Preliminary RM results: NZF jumps to 9%

Written By: - Date published: 7:33 pm, March 18th, 2016 - 290 comments
Categories: elections, political parties, Politics, polls - Tags:

Preliminary Roy Morgan numbers for Feb 29 to Mar 13 are out. I don’t see their commentary up yet however.

NZF jumps 3% to 9%, putting them at their highest Roy Morgan polling in recent history.

Labour increases 1% to 28%. Greens are on 14%.

This gives the LAB/GR/NZF block 51%: potentially a 3 to 4 MP majority in Parliament.

National drops 2.5% to 46%. They’d need significant minor party help to get them over the line – and they don’t have it.

———

EDIT

MS found the RM write up before I did:

During March support for National fell 2.5% to 46% – the lowest since September 2015, now only 4% ahead of a potential Labour/Greens alliance 42% (up 0.5%). If a New Zealand Election were held now the latest NZ Roy Morgan Poll shows NZ First 9% (up 3%) would hold the balance of power and be in a position to determine who would form the next New Zealand Government.

 

 

290 comments on “Preliminary RM results: NZF jumps to 9% ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    18 March 2016 at 7:41 pm

    Awesome!

  2. Anne 2
    18 March 2016 at 7:50 pm

    I’m not surprised Peters and NZ First have jumped by 6%.
    a) He’s had very good press lately.
    b) I expect a significant proportion of that 6% were disgruntled Nats. Frustrated with JK’s continual lying and of course the flag fiasco.

    Watch for the corporate media attack dogs to start baring their teeth. Maybe they’ll leave Andrew Little alone for a while.

  3. b waghorn 3
    18 March 2016 at 7:56 pm

    I’d love to know if nzf jump is coming from rural nz,

    • Shona 3.1
      18 March 2016 at 8:00 pm

      Of it is ! And NZF’s support is more than 9%. RM polls have been skewed towards an urban perspective for far too long.

      • alwyn 3.1.1
        18 March 2016 at 8:55 pm

        Please explain where these opinions come from?
        How do you know where NZFs vote is coming from and how you know there surveys are biased. They don’t say how they do it and unless you work for them you can’t possibly know.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1
          18 March 2016 at 9:12 pm

          Looks to me like disatisfaction with National in provincial seats like Northland and Whangarei might not be entirely isolated.

          • alwyn 3.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2016 at 10:26 pm

            Yes but you are just giving an opinion, and you may be right..
            Shona is presenting it as being fact when she cannot, as far as I can see, possibly know..

        • lprent 3.1.1.2
          19 March 2016 at 11:21 am

          I was going to respond to this with details. However my favorite source (nz stats) appears offline or unavailable from Italy. Hopefully it isn’t from the recent underfunding by the nats of the stats department on the basis that they don’t like the information it provides about their appalling lack of ability to manage the economy or our society.

          So you will have to suffer my opinions without the associated facts.

          Anyhow.. Try this query
          https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nz%20stats%20urbanisation

          Basically Shona is both right and wrong.

          The RM polls have been screwed towards urban populations because we are a highly urbanised nation. Last time I looked we had approximately 90% of our voting population in what are defined as urban areas, and this has been becoming steadily more urbanised in every decade that I have been alive (a long time).

          The only real change in the trend over the years has been the rate at which the de-ruralisation has proceeded. The census figures show when it was faster (90s especially) or slower (00s) .

          That is why the towns I knew in Otago and Southland, when I was doing an MBA or waiting for my partner to finisher her degrees in the mid-80s, either don’t exist any more or are shriveled remnants of what they were. Similarly outside of the tourist districts, the same has happened in the north island towns.

          Basically these days ‘rural’ areas in terms of population amount to less electorates than the Maori seats have. In fact the main reason why some of those rural electorates claw into urban areas is because the rural vote in northern Maori seats chops out so many rural voters.

          I’d usually mutter here about the obnoxious effects of the South Island quota on our MMP electoral system. But I really can’t be arsed

          Suffice it to say that the rural voters are small minority and getting ever smaller and less affluent generally – thereby affecting access to polling companies. Which is why they tend to be under represented now compared to previously.

          Read the stats (whenever they come online again).

          • alwyn 3.1.1.2.1
            19 March 2016 at 11:55 am

            You say that
            “they tend to be under represented now compared to previously”
            That I am quite happy with. We are becoming, like most countries, an ever more urbanised society. Even quite large towns like Masterton haven’t changed population in 50 years. Smaller ones will have dropped.

            I didn’t read the comment as saying merely that the numbers polled were dropping because the number of people in those areas was declining. It seemed to be saying that they were polling less people in rural areas that their population would justify. This is how I read
            “RM polls have been skewed towards an urban perspective for far too long”

            It may not be what was meant but I can’t really tell unless Shona responds.

            ps. Did you see I have posted a reference to Winston on the “baubles of office”

          • weka 3.1.1.2.2
            19 March 2016 at 11:42 pm

            At some point I’m going to put up an argument that NZ needs to adjust for biases around population concentration esp the urban/rural divide. Governance of South Island issues shouldn’t be being decided by a concentration of voting population in Auckland. One person one vote is the most basic aspect of democracy but it’s not the epitome. If we become an urban dominant society we lose the ability to make good decisions about the land. That’s already happening of course.

            “Last time I looked we had approximately 90% of our voting population in what are defined as urban areas”

            Presumably that includes rural towns. People in Winton or Lawrence are still largely going to be voting from rural perspectives (although the towniefication of rural towns and areas is probably changing that).

            • alwyn 3.1.1.2.2.1
              20 March 2016 at 9:50 am

              They abolished the “country quota”, which is basically what you are advocating, back in 1946. I can’t see it being brought back.
              It also only works in a FPP environment. Once we moved to MMP the only way you could make a variable weighted vote, where a vote in Winton counts for more than a vote in Mount Eden would be to have a multiplier for the different regions.
              Let’s give 1 to a town like Taupo, 1.2 to Winton and 0.8 to Grey Lynn.
              Do you think the Labour Party would go for something like that?
              I think we have to stick to 1 person, 1 vote. Anything else would be gamed to hell and back.

  4. swordfish 4
    18 March 2016 at 8:03 pm

    I’ll just repeat my Daily Review comment here …

    This is the first Roy Morgan in a while that’s placed the Oppo ahead of the Govt.

    Roy Morgans in early/mid 2015 often had the Govt 5,6,7 points ahead (rising to an astonishing 12 point lead in one poll and 14 points in another).

    Oppo now with 3 point lead.

    Of course, it’d be true to say that Roy Morgan is often given to wild swings. But, interestingly, not in recent times. Been solidly Govt-leaning (in stark contrast to the Colmar Bruntons and Reid Research Polls, which have been consistently favouring the Opposition since May last year).

    So an interesting swing.

    Cue: Our regular Tory Gentlemen-callers – a Mr Puckish Rogue, a Mr BM and a Mr Gormy – arriving in a state of nervous (albeit somewhat hyperactive) exhaustion to seed the idea that a Nat-NZF coalition is imminent, any notion of Winnie heading Labour’s way presumably being little more than Crazy Talk.

    • swordfish 4.1
      18 March 2016 at 8:46 pm

      Previous 5 Roy Morgans had Govt leading.

      • swordfish 4.2.1
        18 March 2016 at 9:13 pm

        Pretty sure you haven’t read me ever saying that, young master G.

        Never had any issues whatsoever with New Zealand’s main pollsters …
        … but do, occasionally, have probs with the way one or other media outlet has decided to spin the results.

        The current Listener Editor’s (sometimes explicit / sometimes implicit) suggestion (repeated over a number of recent editorials) that the Flag options are pretty much
        neck-and-neck in the polls, with the Lockwood alternative supposedly steadily gaining ground … being a recent case in point.

        • Lanthanide 4.2.1.1
          18 March 2016 at 9:52 pm

          You only ‘occasionally’ have problems with the media spin on the polls?

      • Stuart Munro 4.2.2
        18 March 2016 at 9:27 pm

        This one escaped your perfidious machinations!

    • the pigman 4.3
      18 March 2016 at 10:33 pm

      You forgot alwyn! 😀 But yes, send in the clowns!

      • alwyn 4.3.1
        18 March 2016 at 10:42 pm

        Back in the sty, fellow. Stick to wallowing in the mud.
        You are boaring.
        And you aren’t really very funny so to describe yourself as a clown is rather stretching things. Do you have anything to offer to the debate.

    • AB 4.4
      19 March 2016 at 10:06 am

      You can’t take too much from a single RM.
      Their behaviour for years has been to oscillate between Nats comfortably ahead and Oppo slightly ahead. I interpret that range of oscillation as Nats ahead.

      We need to see the whole range shift before we get excited, i.e the range is Oppo comfortably ahead to Nats slightly ahead.

      Don’t pick out individual RMs for comment

  5. ianmac 5
    18 March 2016 at 8:18 pm

    In due course maybe months away, Labour will release hearty policy to excite the masses. Some things to develop and but not so soon that would allow Key’s Dirty Tricks Brigade (Under new management)to spread their evil.
    51% is a good start yes?

  6. swordfish 6
    18 March 2016 at 8:24 pm

    NZF Quarterly Averages since 2010
    ALL Public Polls (not just Roy Morgan)

    …………………….1/4………2/4………3/4………4/4

    2010 …………….2………….2………….3………….3
    2011……………..4………….3………….2………….3
    2012……………..5………….4…………..4………….5
    2013……………..4………….4…………..4………….4
    2014……………..5………….5…………..6………….7
    2015……………..6………….7…………..7………….7
    2016……………..8

  7. BM 7
    18 March 2016 at 8:27 pm

    Rural NZ is traditionally National country.

    If NZ first is getting lots of rural votes his natural coalition partner is going to be National.

    If that means the end of John Key so be it, the National party is more than one man/woman.

    John Key would only ever do 3+terms, he’ll transition out of politics in a way that saves face but still keeps National in government.

    • Lanthanide 7.1
      18 March 2016 at 8:30 pm

      I see you got your cue from swordfish above at #4!

      Cue: Our regular Tory Gentlemen-callers – a Mr Puckish Rogue, a Mr BM and a Mr Gormy – arriving in a state of nervous (albeit somewhat hyperactive) exhaustion to seed the idea that a Nat-NZF coalition is imminent, any notion of Winnie heading Labour’s way presumably being little more than Crazy Talk.

      • alwyn 7.1.1
        18 March 2016 at 9:08 pm

        I’ll offer you a choice of options.
        (1) NZF get a third place set of choices after Labour and the Greens have picked the juicy roles. After they have had their pick of all the plum jobs do you think Winston would settle for being Revenue Minister say?
        (2) National offer him Foreign Affairs, the promise of a knighthood and High Commissioner to London after 2 years.
        Honestly which way do you think Winston would choose?

        If you are going to come up with the hoary old theory that Winston couldn’t possibly deal with National look back to the 1990s. Bolger kicked Peters out of the National Caucus and arranged that he couldn’t be chosen as a National candidate again. That is when he quit Parliament, founded NZF and ran in a Tauranga by-election. About 4 years later he was Bolger’s best friend and back in a National led Government.
        Winston will do what is best for Winston.

        The idea that Winston must go with Labour and the Greens because he “hates John Key” is ridiculous.
        Mind you I don’t think any Government, whether Labour led or National led would be stable with Winston in the fold.

        • BobInAkl 7.1.1.1
          18 March 2016 at 9:33 pm

          That’s what I think as well, when it comes down to the final call Winston will rather be second than third, three years in Foreign affairs sniping at JK, or three years as the third wheel, with the NATZ picking and niggling at every perceived conflict between the three.

        • dv 7.1.1.2
          18 March 2016 at 9:38 pm

          1990 — thats 26 years ago!!!
          Any one else there that long

          Winny made a reasonable job of foreign minister.

          • alwyn 7.1.1.2.1
            18 March 2016 at 10:04 pm

            The Father of the house is Peter Dunne. He has been there, continuously since 1984. A Minister most of the time too.
            Winston was first elected in 1978. You have to remember he is 71in a few weeks. I think an attractive job in London would appeal to him.

            • lprent 7.1.1.2.1.1
              19 March 2016 at 11:24 am

              Winston was first elected in 1978. You have to remember he is 71in a few weeks. I think an attractive job in London would appeal to him.

              FFS: why would he need it. He was part of the generations of MPs with a gold plated retirement rort.

              • alwyn …
                19 March 2016 at 11:42 am

                He would have been collecting it since 2008 of course. He will only be in the current one nowadays. Still very generous though.
                On the other hand have you seen the price of cigarettes these days? It must cost him about $20,000/year for his fags.

                The old scheme was generous but not impossibly so. An MP who entered in 1990 and retired in 2008 would have got %51,000/year.

                “Old Parliamentary Superannuation scheme: An MP who came into parliament in 1990 and retires at the next election will be eligible for an annuity of $51,450 a year, if he or she contributed at the maximum rate, according to the Government Superannuation Fund. The annuity is adjusted annually for inflation. The MP could instead take a lump sum of $354,806 although the scheme is primarily geared for annuities”
                Ex PMs get quite a lot more of course but Winston was never that.

                That is from a 2007 paper
                http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/latest-edition/34339/New-MP-super-scheme-just-as-generous

                Winston was longer than that and there is an inflation index but I doubt he gets more than $100,000/year.
                As a racehorse owner he has expensive tastes. As well have you ever met an MP who didn’t think they deserved more? Or accepted they had nothing more to offer?

                • lprent …
                  19 March 2016 at 11:59 am

                  Including super and the gold card… 😈

                  However having met and made personal assessments of various politicians over the years, I don’t think very many of the higher real profile MPs (compared to the inflationary profiles of the blowhards) are motivated much by money.

                  I can’t imagine Winston Peters being any more willing to exile than Phil Goff is. Helen Clark went to help the huddled masses (and shunned some other offers in the process). Bolger went (in my opinion) because of simple sense of duty.

                  I suspect that I have a far less cynical view than you do about the motivations of why the fools became MPs.

                  I’d point out that the main reason why I got involved in politics and chose to do it by supporting those dumb enough to eschew more interesting professions, was because I found I preferred programming. Instead I managed to fool my call to duty by helping those competent people who were daft enough to want to do the job.

          • left for dead 7.1.1.2.2
            19 March 2016 at 9:57 am

            Yes he did, and made a fine job of chatting up Condy Rice, very respectable figure in those fine suits of his.

        • Lanthanide 7.1.1.3
          18 March 2016 at 9:44 pm

          How about:
          Labour offer him Foreign Affairs, the promise of a knighthood and High Commissioner to London after 2 years?

          You know, if its a choice between being in government and giving up some ‘plum roles’ or not being in government and therefore not having any ‘plum roles’ to give up, it’s pretty obvious which outcome Labour/Greens would prefer.

          Also, I’m not sure that Winston would actually take an international posting, kind of goes against his politics.

          • alwyn 7.1.1.3.1
            18 March 2016 at 10:08 pm

            Would they really offer a knighthood? And would he play third fiddle to the Greens.
            He would have an excuse to choose National over the alternative of course. You know “The National Party is more popular that the Labour Party and the Green Party combined. It is my duty to the New Zealand public to reflect this in the formation of the next Government ………………”. Bs but WP is good at that.

            • Mike C 7.1.1.3.1.1
              19 March 2016 at 9:48 am

              @Alwyn

              Yeap … pretty sure that Winston has said that he would never work with the Greens or the Maori Party.

              Plus … aren’t the Labour Party anti the Knighthood system?

              Winston is more likely to go with National if he ends up holding the balance of power … based purely upon his past behaviour.

              • alwyn …
                19 March 2016 at 10:19 am

                “Winston has said that he would never work with the Greens or the Maori Party”. What he says at one point in time and what he does at a later date have no connection.

                Remember when Winston made a speech in which he said “so we genuinely don’t care about the baubles of office”? That was before the 2005 election.

                After the election, in an interview he said “The baubles means, a bauble means a trinket not worth having, I never said anything of the sort but you interpreted that way and repeated ad nauseum all around the country”.

                Winston is someone who will do, or say, anything he feels will help him but is never bound by his statements.

              • lprent …
                19 March 2016 at 10:25 am

                I am pretty sure that you are wrong. Try doing a search for any such statement.

                Winston Peters was trained as a lawyer. It is a breed that is trained never to make a absolutist statement like that. And that was before he became a politician. I suspect that your opinion has been formed by myths rather than reality.

                Since I’m not going to try and prove a negative, and you are trying to build mountain out of a positive statement that you can’t produce, then I’d have to count it as being something you can produce a statement from Peters for, or allow it to be treated as simpleton stupid bullshit.

                • alwyn …
                  19 March 2016 at 10:40 am

                  Here is the source of both quotes. They are direct cut and pastes.
                  http://yournz.org/2014/09/13/winston-peters-on-baubles-of-office/

                  • lprent …
                    19 March 2016 at 12:33 pm

                    My bad. I was referring to the first paragraph in Mike C’s comment. I didn’t read past that pile of complete bollocks.

                    Yeap … pretty sure that Winston has said that he would never work with the Greens or the Maori Party.

                    However your own link simply makes it quite clear what Winston Peters considered to be a bauble.

                    Just as a complete sideline, after 3 decades when I didn’t bother travelling offshore, in my current job I have traveled a lot and will do a lot more. Currently it looks like about 25-30% of my year. I also got a significiant salary increase compared to the capital constrained greenfield startup projects I started doing two decades ago.

                    Reading between the lines of your viewpoint, you’d consider those to be ‘baubles’ of the job. However the main reason I accepted this job was because it was exporting IP AND the internet had gotten to the point that I could both spend time offshore and continue to work on my other interests like sysoping this site or having a remote relationship.

                    Hell I just had a 2 hour skype conversation with Lyn using the data from my cellphone in which we determined that our kettle at home was at fault – not the electrics in the wall. We even managed to blow out the site for a few minutes because we plugged the kettle into the UPS for the network and the surge suppressors shut the UPS down.

                    Try doing that in the early 90s when I deliberately gave up the dubious pleasures of travelling to concentrate on being a geek and programming quality export code.

                    But I suspect that you’d be daft enough to consider that I was chasing the baubles of the job. Pssssh. Talk about someone (like you) having such a shallow and rather envious view of people.

                    The standing joke amongst my colleagues (and Lyn) is how bad a tourist I am. I’m sitting in Italy with paid for hire car and absolutely no interest this weekend of doing anything more than sitting high on a snowbound hillside and recoding some of the more irritating aspects (as I see them) of this site.

                    What you consider to be ‘baubles’ are to me are about as interesting as they probably are to Winston Peters or Helen Clark. They are a byproduct of what we want to achieve.

                    • alwyn …
                      19 March 2016 at 2:30 pm

                      Oh. Clicked on the wrong reply button.
                      I thought I was the only one who did that.

                      Edit. Oh I see. I wasn’t advocating that Winston had ever said what I started with, about the Greens. It was just a lead in.

                      I got sick of domestic travel the year, back in the 1970s that I did over 250 flights. I even got sick of International when I made 12 overseas trips in a year, 9 past Australia.
                      It isn’t the travel to get there that is a pain. However the entertainment when there can be fun. There is also the Limos and the private car that Winston seems to love.

                    • lprent …
                      21 March 2016 at 7:41 am

                      In my first job post first degree, I seemed to have spent a awful amount of time travelling working largely in Think Big stuff.

                      After my second degree, I started doing a lot of travelling for tourism offshore. That was when I found I was a ratshit tourist.

                      This current round has me doing 28-32 hours flight + airport time to spend a month or more on site. The work is fun. The flying bores me. Especially since I only seem to find movies that I have either seen or have little interest to me. This last time I had to descend to watching the latest Star Wars – and I never bothered to watch any of them before except in snatches on TV. No internet on the planes (that I can afford) is intensely irritating.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.4
          18 March 2016 at 9:58 pm

          (2) National offer him Foreign Affairs, the promise of a knighthood and High Commissioner to London after 2 years.

          You honestly think that Winston can be bribed?

          If you are going to come up with the hoary old theory that Winston couldn’t possibly deal with National look back to the 1990s.

          I’m looking at the 1990s and I’m sure that Winston is as well. He’ll also be looking at the 2000s when he and NZFirst had a really great run with Labour. He’ll also be looking at the lies that National have told and their destruction of the economy.

          Mind you I don’t think any Government, whether Labour led or National led would be stable with Winston in the fold.

          Yeah, that’s just an outright fantasy told to try and scare people off of NZFirst. But people recall that the only time that the government came crashing down with Winston in it was when National was the dominant partner.

          It’s not Winston that makes a coalition unstable but National.

          • alwyn 7.1.1.4.1
            18 March 2016 at 10:12 pm

            “You honestly think that Winston can be bribed”
            You are joking aren’t you? Is the Pope a Catholic?
            You will also note that the Government did NOT come down in 1998.
            It kept going perfectly happily until the 1999 election.

            • Kiwiri 7.1.1.4.1.1
              18 March 2016 at 10:25 pm

              Winston is still not very forgiving about the time when Nats were wanting to take him down big down circa 2008. He has experienced time and time again what snakes the Nats are

              • alwyn …
                18 March 2016 at 10:35 pm

                That was not nearly as much an attempted takedown as was 1992-93.
                Then WP was expelled from the National Caucus. The Tauranga electorate was forbidden from reselecting him as a candidate.
                That was an attempt to destroy his political career. It was still in the days of FPP remember and I don’t think anyone really believed he could survive.
                All 2008 was was Key saying he couldn’t work with him in a Key Government. That is water of a ducks back to a politician. WP will find it very easy to ignore it if it is in his interest to do so.

                • Puddleglum …
                  20 March 2016 at 8:43 pm

                  “All 2008 was was Key saying he couldn’t work with him in a Key Government. ”

                  There was a bit more to it than that.

                  The reason Key made that claim was that Winston was being hounded by Hide and National over being a liar.

                  It wasn’t just Key saying he couldn’t work with Peters it was Key saying he couldn’t work with him as part of the concerted and prolonged attack on Peters that Hide and National were organising.

                  Key’s ‘I can never work with him’ (until he suddenly could in the lead up to 2011) was very much part of those tactics and not some incidental, principled decision Key made.

                  Further, the attempt had, of course, nothing to do with Peters’ ‘lack of integrity’ as National and Hide repeatedly claimed. It had to do with trying – successfully as it turned out – to ensure that NZ First (Peters’ flagship political achievement) was ejected from Parliament, and presumably they hoped for good.

                  It was a targeted ‘taking out’ of NZ First from the electoral calculation, the convenient ‘wasting’ of a proportion of the vote not going to National, and effective undermining of Labour’s vote by association.

                  I have no idea whether or not Winston Peters holds a grudge over that time but to say that it was of less import than his initial expulsion from the National Party is misleading. Peters knew the game he was playing in the lead up to that expulsion and was probably surprised it took Bolger so long to drop the axe.

                  Quite different contexts alright but, if Peters is susceptible to holding grudges, I reckon the 2008 episode was far more grudge-provoking because of the clinical and quite personal quality of the public humiliation.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.4.1.2
              19 March 2016 at 12:04 am

              You are joking aren’t you? Is the Pope a Catholic?

              Have a look. Winston’s never been bribed. It’s only ever National coming out with the BS about the baubles of Office. Although they never apply that to themselves and yet it’s always them that uses the office for personal gain.

              You will also note that the Government did NOT come down in 1998.

              A few NZFirst people absconded and propped up the failed government for the last few months but they were pretty much stilted stifled in what they could do. If they’d pushed for anything they would have come down as they would not have been able to get the votes.

              [lprent: I couldn’t stand seeing what I presume is a classic spellchecker screwup distorting the meaning of the comment. So I changed it to what I think you meant. Let me know if I screwed up. ]

              • weka …
                19 March 2016 at 12:18 am

                “Winston’s never been bribed.”

                how would we know one way or the other when coalition negotiations are done in secret? (that’s not about Winston, that’s about the process).

              • alwyn …
                19 March 2016 at 9:50 am

                What were the donations from Racing Groups to Winston, when he was Minister of Racing and threw Taxpayer money into the industry?

                “few NZFirst people absconded and propped up the failed government for the last few months”
                Shall we change that to More than a third of the MPs left the party after a leadership challenge by Henare failed and The Shipley Government continued in power for a further 14 months, more that 40% of its term.

                “a few Mps” and “the last few months” you suggest.
                On that basis I suppose we could say that the Clark Labour Government lasted for “a couple of years”.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  19 March 2016 at 10:37 am

                  What were the donations from Racing Groups to Winston, when he was Minister of Racing and threw Taxpayer money into the industry?

                  What were the donations to National from the trucking and construction lobbies which then legislated, against advice and the rules, to build the RoNS?

                  And Winston was Minister for Racing – It was actually his job to support it. Sure, it looks dodgy but he hasn’t been found guilty of taking bribery.

                  Shall we change that to More than a third of the MPs left the party

                  Yeah, a third of 17 is 6 which equates quite nicely to a few..

                  As for the ones that propped up National?

                  Many of these MPs had previously come under public scrutiny for their behaviour.

                  Birds of a feather and all that.

                  I’d obviously misremembered the term that National had after NZFirst left.

                  And, after all that, the reason why NZFirst lost support was because they went with National and not Labour as had been generally understood that they would do.

            • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1.4.1.3
              19 March 2016 at 6:24 am

              Alwyn, it is true the government continued until 1999 but to say “it kept going perfectly happily” is a considerable stretch.

              • alwyn …
                19 March 2016 at 9:19 am

                Well yes.
                On the other hand I was competing in the two horse Group 1 Hyperbole Stakes and was up against “the government came crashing down”.
                I think the stretch was pretty much equal.

          • alwyn 7.1.1.4.2
            18 March 2016 at 10:54 pm

            I missed out one item with my first reply.
            You say “he and NZFirst had a really great run with Labour”.
            Really? They had one ministerial job which was outside cabinet. He was suspended from the job after accusations of fraud, although he was allowed to keep the pay and the perks.
            Then in 2008 the party lost all its seats in Parliament
            If the is “a really great run” I would hate to see what you regard as a failure.

            • Skinny 7.1.1.4.2.1
              18 March 2016 at 11:13 pm

              “Then in 2008 the party lost all its seats in Parliament.”
              Now do you really expect Winston will forgive & forgot?

              • alwyn …
                19 March 2016 at 12:00 am

                I certainly don’t think he is going to forget.
                However that was then, this is now. Winston isn’t someone who will cut off his nose to spite his face is he? He will do whatever is good for Winston NOW. If he turns out to be the king-maker and National offer more than Labour he won’t hesitate for a second.
                He is a politician after all.
                Look at Helen Clark. She was no doubt very, very unhappy when Winston went with Bolger in 1996 when she so desperately wanted to be PM.
                It didn’t stop her welcoming him with open arms in 2005 when he was her only chance of staying as PM. She was a realist just as much as Winston is.
                That is what all politicians are like. Never forget it.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.4.2.2
              19 March 2016 at 12:10 am

              Really? They had one ministerial job which was outside cabinet.

              Yep, he did. The post that he wanted. It wasn’t until the sustained and unwarranted attack by National that things went south. Before then it was two years of good blood between Labour and NZFirst and Winston doing a fine job at Foreign Affairs.

              National really is the dirty, nasty, underhanded and downright corrupt party.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                19 March 2016 at 6:27 am

                Winston Peters’ Party (and, on a much bigger scale Labour) stole money from the taxpayer, lied about it, then – when caught – legislated under urgency to make it legal – and then tried to make it illegal for third parties to communicate criticism of the government (Labour) on anything but a trivial scale.

                I don’t think it makes National “dirty, nasty, underhanded and downright corrupt” to have attacked them for this.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  19 March 2016 at 8:22 am

                  Nope. They followed the law as they understood it as they, and every other party, had done for 14 years (every party had spent money under the same understanding). The AG then redefined how the law was interpreted bringing about a constitutional crisis in that it, effectively, made all those 14 years of governance illegal meaning that the government had to act.

                  Of course, that wasn’t what National attacked Winston for. National attacked Winston for his donations. The process of those donations may have been a little iffy but not corrupt as National’s Cabinet Club is.

                  • Anne …
                    19 March 2016 at 8:47 am

                    Spot on DTB. Matthew Hooton is playing dirty, nasty, underhanded and downright corrupt when accusing Labour and NZ First of stealing and lying. Talk about the pot calling… look what’s happened since the lying, corrupt John Key became Prime Minister.

                    • alwyn …
                      19 March 2016 at 9:55 am

                      You stick to your rosy views of Winston, Anne. I think it is very sweet.
                      What are you going to say about him if he does, God forbid, become Kingmaker and goes with National?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      19 March 2016 at 12:53 pm

                      What are you going to say about him if he does, God forbid, become Kingmaker and goes with National?

                      The same thing that was said about him across the country in 1996. And in 2020 he won’t have a party any more.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  19 March 2016 at 9:16 am

                  Of course not – National are dirty nasty underhanded and downright corrupt in far more of their dealings than just those that involve NZF – and Winston is enough of a nationalist to resent that too.

          • Chooky 7.1.1.4.3
            19 March 2016 at 11:13 am

            +100 DTB

        • swordfish 7.1.1.5
          18 March 2016 at 10:04 pm

          Winnie certainly wouldn’t be overly-keen on playing third fiddle in any political orchestra (regardless of ideological hue).

          But …
          (1) NZF outpolling the Greens in 2017 (not necessarily probable, but certainly possible given their current trajectory) arguably makes a Centre-Left Govt more likely (easier
          for him to insist on a two-way Lab-NZF deal, forcing Greens to offer support from
          cross-benches or – if that’s a no-go – three-way deal with NZF strutting its stuff as main Deputy Dawg).

          (2) Quite a bit of polling evidence accumulating (which I might blog on in near future) suggesting NZF supporters are now disproportionately former Labour voters (in contrast to pre-2008, especially 1990s, when older former Nats were dominant group in NZF constituency). I’d suggest most current NZFers (if I can put it that way) prefer a Lab to Nat-led Government. Visceral dislike of Key among NZFers.

          (3) Winnie has traditionally been antagonistic towards the Greens but I’d suggest currently not quite to the degree some would have us believe. (and he’s a very good chum of Turei’s by all accounts)

          (4) Don’t downplay Winnie’s serious issues with not only Key but a number of current Cab Mins. Revenge !, Revenge !, Revenge !

          • alwyn 7.1.1.5.1
            18 March 2016 at 10:17 pm

            If option 1 happened what would the Green Party do? I can’t imagine they would really go along with it.
            If have no idea whether your option 2 makes any sense, but if you have some evidence I hope you will put it forward.
            Option 3? I have no idea.
            Option 4? Winston is a veteran politician. I think he would easily overcome any claimed antipathy if it was good for Winston. As I say it happened in the 1990s with Bolger.

          • weka 7.1.1.5.2
            18 March 2016 at 10:59 pm

            That’s good to hear about Peters and Turei.

            Why do there have to be 2nd and 3rd rankings? Why not 2nd equal?

          • Olwyn 7.1.1.5.3
            18 March 2016 at 11:20 pm

            I would add that this lot epitomise the very reason Winston left National in the first place. With Bolger sans Richardson he would have seen the chance of pulling National back toward its roots. Bolger seemed to see their alliance that way to some degree as well, which is why he got rolled. Whatever Winston wants or doesn’t want for himself, he does care about this country.

            • alwyn 7.1.1.5.3.1
              19 March 2016 at 12:06 am

              Your belief in the patriotism of Winston over-riding his personal interests is touching.
              He didn’t “leave” National though did he? He was kicked out. As for him being such a fine man. I suppose you believe that he gave the illegally spent money from the 2005 election to charity don’t you. Amazing that no-one has ever found a recipient. Winston may be someone who puts New Zealand in second place. However he always puts Winston first.

              • Olwyn …
                19 March 2016 at 8:12 am

                I am not an NZF voter and I do not think Winston is a saint. But I think he is unlikely to endorse attitudes and policies that he has campaigned against all his political life, and made large sacrifices over. The furtherance of his policies plays a large part in the price of his support.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  19 March 2016 at 8:25 am

                  Winston’s an old fashioned conservative and they do have far more in common with Labour these days than National.

          • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1.5.4
            19 March 2016 at 6:30 am

            The revenge that Winston usually seeks is forcing people who previously attacked him to pay homage to him. The revenge he got against Bolger and Clark for their years of attacks on him was making them take him seriously as Treasurer/DPM and Minister of Foreign Affairs – to the extent of kowtowing to him. Forcing Key to do the same could well be more attractive than backing a Little-led government.

            • Mike C 7.1.1.5.4.1
              19 March 2016 at 9:57 am

              @Mathew Hooton

              Well let’s just hope that neither Labour nor National require Winstons assistance following the 2017 Election … because the last time he had the balance of power he held the final election result hostage for nearly two months.

              • lprent …
                19 March 2016 at 10:14 am

                You are talking about 1996?
                What about 2005 – took about a week to sort out the coalition.

                You really need to read more political history rather than idiotic mythic reinterpretations of history.

                • alwyn …
                  19 March 2016 at 10:32 am

                  There is another interpretation of course. I doubt you would accept it though.
                  Helen Clark learned her lesson in 1996. She lost her chance of being the first female New Zealand Prime Minister because Bolger was willing to give NZF more than she was.
                  In 2005 she was willing to give anything Winston asked for. Ask and ye shall receive was her view that year. Worked too. Foreign Affairs and Racing. The Racing being so he could reward his backers.
                  Read this story all the way through. Why did the Labour Party change their policy on racing support except to reward Winston’s friends and backers?
                  http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/feature-archive/549208/Winstons-one-horse-race

                  • lprent …
                    19 March 2016 at 12:04 pm

                    Ummm weren’t you just arguing that NZF got bugger all out of the 2005 coalition?

                    Perhaps you should explain how you reconcile those two differing viewpoints without becoming a spaghetti monster?

                    I look forward to the convoluted hypocrisy in my morning…

                    • alwyn …
                      19 March 2016 at 12:14 pm

                      I don’t think I ever argued that Winston missed out.

                      I did say that it didn’t work out very well for the New Zealand First Party but Winston was well looked after. A chance to travel the world as the Foreign Minister. A chance to reward his friends and indulge his hobby as Racing Minister.

                      No need to worry about all the other mundane details that being in Cabinet would involve, and no need to allow any other member of his party to get any of the limelight as they did in 1996-98.

                      For New First it was a bummer, particularly as they all lost their seats. For Winston it was wonderful.

                    • You_Fool …
                      21 March 2016 at 9:46 am

                      Also ignores Winston’s own comments on why he went with National in 1996 and Labour in 2005. Sure he was able to force some concessions out each time, but that was because he held his cards close. As it turned out both were ultimate bluffs as he was always going with the options he took at both those times (although he got burned by National both times)

          • Chooky 7.1.1.5.5
            19 March 2016 at 11:14 am

            +100 swordfish

        • OneTrack 7.1.1.6
          19 March 2016 at 10:18 am

          3) Winston demands the role of Prime Minister for his support of a Labour/Green/Mana/NZ First coalition, and whoever is leader of Labour by then falls over themselves to give it to him so that Labour/Green can finally be back behind the levers of power. Where they belong.

          • alwyn 7.1.1.6.1
            19 March 2016 at 10:35 am

            That sounds like the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
            I think you are in a parallel universe.

          • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1.6.2
            19 March 2016 at 4:34 pm

            It’s ultimately not the leader but the labour caucus who would make the decision

    • saveNZ 7.2
      18 March 2016 at 9:15 pm

      @BM not if the rural folk are sending the Natz a message.

      Since Natz want to privatise everything including Fonterra if they could get their hands on it, join TPPA and make Kiwis tenants in their own country – not sure how much in common Natz and NZF have together?

      • alwyn 7.2.1
        19 March 2016 at 12:09 am

        “want to privatise everything including Fonterra”.
        Can you explain what this statement means? You are aware, are you not, that Fonterra is already a privately owned organisation? It isn’t owned by the Government, however much Andrew Little might wish.

        • KJT 7.2.1.1
          20 March 2016 at 2:09 pm

          It used to be a Farmers co-op.

          Since it has been opened up to outside shareholding and run by, the short term focused, overpaid and under-skilled members of the “Management cast” the results have been entirely predictable.

          • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1.1
            20 March 2016 at 2:20 pm

            They’re clearly not paying Fonterra’s senior managers enough. $500K pa is hardly anything these days. If you want any kind of performance from management they need to be on seven figures.

            /sarc

            • alwyn 7.2.1.1.1.1
              20 March 2016 at 2:33 pm

              Hey I never said I approved of the way Fonterra is run.
              They are being run by a pack of idiots as far as I can see.
              Rather like the New Zealand Labour Party.
              However I cannot see what on earth “saveNZ” could possibly be talking about when he claims the Government want to privatise Fonterra. It already is a private organisation and has been since it was founded in 2001, with the sanction of the then Government. Who was that again?

              • KJT …
                21 March 2016 at 8:32 pm

                Agreed the Labour party caucus are disorganised and incoherent.

                However the only reason why the National equivalent is not seen as the bunch of thieves and incompetents they really are, is the partisan media.

                I would rather Labour bumblers than National Vandals.

      • Chooky 7.2.2
        19 March 2016 at 11:15 am

        +100 saveNZ

    • Draco T Bastard 7.3
      18 March 2016 at 9:50 pm

      Rural NZ is traditionally National country.

      Rural NZ is traditionally conservative. Now, that used to be National but National has become a corrupt, far right-wing neo-liberal machine and that’s not conservative.

      • Chooky 7.3.1
        19 March 2016 at 11:18 am

        +100 DTB…Nactional with its allegiance to the corrupt corporations in USA is being seen for what it is….NOT in New Zealand’s or New Zealanders’ interests

    • mosa 7.4
      19 March 2016 at 10:31 am

      If National achieve a fourth term which unfortunatley looks likley then Key will complete ten years and will stand down with the full honours of a knighthood
      I cant see him hanging around much after that giving the heir apparent time to focus on a fifth term in 2020
      For Key its all about legacy and adulation and cementing National as the main governing party going ahead
      His party ,media and money friends will ensure he completes his legacy after giving them so much.
      His ego and arrogance will make him beleive he could carry on beyond the ten year milestone but my pick it will be after Nov 2018.

  8. Colonial Viper 8
    18 March 2016 at 8:37 pm

    I am still picking an early election 2017. July or Aug.

    National is putting in place the pieces for it now – visit by Obama, unexpected minimum wage increase, mention of tax cuts, Key signalling that he will contest another term.

    • mosa 8.1
      19 March 2016 at 10:42 am

      i think the last 2017 election date is November 18th but the possibility of going early is always there
      Be interesting if he announces the date early next year as he has done the last two elections

      • alwyn 8.1.1
        19 March 2016 at 11:03 am

        The New Zealand public don’t seem to take kindly to an early, snap, election. Both Muldoon in 1984 and Clark in 2002 tried it and it didn’t come out that well for either of them. Muldoon of course lost and Clark didn’t do nearly as well as the previous polls seemed to predict.
        I remember hearing Jack Marshall once on the early election held in 1951. He said the only result was that they were in power for 8 years instead of 9.
        2014 wasn’t in this category of course. It had been announced at the beginning of the year. Key isn’t likely to go early in my view. After all, with the way the polls had Labour steadily dropping throughout 2014, he might have done even better if the poll had been a bit later.
        @mosa. Wiki agrees with you on the last possible date.

        • mosa 8.1.1.1
          19 March 2016 at 12:47 pm

          Snap elections are never a good sign
          When one is called it sends the message that a government has lost its authority for whatever reason as was the case in 1984 with the scnapps election although Muldoon had the numbers if he had tested it in parliment
          Helen going early on the 27th July 2002 was not a snap although her reason was the inability of the government due to the Alliance break up to progress bills in parliment and of course her poll position
          Going early didnot hurt her as she was returned with 42 per cent of the vote well ahead as the largest party and up on the 1999 result.
          Her intended date was Oct 6th that year as it turned out it was ten weeks early

          • alwyn 8.1.1.1.1
            19 March 2016 at 2:20 pm

            I think you should highlight “and of course her poll position”.
            The rest was just an excuse.
            Didn’t the Labour vote drop way below the polls in the last month before the election? From memory I thought the did but I can’t find any evidence on line.

            • mosa 8.1.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2016 at 2:49 pm

              Would need to check those numbers Alwyn

              • alwyn …
                19 March 2016 at 4:00 pm

                I can’t find any proper poll results on-line so I can’t be sure about what they were. On Scoop there is this.

                “Labour too received such a disappointing result that the PM waited till 11.30pm to emerge from her house, and then delivered a speech that was far more angry than triumphant.

                The best spin she could find to explain away a campaign during which her poll ratings fell from 56% to 41% was to make comparisons with historic victories of Michael Joseph Savage, David Lange and Sid Holland, who, she said, like her had extended their majorities for a second term”

                This was in
                http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0207/S00220.htm.
                I don’t know where the 56% comes from or if it is reliable but if it was right it would be a huge drop during the campaign.

                Yes National was demolished in 2002 but they came back well in 2005. Labour has continued to decline.

                • mosa …
                  20 March 2016 at 11:14 am

                  Yeah National recovered well on the back of a contenious and long campaign begining with the infamous orewa speech and of course Don Brash and his elavation to the leadership and the subsequent right wing they had lost returned as well as some big money donors which was one of the main reasons for the change and of course policy direction and the clever work of Ansell and others on the 2005campaign.
                  Going after the christian vote helped and i think where the Brethern was helpful on one hand with funds for a attack campaign but when the Brethern connection was made public and the way it was handled and the fact it was kept hidden from public scruntiny hurt National and Brash and a backdown on several policies they had articulated for big business funds and support contributed as well
                  Their polling moved around a bit in the year after that big Brash boost at the end of 2003 and of course the Orewa factor in 2004
                  Then it was a difference of about 6-7 percentage points between the two main parties favouring one then reversing and helping the other then of course it was 40 for Labour and 39 for National on election night.

                • mosa …
                  20 March 2016 at 1:04 pm

                  Yeah i think it was past the 50% mark but when asked to comment on those figures the PM said it was unrealistic that those numbers would not hold going in to a General Election and a expected correction did as you pointed out happen on the 17th September 2005

                  • alwyn …
                    20 March 2016 at 2:59 pm

                    We were talking about the early, snap, election of 2002. That was on 27 July.
                    Was the PM you mention talking in 2002 or 2005 about the poll numbers not holding? Do you have any reference and was it immediately before the election or about the time she called it?
                    If it was just before the election it counts as just spin.

                    • mosa …
                      21 March 2016 at 10:43 am

                      Apologies i was refering to 2002
                      She was asked to comment on the release of one of the monthly polls in early 2002
                      Speculation had begun that she might go early based on the poll position a few months in to 2002

            • mosa 8.1.1.1.1.2
              19 March 2016 at 3:18 pm

              The National party ony managed to get to 20% on the night a catastophic result its worst scince 1902
              Most of their loss went to the New Zealand First and United parties which prompted a major newspaper to suggest the country had moved to the right on the front page the next day
              Labour consolidated its position,a very status quo result was how the PM described it and went on to form a minority government.

            • Matthew Hooton 8.1.1.1.1.3
              20 March 2016 at 6:22 am

              Clark’s angry response to John Campbell and Nicky Hager setting her up over the latter’s beat-up book about her government and GM corn drove her polling down (even though her response was totally justifiable given how ridiculous the book’s conclusions were).

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2
          19 March 2016 at 1:32 pm

          The New Zealand public don’t seem to take kindly to an early, snap, election.

          A properly scheduled July election wouldn’t be a snap election, as defined by electoral law.

      • Matthew Hooton 8.1.2
        19 March 2016 at 4:35 pm

        September most likely. Means it’s 18 months away

        • mosa 8.1.2.1
          20 March 2016 at 12:33 pm

          If they contemplate September it will be three years scince the previous dissolution and General Election on 20th september 2014
          Of course it was two months early because a dissolution wasnt due untill November that year
          Key is consistent in giving advance warning on when he intends to go to the country and like all Prime ministers he will go with the date most suitable to his re election prospects as no fixed term is in place
          Possible dates then bearing in mind he does not need the extra two months are
          Sept 16 ,23, 30
          Oct 7,14,21,28 are a possibility and August is there although convention says that winter is not a good time but that wasnt an issue in 2002 or 1984 ,1987

  9. Skinny 9
    18 March 2016 at 9:04 pm

    No Way TPPA!

    I saw John Key last week. I watched him, as a fellow human being it was terrible the misery that unfolded.

    He stood there feeling totally alone, shoulder hunched a broken man. People including his hosts smiled gleefully in delight as the Prime Minister of New Zealand was loudly and so publicly called out. Even the 30 odd police were told to stand aside and allow the verbal attack to proceed.

    His reign is rapidly coming to an end. I very much now think before the next election.

    • BM 9.1
      18 March 2016 at 9:11 pm

      And then you woke up in a puddle of wetness.

      • Kiwiri 9.1.1
        18 March 2016 at 10:31 pm

        Turned out it was Skinny dozing off in the middle of John Key’s most boring speech, while sitting next to JK who was getting boo-ed by many in the audience and the cause of the puddle.

      • Skinny 9.1.2
        18 March 2016 at 11:02 pm

        Very disappointed in your comment cobbah. Just an honest opinion of what I observed. I viewed the video online posted the other day.
        How would you feel with this song being sang over a loud sound system less than 30 metres away;

        He does not know about the working class
        There’re something that fell out of his wealthy – Pass

        Tell more lies, hide more facts
        Give more money to the corporate fat cats

        Steven Joyce you leave me no choice
        I’m here to speak with a Northland voice
        Here he is to do all his braggins
        All we can see is Dilldo Baggins
        Tell more lies, hide more facts
        Give more money to the corporate fat cats

        When Teflon wears out it makes you sick
        So we need to change the PM real quick
        The Homeless, The Hungry, The Really Poor
        He don’t care, he’s a corporate Whore

    • Chooky 9.2
      19 March 2016 at 11:19 am

      +100 Skinny…hope so!

  10. saveNZ 10
    18 March 2016 at 9:12 pm

    Fantastic. NZF is taking Natz votes.

    All good news and we can all hope for much better from Lab, Green and NZF in the future if they continue to co operate even at a distance.

    Ha Ha Natz.

    • Stuart Munro 10.1
      18 March 2016 at 9:31 pm

      Winston can build and lead a better National party.

    • Ben 10.2
      19 March 2016 at 10:16 am

      The problem is that leading up to the next election NZF and Labour will be battling for every vote, and in doing so will be casting each other in a very negative light. NZF will also attack the Greens in an effort to take second spot from them, and have a greater say in a 3 way coalition. The Nats will of course point out that this fighting is an indication of how poorly they will govern together.

      I believe it’s a big call to expect the three ‘left’ parties to be nice to each other next year. Recent dog whistling accusations by WP is a prime example of what will happen when they stray into each others territory. Didn’t “row together” for very long.

  11. Matthew Whitehead 11
    18 March 2016 at 9:24 pm

    It’s good to see the Opposition ahead in a poll again.

    I’m not releasing the balloons until it happens consistently though. 😉

    • swordfish 11.1
      18 March 2016 at 9:37 pm

      Clear divergence has opened up over last 10 months between two sets of pollsters:

      (1) Opposition Bloc has been leading in every One News Colmar Brunton and
      3 News Reid Research Poll since May 2015. Every single one !

      (2) Govt leading in overwhelming majority of Roy Morgans (though not, of course, the latest) and all of the Herald-Digis.

      Far more Govt-friendly (2) polls carried out (particularly over last few months) than Oppo-friendly (1) polls. Which is why it seems like this is the first Oppo lead in ages, even though it isn’t.

      • Lanthanide 11.1.1
        18 March 2016 at 9:48 pm

        Thanks for keeping track of this stuff swordfish, it’s very illuminating and extremely valuable.

      • Jenny Kirk 11.1.2
        19 March 2016 at 9:16 am

        Wow, swordfish. Any chance of you putting all of this (@ 11.1) together into a more detailed post, so we can see the whole as you’re seeing it, please ?

        • swordfish 11.1.2.1
          19 March 2016 at 7:45 pm

          Cheers, Jenny (and Lanth, ianmac, CV, Matthew Whitehead).

          Currently trying to put the finishing touches on a detailed post on my blog scrutinising the MSM’s 2015 Poll Mythology (6 highly dubious claims regularly repeated in the New Zealand media over the last 10 or so months).

          Been working on it intermittently since late January – hope to finish in next week.

      • Matthew Whitehead 11.1.3
        19 March 2016 at 12:02 pm

        I had not realised that as the ones I had seen getting coverage were obviously the government-friendly ones. You’re clearly doing good work there, SwF. 🙂

      • Tom 11.1.4
        19 March 2016 at 1:25 pm

        Didnt the opposition have 52% in July 2015 according to RM, You can click on it above. National were on 43% and the headline was Lab /Gr leads!

        • swordfish 11.1.4.1
          19 March 2016 at 6:28 pm

          Yep, they certainly did.

          Note that I said: the “overwhelming majority” of Roy Morgans placed the Govt Bloc ahead, as opposed to “all”.

          15 Roy Morgans since beginning of 2015
          4 put the Oppo in front (April, July, Sep 2015 and, of course, the latest one – March 2016)
          11 have placed the Govt in lead (in some cases, as stated earlier, by as much as 12-14 points !).

          Last 5 Roy Morgans had Key Government out in front.

          • swordfish 11.1.4.1.1
            19 March 2016 at 6:59 pm

            So latest 2 Polls (Feb 2016 Colmar Brunton and March 2016 Roy Morgan) = place the Opposition Bloc ahead.

            Now that’s something you’re very unlikely to read in David Farrar’s often carefully-misleading and de-contextualised Kiwiblog Poll analyses (which, by a quite extraordinary coincidence, only seem to appear whenever Labour/the Left/the Oppo/Andrew Little are at a very low-point).

            And, of course, over the last couple of weeks, your chum and mine, Young Master Hooton has been employing UMR results to endlessly thrash the idea that Labour/Little/the Oppo are in deeeeepppppp troub !!!.

  12. cogito 12
    18 March 2016 at 10:14 pm

    Great news. Go Winston!

  13. Kiwiri 13
    18 March 2016 at 10:15 pm

    Good on Winston for sticking to his guns.

    Anyone who has heard him speak the past couple of decades would know:

    1. he has always been staunch on superannuation and can be relied upon to defend this

    2. he is rock solid on putting NZ’s interest and sovereignty ahead of questionable trade deals and the private member’s bill “Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill” is that from his MP

    3. he has been consistently heard calling for controls on immigration

    Expect to hear him say, as always, that he will keep any party in government honest about such important issues and more.

    • cowboy 13.1
      18 March 2016 at 11:27 pm

      In many way Winston is like Corbyn and Sanders, veteran politicians who’s consistent positions over decades have become in vogue. Little is working towards him on immigration and trade issues but Winston comes across as the authentic voice because he has been saying this stuff for decades. Little comes across as someone who is not quite sure how to position himself.

      While there is no doubt he has seized the flag issue to his advantage however the bigger issues of the effects of open door immigration and the rural downturn are playing right into hands. He’s been well ahead of the curve in predicting the extent of the dairy downturn which even Jamie Mackay had to acknowledge albeit reluctantly. Subsequently the rural debt mediation bill that NZ First have up in the ballot at the moment shows keen political instincts.

      http://www.farmingshow.com/on-demand/audio/winston-peters-new-zealand-first-leader-090316/

      Contrast that to what National have been offering up to us…

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77920060/cluthasouthland-mp-todd-barclays-commitment-to-gore-heartland-questioned

    • Chooky 13.2
      19 March 2016 at 11:21 am

      +100 kiwiri and cowboy

    • Matthew Whitehead 13.3
      19 March 2016 at 12:12 pm

      1) NZF’s only consistent core constituency is seniors. Of course Winston and his minions are consistent on super, that’s like congratulating National for pandering to business interests.

      2) NZF are certainly on the right side on the TPPA, however they’re not very deliberate or nuanced in their position. For instance, they don’t realise that, properly formulated, an investor-state dispute system could be a good thing in certain trade deals, but that the problem with this one is that ISDS provisions shouldn’t be necessary for stable democracies, and that it’s so relentlessly pro-corporate that it doesn’t even require state backing.

      3) I’m sorry, but NZF is anti-immigration in a very racially insensitive way and it’s not a good thing, even if you think our system is out of whack, I don’t see how you can justify voting for a bunch of anglocentrist settlers like NZF. (and I realise the irony of that statement given Winston’s race, but he really is like those women you see arguing with Mens Rights Activists- totally OK with beating up on people just like him) They might have toned it down sometimes, but if you catch them at their silly moments, the populist conservative outrage on social issues becomes really evident. (their taping four Red Peak flags together to make a swastika was a great example. Dumbest. Stunt. Ever.)

      • Cowboy 13.3.1
        19 March 2016 at 1:14 pm

        The punters don’t do nuanced. If they perceive open door immigration or foreign investment in housing or farmland an issue there is only one authentic voice and they will pivot to that.

        I agree re stunts with red peak, Hindi translations and other trivia, they should just keep pumping core messages because they are all in play. Winstons latest issue is govt making changes to gold card, absolute mana from heaven.

        I am surprised Key has not toned down his open hostility to Peters given the probability of the kingmaker scenario.

        • Sacha 13.3.1.1
          19 March 2016 at 4:30 pm

          Key’s deep insecurity requires those around him to show respect for his authoritah. Maybe Winnie’s ego won’t let him play along?

          • left for dead 13.3.1.1.1
            19 March 2016 at 8:05 pm

            I agree with you two, this government will start trying smaller steps after they are flogged over the flag debacle .
            National may do surgery on it’s hip. They will want ACT to buck up or they will be looking for another partner.

  14. RedLogix 14
    18 March 2016 at 10:25 pm

    Interestingly similar scenario playing out over here in Aus. Just few months ago Turnbull looked impregnable, now they’d likely lose an election if was held tomorrow.

    And this despite the fact that Shorten still does not enjoy high levels of popularity

    • Kiwiri 14.1
      18 March 2016 at 10:34 pm

      Their Senate has just passed voting reforms after a bloody long session. So Turnbull can dissolve both Houses and call an early election. I’m picking a double dissolution election in ‘winter’ or early Spring this year, rather than the government going the whole distance till Jan ’17.

    • Olwyn 14.2
      18 March 2016 at 11:12 pm

      I hoped when Turnbull took over that he had missed his moment, and I am still hoping. To me, he is much like John Key, but with an urbane, rather than an everyman spin. They tried everyman with Abbott, but it didn’t work – he came across as too much of a buffoon.

      • Lanthanide 14.2.1
        19 March 2016 at 7:10 am

        Abbott was never an everyman – he was always an oaffish prat.

        • Olwyn 14.2.1.1
          19 March 2016 at 8:06 am

          I agree. I was talking about the way he was pitched, not the man himself.

          • Lanthanide 14.2.1.1.1
            19 March 2016 at 8:36 am

            Ah, I see.

            It’s funny that the ozzies couldn’t see him for what he was – the right person to attack Labor, but absolutely hopeless when put in charge. They did roll him of course, but it took far too long and they had that weird first aborted attempt at it.

            • RedLogix 14.2.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2016 at 10:40 am

              But they still rolled him in less than two years. And my first point above is that while Turnbull enjoyed a remarkable honeymoon for not being Abbott, his Key-like politics have gone off the boil remarkably quickly.

              • Kiwiri …
                19 March 2016 at 2:43 pm

                You could say the majority of Aussies are not as dumb as Kiwis might like to think … and given the Key-Abbott/Turnbull comparison, that could say a lot more about trans-Tasman socio-political IQ.

        • Matthew Whitehead 14.2.1.2
          19 March 2016 at 12:13 pm

          So is John Key, but he’s a good enough actor and has courted the media well enough that he kept up the pretense.

  15. Colonial Viper 15
    18 March 2016 at 11:05 pm

    Just remember – with these numbers, in a 20 member LAB/GR/NZF Cabinet, Labour will have just 11 Cabinet positions. The Greens will have 5 to 6 Cabinet positions.

    And NZF will have 3 to 4 Cabinet positions.

    Going strictly by the proportions in this poll.

    • weka 15.1
      19 March 2016 at 12:21 am

      Which means that we’d have to learn a new way of doing politics. About bloody time.

    • te reo putake 15.2
      19 March 2016 at 4:41 am

      That also assumes both support parties are in Government. It might be a 2 party Cabinet with support on C&S form the 3rd. And don’t forget the maori party. If Labour can form a government, they’ll want in, too. And then there’s the hairdo ….

    • Bg 15.3
      19 March 2016 at 10:04 am

      Personally I don’t think that lot could agree on how to boil a pot of water. The Greens are toxic to many nzers. If and a big if, Labour and the Winston Peters party can get close to a majority then the tide will turn. Until they can do without the Greens middle NZ will rather stay with the status quo

      • lprent 15.3.1
        19 March 2016 at 10:12 am

        Yeah right. Keep thinking that eh… 😈

        • Bg 15.3.1.1
          19 March 2016 at 12:18 pm

          Many are saying that farmers are jumping on the Winnie train. Do you honestly expect them to stay with Winston if it means that voting for NZF means the Greens form part of the govt?

          • lprent 15.3.1.1.1
            21 March 2016 at 7:43 am

            Hard to tell. However

            1. Farmers are a pretty small part of the voting population.

            2. I hadn’t noticed when I have been working on farms and with farmers that they are particularly adverse to being green. Certainly the old farming families are often some of the most avid conservationists I know.

  16. Tautuhi 16
    18 March 2016 at 11:14 pm

    Winston and NZF will hold the balance of power at the next Election, he will get a lot of support from rural NZ and the export sector as it is the country’s lifeblood, he is also pro regional development.

    • Skinny 16.1
      18 March 2016 at 11:35 pm

      National really are under siege in the North. Would not surprise me in the least if they lost Whangarei next year. Not sure if it will be to NZF or Labour at this point.

      I would say NZF have a slight edge with some of their economic development plans like the railway to the deep water port, and upgrading the rest of the line North of Auckland all the way up to the wall of pine timber Dargaville way.
      Quite unbelievable (well in common sense terms) that National are under funding and killing off rail in the North. Peters will ride that train right to polling day. Makes me wonder why Labour are not making the same noise?

    • whateva next? 16.2
      19 March 2016 at 12:01 am

      gawd help us

  17. Incognito 17
    19 March 2016 at 2:39 am

    National is still likely to be the largest party, which means they will make the first move (as in chess). Don’t fall for idle speculation, because that’s what it generally is.

    • lprent 17.1
      19 March 2016 at 10:37 am

      Not correct – just another stupid myth. The procedure is outlined in the governor general’s website (takes seconds to look up – why didn’t you do it?)

      https://gg.govt.nz/content/governor-general-and-government-formation-after-election

      The Governor-General has an important role in the formation of a government after the election. He doesn’t decide who is going to be the government, or who is going to lead it as Prime Minister. His role is to appoint the next government, based on which party or grouping of parties will be able to form a majority in Parliament when it meets again.

      Under our MMP electoral system, parties often need to enter into coalition or support arrangements with one another to get a majority in Parliament. The Governor-General will wait for party leaders to make public statements after the election, setting out the makeup of the next government.

      In the days or weeks immediately after the election, the current government will remain in office as a “caretaker government” until the new government is sworn in. The normal business of running the country carries on, but significant decisions are deferred or only taken after consultation with other parties.

      Once it is clear that a government can be formed, an appointment ceremony will be held at Government House. The caretaker Prime Minister and Ministers will resign (even if a similar government to the current one has been elected), and the Governor-General will appoint the incoming Prime Minister and other Ministers.

      The Governor-General gave a speech in November 2013, in which he talked about his role in relation to the government formation after an election. If you would like find out more, you can read the speech here http://gg.govt.nz/content/press-gallery-dinner.

      • Incognito 17.1.1
        19 March 2016 at 4:38 pm

        I stand corrected about the process and apologise for feeding the “stupid myth”; I should have chosen my words more wisely.

  18. b waghorn 18
    19 March 2016 at 5:40 am

    Drip drip national s support slips away
    Like water between soil and rock
    A land slide could come on the day

    Cheesy but true 🙂

  19. Matthew Hooton 19
    19 March 2016 at 6:22 am

    A plausible election result, the way things are going is:
    Labour: 20%
    NZ First: 15%
    Greens: 15%
    The problem would be that I think Winston Peters would insist on being Prime Minister for the first 18 months of the three year term before retiring and handing over to the Labour leader. Otherwise, I think he would prefer to be Deputy PM, knighted etc and support John Key (who of course will do absolutely anything to get his fourth term).

    • Lanthanide 19.1
      19 March 2016 at 7:14 am

      No, not really plausible, going by all polling to date.

      Just you and Wayne’s wet dream.

      • Matthew Hooton 19.1.1
        19 March 2016 at 8:29 am

        More night terror than wet dream. But plausible based on poll trend lines and on current leaders’ performances

        • Lanthanide 19.1.1.1
          19 March 2016 at 8:32 am

          None if those parties has polled any of those figures you are suggesting by themselves (I think the greens highest has been 14%), let alone all of those results happening at the same time.

          Also the trend for Labour is flat to a very gradual rise, not a precipitous fall as your projection would require.

          • Matthew Hooton 19.1.1.1.1
            19 March 2016 at 8:40 am

            Sure. I’m not making an exact prediction – think of it as rounded to nearest 5%. But also remember 2002. Who would have believed in March 2001 that National would go all the way down to 20.93%.

            • RedLogix 19.1.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2016 at 8:48 am

              Personally I’d not loose sleep over that result Matthew. But I also note that it still gives the Opposition block a total of 50%.

              And that’s the point, this National has dined out on the gap between it and the nearest party for three terms now …. but in reality it has only just been able to command a majority in Parliament.

            • weka 19.1.1.1.1.2
              19 March 2016 at 2:55 pm

              “Sure. I’m not making an exact prediction – think of it as rounded to nearest 5%.”

              rofl. That was really funny Matthew. Let’s just make up numbers to suit our narrative. At least you are being honest about it.

              • Colonial Viper …
                19 March 2016 at 8:38 pm

                Labour 25% +/- 3% is my prediction. Basically their 2014 result plus or minus a bit.

        • Anne 19.1.1.2
          19 March 2016 at 9:07 am

          A plausible election result, the way things are going is:
          National : 40%
          Labour : 31%
          Greens : 13%
          NZ First : 12%

          Now there’s a result that will warm the cockles of your heart Matthew Hooton.

          • Matthew Hooton 19.1.1.2.1
            19 March 2016 at 9:13 am

            I think National should stay higher than that given positive economic forecasts for next 18 months, despite Fonterra debacle

            • Stuart Munro 19.1.1.2.1.1
              19 March 2016 at 9:26 am

              They produce a lot of positive forecasts – but they’re not very good at producing results. Remember the 3000 jobs in Whangarei? Former National supporters have not forgotten.

            • Ad 19.1.1.2.1.2
              19 March 2016 at 10:45 am

              I am impressed with the way National’s vote has held while Key’s Preferred PM vote has softened. That’s an intelligent electorate.

              The flag result will shave a couple more points off the PM as well.

              If National is lucky enough to see unemployment at under 6%, and GDP growth over 2%, they will remain hard to beat.

              The above poll simply shows the electoral upside of behaving like a unified alternative government. That is the only way to beat National.

              • Colonial Viper …
                19 March 2016 at 8:40 pm

                If National is lucky enough to see unemployment at under 6%, and GDP growth over 2%, they will remain hard to beat.

                Key and English are going to pump money into the economy over the next year in order to keep a lid on unemployment. Just you wait for this years Budget.

                Lollies galore.

            • Skinny 19.1.1.2.1.3
              19 March 2016 at 1:31 pm

              Neither Key nor English have their heart in the game. Third term blues is biting hard. I posted up the page yesterday about Key looking a broken man. The other occasion less than 2 hours later that day was also very insightful to me.

              Key stood on the second level balcony at what looked like a mostly Fonterra luncheon, back up against the wall he was looking back at the boat where the theatre group had done their ditty. He scanned around till he saw me and a business friend sitting right out directly in front of him on a super yacht. He didn’t look well at all, no doubt feeling a bit beaten up and later I heard he had a cold

          • Stuart Munro 19.1.1.2.2
            19 March 2016 at 9:23 am

            If NZF rises it will be at the expense of National – a few more points and the landslide will set in – Bill really shouldn’t have shafted the heartland.

            • Noah 19.1.1.2.2.1
              19 March 2016 at 12:25 pm

              Can!t see that Stuart,the Nats are looking at a fourth term, and i take no joy in saying that,the reason is and honesty should prevail here,Labour with Little at the helm is not firing up the imagination of the voting public.

              Winston, past history as those with memories will be aware cannot be trusted when it comes to being a guarentee to be a bed fellow with Labour.

              As for the Maori Party,if i were them i would have serious concern about how their vote is going to fall and fall in the right percentage to have a seat at any Parliament table.As for the hair doo!,he is every one and anybodies flunky,so he is still going to be slithering around the corridors of Parliament.

              • Stuart Munro …
                19 March 2016 at 4:17 pm

                You forget – those who feel cheated by Winston’s broken promises not to form a government with National are on the Left. The votes he is picking up from the Gnat omnishambles are as Draco noted, true conservative. He may pick up a proportion of Maori party voters too – CV’s antiestablishment voters want to protest now that the establishment has shown its essentially fickle nature. As the economic horror sets in the chances of Gnat victory recede – and Bill is so far out of his depth the IMF may be the ones calling the snap election.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  19 March 2016 at 8:42 pm

                  In 2011 I spoke to old time Labour Branch members and officers in Southland who had quit Labour and were voting for Winston. They were amongst the ones who helped Winston back into Parliament.

                  So I wouldn’t assume that NZF is getting votes just at National’s expense.

                  Note that the NATs lost 2.5% this time around. LAB only gained 1% of that.

    • upnorth 19.2
      19 March 2016 at 8:02 am

      I would suggest
      Labour 25
      Greens 11
      NZF 9

      The centre left and NZF are far too divided plus the one thing all 4 parties still have to do publicly is announce close to an election who they would partner with.

      Do not be surprised if at the last moment that the Greens go into bed with National a Blue/Green is very plausible and also takes out Winny factor for them.

      While the leadership of Greens is weak – they are pragmatic enough now to realise that Labour is not going to get them into power.

      Having Greens in National tent will be easier to handle than a NZF mandate

      • RedLogix 19.2.1
        19 March 2016 at 8:51 am

        I can read how your argument works upnorth; but I’d struggle to see how the Greens would survive the experience. It would likely devastate their membership.

        And the Greens to their credit, embrace their membership and activists far more than all other parties combined.

      • Sacha 19.2.2
        19 March 2016 at 4:09 pm

        “Do not be surprised if at the last moment that the Greens go into bed with National”

        Sigh. This again. Not unless their members completely changed their minds before that.

      • Macro 19.2.3
        19 March 2016 at 5:12 pm

        Up north You have NFI either about Green policy or about its membership. Let me tell you here and now – any idea that the Green Party would get into bed with National at his time or in 2017 is complete and utter bollicks

    • Sabine 19.3
      19 March 2016 at 8:23 am

      You know what, why not. Why not have W. Peters as the PM of NZ for a while.
      After that Hairpuller, Drop the Soap Jokster we can only do better.
      The one thing no one can say about Winston is that he does not love his country.
      That however can not be said about the Hairpuller.

  20. Whispering Kate 20
    19 March 2016 at 8:30 am

    All these theories about where Winston will go when the election results come out are pretty much anybody’s guess. Winston will make a decision and take his time about it. It just means there will be some cliff hanging while he ponders and annoys the shit out of all the other parties while he is at it. Fun times ahead.

    By the way on RNZ this morning I saw a header where Double Dipper actually admitted that wages were not rising and keeping up with GDP. He had a sour look on his face. I wonder why wages are still so low. Tongue in cheek there. Another of the many mysteries why National are still high in the polls – Lord we must be a population of half wits to put up with their uselessness.

    • Matthew Hooton 20.1
      19 March 2016 at 8:44 am

      He was referring to national income per capita. That is different from wages, which are rising faster than inflation.

      • Gristle 20.1.1
        19 March 2016 at 9:17 am

        The subtleties of income per capita versus any other measure is lost in the headline. And for MSM and its followers a headline is as long as an article is.

      • Whispering Kate 20.1.2
        19 March 2016 at 11:02 am

        If that is the case, there have to be a very few on huge money and the masses on shit income Matthew. How does that make it a fair assessment of the population living well on a decent income. It doesn’t. Yet, they still keep getting voted in, amazing. Another thing, with inflation damn near stagnant how on earth can there be the growth that keeps getting bandied about – I think I need a few classes on how the economy works.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 20.1.3
        19 March 2016 at 12:52 pm

        He was referring to national income per capita. That is different from average wages, which are rising faster than inflation , which itself doesn’t necessarily reflect actual cost of living increases for many people.

        Fixed it for you.

        • Noah 20.1.3.1
          19 March 2016 at 2:38 pm

          Is not the National income, jobs costed wage for the middle income government employees.Meanwhile in the real world of our governing corporations low wage economy.

        • Whispering Kate 20.1.3.2
          19 March 2016 at 9:13 pm

          Uncooked S -You said it, gotcha. It sure doesn’t reflect actual cost of living increases for many people. Thanks. What I don’t understand is, if inflation is stable and low, why do prices keep going up??

      • Macro 20.1.4
        19 March 2016 at 5:29 pm

        As you well know Matthew that statistic of average income is complete and utter bollicks. It in no way represents the real take home pay of ordinary New Zealander’s as you and Bill obviously know. But it is a convenient statistic to bandy about because it keeps helps your employer mates to offer less than they should – “oh look! average “wage” is going up faster than inflation!” Of course the 10 – 20 % increases in the obscene amounts of money gifted to Heads of this and CEO’s of that and all their toadies are actually the driving force behind the average. For the majority, their rates of pay haven’t improved at all apart from a 50 cent increase in the minimum wage. The average is only one measure of central tendency. A far better statistic would be the Mode, for it would show just how much the ordinary NZ’ers income had increased.
        But of course you and Bill and John are not really interested in ordinary NZers are you?

        • left for dead 20.1.4.1
          19 March 2016 at 8:21 pm

          Macro :the Mode, do you mean the median.

          • Colonial Viper 20.1.4.1.1
            19 March 2016 at 8:31 pm

            Median makes sense in that context, yes.

          • Macro 20.1.4.1.2
            19 March 2016 at 8:56 pm

            No I mean the Mode – The most frequent score in a data set.
            In NZ the most frequent income (according to the 2013 census) is between $10,000 and $20,000
            As can be seen from the graph 35% of Females and 25% of Males in NZ over 15 had an annual income between $10,000 and $30,000 in 2013. This gives a far more accurate picture of what the actual incomes for the large majority of NZers is at.

            • left for dead 20.1.4.1.2.1
              19 March 2016 at 8:59 pm

              Thanks Macro, no offense taken I hope.

              • Macro …
                19 March 2016 at 9:08 pm

                That ok – I agree that the median would be better than the average as well and the Dept of Statistics does use that measure in its treatment of income distribution in NZ, but I really think that the actual income for the largest income group gives the best picture of what NZs income distribution actually is, and what is the reality for a large number of NZers .

                • Colonial Viper …
                  19 March 2016 at 9:19 pm

                  OK the mode.

                  Citizens on super make up the largest chunk of those in the $10K to $20K income group.

                  The thing is that life on super can be fine – if you have a fully paid off home and $100K in term deposits.

                  Or it can be miserable – if 2/3 of your super disappears in rent and you don’t even have a grand in the bank.

                  Or if your spouse earns over $100K pa.

                  Put another way – voter segmentation by income level is not as relevant as some have commonly thought.

                  • Macro …
                    19 March 2016 at 9:35 pm

                    Yes I’m aware that a good number of those earning between 10K and 20K are on super – but according to the Dept of Stats figures for the 2015 June quarter they represent about half in that income group the rest are pretty evenly spread across all other age groups. The lower income band 0 – 10K is heavily skewed obviously with 15 – 25 year olds who make up about half of that group

        • Whispering Kate 20.1.4.2
          19 March 2016 at 9:20 pm

          Thanks Macro, you have said what I would have liked to have said but couldn’t find the words to put it that way. I know there are many who have to work two jobs, husband and wife that is, to keep their heads above water. I see many, obviously well educated in menial retail work like Dick Smiths or Noel Leeming and its obvious they are on the minimum wage. I have had tradesmen to the house and they are renting and just don’t know how they will ever own a home here. Wages rising above the rate of inflation is a load of bollocks to me. In the world of Planet Key, maybe.

          • Sacha 20.1.4.2.1
            19 March 2016 at 9:52 pm

            Did you ask the tradies which party they last voted for?

            • Whispering Kate 20.1.4.2.1.1
              20 March 2016 at 8:39 am

              Yes, I asked the last guy, youngish 30 or so with two young kids, and he said he votes for the Greens, and he didn’t like “no name” and his government. He said he and his wife felt guilty having the two kids and they desperately wanted their own home so they could get out of the renting game.

              I sometimes think all tradies are lumped in with the “cash jobs” type, but this guy worked for a company and we got an invoice for the job. Bottom line Sacha, there are far too many working people in NZ working for “coolie” rates and still the prices of utilities and general living go up. People are not bottomless pits as this Gov would like to think unfotunately.

              • Colonial Viper …
                20 March 2016 at 9:04 am

                spot on

                people working desperately hard trying to put away another $500 for their house deposit.

                People smart enough to have done the maths and have realised the entire system is weighted against them

                Tradies are in an interesting position…10% of tradies do damn well, they own the contracting business and have subcontractors working for them usually for not much.

                Most other tradies make a solid but unremarkable income. But probably not enough to run an entire household on – so someone else needs to work too.

                And these tradies get to see plenty of the multi-million dollar properties on the “other side” of the railway tracks. Inequality right in the face, while they themselves try and get out of the renting trap.

          • Macro 20.1.4.2.2
            19 March 2016 at 9:54 pm

            Thanks Kate (a name that runs strongly in my family tree by the way 🙂 )
            Disraeli who was a statistician as well as PM of Great Britain once said “There are three kinds of Lies – Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics” Key is a master of the first two, and English specializes in the third.
            Neither give any impression that they give the slightest fig for the lives of ordinary NZers. So long as Key can drape himself in a flag and play the buffoon that is all he seems to think is the task of being the leader of a country! English is no better – at least he doesn’t act the goat all the time – but he really is out of touch with people other than the well to do in his electorate. It’s all too much for either of them. I think with their seeming inability to grasp the seriousness of this current crisis, the sheeple of NZ are beginning to wake up to the mess these nincompoops have created, and their supreme incompetence.

            • Colonial Viper 20.1.4.2.2.1
              20 March 2016 at 9:06 am

              Neither give any impression that they give the slightest fig for the lives of ordinary NZers.

              They do pretend however. That’s what the unexpected 50c increase to the minimum wage was all about.

              • Macro …
                20 March 2016 at 4:32 pm

                Was it unexpected? Or was it a sop to dampen down the growing unrest? The pittance that it was, was never enough. The people saw through it this time, by and large, so Bill has to trot out the lie that their wages have gone up by more than the rate of inflation. Of course they haven’t, and those at the bottom of the income scale know it.

    • alwyn 20.2
      19 March 2016 at 10:09 am

      ” RNZ this morning I saw a header ”
      Are Radio New Zealand doing a sort of radio with pictures these days?
      Or do you mean TVNZ?

      “He had a sour look on his face”
      Bill is a bit like Helen in one way. The natural look on their faces is as if they have been chewing on a lemon. When they concentrate on something that is the natural look on their faces. I don’t think it means anything about what they might be thinking though.

      • Whispering Kate 20.2.1
        19 March 2016 at 10:59 am

        You can get RNZ on Channel 50 and yes it has headers coming on all the time and news is being read in the background.

        • alwyn 20.2.1.1
          19 March 2016 at 11:07 am

          Thank you. I have never looked at the channel. I thought it was merely an audio broadcast.

          • Lanthanide 20.2.1.1.1
            19 March 2016 at 12:33 pm

            Since John Campbell took over Checkpoint they’ve been doing TV broadcasting of his checkpoint slot, and the rest of the time they show the news headlines on a rotating roster. They’ve also occasionally turned the cameras on for other shows, like one where they had a debate on the flag referendum with various people on Morning Report a few weeks ago.

        • millsy 20.2.1.2
          19 March 2016 at 7:02 pm

          Very innovative. One could use it in an public environment as a news ticker application.

  21. Observer (Tokoroa) 21
    19 March 2016 at 9:45 am

    The Momentum

    On another Issue, Grim wrote the following clear cut words:
    .
    . “So what do voters want?
    .To prosper, and an environment where their children can prosper too.”

    I enjoyed reading those words. Any normal person would. The next phase of life in New Zealand must prioritise the prosperity of the common man and his children.

    The Banks, The Corporations and The Shareholders have done exceedingly well out of the ordinary person in the past 30 years. The landlords have done very well in the last 30 years. The doctors; the lawyers; the Builders; The Hardware and Retail sector has done very well. The real estate gnomes; the wealthy immigrants. The Farmers. The Tourism sector; the Forest products owners. The Academics.

    But not one bit of that wealth has trickled down.

    Now it is the turn of the New Zealand common man. The same people who have been priced out of homes – and rentals too. The same people who have been denied a living wage and yet who work hard day after day. The same people who have been priced out of heating. Who have watched their jobs go across the seas to foreigners.

    The wealthy have overseen the startling impoverishment of ordinary man for decades. Now is the time for them to regret that.

    We must calmly take back this country for New Zealanders. We must keep up the momentum. Shout down the wealthy. Call them for every bit of tax avoidance and Asset stripping that they regard as their right. Laugh at their schools without teachers.

    Tin pot journalists and TV smart asses do nothing for New Zealand. They exist only to give more wealth to already wealthy. Tell the journos what you think of them Tell their smart assed TV colleagues too.

    Andrew Little is honest. He is for that reason the standout politician in New Zealand. He is not alone. The Greens are honest. New Zealand First is honest. The Maori party too.

    Honesty and Wealth Distribution are the two things we must retrieve for the sake of our Nation. There is no point in seeking it from our current parliament.

  22. lurgee 22
    19 March 2016 at 10:09 am

    National drops 2.5% to 46%. They’d need significant minor party help to get them over the line – and they don’t have it.

    You invent a fantasy Labour-Green-NZ 1st bloc, but can’t countenance the possibility of a National-NZ 1st coalition.

    Maybe National would like to be shot of ACT, the Maori Party and UF, and only have one partner. Expect overtures to Winston from the Nats. And Winston – with a canny eye on his own fortunes – would be more likely to go with National than Labour, as the former would be coalescing with the biggest party and forming most stable coalition.

    • lprent 22.1
      19 March 2016 at 10:17 am

      Except that NZFirst’s history with dealing with National is that they aren’t trustworthy both in 1996-1999 and in 2008. Whereas their history with Labour hasn’t had any of that kind of internal National party factional crap as an issue.

      • lurgee 22.1.1
        19 March 2016 at 5:28 pm

        Winston has previously indicated he would attempt to work with the largest party. Unless something dramatic happens, that is going to be National. He’s also on record as saying he will not work with the Greens.

        So that is two stumbling blocks on the route to CV’s dream of a Labour-NZ First-Greens alliance.

        And I suspect Winston would quite enjoy having National beholden to him.

        You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but unless Labour can claw National don into the high 30s and pull itself up to parity, I don’t think we’ll be seeing a Labour led government for a very long time.

        I may be wrong, but my miserable gut tells me I am not.

        • weka 22.1.1.1
          19 March 2016 at 6:31 pm

          Which is something all voters who want a left wing govt should be reminded of again and again. There is only one thing we can say for sure about Peters, and that is that we have no way of knowing what he will do. I’d rather not gamble the country on that myself.

          “but unless Labour can claw National don into the high 30s and pull itself up to parity,”

          It could also happen that National bleeds votes to NZF and NZF bleeds votes to Labour.

        • Sacha 22.1.1.2
          19 March 2016 at 6:45 pm

          Winston has always said he would *talk first* with the largest party. Then play them off against the others.

        • swordfish 22.1.1.3
          19 March 2016 at 7:58 pm

          lurgee

          Whit ye daein ya dobber ???*

          See Sacha’s comment (immediately above) for your answer.

          *To use the customary parlance from your part of the World (both your native Strathclyde and your adopted Palmy)

        • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.4
          19 March 2016 at 8:50 pm

          So that is two stumbling blocks on the route to CV’s dream of a Labour-NZ First-Greens alliance.

          Not really my dream; but it is a bit better than having the NATs in power – only if NZF and the Greens are in Cabinet.

        • lprent 22.1.1.5
          21 March 2016 at 7:29 am

          Not correct.

          My recollection (I’m on cell data in Itialia – so I can’t be bothered looking it up) is that he has said that he will talk to the largest party first. In 1996 that meant he talked to National first and a short time later started talking to Labour. In 2005 he started with Labour and a short time later started talking to Labour.

          With the Greens, he stated that in 2005 as part of the 7 NZF MPs coalition agreement. If you read what he said it was because he had a choice of working with the 6 Green MPs or working with the 3 United Future’s MPs. He preferred the United Future as coalition partners because they were closer to NZF in political philosophic viewpoint.

          In neither case were the statements absolute. They were situational – exactly as you’d expect a lawyer turned politician to act.

          FFS: You’re starting to sound as myth-bound as Paddy Gower or Duncan Garner. Incapable to looking at the political nuances of what people actually say rather than listening to what other people think that they are saying.

  23. Observer (Tokoroa) 23
    19 March 2016 at 10:24 am

    Hi Lurgee

    If Winston parks his fine brain and sturdy bottom into the ranks of National there is a clear cut option.

    Labour and the Greens could declare themselves for National too. So the Parliament would become a Social Democrat fair play Government. And the wealthy who have got used to a tax free life could expect very little easement.

  24. The Chairman 24
    19 March 2016 at 10:36 am

    As Winston is left of Labour (on many issues) and National, at least he’ll slow down their neo-liberal direction regardless who he ends up supporting.

    Therefore, if you oppose neoliberalism, that’s got to be a good thing.

  25. Observer (Tokoroa) 25
    19 March 2016 at 10:46 am

    LPrent

    Thanks for your assessment of Winston’s lack of ease with the pompous narcissistic Nationals..

    I would rather hope that Labour and the Greens would offer Winston the Prime Minister’s position, in view of his seniority and his very reliable understanding of the issues within New Zealand.

    His two Deputies would consist of Andrew Little and one of the Green Leaders. Preferably a Green femme.

    National has scumbagged Winston beyond measure. Winston is a stunning asset to this Nation. It is time to acknowledge him.

    • lprent 25.1
      19 March 2016 at 11:41 am

      Ummmm….

      I’d have to say that there is a reason why my family differentiates between me and my partner Lyn as “Grey Lynn” and “New Lyn(n)”. It has something to do with our relative ages – and why my parents keep suggesting that my next birthday present will be a paidup membership of Grey Power.

      It has to do with me entering the demographic that NZ First appeals to, and that Lyn is too young to be eligible to be part of. I think she mainly votes Green (mind you so did I for my party vote last election).

      However I’m unsure of Winston’s ability to lead a country made up of mixed age demographics based on the paucity of younger demographics that was evident in the last couple of NZF conferences I have attended.

      • ianmac 25.1.1
        19 March 2016 at 5:21 pm

        Can be a bit tricky when a husband is a lot older than the other. Strangers say, “Hello Jay, and this must be er um your…. mumble.”
        Oh darn. I am tempted to say “Grandfather.”

        • lprent 25.1.1.1
          21 March 2016 at 7:15 am

          Nothing compared to when people start thinking I’m talking in the third person about myself – when I’m really talking about Lyn

      • Colonial Viper 25.1.2
        20 March 2016 at 8:57 am

        NB Grey Power removed their minimum age require for membership some time ago. Now they just say – any one smart enough (have “grey power”) will join.

  26. Observer (Tokoroa) 26
    19 March 2016 at 11:03 am

    Hi Chairman

    Yes, Winston has the ability to do what Sanders will do in the USA. That is, he will make life habitable for the vast majority of Americans. And he will make the wealthy fund it.

    Jobs; Health; Living Wages; zero Slavery; Ownership

    Also, Winston will be respected world wide. He does not harass little Girls – or put his heart into Big Casinos. He respects the elderly too. He also has New Zealand’s prime first grade number one Smile. He is not slease incorporated. National is.

    • Reddelusion 26.1
      19 March 2016 at 11:45 am

      he also has the extraordinary trump like ability for BS and to ignore facts and reality. likewise his deluded followers see him as a superman that will fix all thier issues, ie those pesky immigrants, save the pensioners, bring big business to his heel, role back time, deal to those those pesky Moari etc

  27. Observer (Tokoroa) 27
    19 March 2016 at 12:00 pm

    @ Reddelusion

    You unhappy chap. You want the topend wealthy Kiwis to live and prosper.
    The great majority of the rest of kiwis, you want them to live like scum the way you do.

    You are value less. Aren’t you ?. And you as sacred as a rabbit in lights – of Andrew Little and Winston Peters and the Greens. You miserable little chap.

  28. alwyn 28
    19 March 2016 at 12:06 pm

    If Audrey Young and The Herald editorial writer are correct Andrew may be glad the poll didn’t include the week that has just gone.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11608101
    “In most respects it was as bad a week as Little has had in his 16 months as leader and not one he would want to repeat.”
    And in the editorial
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11608140
    “Poor Andrew Little could not seem to say anything that worked for him this week”

    Oh well he can but hope that the public memory is very short as they won’t start polling again for another week or so.

  29. Observer (Tokoroa) 29
    19 March 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Hi Alwyn

    I thought you would be able to predict to the very syllable every word the Herald writes. You cough up hard cash for the ever repeated rubbish?
    Are you slow witted or something?

    Your journo political friends are hoping like desperadoes that they can destroy Andrew Little. And do you know why?

    Because Andrew is honest. They can’t cope with him. The Herald does not deal with honesty. As you well know. Wealth itself knows no morals, does it Alwyn ?

    • alwyn 29.1
      19 March 2016 at 2:05 pm

      BUY the Herald? Why would I bother to pay for something that I can look at free?
      My Journo friends? Friends who are journalists?
      “Andrew is honest”. Maybe he is. He is also stupid.

  30. Tom 30
    19 March 2016 at 12:28 pm

    Was this result realy their best for 2 years? Maybe check on your ownpage above July 2015 just 8 months ago!

    This is NZ First’s highest Roy Morgan polling result since at least Sept 2014 – that’s approx 18 months ago – CV

  31. Observer (Tokoroa) 31
    19 March 2016 at 12:49 pm

    To: LPrint

    Your Lynn(s) should be intermingled. On the sure grounds that age is only as old as you let it. Very Amusing family conumdrum.!

    Do you think the younger marrieds and singles did not vote for Winston in Northland ? He seemed to turn in quite a heavy bucketfull. ( I like both Lynns and will give a virtual Easter Egg to each.)

  32. millsy 32
    19 March 2016 at 4:59 pm

    WP is the greatest PM NZ never had.

    Had Rogernomics never happened, he probably would have been PM for a very long time, must to the chagrin of those who want NZ to become a Vichy-esque puppet state of China.

    • Colonial Viper 32.1
      19 March 2016 at 8:34 pm

      NB China wouldn’t be asking us to send young Kiwi men and women to fight in faraway wars that they themselves had unnecessarily and wastefully started.

  33. Grantoc 33
    19 March 2016 at 5:01 pm

    I wouldn’t get too excited by this poll result.

    As others have pointed out its just one result from a poll that, by the way, tends towards volatility. Best to wait to see if a trend develops, in particular after factoring in the results of other polls.

    Assuming this pattern is true and holds up and mathematically the left bloc does have a majority, its presumptuous to say the least, to include Winston Peters and NZ First in it at this point in time. There is nothing Winston likes least than to be taken for granted.

    He is just as likely to enter negotiations with National if these figures were the actual outcome of the 2017 election. In any event he will have a very daunting list of demands for whoever he decides to support. I imagine for example he will at the very least want to muscle the Greens to one side in a centre left bloc, even if they do get more support than NZ First.

    In the end he is very unlikely to be the third violinist in a centre left orchestra.

    He holds the balance of power.

    • Colonial Viper 33.1
      19 March 2016 at 8:54 pm

      I agree that no one should get too excited by this result. Labour needs to get a string of poll results which gets them out of the 20-something percent range.

      People who talk about the polls showing a winning “trend” for the Opposition are relying on the Greens and NZF staying strong in their numbers.

      But we know that the Greens always poll 2% to 3% less on the day which matters i.e. for them to get an actual 14% on election day, they need to be a consistent 16% to 17% in the polls.

      • weka 33.1.1
        20 March 2016 at 12:07 am

        The Greens have just had three 14% polls in a row this year (RM). That didn’t happen at all last year (the numbers were all over the place and the highest was 13.5% once).

        Someone needs to ask Nicky Hager to not publish a book just before the next election 😉

        • weka 33.1.1.1
          20 March 2016 at 12:09 am

          Cultural fit aside, I’d be interested to see a post sometime comparing NZF and GP policies and where they fit on the political axes.

        • The lost sheep 33.1.1.2
          20 March 2016 at 12:16 am

          Someone needs to ask Nicky Hager to not publish a book just before the next election 😉

          He will.
          It’s a key concept of the left.
          Learn nothing.
          Learn nothin..
          Learn nothi..
          etc etc..

  34. khkieron 34
    19 March 2016 at 7:33 pm

    Doesn’t matter who you vote for…imagine a coin, labour one side, national the other…still the same coin is it not?

  35. khkieron 35
    19 March 2016 at 7:36 pm

    Sorry if double post: imagine a coin, labour one side, national the other, still the same coin is it not?

    • Stuart Munro 35.1
      20 March 2016 at 12:25 am

      Not quite – Labour certainly doesn’t have the same aggressively corrupt and frankly stupid culture as the Gnats, even if there are a few vestigial neo-liberal features remaining.

  36. Sanctary 36
    19 March 2016 at 11:50 pm

    Just an observation: If NZ First rather than Labour is picking up rural and provincial voters from National then it seems to a bit of meta data we can take from these polls is people in those places now prefer to vote for almost anyone else than to vote for Labour. Therefore Labour’s days as a truly fully inclusive party might be over, and this is a signal of a potentially permanent demotion to second party status and probably permanent decline. Labour may never regain the provinces, and it be diminished to a rump urban party for middle class socialists if a similar thing happens to its suburban support.

    • weka 36.1
      20 March 2016 at 12:02 am

      Or they become a steady 30 – 35% party with skills at leading 2 or 3 party govts. Time we got past the FPP mentality that govts should be one large party with a few addons as sops to representation. I’m just assuming that Labour will never be a large party again, but that’s not necessarily the end of Labour, and the sooner we get used to them being a medium size party the better for the left.

      • Sanctary 36.1.1
        20 March 2016 at 12:28 am

        Labour will die if it is reduced to a rump urban party, because it would then have no sound organising ideological theory and parties that do will destroy it within 15 years. A sort of Pagani-esque rump of a liberal wing of the National party might linger on for a bit longer, but Labour will die if it cannot become a broad based SOCIALIST and democrat party again.

        • weka 36.1.1.1
          20 March 2016 at 10:04 am

          We’ve had 3 decades of Labour not being a broad based socialist and democrat party, why would they wither away now?

          Labour have been had election results in the 20s in the 1990s and recovered from that.

      • Colonial Viper 36.1.2
        20 March 2016 at 12:55 am

        Labour is never going to be a 30% party again. (well, maybe for one term).

      • Colonial Viper 36.1.3
        20 March 2016 at 9:11 am

        Or they become a steady 30 – 35% party with skills at leading 2 or 3 party govts.

        You know how culturally, politically and intellectually absurd it is when people suggest to you that the Green Party could go into coalition with National?

        This idea here falls into the same kind of category. Apparently within the realm of possibility (on superficial glance) – but it’s never going to actually happen.

        • weka 36.1.3.1
          20 March 2016 at 9:56 am

          Can you explain why? Is it Labour not being able to do that? Or just that NZ would never manage to have 2 or 3 medium sized parties working together well?

          • Colonial Viper 36.1.3.1.1
            20 March 2016 at 10:27 am

            Internally, Labour sees itself as the morally superior and rightful party of government. Sharing any real levers of power with anyone else goes against that grain.

            The view is that if this were still FPP, Labour would be successfully going head to head with National, and probably winning. But these other smaller pretender parties (who are definitely not competent or ready to be in government) are currently ‘stealing their voters’.

            It is within this logic that Labour MUST compete as hard as possible within ALL electorates. (Remember Labour stepped back from the Northland by-election only when the polls made it clear that they were going to be whipped by Winston. Up until that point Labour was fund raising for a full by-election campaign in Northland).

            This is part of the problem. There are other issues.

            • weka 36.1.3.1.1.1
              20 March 2016 at 11:06 am

              Ok, so mostly an issue of Labour culture. I know we disagree on this, but I think the small shifts from Labour re coalitions are worth supporting. I also think that eventually the old brigade will be gone and newer MPs used to MMP will have more say. And members/staff.

              • Colonial Viper …
                20 March 2016 at 11:14 am

                I also think that eventually the old brigade will be gone and newer MPs used to MMP will have more say.

                IMO the newer MPs probably don’t understand the dynamics of an MMP environment either because they have received their political induction from an organisation which does not understand MMP.

                And the “old brigade” (I count anyone who has been in since 2008 or before) is careerist heavy, and are going to be hanging around for a very long time.

                Spot quiz – who was Labour Leader when Phil Goff entered Parliament?

                • weka …
                  20 March 2016 at 11:56 am

                  Careerists might be more motivated to change not less if they see their careers being dependent on making MMP work. Esp the newer ones.

                  No idea, but wild guess, Lange?

  37. Sanctary 37
    20 March 2016 at 12:21 am

    Further, I think that if Labour has undergone an historic diminution, it highlights the strategic wisdom of the UK Labour party behind selecting Jeremy Corbyn. I would argue that after the ideological disasters of embracing failed neoliberalism and vacuous third way politics NZ Labour is as a party ideologically empty. A brand with dwindling credibility, it stands for… well, who knows? The electorate certainly doesn’t! If it is in decline, and has lost provincial NZ, then 35% support is a pipe dream and there nothing to lose, electoraly, in electing a
    Corbyn like leader and potentially, by reinvigorating the grassroots movement and ideologically refreshing the party potentially very much to be won.

    • Colonial Viper 37.1
      20 March 2016 at 12:56 am

      Labour’s philosophical proposition is to ensure that National is not in power.

    • Craig H 37.2
      20 March 2016 at 1:11 am

      TBH, if the current leader and policies don’t work, then Labour will definitely move left – that’s what a lot of members actually want, but are aware that any media coverage is negative, so don’t put forward policies beyond the regional level.

      • Colonial Viper 37.2.1
        20 March 2016 at 9:25 am

        TBH, if the current leader and policies don’t work, then Labour will definitely move left

        No, they won’t. If Little isn’t there, it’s Grant Robertson and his cadre in charge of the party, and they have been central to resisting the membership preference to be a true left wing party as they are dead sure that the “win” is to be gained from the ‘centrist swing voting middle class.’

        • pat 37.2.1.1
          20 March 2016 at 9:46 am

          you may well be correct, however don’t forget that the “centrist swing voting middle class” can move left as well as right and already encompasses a broad political spectrum.

  38. Observer (Tokoroa) 38
    20 March 2016 at 9:09 am

    Winston’s Integrity
    .
    Having won Northland with ease and having promised Northland that he would keep his well known and excellent policies, Winston would be a monumental Quisling to march Northland straight back into the slothful and incompetent hands of National.

    To destroy the hope of recently released Northland voters and then drown them in the stagnant dung heap of National neglect, would be colossal treachery.

    Were he to do that (he won’t), he would be guilty of the most Machiavellian action ever perpetrated in New Zealand political history. He would have the dignity of a slug forever.

    Winston Peters has Integrity.

    No wonder Key and the Nationals constantly slag him off. They despise integrity. Look at Hooton and CV and all the other trolls that twist and swagger across this blog on a daily basis. Integrity and honesty are absolute evil to them.

    Whangarei may be close to joining up with the Peter’s policy. They could do a lot worse.

    Do you really want to make a habit of attacking and villifying me, an author, on my own post? You really want to be that tough guy? One more time and you’re goneburger mate, banned from commenting on my posts. CV

  39. Observer (Tokoroa) 39
    20 March 2016 at 9:58 am

    @ Colonial Viper

    I admire that you put considerable thought and content into your authorship from time to time.

    Try as I might though, I cannot understand why you constantly despise the work of progressive Social Democrats in New Zealand. Your aggression is corrosive Mr Colonial Viper.

    If you would review your selective abuse of Social Democrats I would stop pointing out your blind spots. I am not the only one who is tired of you. So do you intend to ban all those who disagree with your corrosion?

    Colonial Viper the Despot?

    So, I think that “integrity and honesty are absolute evil.” Further I am just another ‘swaggering troll.’ And now I’m being a despot? Yeah mate, you’re gone from my posts for a month. CV

    PS Labour aren’t social democrats, they are market led growth focussed neoliberals who consider themselves part of the ruling establishment, albeit with a remnant tinge of historically based social and environmental conscience.

  40. Reddelusion 40
    20 March 2016 at 1:06 pm

    loose cannon alert, NZF tragic

Links to post