentine! xxx PG! Hugs and kisses!

                   ps, did you see the comment by something called Monique Angel? Reckons CV is “violent” and CC is doing us all a favour by doing him down.

                   pps, Bookie, have you seen Derek yet? Karl is brilliant in it. Check out the pilot, but warning, I cried just a little bit watching it. It’s that good.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     14 February 2013 at 11:55 pm

                     lol

                     “we’re all friends! So…uh…let’s be friendly”
           • felixviper 2.3.2.1.1.2

             14 February 2013 at 12:08 pm

             🙄
     • Mary 2.3.3

       14 February 2013 at 12:45 pm

       I can’t imagine the Greens or Mana supporting attempts by Labour to carry on with its the assault on social security, but they don’t need their support on that front because they could get that from National. The real issue would be how far would Labour think it could go without pissing their coalition partners off too much.
     • Fortran 2.3.4

       14 February 2013 at 1:54 pm

       Karol

       You are quite right – If Labour expect the Greens to be subserviant then think again.
       They are the Party with the forward and progressive thinking while Labour are still backward looking, bereft of ideas.

       Labour cannot govern in any way without the Greens – so Labour should loosen up and get alongside the Greens and not blindly oppose their thinking.

       Winston may still be a worry though, as he has said he will not have anything to do with the Greens.
   • lprent 2.4

     14 February 2013 at 9:40 am

     He cheated :twisted:, both sets of graphs are links to other sites…

     Why build when you can link to demonstrate your text. Incidentally, this is almost the programmers credo. Why write your own code when you can instead link to shared objects like boost or Qt or other plethora of components that are available after a drop into google.
   • Jackal 2.5

     14 February 2013 at 9:42 am

     Te Reo Putake

     The problem for the Greens is that their branding and policy base will always limit their potential. The public perception is that they are focussed on environmental concerns, whcih delivers solid double digit support, but stops it getting higher than the teens.

     Your political commentary is a bit embarrassing to say the least Te Reo Putake.

     Firstly, the Greens are focused on environmental concerns because they’re important… You’re obviously not aware of a poll conducted before the last election that found most Kiwis think the environment is the main issue.

     Secondly, the Greens have a diverse set of skills that are not simply limited to environmental issues. For instance, because of his hard work to inform the public on financial matters, many Kiwis now support Russel Normans proposal for quantitative easing.

     Couple these facts with the reality that the Greens work extensively on social and human rights issues as well, and your commentary becomes entirely defunct!
     • Dr Terry 2.5.1

       14 February 2013 at 9:45 am

       Jackal – thanks, an excellent post!
     • Te Reo Putake 2.5.2

       14 February 2013 at 9:48 am

       See my reply to Karol, I was talking about how voters see the Greens, not how I see them.

       ps I agree with Dr Terry, it’s an excellent comment. Where did you steal it from?
   • QoT 2.6

     14 February 2013 at 6:50 pm

     But there will still need to be maturity from Green voters in the electorates.

     Oh look, I was right again.
     • Te Reo Putake 2.6.1

       14 February 2013 at 7:26 pm

       Apparently not!
3. ad 3

   14 February 2013 at 8:39 am

   Does anyone want to now confess that choosing Shearer was right?

   Or at least, that waiting for the current Government to not control its own gangrene is the right strategy?

   I would look forward to being proven wrong, if Labour won the next election.

   The Greens need a new issue to get popular traction on – at least they’re not like the Maori Party who have long since run out of steam, based on one march. They don’t have GE anymore.

   I agree with the bloc approach – there is little harm (at least to Labour) of stating now what a coalitionagreement should look like, so people can start getting their calculators out and understand the tax and benefit implications on their income, and any change in career prospects to staying here,
   • karol 3.1

     14 February 2013 at 8:45 am

     Does anyone want to now confess that choosing Shearer was right?

     I am not much of a poll watcher, but have been, and continue to be opposed to Shearer as leader. My opposition has nothing to do with polls, but with his right wing perspective. I am concerned about the long term damage to NZ under a right wing, Nat-lite, Labour-led government – it will be especially damaging for low income Kiwis.
     • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1

       14 February 2013 at 8:54 am

       Happily, that’s not going to happen, Karol. It will be a progressive Labour led coalition with significant input from the Greens. Labour’s policy has not been determined yet, and it has been forgotten in the leadership sideshow that the real democratisation in Labour is the ability for members to determine policy. That process starts in a few weeks and is going to be terrific fun!
       • Bill 3.1.1.1

         14 February 2013 at 9:11 am

         I’ve asked this question on a number of occasions and never recieved a response. But I’ll try again. Has the mechanism for members determining policy been locked in? What exactly are the workings of the system and, if it can’t be explained here, where can an explanation be found?

         That aside. Even with policy being determined by members (if that actually is the real world scenario), caucus and leaders would (surely) still determine the timing for the implementation of any policy. And the leeway that exists for a caucus to merely pay lip service to a policy or to policies while defering their implementation is what makes the make-up or perspective of caucus rather crucial.
         • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1.1.1

           14 February 2013 at 9:16 am

           There’s a round of meetings in a few weeks to explain the process and also the new hub structures, Bill. My understanding is that caucus will be bound by the policy the membership determines, but, as you say, timings etc. will be a factor too.
           • Bill 3.1.1.1.1.1

             14 February 2013 at 9:33 am

             Thanks TRP.

             So am I right in saying that only the principle has been adopted thus far? And that members have had no detemining say in the actual procedure or system that will underpin the basic principle? Meaning that, depending on who actually determined or determines the process, the principle can be undermined or weakened (monkey wrenched) by dint of the actual processes insofar as those processes may well be less democratic than some had initially envisaged or desired?
             • Te Reo Putake …

               14 February 2013 at 9:43 am

               I’ll try and find out Bill, but it might take a few hours … busy day today.
               • Bill …

                 14 February 2013 at 9:56 am

                 That would be appreciated. A bit busy myself today. So, I’ll check back in towards this evening and see if you’ve been able to find anything out.
                 • Bunji …

                   14 February 2013 at 12:01 pm

                   A draft policy platform (determined by mainly-member policy committees; 1-2 MPs on each) was passed at the Annual Conference. A more detailed one will be passed (hopefully) at this year’s.

                   The Platform is not meant to be absolutely prescriptive, but rather establish general principles (and values) that the MPs can then work details out from.

                   If MPs wanted to go against the policy platform (eg if they wanted to sell a public asset, or not implement Labour’s industry standard wages policy) they need to get a 2/3rds majority approval from the (substantial majority member) Policy Council. It’s expected some things (not asset sales…) may need to be approved for coalition agreements etc.

                   All members can contribute their 2c to Policy – through remits at conferences and through giving their wisdom to the policy council / committees.
                   • Te Reo Putake …

                     14 February 2013 at 1:41 pm

                     Cheers, Bunji. I gather an updated version of the draft will go to the regional conferences (in May?) for fine tuning. As I noted earlier, there are a series of meetings coming up in the next few weeks wher the new hub structure and policy program will be outlined. I’m pretty sure all members are welcome, so contact your branch or LEC for details of your local one.

                     The original policy draft is here:

                     https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/labour.org.nz/files/2012-Draft-Policy-Platform-final.pdf
           • bad12 3.1.1.1.1.2

             14 February 2013 at 10:14 am

             This? Labour caucus ‘bound’ by the policy put forward by the members, lolz that reads wonderfully on paper but as reality, this i gotta see…
       • bad12 3.1.1.2

         14 February 2013 at 9:43 am

         Should provoke some good debates here Te Reo, and if the ‘flagship’ housing policy release is anything to go by will end up highlighting Labour as the party of,for and by the middle class of New Zealand…
       • Fortran 3.1.1.3

         14 February 2013 at 1:59 pm

         Since when has the determination of Policy been “terrific fun”.

         Get real – this not fun but probably the most serious consideration since the last election.

         “terrific fun” does not win Elections.
     • kiwi_promtheus 3.1.2

       14 February 2013 at 9:04 am

       [RL: You picked up a weeks ban from Lynn two days ago.]
       • felixviper 3.1.2.1

         14 February 2013 at 9:07 am

         Ever noticed how nothing you write about karol bears any relation to anything karol actually writes?
   • The Al1en 3.2

     14 February 2013 at 9:00 am

     “Does anyone want to now confess that choosing Shearer was right?”

     If they did, they’d be wrong.
     As was pointed out yesterday, Shearer is or close to being as popular as Goff’s Labour ever were, and we know how that worked out for us in the long con.

     I’m happy the government is losing popularity, yet there’s no wave of popular support for the opposition I can see, nor is there one in sight on the immediate horizon.
     Again, I’m content for a left minded government should the numbers actuate in an election, but I’d very much like it to be one that championed for the people and fought for the right to govern, rather than be still born from the votes national couldn’t hold.

     Team Shearer isn’t the A-team of the left, that’s for sure.
     • Kevin Welsh 3.2.1

       14 February 2013 at 9:55 am

       Yeah, I can hardly wait to see him in a televised debate…
       • David H 3.2.1.1

         14 February 2013 at 1:18 pm

         You are joking. Key will have him for breakfast. But then it will be too late to get rid of him. and Key will have 3 more years to pillage NZ’s assets for his rich mates.
       • Mary 3.2.1.2

         14 February 2013 at 1:35 pm

         The best thing Shearer can do in 2014 is get himself admitted to hospital six weeks before the election then be well again just in time to celebrate victory at the election night party.
         • xtasy 3.2.1.2.1

           15 February 2013 at 1:01 am

           Marvellous idea, Mary, I fear you may have just given the ABC team the best plan B option to gain some votes in 2014. “Shearer seriously ill and hospitalised” or “Shearer needing urgent hospital treatment after accident”, that may create a wave of “sympathy” for the suffering candidate, which may to some degree materialise in emotionally motivated “sympathy votes”.

           If they can pull that off with a bit of initiated media theatre, Labour will surely get over 30 per cent, maybe over 35 per cent.
           • Mary 3.2.1.2.1.1

             15 February 2013 at 6:34 pm

             Yes xtasy, and to keep him out of the public eye, as well, which if he was around he’d inevitably increase the support for every other party including National therefore securing another three years of right-wing totalitarianism. If Shearer was serious about ousting Key and his mates and he’s not prepared to stand down as leader then the next best thing must surely be making himself scarce leading up to the election.
   • Enough is Enough 3.3

     14 February 2013 at 9:09 am

     Shearer is the wrong choice. If Labour win the next three elctions with Shearer as their leader it will be an even worse choice.

     He has no intention of introducing the reforms this country needs to reverse the effect of 30 years of neo liberalism.
     • Colonial Viper 3.3.1

       14 February 2013 at 9:43 am

       Indeed. The job of Labour Leader is not done with an increase in polling numbers. It is done by advancing the values of equity, labour protections and social security for all in the community.
       • Murray Olsen 3.3.1.1

         14 February 2013 at 5:49 pm

         I’d be happy to hear him denouncing the Crown Law Office appealing the paltry $17,000 awarded to Gordon Holmes in Dunedin and the needless hassle WINZ is putting the guy through. I think I’m more likely to hear of a project to focus CCTV cameras on beneficiaries roofs before Shearer ever stands up for any of them. Everything Muldoon (incorrectly) said about Rowling seems to apply to Shearer. Three years of Shearer would end up with most of the country worse off than at the beginning of his term.
     • Tony 3.3.2

       14 February 2013 at 9:49 am

       Reforms such as…?
       • Enough is Enough 3.3.2.1

         14 February 2013 at 11:03 am

         Lets start with reversing Ruth’s benefit cuts.

         A simple initiative that no government in over 20 years has had the guts to touch
         • Mary 3.3.2.1.1

           14 February 2013 at 1:52 pm

           Labour promised to reverse the benefit cuts back when they happened but then balked almost straight away. The same thing happened when the unemployment benefit for students in the holidays was cut back, they said they’d reverse it then balked. Then in 1995 Labour jumped up and down about National trying to axe the discretionary nature of supplementary assistance like special needs grants, advances and the special benefit, but then turned around and abolished the special benefit under urgency, no warning, no debate. Then after complaining loudly about National in 1996 introducing the idea of restricting tax cuts to those who were not “significantly dependent on the state”, they turned around and continued the horrendous tradition with WFF. There has not been one single positive undertaking Labour has given when in opposition regarding social security that they haven’t flip-flopped on.
           • Mary 3.3.2.1.1.1

             14 February 2013 at 2:01 pm

             History suggests their promise to extend WFF to beneficiary families won’t be honoured, either.
4. ScottGN 4

   14 February 2013 at 8:45 am

   Am I right in saying that Labour on 34.5% is the highest they’ve been in Roy Morgan since the election? Also I note that Labour + Greens is at 48% in this poll. Isn’t that the platform for majority government once the sub 5% party votes are discarded? Also it’s interesting to see that Gary Morgan identifies Labour’s Kiwibuild policy and the Govt’s dopey asylum seeker arrangements with Australia as 2 issues driving these numbers. I would have thought the ongoing train-wreck of Novopay was having an effect too.
   Worth pointing out as well that the Roy Morgan is pretty volatile from poll to poll though there is a good trend here.
   • bad12 4.1

     14 February 2013 at 9:55 am

     Yep, my reading of that poll is Labour+Green+Mana makes a simple majority, the Maori Party losing any of it’s seats to either Labour or Mana increases that majority,

     i pointed out after the last Roy Morgan that i thought Roy was reading the figures from the point of view of National from the high side of the margin of error and Labour from the low side of that margin off error,

     Reading the poll the other way round would give us the figures from the latest Roy Morgan, nothing to have a party over but might provoke yet another fit of fainting from Slippery the Prime Minister,

     i would expect another bump for Labour in the next Roy Morgan of +1% as voters react to NZFirsts defense of Richard Prosser as an MP in that party…
     • Bunji 4.1.1

       14 February 2013 at 12:07 pm

       With NZ First below the threshold, Labour + Greens would be a simple majority by my calculations (62/122 seats if Maori don’t lose any).

       The government’s handling of the asylum seekers would only have affected the very tail end of the poll, which made Gary’s comments a bit weird. Novopay is a much more likely explanation.
       • Anne 4.1.1.1

         14 February 2013 at 12:35 pm

         The government’s handling of the asylum seekers would only have affected the very tail end of the poll, which made Gary’s comments a bit weird.

         In my view that was a silly comment. It takes a week at the least before the public reacts to deals like that. Also, I’m not sure the Prosser fallout will necessarily go to Labour. If it goes to the Nats., then the effect of one will be negated by the other.
         • bad12 4.1.1.1.1

           14 February 2013 at 1:43 pm

           Yes you might be right, but as NZFirst is essentially a party made up of disgruntled Labour/National voters i would suspect that the right wing of NZFirst are inclined toward the views expressed by Prosser and would be the smallest cohort to walk over those comments,

           So i will stick with my +1 to Labour in the next Roy Morgan brought about by the Prosser incident,(you can poke me with the stick if the next Roy Morgan proves me incorrect)…
           • Anne 4.1.1.1.1.1

             14 February 2013 at 3:17 pm

             Nah… you might be right.
         • Anne 4.1.1.1.2

           16 February 2013 at 9:09 pm

           Oops Bunji:
           Looking through my recent comments I came across this one. I hope you didn’t think I was referring to your comment being silly. I was actually agreeing with you. Morgan’s comment was a bit weird.

           Badly worded on my part. 🙁
5. quartz 5

   14 February 2013 at 8:45 am

   It’s the Morgan. It throws out a rogue every for or five polls. And for the record, I want Labour to win, but not if it means a cabinet full of old right-wing throwbacks.
6. fatty 6

   14 February 2013 at 8:48 am

   But the polls need to be put in context:
   – In 2012 National gave Labour opportunity after opportunity and they slashed away at education, the environment, employment and the vulnerable…will this happen in 2013?
   – National gave Shearer a free-ride so that his leadership would be cemented…will National attack his numerous weaknesses this year?
   – National will have policies for the election up their sleeve to unveil at the latter end of this year and also next.
   – More young people will continue to leave NZ this year, that will cost the Greens and the left block.

   Taking last year into account, I don’t see many positives in the polls. 2012 was a massive opportunity, which was not capitalised on by Labour, I’d be surprised if Key and his thugs offer up so many chances again.
   • Enough is Enough 6.1

     14 February 2013 at 9:28 am

     That is my concern as well Fatty.

     A political strategist for the Left would dream of years like 2012. National fucked up everything they touched and the effects of their policies became easily identifiable.

     What more could Labour have hoped for in 2012?

     Yet these polls show they fucked up the opportunity and my concern is the opportunity may now have gone. Shearer is an easy target for the right now. When ever he moans, they will simply laugh at his mumbling waffle.

     Norman now has to step into the vacuum left by his political big brother and demonstrate what a government for the workers of this country will look like post 2014.
     • karol 6.1.1

       14 February 2013 at 9:37 am

       Norman now has to step into the vacuum left by his political big brother and demonstrate what a government for the workers of this country will look like post 2014.

       When did Norman become the sole leader of the Greens?
       • Enough is Enough 6.1.1.1

         14 February 2013 at 10:05 am

         He didn’t!

         Neither did he become the sole leader for the Left.

         But he is in my view (possibly with Cunliffe) the strongest and most effective advocate for the Left. He has the ability to articulate his party’s economic policies like no other and has formed a very good relationship with the MSM.
         • karol 6.1.1.1.1

           14 February 2013 at 10:41 am

           Ah, yes. it’s all about the economy, and nothing to do with the things Turei consistently and effectively highlights to do with income inequalities, a living wage, etc.

           Focusing on the economy as THE issue, separated from the impact on people’s lives, is using the neoliberal play-book.

           PS: It’s also traditionally and still, a pretty male-dominated focus.
           • Enough is Enough 6.1.1.1.1.1

             14 February 2013 at 10:57 am

             You seem to be getting a little bit upset over nothing.

             I wasn’t attacking Turei, I just do not think she is as effective as Norman. I think she is growing into the job but has a long way to go to reach the heights of Jeanette who somehow managed to reach out across the political spectrum.

             As to the economy and income inequalities….umm they go hand in hand. How can you see them as two different things? We need to restructure the economy so that CEO’s can’t take home millions of dolaars in wages at the expense of the productive workers. Bridging that gap is the key in my view.

             ps…what does gender have to do with this?
             • karol …

               14 February 2013 at 11:43 am

               I don’t see the economy and low income life as two different things, but the MSM and other neoliberals do.

               Norman has just been getting a lot of MSM attention over the last year. Turei is extremely effective in what she says and argues and I think she’s better than Norman.

               what does gender have to do with this?

               Somehow it does. Guys in politics love to show they have a grip on money and the economy. There’s a traditional gender division, in which guys do the economy (which is given high status – figures, stats and all that stuff), and women do the people, human connection stuff. There’s plenty been written on it.

               e.g. here on how gender differences play in US political candidates, with women associated more with women being associated with stereotypical “feminine” issues, and men having an advantage when military and national security.

               Again a US eg, with a focus on military, but it also includes the economy in the “masculine” tendency to instrumentalism over “feminine” “compassion (focusing on issues like poverty and the aged).

               In the past I have seen other articles that particularly link the economy with male politicians. Like this article in Politics & Gender 2008. I need to use my library log in to access the full article. But, the article text focuses on election campaigns in the US, Aussie and Canada, and says:

               The news media tended to emphasize women’s lack of viability, focusing more attention on the “horse race” when covering women candidates.

               In addition, coverage of the men and women candidates corresponded with common gender stereotypes. For example, the news media tended to focus on “expressive strengths” such as honesty and compassion when describing women candidates, whereas “instrumental” traits, such as experience and leadership, were more commonly used to describe male candidates. Finally, coverage of policy matters corresponded to men’s and women’s stereotypical strengths. The issues of foreign policy, defense, trade, and the economy were more likely to be discussed for male candidates, whereas women candidates, in their campaign coverage, were more frequently linked to issues of poverty, education, and health care (Carroll and Schreiber 1997; Kahn 1996).
               • Enough is Enough …

                 14 February 2013 at 12:34 pm

                 “Norman has just been getting a lot of MSM attention ”

                 Which is precisley why I think he is the individual to step into the vaccum left by Mumblefuck. There is not much use in having a great message if noone listening to you.

                 Full circle.
                 • karol …

                   14 February 2013 at 8:50 pm

                   Oh, right. So women MPs should just give up on any ambitions to be leader of a party, because the MSM tends to pick up on and portray men as having the leadership skills.
                   • QoT …

                     14 February 2013 at 9:51 pm

                     Jeez, karol, trying to overturn dominant narratives never got any oppressed group anywhere. Back to the kitchen with both of us, we don’t need silly voting rights.
                   • Enough is Enough …

                     15 February 2013 at 10:11 am

                     ummm no
                   • Enough is Enough …

                     15 February 2013 at 12:03 pm

                     You have a very strange thought pattern.

                     EIE thinks in her opinion that a man is the most effective communicator for the Left.

                     This must mean by default, without any logical reason, that EIE thinks that a female leader from the the left is ineffective and should really just give up on her ambitions.

                     Or maybe EIE just judges our leaders on what they say, when they say it, how effectivley they say it, who is listening, and who is best to sock it to the tories, without giving a shit what gender they are.
                   • karol …

                     15 February 2013 at 12:42 pm

                     You have a very strange thought pattern.

                     EIE thinks in her opinion that a man is the most effective communicator for the Left.

                     Sigh. Really you just don’t get it, EIE. You just don’t understand the role of the MSM and traditional narratives in skewing perceptions.

                     PS: I’m confused about the EIE comment @ 12.03pm, in which EIE seems to be talking to hirself and about hirself in the 3rd person.

                     To me Turei has always been a smarter and better communicator than Norman. She has given some great speeches, is down to earth and integrates her everyday experiences and her working class background with her political, legal and academic knowledge. Norman always sounds like a middle class academic and business-associated type.
             • David H …

               14 February 2013 at 1:26 pm

               To be honest here The Greens have the strongest women in parliament in Turei she is very good on the income inequalities, and Julie Anne Genter is brilliant on the Nats bullshit roading policy, and also on public transport, especially light rail in Ak. Which in my opinion is a complete dogs breakfast in the roading layout, and signposting.
           • GregJ 6.1.1.1.1.2

             14 February 2013 at 12:31 pm

             If there was one leader’s speech given this year that resonated most deeply with me and showed passion, conviction and substance it was the one that contained the following:

             “Eliminating poverty is not a matter for charity, it is an act of justice.”

             That leader was Metiria Turei at Ratana. Time it was given much more profile and she much more credit for articulating not just opposition to the current government but a clear set of principles, values and actions that show a different path to them.
         • Fortran 6.1.1.1.2

           14 February 2013 at 2:02 pm

           +100
     • bad12 6.1.2

       14 February 2013 at 10:09 am

       What National tho didn’t f**k up for the core of it’s voters is the part of ‘tax switch’ which every week puts 100’s of dollars into the pockets of those voters…
       • David H 6.1.2.1

         14 February 2013 at 9:05 pm

         But sooner or later the money runs out, then what??? The last time the Nats wasted all the money Lange was there to pick up the pieces. This time???
         • bad12 6.1.2.1.1

           14 February 2013 at 9:36 pm

           Pretty easy for any Government to take that money back again off of the top 44% of earners with interest as taxation, which should come with government warning that next time National at the behest of it’s voters f**ks up the economy for the personal gain of its supporters the payback will be doubled,

           Governments have the ability to print money, National were advised in early 2009 by the IMF to do just that, i realize that Labour just blinking in the first sunlight of what could be a non-neo-liberal world are too scared to entertain the idea,

           my advice to Labour would be to become aquainted with the real world of just who is printing the stuff and why befor they go into another orgy of borrowing and drop the value of the Kiwi$ by regulation which is a blunt primitive means of accomplishing that little task that will provide a little gain for a lot of pain,

           More reward would be gained across the whole economy if Labour printed the money needed to dilute the NZ$ so as to lower that dollars value,

           Such monies could then be put to use building low cost housing and creating employment doing so,

           Labour could then become the mortgage holder to those the houses were sold and such housing could easily be sold to the tenants based upon 25% of household income thus freeing up everyone’s income that could then be spent into the economy…
7. Colonial Viper 7

   14 February 2013 at 9:10 am

   Yes, Labour can gain power with just 30%-33% of the vote, if it relies on New Zealand First AND the Maori Party AND Hone (and maybe The Hair).

   To do win without NZF (and preclude the chances that a NZF swing to the NATs might occur) Labour will need no less than 35% to 37% of the vote on e-day, with the Greens turning in another good performance.
   • Te Reo Putake 7.1

     14 February 2013 at 9:38 am

     Exactly right, CV. The key is the combined vote of 45-48% and realistically, it’s Labour that needs to lift its vote to acheive that. I’m really confident that the Greens will stay in the low teens and not drop into single figures, so Labour at 35% is the minimum needed.
   • bad12 7.2

     14 February 2013 at 10:04 am

     Discount your NZFirst scenario, i cannot see that party featuring in the next Parliament,

     On the polled figures Labour+Green+Mana gives a simple majority, i would bet money on the Maori Party losing at least 2 of its electorate seats,(1 to Labour and 1 to Mana) so i cannot see National having the numbers to be able to form a Government after 2014,

     Dunne should the people of Ohariu choose to continue His sinecure will become a simpering glove puppet for anyone that says Minister of Revenue to Him…
     • Colonial Viper 7.2.1

       14 February 2013 at 10:09 am

       Will Labour accept Hone as a coalition partner though? Or is he too left wing and ‘radical’ for them.
       • Kevin Welsh 7.2.1.1

         14 February 2013 at 10:32 am

         The fact that he is left wing would be too radical for the current Labour caucus.
   • Pete 7.3

     14 February 2013 at 11:15 am

     What needs to happen now is that Labour and the Greens must establish the narrative that they are a stable government-in-waiting, ready to act on day one. They don’t have to be in lockstep, but the twitter bs we saw the other day should be avoided in the future.
8. VivaciousViper 8

   14 February 2013 at 11:56 am

   Polls move around from one to the next, Labour have been sitting about this level in the past
   12months or so,then it dipped again, however, having labour and the greens.perhaps mana,the
   left are looking to have enough support to get rid of this,terrible,terrible nact govt.
   God help us over the next 2yrs.
   There is also another factor here and that is Labour should be trouncing the Nacts,
   surely people out there must feel the ‘boot’ of the nacts,or have they just accepted their fate’
   and believe there is nothing that can be done to stop the nacts destructive path,it is a
   shame that the people obviously feel politicaly powerless.
   I’ts like Key arrived in NZ to install a dictatorship style of politics and governence, once elected ,due to this power, he has set aside everything legal and decent and has bought despair
   and anguish on those who desire and desperatley need a fair go.
   It may be melodramatic of me but those whose lives have been enhanced by the nacts must feel admiration and a connection, hence the polls, but to those whose lives have been affected
   by nacts oppressive decisions, must surely feel their quality of life is seriously stunted.
   800.000 + felt they had no voice in the last election and didn’t vote and from what i can see
   the lack of any ‘we are standing up for you’ from labour,coupled with the lack of any geunine policies that recognise the ongoing struggles that so many are having, will once again see
   800.000 + votes being lost in 2014.
9. Ed 9

   14 February 2013 at 12:11 pm

   The Stuff poll is showing interesting differences from the ‘more accurate’ polls – it looks as though more Labour / Green readers are voting than was the case a while ago.
   • karol 9.1

     14 February 2013 at 12:17 pm

     And more Greens than Labour: Greens are marginally ahead of Labour right now. Greens= 26.1%: Labour = 25.1%
     • quartz 9.1.1

       14 February 2013 at 1:03 pm

       I read that stuff poll as the Greens having a bigger slice of the middle-class, educated, professional demographic that dominates the online space. Which implies Labour makes up the difference with lower-socioeconomic votes. The exact people they’re at risk of turning into enrolled non voters with their blairite pitch to the center.
       • Saarbo 9.1.1.1

         14 February 2013 at 2:09 pm

         Agree…interesting!
     • kiwicommie 9.1.2

       14 February 2013 at 2:25 pm

       The problem with the Greens is that they haven’t been able to field good electorate candidates, that is why it is easier to vote Labour in electorates (better Labour than National) and give the party vote to the Greens. But depends on the electorate. I wouldn’t be surprised if Wellington Central or parts of Christchurch get a Green MP from 2014 onwards, though getting one in Auckland would take longer.
       • BLiP 9.1.2.1

         14 February 2013 at 2:48 pm

         .

         Oh, I dunno. Auckland Central is up for grabs. Go, Denise.
         • George D 9.1.2.1.1

           14 February 2013 at 6:23 pm

           Jacinta Adern is pretty formidable. But she will have to be, to beat a very solidly performing Kaye with a Green spoiler in the former of Roche.

           I think Rongotai is the Green Party’s best bet, but that neither Norman nor the electorate organisation want it enough to take it on properly when King resigns. I’d like to see Holly Walker have a go at unseating Mallard!
           • David H 9.1.2.1.1.1

             14 February 2013 at 9:27 pm

             The thing is this, that Labour and the Greens will have to come to agreements over the more marginal seats, where it is clear that if they both go after the seat vote then the Nats will waltz in because they have effectively split the vote. And Labour will have to be fair about it too and not be greedy and try to steal all the seats.
       • bad12 9.1.2.2

         14 February 2013 at 6:07 pm

         Things will start to tighten up in Annette King’s Rongotai electorate in November 2014 as well…
       • Pete 9.1.2.3

         14 February 2013 at 6:44 pm

         Celia Wade-Brown won the Wellington mayoralty. I know, she’s not an MP, but people do vote for Green candidates to directly represent them. It would have to be an urban centre to vote a Green in, rural is pretty much National. I think Christchurch might be a good bet if a candidate campaigns heavily on public transport and sustainable infrastructure in the rebuild. Also the Greens’ policy of a nationwide levy to pay for the rebuild. And there’s also the shenanigans with Environment Canterbury.

         It’s doubtful a Green would do well down here in Dunedin. Dunedin North, the youngest urban area in the country might be thought of as prime Green territory, but David Clark is looked on as being very promising and is doing really well. I think we’d see a high party vote for the Greens, though. The demographics of Dunedin South – retirees, working class, white, would count against a Green displacing Clare Curran.
         • McFlock 9.1.2.3.1

           14 February 2013 at 7:02 pm

           Dunedin always makes me giggle a bit – local bodies, usually pretty conservative; national elections, pretty liberal/left.

           There are a few core NACT areas as well, and the young nats have a solid campus following (but then so do young labour – and some leftist ones at that).
10. Antony Cotton 10

    14 February 2013 at 12:48 pm

    Yes this is good for the left let Hope Shearer gets the right team in his reshuffle Bring forward up comes like Megan Woods David Clark Andrew Little Moana Mackey Kris Foafoi Louisa Wall and Rino from Te Tai Tonga. Go Mr Shearer and Put Damien O Connor Clare Curran and Chris Hipkins on the frontbench awesome.
    • BLiP 10.1

      14 February 2013 at 3:33 pm

      .

      What will Clare do?
      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1

        14 February 2013 at 6:30 pm

        For starters, being Labour’s ICT spokesperson hopefully she’s learnt not to address The Standard as a sentient machine.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/hatin-on-the-left/#comment-587124
11. michael 11

    14 February 2013 at 1:02 pm

    Leave Curran off the front bench until she restores Labour’s majority in Dunedin South. If the people in her own electorate can’t stand her, the rest of the country won’t either. I’d keep Tirikatene well under wraps too, until he proves he can represent his constituents.
12. Anne 12

    14 February 2013 at 3:29 pm

    I’d keep Tirikatene well under wraps too, until he proves he can represent his constituents.

    Add to that Megan Woods and David Clark – and any other first term MP.

    While their potential may be considerd high, this is their first term in parliament. We have seen what happens when new or newish MPs are promoted without doing sufficient time on the back benches. Frustrating though it might be to each of them personally, there is one hell of a lot to learn about parliament and without sufficient experience they are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot and perhaps damage their party in the process.

    The only possible exception would be Andrew Little. He may be a first termer, but he has oodles of experience in a related field and he is a former party president.
    • Olwyn 12.1

      14 February 2013 at 3:50 pm

      I agree Anne. Authority must be earned, while rank can be granted. People who lack authority but hold rank are put in an awkward position: they are at once forced, by their lack of authority, to be yes-people, and forced by their rank to wear the result. It is the sort of thing that does not make for a robust, confident party. I also agree with you about Andrew Little – he has earned the relevant sort of authority outside of caucus.
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        14 February 2013 at 6:32 pm

        Get out of here, 1st term MPs make great Party Leaders, so why shouldn’t they make great Cabinet Ministers.
        • Olwyn 12.1.1.1

          14 February 2013 at 7:10 pm

          🙂
        • Anne 12.1.1.2

          14 February 2013 at 7:15 pm

          Ouch CV.
          I’m off to my first LEC meeting of the year in a few days… 😯
13. shorts 13

    14 February 2013 at 3:46 pm

    the only poll that counts

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10865345

    someone wept
    • David H 13.1

      14 February 2013 at 9:33 pm

      Oh god Slippery as sexiest man, I near vomited all over my laptop.
    • xtasy 13.2

      15 February 2013 at 1:18 am

      The mighty mainstream media ensures the voting public is well informed, and guides prospective voters by reporting on stuff that really matters – for making appropriate decisions to ensure the well-being of the whole of New Zealand for future generations. Yeah Right.
14. chris73 14

    14 February 2013 at 5:08 pm

    Not wanting to be disparaging to Annette King but third? Surely theres some Green list MP that no ones ever heard of place higher…

    I am surprised that Cunliffe didn’t place higher, I mean that rugged, bearded look was pretty smoking…
15. Skinny 15

    14 February 2013 at 9:17 pm

    Even before the last election statistics were against National getting a third term of governing. The next election is Labour’s ( Greens should they choose an arrangement with Labour) to lose. The deep pockets of Keys mates (the rich) will fund slick PR spin merchants to tighten the contest. Collectively if we can get the disengaged to turnout to vote it should be a landslide victory. This year will see harsh policies come out, with vote bribing policies coming out toward election time. Interesting times ahead, but still the polls are a backstraightner 🙂
    • ak 15.1

      14 February 2013 at 9:32 pm

      ….while Mr Key was considered to be the most likely to be spotted with a sex toy in his back pocket.

      Hands-off government. The emperor’s new clothes visible at last. Bye, Slipper.
    • Green machine UpandComer 15.2

      15 February 2013 at 3:36 am

      Labour will win the election primarily and solely based on ignorance. People will of course vote for free houses, free money, and free everything, but they won’t get it in the end. Ack, Labour ruins the economy, National has to make politically painful decision to fix it, the economy recovers somewhat, Labour spends all the money on freebies, and the circle of life continues.
      • xtasy 15.2.1

        15 February 2013 at 3:54 am

        GmUAC:
        What utter nonsensical drivel you are presenting here. I am sorry, but all you throw around is superficial prejudice without any fact based info or arguments.

        “Free houses, free money, free everything”, get a gasp of fresh air and drink some clean, “free” water, to clear your mind, and you may even see the world with clearer eyes after a good nap.

        National has won the last two elections based on ignorance, but you seem to fail to grasp that.

        They have certainly NOT fixed anything, as stats for people leaving for AUS, for unemployment, a growing gap between poor and the rest show.

        By the way, this is not Kiwiblog, if you have not noticed in this early hour! Wakey, wakey perhaps.

Links to post

1. That ‘ol margin of error « The Standard: posted on 20 February 2013 at 8:52 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS