Polls good for Left

80 comments on “Polls good for Left ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jimmy 1

   3 November 2011 at 1:53 pm

   Maybe those 27% of young people should vote and try and get the country into a better state rather than jumping ship like rats.
2. Roy 2

   3 November 2011 at 2:03 pm

   Wanting to leave the country is not the same as being able to leave the country, Jimmy.
3. queenstfarmer 3

   3 November 2011 at 2:18 pm

   24% of people will change their vote over the Rena.

   Now I don’t know what the actual poll question was, but the stuff article says:

   But when asked if the Rena salvage and cleanup would influence who they gave their vote to at the election, 55.3 per cent of those questioned said no, while just 24 per cent said yes.

   Assuming the stuff article is correct, it is very misleading (and wishful, perhaps?) to portray “influence” as “will change”.
   • bbfloyd 3.1

     3 November 2011 at 2:41 pm

     engaging in bullshit semantics again queeny….? come on mate…. you sound like you’re on the verge of an epiphany… don’t be shy….. it’s very liberating using actuality as a guide to thought….
     • queenstfarmer 3.1.1

       3 November 2011 at 2:53 pm

       Semantics – the meaning of words. Well I guess some people do not like to engage in such things…
       • felix 3.1.1.1

         3 November 2011 at 4:04 pm

         Actually semantics is a lot broader than just “the meaning of words”. It covers the meaning conveyed by a whole array of elements including words but also including sentence construction, accent or stress, phrasing, meanings implied by context etc etc.

         Ironic, huh?
         • queenstfarmer 3.1.1.1.1

           3 November 2011 at 4:15 pm

           Actually semantics is a lot broader than just “the meaning of words”.

           Did I say it wasn’t?
           • The Voice of Reason 3.1.1.1.1.1

             3 November 2011 at 4:32 pm

             Yes, indeed you did. Your statement was closed and definitive. Felix, is, as usual, on the money with his more open and educated description.
             • McFlock …

               3 November 2011 at 4:43 pm

               Pure semantics 🙂
             • queenstfarmer …

               3 November 2011 at 4:58 pm

               Your statement was closed and definitive

               How so? I made no such claim. I was merely stating (briefly) one meaning of the word. Felix, and now you, for some bizzare reason appear to be claiming that I was attempting to give a definitive statement of all accepted meanings of the word (quite why I would want to do that is a mystery). And on the basis, it seems, that I did not say I wouldn’t.

               Very odd, but there you go.
               • The Voice of Reason …

                 3 November 2011 at 6:10 pm

                 Own your words, mate. I’m not here to teach you linguistics, grammar or the English language, though I tried above because I’m in favour of upskilling the unskilled and you clearly needed the help.
                 • queenstfarmer …

                   3 November 2011 at 8:32 pm

                   I am still waiting to hear on what basis you think my “statement” (an attempt to give a detailed list of every meaning of the word “semantics”?) was “closed and definitive”.

                   If you can’t explain, I’ll understand why.
                   • The Voice of Reason …

                     3 November 2011 at 10:20 pm

                     I’ve already explained it.
                      
                     And, if I can digress for a moment, I don’t usually point out peoples’ linguistic or grammatical errors here, because what they say is more important. I try and focus on the ideas. The rare times I do comment are when someone like you gets pompous and then gets it wrong.
                      
                     From your comment above, I’m picking you either don’t get why your definition is, er, definitive (which isn’t a problem; not everyone took English classes as seriously as I did at school) or, more likely, that you just can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that Felix was right.
                   • queenstfarmer …

                     3 November 2011 at 10:47 pm

                     No – you said: Your statement was closed and definitive.

                     I said: on what basis you think my “statement” … was “closed and definitive”.

                     You have not answered that – but you now say I’ve already explained it.

                     Where?
                   • The Voice of Reason …

                     3 November 2011 at 10:57 pm

                     In comment 3.1.1.1.1.1.
                      
                     As I said, it really doesn’t matter if you don’t understand. I certainly don’t think any less of you if that’s the case and ignorance is better than the other alternative that you don’t have the grace to admit defeat.
                      
                     I’ve gotta go, but feel free to comment further and I’ll put you right again in the morning.
                   • queenstfarmer …

                     4 November 2011 at 12:54 am

                     Well lets see, your comment 3.1.1.1.1.1 is:

                     Yes, indeed you did. Your statement was closed and definitive. Felix, is, as usual, on the money with his more open and educated description.

                     So, the basis on which you claim to have “explained” that my statement was “closed and definitive” is… your own statement asserting (without any explanation…) that Yes, indeed you did. Your statement was closed and definitive.

                     Well that is just brilliant. It is truly “The Voice of Reason”! Or, to bring this full circle, is your handle just ironic?
                   • The Voice of Reason …

                     4 November 2011 at 6:25 am

                     Yes, it is ironic, queenie. I stole it from Ayn Rand, but that’s ok because I’ve fully enclosed it and it’s mine to keep now. Hope you didn’t lose too much sleep trying to work out where you went wrong; its cruel of me to tease you in that way, I know.
                   • queenstfarmer …

                     4 November 2011 at 9:51 am

                     Please never consider it cruel to give me opportunities to correct you. Just try to be more careful next time.
           • Bunswalla 3.1.1.1.1.2

             3 November 2011 at 4:35 pm

             Come on guys, all this arguing over the meaning of semantics is just semantics, isn’t it?
       • Puddleglum 3.1.1.2

         3 November 2011 at 11:20 pm

         qsf, c’mon, admit that what you meant to say – and what you did say – is that semantics is the ‘meaning of words’.

         Look at your initial comment. You bolded two words  (‘would influence‘) and then you focused on the fact that “influence” is not the same as “will change”.

         I’m not sure what you meant readers to take from that – other than the obvious point that the words  “would influence” don’t mean (i.e., don’t have the semantic loading of) “will change”.

         That is, you reduced semantics to “the meaning of words” (taken in isolation from their surrounding ‘language game’).

         Why do you fear confessing to this? 
   • framu 3.2

     3 November 2011 at 4:27 pm

     further on the “would influence who they gave their vote to”

     how can anyone in the media say this means anything other than that?

     its not an endorsement of any party – it just indicates a level of change from one undefined position to a different undefined position.

     and from that we get statements like this

     “Voters have given the Government a pass mark for its handling of the Rena crisis – and most say it won’t affect how they vote at the upcoming election.”

     bah!

     (unless theres something im missing here)
4. grumpy 4

   3 November 2011 at 2:24 pm

   Bugger!!!

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10763639
   • Hanswurst 4.1

     3 November 2011 at 2:30 pm

     Meh. So one poll registers – to all intents and purposes – no change. That’s not even worth the word “Bugger”, let alone three gratuitous exclamation marks.
     • grumpy 4.1.1

       3 November 2011 at 2:33 pm

       But Hanswurst, the heading on this post is

       “Polls Good For The Left”
       • Kaplan 4.1.1.1

         3 November 2011 at 3:32 pm

         Do you think it relevant that your link uses the word ‘poll’ and the heading here uses the plural ‘polls’.
         I do.
         • grumpy 4.1.1.1.1

           3 November 2011 at 3:44 pm

           So, was it referring to averages then?????
           • Ari 4.1.1.1.1.1

             4 November 2011 at 2:01 am

             Or perhaps trends. Or perhaps simply ignoring outliers.
   • insider 4.2

     3 November 2011 at 2:32 pm

     So if 29% is good how does Eddie define bad? S/he needs to polish that crystal ball.

     On October 24 Eddie said: “I’m told that the Nats own numbers show them down 5% since the Rena/double downgrade/S&P lies/throat-slitting clusterfuck hit them, which puts their support in the mid-40s.” No sign on the horizon yet
5. queenstfarmer 5

   3 November 2011 at 2:27 pm

   27% of young people want to leave New Zealand.

   Eddie, on what basis do you consider this to be a poll that is “good for the Left”, when that poll was taken in October-November 2008 – i.e. after a full 9 years of Labour being in Government?
   • grumpy 5.1

     3 November 2011 at 2:31 pm

     Oh dear, we can see where Goff is getting his advice from………
   • igivesup 5.2

     3 November 2011 at 2:39 pm

     Monumental fail
   • Richard 5.3

     3 November 2011 at 2:58 pm

     Hahahahahahaha.

     This is excellent. 
   • McFlock 5.4

     3 November 2011 at 2:58 pm

     that’s a definite lolwhoops 🙂
       
     Although I’d love to see what the numbers are now.
      
     • grumpy 5.4.1

       3 November 2011 at 3:02 pm

       ….any word yet on the “H fee” ???
       • McFlock 5.4.1.1

         3 November 2011 at 3:10 pm

         “H fee”?
   • Nick C 5.5

     3 November 2011 at 7:18 pm

     Ah well dont let the facts get in the way of the narrative ae?
6. gorj 6

   3 November 2011 at 2:29 pm

   I moved to Sydney straight after high school in ’09. better weather, better looking women, better music scene… not much the government can do about that 🙂
   • Copra 6.1

     3 November 2011 at 5:43 pm

     Yeah, and I came back.

     Big mistake.
7. Anyonewhobelievesapoliticianwhentheysaytheyarehonestisafool 7

   3 November 2011 at 2:37 pm

   You missed this one!

   Labour’s support has slipped in the first week of the election campaign to below 30 per cent, in the latest DigiPoll survey released this afternoon.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10763639

   Surely another win to Goff!
   • grumpy 7.1

     3 November 2011 at 2:43 pm

     and Key’s popularity over 70% – and climbing after last night.
     • Ari 7.1.1

       4 November 2011 at 2:03 am

       Key’s popularity is irrelevant given he’s running for Prime Minister, not President.
8. Raymond A Francis 8

   3 November 2011 at 2:43 pm

   Eddie; never forget Miss Clark’s dictum
   “Under promise, over deliver”
   Hope this is not another massive fail, mate
9. randal 9

   3 November 2011 at 3:03 pm

   looks like the nzherald is lying too.
   they can sue me if they like.
   but I bet they dont.
   they trying to do a wendell wilkie.
   but it wont wash.
   • Alwyn 9.1

     3 November 2011 at 8:23 pm

     I assume randal, when you refer to Wendell Wilkie, you are referring to a famous poll that had Roosevelt losing in a landslide in an election in which he then took 46 out of 48 states.
     If so can you please get the election and the candidate right.
     It was a Literary Digest poll in 1936 when the Republican candidate was Landon. Wilkie was the Republican candidate in 1940.
     If this isn’t what you are talking about could you please tell me what the reference to Wilkie is about?

     lprent. Rob tells me that I am in moderation because I was banned by you back on 4 August, and that you are the only one who can lift it. I had, I confess, forgotten it.
     If I plead that I am sorry is there any chance of having it lifted? As an incurable nutter about politics the thought of going for the rest of the campaign in silence may be to much for me.

     [This time I’ll email Lynn. — r0b]

     [lprent: I just reread the comment. I read it as you saying that Zet was Mallard – which was just weird. I think I could have misinterpreted who you were directing the comment at or about (your comment was rather confused), so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. ]
10. Gosman 10

    3 November 2011 at 3:04 pm

    “…and the momentum all one-way traffic for Labour in recent weeks”

    Does that include in the debate last night?

    I love Eddies unfailing confidence in everything Labour. I believe a ‘Comical’ title might be in order at some stage.

    [lprent: Personally attacking my authors is bloody dangerous game. It is also one that I have already warned you about once today. Attack what they say, but don’t attack them directly or now even indirectly. I can live without you a lot easier than having authors decide to give up writing. My toleration level that you have previously earned is now down to zero. Next time you get kicked off for a few months. ]
    • Kaplan 10.1

      3 November 2011 at 3:41 pm

      I think it does. Key lying about not having Labours costings again exposed himself as a conman. Sure he’s a good conman, but still a conman.
      I think the quote of the night was Goff calling out key’s whinging about potentially paying a few extra cents for a muffin if the minimum wage is raised. 🙂
      The low point would have to be Key using the nine billion portion of the deficit that he attributes to Canterbury as an attack line. Not smart.
11. Brett Dale 11

    3 November 2011 at 4:13 pm

    The latest poll has Labour below 30%

    The again it also has the greens above 10%

    There is no way Labour will get less than 30% of the vote, and there is
    no chance of the greens getting more than 10%.
    • grumpy 11.1

      3 November 2011 at 4:19 pm

      Pity about the Greens, NZ needs a decent left wing party.
12. Matthew Hooton 12

    3 November 2011 at 5:20 pm

    This is one of the most desperate posts I have seen on any political blog. The polls coming out in the next 24 hours are very bad for Labour, and they were taken before Phil Goff’s debacle last night in the Press debate. You need to come up with better spin lines than this. Happy to help.
    • gobsmacked 12.1

      3 November 2011 at 6:18 pm

      Hooton needs to come up with better spin lines than this.

      “Very bad” redefined as “going up”. Classic.

      Presumably Matthew was talking about the One News poll. Looks like he got a little confused there, and was thinking of his old mate Don Brash, who is now in deep trouble. Will John Key save him, or stab him in the back yet again?

      Of course Labour should be doing better. But the Greens are gaining across the range of polls, and National have eaten their allies. Plenty to play for.
      • infused 12.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 6:44 pm

        Err try again. Two polls today show Labour down.
        • The Voice of Reason 12.1.1.1

          3 November 2011 at 7:05 pm

          Er, nope. The TVNZ poll has Labour up. Both have ACT below 1%.
           
          And, as Guyon Espiner notes: “In my view National’s numbers looks too high. I can’t see them getting 56% of the vote on election night, in fact I’d be surprised if they got to 50%.”
           
          So if he’s right, that leaves Key needing extra seats from somewhere. UF, ACT and the MP have 9 or ten seats between them now, but more likely 3-4 after election day. If National drop to 47% they will need every one of those hangers on to get to a majority. Every percentage point National drops below that is crushing to Key’s hopes, and if UF or ACT don’t get over the line, the difficulties mount.
          • Armchair Critic 12.1.1.1.1

            3 November 2011 at 8:03 pm

            It leaves them a Pansy Wong or a Richard Worth away from a mid-cycle general election. Lucky there are no rorters left in the National party, so it won’t happen.
          • tsmithfield 12.1.1.1.2

            3 November 2011 at 8:05 pm

            You must admit, TVOR, that its pretty sad when you have to try and see the bright side in these sorts of results.
            • The Voice of Reason 12.1.1.1.2.1

              3 November 2011 at 8:45 pm

              Not at all, ts. I’m pointing out that National have to keep winning at this level to be sure of victory. Their support partners are going to come a cropper no matter what National’s eventual percentage turns out to be and the maths says that they need 47% plus to be in the game. That’s a big ask.
               
              Now, I am annoyed that Key has got the headlines today. But that’s his only result in the first week of the campaign and, really, his best day in a month. The chump even managed to sprinkle loser dust all over the William Webb Ellis trophy. We now know that he can be rattled, that his wishy washy campaign can be derailed and that Phil Goff can match him in debates. And there is plenty of opportunity for Goff to improve, while Key has clearly peaked.
               
              Just as an aside, one trend I’ve taken interest in is NZF’s inability to pick up loose Labour votes. Why isn’t Winnie winning their support? I would have thought he would cannibalise at least a point or two from Labour’s swinging voters. Waddya reckon?
    • mickysavage 12.2

      3 November 2011 at 9:01 pm

      Hey Matthew

      What I want to know is you alleged Labour was trying to distort ipredict results and I gave you a classic example suggesting that the tories were actually doing it.  What is your response?

      As a media person you have an obligation to at least pretend to be independent rather than run tory attack lines.  So do you think that Ipredict was gamed by a right winger? 
      • Matthew Hooton 12.2.1

        4 November 2011 at 1:02 pm

        My response is that I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about
        • vto 12.2.1.1

          4 November 2011 at 1:04 pm

          fuck
        • mickysavage 12.2.1.2

          4 November 2011 at 1:20 pm

          Um
           
          You said that Labour was attempting to manipulate ipredict.  Your words are here.
           
          I then saw you commented on another Standard post and I asked this:
           
          “So Matthew …
           
          You posted an article on the electionresults site claiming that Labour was trying to manipulate the ipredict market.  Do you have the slightest shread of proof, even an itsy bitsy bit of proof that Labour did this?
           
          Yet you are strangely silent about the large shorting of Labour’s party vote at .31c?  Some one short sold 1,000 shares at that price obviously wanting to stop the price increasing beyond that point.
           
          I raised this on Red Alert and the order then magically disappeared.
          And why has electionresults not posted a very similar comment to this one that I made on the site?  After all if you are going to make these allegations on the web you should allow a contrary view, particularly one that is backed up by those fancy facty things.”
           
          Lanth also commented on the apparent attempted manipulation of the Labour Party vote here.
           
          So do you have any evidence whatsoever that a labour operative tried to manipulate ipredict or were you making shit up?  And what do you think about the apparent attempt by a presumably national leaning punter to manipulate ipredict?
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
          • Pete George 12.2.1.2.1

            4 November 2011 at 1:30 pm

            You’re spaced out again.

            I’m sure people with various connections try to manipulate iPredict. It’s impossible to know which ones have trading motives and which ones have political motives.

            I’ve noticed some major party moves. One example – just prior to the snapshot last week there was a big bundle that moved Nats and Greens aup and all other parties down, the smaller parties significantly.
            • mickysavage 12.2.1.2.1.1

              4 November 2011 at 4:27 pm

              Geez Pete
               
              I am not complaining that there is manipulation.  I am complaining because Hoots blamed labour for one incident of it when there was no evidence whatsoever that Labour was involved.
               
              To any of these self annointed public commentators if they spout crap they should be held to account for it.
               
13. Tom Gould 13

    3 November 2011 at 5:29 pm

    In the old days, “perennial National Party press sec applicant Tracy Watkins” would be working on the gardening page and have nothing to do with politics during the campaign. How low standards have fallen.
14. swordfish 14

    3 November 2011 at 5:36 pm

    “Perennial National Party press sec applicant Tracy Watkins”

    Precisely, absolutely bloody precisely what I’ve always thought when reading her spin and Nact apologetics.
15. gingercrush 15

    3 November 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Always attack the journalist. What a bunch of lumptys. Disagree with a journalist and suddenly they’re in National’s back pocket. Very desperate stuff and sad really. Especially consider Labour also has a history of having press secretaries that were former journalists.

    I guess you lot are just going to get even bitter now that another poll is released that is bad for Labour and the left.
    • Tom Gould 15.1

      3 November 2011 at 6:49 pm

      @ ginger, if it walks like a Tory, and talks like a Tory, and writes like a Tory, it probably is a Tory. Anyhow, after almost 4 years of craven promotion of Johnboy by the MSM, where is the surprise that one week of reasonably fair and balanced coverage has not closed a 20 point gap? Garner has been saying for months now that “Goff cannot win the election”, so he is hardly going to prove himself wrong, is he?
    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.2

      3 November 2011 at 7:16 pm

      “Lumptys”? If you’re going to winge in Pomgolian at least you could spell it right!
16. Willie Maley 16

    3 November 2011 at 7:15 pm

    Hooten, what’s the highest National have ever polled on polling day?
17. Nick C 17

    3 November 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Another ones out: http://tvnz.co.nz/election-2011/national-could-easily-govern-alone-poll-4502058

    National: 56%
    Labour: 30%
    Greens: 9%
    • willie maley 17.1

      3 November 2011 at 7:39 pm

      Nick C, believing that is like still believing in the tooth fairy. It ain’t gonna happen.
      • Nick C 17.1.1

        3 November 2011 at 8:46 pm

        Heh, who said I believed that that would be the result on election day?

        But it certainly doesn’t tell the story of a glorious Labour comeback does it, comrade?
        • Dan Hansen 17.1.1.1

          4 November 2011 at 9:34 am

          Does Eddie’s bind faith despite all evidence to the contray remind anybody else of that Iraqi information minister from the gulf war?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

          His last public appearance as Information Minister was on April 8, 2003, when he said that the Americans “are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender”.
18. Puddleglum 18

    3 November 2011 at 7:53 pm

    In all of this, it’s probably worth remembering that in the 2008 general election Labour and Greens combined got 40.7% (34 and 6.7%, respectively), National got 45%.

    In effect, Labour and the Greens combined are pretty much holding their vote at this stage. As was pointed out (even by people like Hootton, if I recall correctly), it was very close last time – much closer than people appreciated. In effect, it remains the case now.

    It’s the minor party vote from last time that will count. If ACT miss Epsom but get 2 or more percent; Mana get enough for 2 MPs; the Conservative Party miss Rodney but get a couple of percent …

    If the Maori Party, for example, are needed to get National over the line, what will they do about asset sales in any negotiation? What will they do about welfare ‘reform’?

    Then, there’s Christchurch. 
19. Blue 19

    3 November 2011 at 8:06 pm

    This will be a very interesting election in terms of how the poll results match up to the actual election results.

    I don’t believe for a second that National’s numbers are really as high as the polls put them. It’s getting to the point where it is frankly ludicrous what the polls are saying.

    National won in 2008 with 45% of the vote. They’ve had three years in office, and the gloss has started to wear off. Judging from social media and comments on news sites, National has taken a hit in the popularity stakes, especially after the downgrades and the Rena disaster, and Labour’s strong campaign.

    Yet the polls consistently show National over 50% (which has never happened under MMP) and able to govern alone, with no impact from any of the things mentioned above.

    National’s supporters can crow, but honestly, you do have to be pretty blinkered to think that these gravity-defying results can possibly represent reality.

    I think it’s time to say that landline phone polling has gone the way of telegrams and VCRs. What you would replace it with, I don’t know, but it clearly isn’t working anymore.
20. tsmithfield 20

    3 November 2011 at 8:28 pm

    I think the problem for the left in this election is that people look overseas and see how bad things could be if we were in the same shit as Europe, the US etc. Then they probably think things are very good here in comparison.

    Because of this, I think people feel positive about their situation even though it may not have improved or may even have gone backwards compared to the days when the world economy was booming. Thus, it is quite hard for Labour to gain traction because people are cutting the current government a lot of slack due to the difficult world environment and our relatively good one.
    • Craig Glen Eden 20.1

      4 November 2011 at 6:23 am

      You raise some very fair and interesting points ts. I think you could be right with this summary.
21. gingercrush 21

    3 November 2011 at 9:15 pm

    There are actually three things to keep an eye on. How accurate will the political polls be. They weren’t that bad in 2008 while some of them were hopeless in 2005 (I do suspect the tightness and the fact National faltered due to the Bretherens was a factor). Are phone based polls better than for instance Horizon. Personally, I think there are major problems with Horizon as their results are entirely opposite to either the polls or Ipredict. Then of course there is Ipredict. Is Ipredict something that in future will add value to political commentary or is it merely a stunt and entirely unreliable.

    Personally, I believe National will be between the polls and Ipredict and will be close to or just above 50%. The Greens will be at or around 8% and no greater than 9%. Labour will be around 30%. Act will be out. And Chauvel might just sneak past Dunne (that will be dependent mostly on what National voters decide to do). I just have no idea how the Maori party will fare. Hawawira will get in but as for the other electorates who knows.

    I also wonder how helpful social media in particular is to politics. Does it open up politics or does in fact help to obscure as both the left and right use and abuse it.. I suspect elements in both National and Labour in particular are using it to falsely create impressions on politics and issues. Therefore, social media is proving reactionary and often acting against actual opinion because of how capable manipulation can take place.
    • lprent 21.1

      3 November 2011 at 9:35 pm

      With the polls, what gets interesting is looking at how accurate they were to the actual result 6 months before. They always tighten up before the election as they rapidly shift when people start thinking about what they will actually vote.

      Mostly it depends on turnout. As always when there is a initial national victory, there was a low turnout last election.

      I don’t think national will be anywhere near 50%. How close they are to 45% is going to be the question. Labour the same but for 35%. Greens at 7-9%. MP I think I’d pick 3 electorate seats. Mana probably 1 electorate and maybe a list MP. Have no idea on Dunne.

      Wasted vote about 5-6% mostly from NZF.
      • Brett Dale 21.1.1

        4 November 2011 at 4:52 pm

        The only thing that the polls have been incorrect every election is having the Greens too high and then its only about 2% too high, within the margin of error.
    • lprent 21.2

      3 November 2011 at 9:38 pm

      And the coalition building is likely to be interesting – 1996 levels of interesting..
22. Brett Dale 22

    4 November 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Every single poll since National has took office, says they can either govern alone or with their coalition partner, every single one.

    Are they are wrong? Are they that inaccurate? Thousands of polls over three years and they are all wrong????

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS