Roy Morgan

Written By: - Date published: 6:40 am, July 22nd, 2016 - 359 comments
Categories: polls - Tags: , ,

Latest Roy Morgan is – bizarre – showing National up 10% to 53%, Labour down 2.5% to 25.5%, Greens down 3% to 11.5%.

If this poll was an accurate reflection of public opinion – Nats up 10% after the month they’ve had – we Standardistas might as well give up, move to Planet Key, and start buying houses!

359 comments on “Roy Morgan ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. happynz 1
    22 July 2016 at 6:48 am

    Holy cow! How did they come up with that? Was NZ First rolled into the National total?

    • Enough is Enough 1.1
      22 July 2016 at 10:22 am

      The message is great. I just think people may not be warming to Andrew Little giving the message.

      He needs media training, like Helen did.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 11:48 am

        Andrew Little has had tonnes of media training, while he was running for the Leadership, and onwards.

      • The New Student 1.1.2
        22 July 2016 at 1:37 pm

        I think we might need to get the message out to that 53%, rather than toss it around between ourselves here. More action!!

      • mosa 1.1.3
        24 July 2016 at 12:39 pm

        It wont make any difference the National party will form the next government as horrible as that prospect is.
        While i dont have any time for corporate polls (showing National ahead) i just dont feel a mood for change.
        I have been watching politics scince 1984 and for a government too change it needs to loose support consistently over a period of time and its needs not just one issue (Housing) in this case too force voters too look for an alternative.
        Its always been the economy that has dictated a governments defeat or survival and the government has despite some serious long term issues it wont face has convinced kiwis everything is rosy and untill it all goes too the wall and in the meantime Labour wont get traction.
        It may be 2020 under a new generation of leadership that Labour comes back promoting a generational change and having too as usual clean up Nationals destruction.
        By then a new approach will become an urgency.
        God three more years too go.

  2. Paul 2
    22 July 2016 at 7:18 am

    If 53% of this country are happy to vote for this disgraceful government, then how are we in a position to mock Americans who vote for Bush, Reagan, Trump and Clinton?

    • mary_a 2.1
      22 July 2016 at 8:56 am

      Here here Paul. Absolutely agree.

      Obviously and shamefully, 53% of NZers are able to turn a blind eye to the homelessness affecting far too many vulnerable Kiwi families.

      No conscience, as long as there is a dollar or two to be able to put in the back pocket!

      We are indeed a selfish, sick society, if the poll is to be believed.

      • Redge 2.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 10:21 am

        I am one of the 53%.
        I have no problems voting for National at all, if ACT were more right then I would be voting for them.
        Are you seriously suggesting Labour and the Greens are a serious option?

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 11:49 am

          I am very unlikely to vote Labour or Greens 2017. I’m over pretend and extend.

        • framu 2.1.1.2
          22 July 2016 at 12:28 pm

          ” if ACT were more right then I would be voting for them.”

          are you saying the nats are more to the right than act?

        • DoublePlusGood 2.1.1.3
          22 July 2016 at 12:51 pm

          What exactly are the government doing so well that you would support them over other political parties?

          • Siobhan 2.1.1.3.1
            22 July 2016 at 2:00 pm

            Thats the thing, their management of the economy is a train wreck waiting to happen.
            The consolation may well be that if they stay in power they will get the full blast when the proverbial hits the fan.
            No doubt John is fingers crossed there will be another massive earthquake.

  3. srylands 3
    22 July 2016 at 7:26 am

    I am surprised that you are surprised.

    The merger with the Greens was a death blow for Labour. [r0b: factually incorrect: http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-green-mou-well-received-in-poll/ ] And there is no use in engaging in semantics. It is a merger.

    The other unfortunate problem is that there are more home owners than home seekers. The Auckland folk I know are insufferable. They do nothing but gloat about their 3 million dollar houses.

    This poll is an outlier. But the trend is clear.

    • Paul 3.1
      22 July 2016 at 7:34 am

      If you are correct, we really have become a miserable, greedy and selfish outlying province of the US.
      Maybe we should rename ourselves West Carolina.

      • srylands 3.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 7:47 am

        Don’t get me wrong. I think the policies that have led to the Auckland house price inflation are awful for New Zealand. However, there are many homeowners in the 40 – 60 + age group who are still operating on the assumption that their house is a key to a prosperous retirement.

        None of these people want to hear even hints that their house is over valued.

        Then you had the Green merger (or the perception that it was a merger). Simply awful.

        Until Labour distances itself from the Greens and moves in a different policy direction, they are stuffed.

        While this poll is an outlier, the figure is so high that there is a 99.8% chance that real support for National rose during the polling period. There is no escaping from that.

        • Stuart Munro 3.1.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 7:56 am

          The margin of error of phone polls is low and falling.

          It would be unwise of the left to draw conclusions from an artifact of poor sampling – we must wait for other indications, and not compromise our positions like Blair on the whim of some less than reliable statistician.

          The convenience is suspect – a false positive allows the usual MSM suspects to fabricate a whole new narrative to reupholster Keys threadbare popularity.

          Let’s wait and see.

          • Dave 3.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 8:36 am

            Stuart – if as you state that the margin if error is low and falling then this means that these polls are becoming more accurate – ie lower margin of error = closer to reality ! That labour greens merger is now being seen for what it is – desperation and devoid of ideas . Just smear and oppose and very little support and propose .

          • Takere 3.1.1.1.2
            24 July 2016 at 12:28 pm

            And 7.5% did not respond/not declare who’d they’d vote for … out of a small sample 864. I’m no scientist in political modelling & analysis but, a small sample pool of a bigger pool of 3m registered voters (last election)? How does that work?

        • Paul 3.1.1.2
          22 July 2016 at 7:57 am

          These 40 to 60 year olds better be prepared to see their kids leave the city and the country.
          I’m interested to hear why you think the Green Party is toxic to Labour. Is it the same reason why Labour voters in the UK voted for Brexit and Democrat voters will vote for Trump?

          • Gosman 3.1.1.2.1
            22 July 2016 at 8:00 am

            Less young people are leaving now than when National took office. That is one of the reasons for the high cost of housing.

            • Paul 3.1.1.2.1.1
              22 July 2016 at 8:09 am

              And, unless heir parents are loaded, they are unable to afford a house.

              • The lone Haranguer …
                22 July 2016 at 11:44 am

                But the boomers, who apparently have all the houses, are genetically disposed to dying at some time, so will pass the wealth onto their kids and grandkids.

                I do recall being in my early 20s and wishing I was ten years older “as house prices were so affordable back then”.

                • Siobhan …
                  22 July 2016 at 2:06 pm

                  But they will live long lives, inheriting enough money for a house deposit when you are 50-60 years old isn’t much help. We’ll be spending our inheritance on paying rent. The family wealth..straight to the landlord.

                  They might as well miss the children and leave it to the Grandkids, but then its divided so many ways, I guess the Grandchildren can use it to pay off the student loan. The family wealth…straight into the Government coffers. Could well help balance the Government books.

                  • Gangnam Style …
                    22 July 2016 at 2:17 pm

                    Private homes for the elderly will be taking our inheritance, infact I reckon my ol’ mum will prob outlive me, so any money in her house & savings will be sucked up by pensioner housing & healthcare.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:01 pm

                      If people were smart they would band together with a dozen mates when they are in their 50s and set up their own collective private care accommodation ready for due time.

                      Fuck the corporate providers.

                • North …
                  22 July 2016 at 7:54 pm

                  Inheritance splits exponentially down the line. We’re not going to have an ever perpetuating class of well-housed, contented Baby Boomers funded by the previous generation. Just more and more desperate people.

            • Rozgonz 3.1.1.2.1.2
              22 July 2016 at 9:43 am

              Yeah, funny how it becomes political when lots of kiwis are leaving NZ and then it becomes political when they start coming back. We are suffering from growing pains caused by our own success. Probably a good problem to have in all honesty

          • srylands 3.1.1.2.2
            22 July 2016 at 8:03 am

            “I’m interested to hear why you think the Green Party is toxic to Labour.”
            _______________

            Well, unlike Labour, they do have clear policies. They are terrible for swing voters. I don’t think I need to spell that out for you.

            There is plenty of room for a party that focuses on environmental issues. The environment is a vote winner. But any swing voter who looks through the Green party website and reads their policies would run screaming. The word “ban” is used 100 times. That simply turns people off.

            • You_Fool 3.1.1.2.2.1
              22 July 2016 at 8:24 am

              “The word “ban” is used 100 times. That simply turns people off.” [citation needed]

              I just went through the Green Party website https://www.greens.org.nz/ and there was zero instances of the word “ban” being used.

              Closest they get is:
              “Put a hold on all new conversions of land to dairy farms” when talking about their clean water policy. It is also clear that this would be a temporary hold (or ‘ban’ on new conversions) whilst we sorted out how to ensure dairy farms didn’t cause more pollution and not a long term ban.

              As far as I can see there are no other instances of talks about bans, unless it is deep deep within their policy documents, which is unlikely to be read by Jocelyn Public anyway

              • Justathought …
                22 July 2016 at 11:18 am

                “I just went through the Green Party website https://www.greens.org.nz/ and there was zero instances of the word “ban” being used.”

                Ummm…are you sure? Mr google says there are 67 postings with “ban” in the url, and 5,060 individual mentions of the word ban, that’s a lot more than zero.

                https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=ban+site%3Agreens.org.nz&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=-1eRV5GoCMrN8gesg6r4Ag#q=ban+site:greens.org.nz&start=80

                  • Justathought …
                    22 July 2016 at 1:49 pm

                    “National the ban more party apparently”

                    “ban” site:greens.org.nz = 5060 results
                    “ban” site:national.org.nz = 115 results

                    115 mentions of the word “ban” on the National party site is lower than the 5,060 mentions on the Green’s site, so if you say “National the ban more party apparently” based on these figures you may have to learn to get a grip with either your number skills or your comprehension skills.

                  • Wisdumb …
                    22 July 2016 at 7:00 pm

                    I opened the google link given by You_Fool at 11.50 am and looked at the items on both the Greens’ and the Nats’ websites that contained the word ‘ban. There were 1680 hits on the Greens and 116 on the Nats. I looked at 2-4 pages on each.

                    On the Green website, the first word I saw was ‘Ban Ki Moon,’ and I don’t think even srylands or Justathought would think that this refers to the Greens wanting to ban the moon.

                    The other items included Metiria Turei asking why the DCC had banned skateboards on the St Clair promenade, many comments by Green MPs on other peoples’ bans e.g. Peter Dunne attempting to ban 1080, a discussion of the long established policy to ban nuclear ships, praise for the law that banned zero hour contracts, a decision by an Australian authority to ban CCA in building timber, and a comment on a Canadian ban on tobacco sales displays.

                    Sure, there were plenty of other comments calling for a ban on a lot of nasty chemicals and purportedly bad food and drinks.

                    Unlike the Greens, the Nats site mostly contained references to things that the Nat had actually banned: Jamie- Lee Ross on the effectiveness of an local area alcohol ban, Minister Collins praising the improvement in prisoner health and safety due to the five year ban on smoking in prisons, consultation on a ban on importing asbestos containing or ozone depleting substances, praise for NZ’s international efforts towards the ban on cluster munitions, MP Parmjeet Parmeer being banned from a Council function due to an electoral mispractice, MP Bishop ensuring no future inconsistent bans on books (the Into the River issue) (good work), two pieces in 2006 on the smacking ban, recycling plastics rather than banning them (pinched from the Greens?), National pushing for a ban on PlayStation in prisons, a ban on certain psychoactive drugs, and an amendment to the Coroners Act to maintain prohibition publishing certain details in suicide hearings.

                    So clearly, the National government is not averse to banning a wide range of materials and activities – stuff that the Greens can only talk about.

                    Even from just a few pages it clear to me that it is unwise draw strong conclusions on a supposed Green Party’s propensity to ban without actually reading the information.

                    Above all, however, using a propensity to ban as a political discriminant would in my view not appeal to a wide constituency in New Zealand, probably only to those with the selfish Ayn Randian fetish about very narrowly defined concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty.’ So the numbers of hits don’t really matter. I imagine that most Kiwis would agree with most of the things that National has banned.

                    I would prefer a word count comparison of party websites using the words poverty, homelessness, inequality or domestic violence. Those are real political issues.

            • Robert Guyton 3.1.1.2.2.2
              22 July 2016 at 8:52 am

              “The word “ban” is used 100 times”.

              This is a lie, right?
              srylands is lying, right?
              It seems a very bald, brazen, shameless lie, if that’s the case, or is this par for sryland’s course?

              • srylands …
                22 July 2016 at 9:08 am

                Yes 100 is a significant understatement. I suggest you go back and look. And stop being deluded.

                Here are just a few I got in two minutes of looking.

                Ban toxic spray
                Ban bee killing pesticides
                Ban foreigners buying hones
                Ban junk food in schools
                Ban landfill dumping of tytes
                Ban mining within 300 metres of houses
                Ban fracking
                Ban herbicide tolerant swedes
                Ban off shore oil drilling

                I could go on and on.

                And quit with the rudeness and nastiness. Just because you are upset about pesky facts.

                You are such pricks.

                • Paul …
                  22 July 2016 at 9:11 am

                  So you want toxic spray
                  So you want bee killing pesticides
                  So you want foreigners buying hones
                  So you want junk food in schools
                  So you want landfill dumping of tytes
                  So you want mining within 300 metres of your house
                  So you want fracking
                  So you want off shore oil drilling

                  What a lovely toxic country to live in.

                  • srylands …
                    22 July 2016 at 9:24 am

                    You are missing the point. I was accused of lying about the Green policies advocating 100 bans on things. Clearly I was not lying. 100 is very conservative.

                    Some of these policies will be sensible. Some will be dumb.

                    The bitterness and negativity on this place is palpable. You would think New Zealand is some capitalist hell hole. I can assure you that the punters don’t see that. John Key will be PM in 2021. That will please neither you or I. Although for different reasons.

                    • You_Fool …
                      22 July 2016 at 10:24 am

                      100 is an outright lie. 5 out of your 8 examples do not exist, 3 being outright lies and misrepresentation of the Greens actual position on the subject, with only home ownership and junk food in schools being somewhat close to your exaggerated hyperbole.

                      So you are lying and slandering.

                • You_Fool …
                  22 July 2016 at 10:09 am

                  Ban toxic spray – Actual Greens Policy “Reduce the use..” https://www.greens.org.nz/page/agriculture-and-rural-affairs-policy

                  Only example of the words “ban toxic sprays” showing up on a search of Green party website is a Green Party press release saying that Auckland Mayor Len brown should follow his own advice and not use toxic sprays on Auckland parks and playgrounds (you know where our children go)
                  https://www.greens.org.nz/news/article/mayor-should-ban-not-review-toxic-spray-use

                  Ban bee killing pesticides – “Your search yielded no results”
                  Will probably be covered under rural affairs policy like above https://www.greens.org.nz/page/agriculture-and-rural-affairs-policy

                  Ban foreigners buying homes – “Your search yielded no results”
                  Closest I can come to is in trade and foreign investment policy where it has that property can only be brought by NZ residents and citizens. Depending on definition of foreigner being used this will effectivly be a ban on foreigners buying homes. Note does not use the word “ban”
                  https://www.greens.org.nz/page/trade-and-foreign-investment-policy

                  Also have this press releas where suggest that should restrict the ownership of NZ assesst incl. land to overseas interests. Also doesn’t use the word ban
                  https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-releases/overseas-ownership-undermining-economic-sovereignty

                  Overall policy position is NZ land and property should be owned by people who at least permanently live in NZ.

                  Ban junk food in schools – Have two press releases using the words “ban junk food in schools”

                  https://www.greens.org.nz/news/article/govt-should-side-kiwi-kids-and-ban-junk-food-vending-machines
                  https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-releases/govt-out-step-pms-science-advisor-childhood-obesity

                  The first being the only one in which the Green Party is calling for a ban. The second press release is one in which the PM’s science adviser is calling for the ban.
                  None of their 2014 election promises are about banning junk food in schools.
                  The Green’s food policy talks about promoting healthy food choices, esp. in schools and extra taxes on unhealthy choices. There is no mention of banning unhealthy food, although it seems that would be the easiest way to impliment their plans in schools. The promotion of healthy food is also mentioned in the childrens policy.
                  https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Green%20Party%20Food%20Policy.pdf
                  https://www.greens.org.nz/page/childrens-policy

                  Ban landfill dumping of tyres – Your search yielded no results
                  Nowhere do the Greens mention this, although their Environmental policy includes the goal to phase out landfills in general as part of their goal to have NZ be zero waste. Srylands may be confused with the Ministry of the Environment which had a study showing that many councils ban whole tyre dumping at landfill
                  http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/product-stewardship-case-study-end-life-tyres/2-tyre-sector

                  Or the rest of the western world who already do this
                  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10845565

                  Ban mining within 300 metres of houses – Was a private members bill by Green MP, Catherine Delahunty, as a response to the concerns of Wihi residents over the expansion of the Wihi gold mine
                  https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/waihi-community-shouldn%E2%80%99t-be-undermined-goldmining

                  It is not in the Green’s Environmental policy, but would be how the RMA act would be upheld
                  https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Green%20Party%20Environment%20Policy.pdf

                  Ban fracking – Your search yielded no results
                  The energy policy calls for a moratorium on fracking not an out-right ban
                  https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Green%20Party%20Energy%20Policy.pdf

                  Ban herbicide tolerant swedes – Your search yielded no results
                  There are articles, press releases and speeches detailed on the site where Green MPs and the Green Party are calling for a ban of HT Swedes after it was found that HT Swedes were killing cows and causing birth defects.
                  The word ban is used in the food policy around GE food stuffs
                  Ban the commercial release and field trials of GE organisms.
                  Prohibit field-testing or production of GE foods within New Zealand.
                  Work towards a ban on GE food imports.                   (I included the part that used the word Prohibit instead of ban because it is the same thing)

                  https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Green%20Party%20Food%20Policy.pdf

                  Ban off shore oil drilling – Energy policy states that the Green party will:
                  Prohibit the following activities:
                  a. All new deep sea drilling for fossil fuels within territorial waters, the
                  Exclusive Economic Zone and the continental shelf (with deep sea
                  defined as below 200 metres).

                  It should be noted that the last three “bans” are well known Green positions and well within the scope of the saying “the greens should stick to environmental issues” or that they do well when they do.

                  • srylands …
                    22 July 2016 at 11:37 am

                    Greens – The “Ban” Party

                    Are you sure you are looking in the same website?

                    Anyway you are missing the point. the Greens are opposed to capitalism and the free use of markets. They want to intervene in just about everything.

                    Just recently gareth was trying to tell the Electricity Authority how to set tariffs for solar buy back to the grid.

                    It just never ends.

                    If they foucssed on environmental issues they could form a government with national and really get good things done. But because they behave like fucktards on every aspect of economic management, they will never, ever, be in government. How des that help the environment?
                    ___________________

                    Ban junk food from schools

                    Ban fuel inefficient vehicles

                    Ban all new gaming machines in pubs

                    Ban the GCSB (OK abolish)

                    Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm

                    Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick

                    Ban companies that do not comply with a Code of Corporate Responsibility

                    Ban ACC from investing in enterprises that provide products or services that significantly increase rates of injury or illness or otherwise have significant adverse social or environmental effects

                    Ban commercial Genetic Engineering trials

                    Ban field testing on production of GE food

                    Ban import of GE food

                    Ban Urban Sprawl (OK disincetivise it)

                    Ban foreigners from owning land

                    Ban sale of high country farms to individuals who do not live in NZ at least 185 days a year

                    Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours

                    Ban crates for sows

                    Ban battery cages for hens

                    Ban factory farming of animals

                    Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain

                    Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed

                    Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans

                    Ban cloning of animals

                    Ban use of animals in GE

                    Ban GE animal food

                    Ban docking of dogs tails

                    Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions

                    Ban advertising during children’s programmes

                    Ban alcohol advertising on TV and radio

                    Ban coal mining

                    Ban the export of indigenous logs and chips

                    Ban the use of bio-accumulative and persistent poisons

                    Ban the establishment of mustelid farms

                    Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves

                    Ban mining activities when rare and endemic species are found to present on the mining site

                    Ban the trading conservation land for other land to facilitate extractive activities on.

                    Ban the further holding of marine mammals in captivity except as part of an approved threatened species recovery strategy

                    Ban the direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals

                    Ban any additional use of coal for energy

                    Ban fixed electricity charges

                    Ban further large hydro plants

                    Ban nuclear power (OK this is New Zealand law but in the long term we will have nuclear power)

                    Ban further thermal generation

                    Ban private water management

                    Ban imported vehicles over seven years old

                    Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills

                    Ban the export of hazardous waste to non OECD countries

                    Ban funding of health services by companies that sell unhealthy food (so McDonalds could not fund services for young cancer sufferers)

                    Ban healthcare organizations from selling unhealthy food or drink

                    Ban advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm

                    Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food

                    Ban the use of antibiotics as sprays on crops

                    Ban food irradiation within NZ

                    Ban irradiated food imports

                    Ban growth hormones for animals

                    Ban crown agency investments in any entity that denies climate change.

                    Ban Crown investment in tobacco companies

                    Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in environmentally damaging oil extraction or gold mining

                    Ban non UN sanctioned military involvement

                    Ban new casinos

                    Ban promotion of Internet gambling

                    Ban advertising of unhealthy food to children

                    Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes

                    Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles

                    Ban private prisons

                    Ban semi-automatic weapons

                    Ban genetic mixing between species

                    Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ

                    Ban limited liability companies by making owners responsible for liability of products

                    Ban funding of Private Trainibg Establishments that compete with public tertiary institutes

                    Ban the importation of goods and services that do not meet quality and environmental certification standards in production, lifecycle analysis, and eco-labelling

                    Ban free trade agreements with countries with poor human rights records.

                    Ban goods that do not meet quality and sustainability standards for goods which are produced and/or sold in Aotearoa/New Zealand

                    Ban new urban highways or motorways

                    Ban private toll roads

                    Ban import of vehicles more than seven years old unless they meet emission standards

                    Ban imported goods that do not meet standards for durability and ease of recycling

                    Ban all new landfills

                    Ban new houses without water saving measures

                    Ban programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence

                    • You_Fool …
                      22 July 2016 at 11:56 am

                      https://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/29/banning/

                      So Syrlands = David Farrier? Your list is the same as was posted in Kiwiblog in 2008, which the above greens blog post refutes.

                      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_greens_banned_list.html

                      That isn’t even going into the fact that 2008 Green policy is different to 2016 Green policy.

                      So you want to continue lying or should we get to the truth?

                      [No speculating about real life identities, please. You would have been better suggesting that Farrar operates Srylands via the traditional ventriloquist’s dummy technique. Hand up the bum, gottle of gear, don’t look at the strings folks just watch the little fella, ain’t he funny, etc. TRP]

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      22 July 2016 at 2:29 pm

                      You do realise that the only party in Parliament that doesn’t concede that a healthy economy needs some regulation is ACT, right? And that ACT is so unpopular they’re stuck pandering to Epsom to even get a single MP? Even National aren’t unfettered capitalists, and think the government does have a job in directing the affairs of the economy and regulating business within reasonable limits.

                      Some of that regulation will involve prohibiting harmful practices or products. Those are the things that actually deserve to be called “bans.”

                      As someone who’s been pretty involved with the Green Party, a lot of things on your list aren’t “bans,” ranging from policies that the Green Party would simply reverse (eg. private toll roads) or reconsider. (constructing new highways/motorways) Likewise, ending limited liability is not a ban, it’s removing a classification of company. That would be like calling a library changing away from the dewey decimal system a “ban on dewey.”

                      A ban means there is an actual law passed to stop citizens or corporations doing something. So policies to require higher-quality goods to be sold might involve a ban, or it might involve a fine, or it might involve both depending on the details.

                      You are getting ridiculously trigger happy with that word, and don’t even appear to know what it means. This is probably one of the most facetious arguments I’ve seen from a right-winger who isn’t simply an out-and-out troll.

                    • Trewindle …
                      22 July 2016 at 10:51 pm

                      Hi srylands,

                      What are your thoughts on the actual merits of all the proposed bans/disincentivisations/etc. you’ve listed above? Are there any of those policies you actually support – if not, why not?

                      Cheers

                  • North …
                    22 July 2016 at 8:05 pm

                    So Dear SZZZLands is just playing ridiculous games then ? Noooooo !

            • David H 3.1.1.2.2.3
              22 July 2016 at 9:01 am

              Liar. Liar. Maybe you went thru the National Party Website, and you are also Color blind along with all your political blindness as well. Time for Coke bottle glasses in extra rose tint.

              • srylands …
                22 July 2016 at 12:00 pm

                So Syrlands = David Farrier?

                No it is David Farrer

                Of course it is the same list. Which of those policies have changed?

                You are still in denial. Anyway I couldn’t give a f***.

                • framu …
                  22 July 2016 at 12:32 pm

                  it raises the question of what your actually looking at

                  youve provided no links and it appears your getting your info from someone who isnt 100% above board

                  • You_Fool …
                    22 July 2016 at 1:18 pm

                    The greens don’t have half those “bans” in their policy

                    https://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/29/banning/

                    • srylands …
                      22 July 2016 at 1:58 pm

                      Well that is a relief.

                      The point I am making is that the Greens are highly interventionist in markets. That will make people poorer. That is why they are toxic. That is why they will never be in Government. So why is Labour shackling itself to them?

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      22 July 2016 at 2:33 pm

                      What actual evidence do you have that every market intervention makes people poorer? Because I can give you some pretty basic economics that it’s absolutely possible for the government to intervene in ways that either increase GDP, (making the country as a whole richer) or increase the median wage. (making the individuals who comprise the country richer)

                      Actually increasing the median wage is very easy, it usually only requires bumping up the minimum wage, which is one of those “highly interventionist” policies you’re complaining about, yet it directly ensures that actual everyday people get a share of their productivity back from the economy they participate in.

                      You may be confusing general opposition to tariffs and other trade barriers that result in them generally wanting free trade between countries. (although in economist speak, free trade also means things like complete freedom of movement, so more like the style of free trade practiced between EU states)

                      There are very real economic and non-economic concerns about total free trade right away, however. At the very least, complete free trade will dramatically lower wages for unskilled work, and is already resulting in a manufacturing exodus to low-wage economies. (This is both good and bad- it reduces more desperate poverty overseas, but often the jobs provided overseas would be considered to have inhumane and unreasonable conditions to workers here, and also they cause a less desperate type of poverty from the jobs exodus in developed countries)

                      Free trade doesn’t require an unregulated economy. It requires tariffs to have a sound economic basis to exist, and barriers to trade to be because of real policy concerns, and not arbitrary. (So cooling the housing market by preventing non-residents from owning property probably isn’t an arbitrary barrier, for instance.)

                    • framu …
                      22 July 2016 at 3:15 pm

                      “The point I am making is that the Greens are highly interventionist in markets.”:

                      yeah – but your point was based on a kiwi blog post it seems.

                    • North …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:08 pm

                      Oooh look……….SorryLands is voting Labour now……..

                • Richard McGrath …
                  22 July 2016 at 10:44 pm

                  It is neither Farrier nor Farrer.

                  Try David FARRAR.

              • srylands …
                22 July 2016 at 1:55 pm

                How about you go through my list (OK Farrar’s list) and tell me which of these “ban” policies are no longer Green party policy?

                BTW This is David Farrier:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farrier

                Not to be confused with David Farrar

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  22 July 2016 at 8:51 pm

                  How about no, and we leave Farrar’s nonsense to Farrar? 😛

                  If you have an actual point other than copy-pasting drivel from Kiwiblog, how about you make it in your own words?

            • Rozgonz 3.1.1.2.2.4
              22 July 2016 at 12:34 pm

              2 words – Matiria Turei, I mean really, who can take that woman seriously>

              • DoublePlusGood …
                22 July 2016 at 12:55 pm

                Why can’t you take her seriously?

                • You_Fool …
                  22 July 2016 at 1:19 pm

                  I would guess because he thinks John Key is an upstanding gentleman

                • Rob …
                  24 July 2016 at 11:22 am

                  Well I suppose it’s relatively easy if you spend your weekends wearing lord of the rings costumes and living in a mock castle . For the rest of us , it’s a bit of a long bow …..

              • framu …
                22 July 2016 at 3:14 pm

                she is a qualified corp lawyer – cant be that hard to see that people take her seriously

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                22 July 2016 at 8:54 pm

                You mean Metiria?

                She’s eminently qualified to lead one of the largest political parties in New Zealand, and she’s serious, direct, and engaging as a leader. What more could you want?

            • Liberal Realist 3.1.1.2.2.5
              22 July 2016 at 8:13 pm

              srylands, I started as a Labour voter who went green so perhaps I’m one of your ‘swing’ voters or were you referring to those voters who swing between parties that offer them the most goodies at election year? What lead me to swing to the GP was specifically researching the Green Party’s policy platform, via their website.

              In my opinion the Green Party’s policies are forward thinking and absolutely necessary to recover then preserve our environment for current and future generations of New Zealanders. Sometimes we need to ban things that are bad for our environment, such as CFCs! Do you disagree that the treaty signed in the late 80’s to BAN CFCs made swing voters in democracies around the world ‘run screaming’? What about the nuclear ban? Do you think that banning nuclear powered ships / weapons was a bad idea and made swing voters ‘run screaming’? Methinks not. Banning bad things = start of good things, pretty simple yes?

              Do you not understand that human survival and success is predicated on a healthy, unpolluted & stable environment? The success of markets & capitalism is also predicated on the above. Without a healthy, unpolluted & stable environment there’d be no markets, no profit and no capitalism… all of which rely on banning things that are bad for people and the environment.

              What is wrong with banning things that damage the environment, put the general populace at risk, promote unnecessary waste and so on? Take another look at GP policy and tell me how it causes people to ‘run screaming’?

              https://www.greens.org.nz/policy

            • swordfish 3.1.1.2.2.6
              22 July 2016 at 9:51 pm

              Srylands: “I’m interested to hear why you think the Green Party is toxic to Labour.”
              Well, unlike Labour, they do have clear policies. They are terrible for swing voters. I don’t think I need to spell that out for you.”

              Please spell it out for us, taking into account the following …
              … http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12052015/#comment-1013458

          • The lone Hanguer 3.1.1.2.3
            22 July 2016 at 11:12 am

            The media seem to love this “boomer bashing” at the moment, and the idea that the following generations of X/Y/Millennials are somehow getting the rough end of the pineapple.

            But more to the point, if you X/Y/Millennials wont get off your collective arses and vote, (what age brackets fill the missing million voters?), then quite frankly, you get the Government you deserve.

            Landline phone polling may well reflect the voting preferences of the generations who actually get out and vote. Which is why folk on here wander around amazed in the days after an election when Key and co are in the Government Limos and the Labour members are at the bus stop.

            • Paul 3.1.1.2.3.1
              22 July 2016 at 11:33 am

              I am not a ‘millenial’.
              Despite my comment above, by my age I would be defined as a boomer.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.2.4
            22 July 2016 at 11:51 am

            These 40 to 60 year olds better be prepared to see their kids leave the city and the country.

            Too late. If you look at NZ’s record of the last 20 years, these people have watched both their kids leave NZ and their grandkids be born and grow up in Aussie.

            So they have no problems with this whatsoever, it’s already been proven over time.

    • You_Fool 3.2
      22 July 2016 at 7:53 am

      “The other unfortunate problem is that there are more home owners than home seekers. The Auckland folk I know are insufferable. They do nothing but gloat about their 3 million dollar houses.” [citation needed]

      The Auckland people I know (and we are in the well off, university educated, mostly white, upper middle class bracket, but mostly from working class families), are complaining about the amount of deposit needed and how hard it is to find a house where we aren’t out-bid at auctions by baby-boomer investors who generally have no desire to live in the house, or even to rent it out, but to flip it for a quick buck. I think most of my friends now have a house, but are acutely aware of how over-valued it is and how over-leveraged they are and how the whole thing is a bit of a sham. I have friends who have given up on owning a house, despite being professional engineers and highly educated people.

      Brighter future!

      Although, having said that, I am sure your life experience was completely made up and just used so you could say how awesome National are on a left leaning blog. I mean its not like you have ever said anything that could ever be construed as real

      • srylands 3.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 8:06 am

        “I am sure your life experience was completely made up and just used so you could say how awesome National are on a left leaning blog. I mean its not like you have ever said anything that could ever be construed as real”
        ______________________________

        Don’t lie. I have never said that National is “awesome”. Read my first post on the thread.

        ” I think the policies that have led to the Auckland house price inflation are awful for New Zealand.”

        That includes the policies perpetuated by the current Government.

        • You_Fool 3.2.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 8:39 am

          Want to go look at your other posts at different times on this site and come back and revisit your post? Or will you continue a narrow view of your actions to escape culpability?

          • srylands 3.2.1.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 11:39 am

            Don’t be a fool. I am not culpable for anything.

            I think that National is doing a poor job now across a range of policy fronts. It does not deserve a 4th term.

            Is that clear or do you want me to say it again?

            Unfortunately it will get a 4th term because there is no credible alternative.

            • Molly 3.2.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2016 at 8:11 am

              “I think that National is doing a poor job now across a range of policy fronts. “
              Elaborate. (Personally, I think National is doing exactly the same job as the first three terms, it is just that now there is no leeway left any more. So we are seeing the end results of their policies starting to come to fruition.)

              Where are the changes in political direction that make you consider National to only now be doing a poor job?

      • Rob 3.2.2
        24 July 2016 at 11:28 am

        Why don’t you define working class . I am confused as to what the left really believe that is .

    • You_Fool 3.3
      22 July 2016 at 7:59 am

      “This poll is an outlier. But the trend is clear.”

      Also have you seen the RM trends? You are correct, this poll is clearly an outlier and the trend is definitely clear. However it is not that National is at 50%+. More like 40% and trending down. Lab trend has been stable at approx 30% and greens and NZ first have been trending up at approx 15% and 10% respectively (and no one else worthwhile considering.)

      So looking at the long term results on the RM site shows that thinking that Nat is back on track is wistful thinking at best.

      • Rozgonz 3.3.1
        22 July 2016 at 9:46 am

        Your delusion is incredible, but hey, if it makes you feel better…

        • You_Fool 3.3.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 10:25 am

          I also suggest you look at the RM trends and then consider the latest result in that light. If Lab was trending down for 6 months and then suddenly jumped 10 points, would you be saying the same things?

      • tauputa 3.3.2
        22 July 2016 at 10:01 am

        National score 53% in a poll and the fool says: “this poll is clearly an outlier and the trend is definitely clear. However it is not that National is at 50%+. More like 40% and trending down”.

        Ive also heard the earth is flat and if you abstain from sin you live for ever post death, get a brain transplant bozo.

        • You_Fool 3.3.2.1
          22 July 2016 at 10:19 am

          look at the trend for the past few months and then work out where National were heading. The fact that this poll said 50%+ was ridiculous when looked in that context.

      • Mike Bond 3.3.3
        22 July 2016 at 1:40 pm

        Does your name refer to yourself? Only a fool can ignore this poll. I agree it is out there, but Labour seriously need to do something and do it fast! They continue doing the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. Little is toxic and they need to get rid of him fast. But then along comes ardent supporters like yourself and that gives them false hope.

    • maninthemiddle 3.4
      22 July 2016 at 10:22 am

      Steady on! I’m not gloating!!

      Seriously though, I agree with your comment on the merger. I’m just waiting to see whether it decimates labour more than the greens. Judging by RM, they’re suffering in equal measure.

    • Anno1701 3.5
      22 July 2016 at 10:35 am

      “I am surprised that you are surprised. ”

      im concerned concern troll is concerned !

  4. Gosman 4
    22 July 2016 at 7:58 am

    It is likely a rogue poll however the movement towards National is probably accurate. It is just not likely to be as great as suggested. The main points is that Labour and The Greens aren’t getting much traction despite becoming closer.

  5. James 5
    22 July 2016 at 8:11 am

    Who would believe Roy Morgan – when Bomber reports has Labour on 33%, the Greens on 12% and National on 41%.

    Whilst Im shocked with the numbers and think that they may be a little high, the size of it def indicates an upward swing for National.

    Labour havnt been over 30% since Aug last year, and have (with only a couple of exceptions) been slowly bleeding support since then. Heck this result is only .5% less support than you had in March / April – So perhaps you had a boost for a little bit – but then people saw sense and came back to National.

    • maninthemiddle 5.1
      22 July 2016 at 11:33 am

      Who would believe Bomber? He’s become a joke when it comes to overhyping the left. His credibility, such as it was, was utterly destroyed by his love-in with Kim Dot Com.

    • Colonial Viper 5.2
      22 July 2016 at 11:53 am

      I think National’s big swing upwards is well overblown, but the fact their popularity has gone up somewhat in the last month is statistically very likely.

      The numbers for Labour and Greens is ballpark to typical to the last 12 months so I think we can be confident there.

      The Left disconnected years ago and it ain’t reconnecting.

      • Mike Bond 5.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 1:46 pm

        You are so right! But what will it take for them to “reconnect”? Do they go on the social media and feel good about themselves? That a major shake up is necessary is no secret, but who is going to be brave enough to step up and shake this dying party back to life?

    • Rozgonz 5.3
      22 July 2016 at 12:35 pm

      tick tock tick tock Mr Little

  6. Sirenia 6
    22 July 2016 at 8:19 am

    It’s a bizarre world at the moment. Nothing is as it seems.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      22 July 2016 at 11:55 am

      The times are definitely changing. And the Left of the industrial 19th and socially liberal 20th century ain’t cutting it.

  7. Garibaldi 7
    22 July 2016 at 8:20 am

    I still think this result reflects the extent to which our commercial media are owned by the right. It is time to stop playing their game and to call them out at every opportunity. Why can’t anyone on the left stand up to all the sycophantic interviewers ? Surely it is easy enough to get on message and stay on message than to try and play all their silly games.

    • Paul 7.1
      22 July 2016 at 8:24 am

      Peters tells the media where to get off.
      And Corbyn does in the UK….

    • Gosman 7.2
      22 July 2016 at 8:27 am

      What do you mean stand up to them? If they are sycophantic then standing up to them won’t make a difference.

    • BM 7.3
      22 July 2016 at 8:33 am

      Good god.

      All you ever see on stuff or the herald is endless stories about “poverty” and the “housing crisis”

      Apart from the odd article, the media has being pushing a endless flow of negative stories about Key and National.

      • McGrath 7.3.1
        22 July 2016 at 9:22 am

        The Auckland home owners I know (who are across all political spectrums) are loving the housing price boom. This is why the housing crisis is falling on a large chunk of deaf ears.

        • BM 7.3.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 9:35 am

          Using your tax dollars to crash the value of your house is never going to be a winner.

          Idiots.

          • Molly 7.3.1.1.1
            24 July 2016 at 8:14 am

            Getting rid of unearned capital gain in our house if it leads to better housing for other NZers is painful – but not really a problem for me.

            I already have a place to live, I don’t mind sharing.

        • Paul 7.3.1.2
          22 July 2016 at 9:37 am

          Their kids aren’t loving the housing boom.

          • srylands 7.3.1.2.1
            22 July 2016 at 9:45 am

            No they are not. Although many will inherit valuable property portfolios when their parents die. That will mean waiting until you are in your late 50s and 60s for a big chunk of cash. In the interim, don’t buy a house. Rent a small flat, and invest all your spare cash in balanced funds.

            Owning a house is expensive. Renting most of your life is not a bad thing so long as you have a good investment strategy for your spare cash. then when mum and dad die when you are 60, you get their house (or houses) plus you have a nice super fund. Sweet.

            • Pat 7.3.1.2.1.1
              22 July 2016 at 9:53 am

              are you writing Nationals economic policy?

              • srylands …
                22 July 2016 at 10:00 am

                Did you read the part where I said that the Government’s housing polices are awful for New Zealand?

                I am simply stating the facts. It is too late to make Auckland’s houses affordable. Because “affordable” means reducing the prices by 60%. That is the reality. And both National and labour are terrified of admitting that.

                That this has been allowed to happen is an indictment on this Government, Auckland Council, and the last Labour Government. They should have killed the trend in 2002 when it started.

            • Muttonbird 7.3.1.2.1.2
              22 July 2016 at 11:45 am

              Renting most of your life is not a bad thing

              Renting most of your life in NZ is a bad thing. There is no security of tenancy for renters and a very high turnover of properties due to speculation.

              Home ownership has dropped to 1951 levels under the last two National governments but nothing has been done in legislating for the huge shift in circumstance for long term renters, the numbers of which will continue to increase.

              Most long term renters dread the 90 day letter, especially those with young families. They are not in control of their position in the community and this adds a lot of anxiety for both parents and children.

              If the shift away from home ownership is inevitable then much more robust protections of tenure must be introduced or the erosion of the community will continue apace.

              • srylands …
                22 July 2016 at 11:49 am

                “If the shift away from home ownership is inevitable then much more robust protections of tenure must be introduced or the erosion of the community will continue apace.”
                _________________

                +100 I agree entirely.

            • North 7.3.1.2.1.3
              22 July 2016 at 8:23 pm

              Listen to SillyLands will ya ?
              Yeah. Everybody’s got cash to invest.
              DreamyLands sees only the world he lives in.

      • Rozgonz 7.3.2
        22 July 2016 at 12:37 pm

        Yep, if you were new to this country you would think half the population is homeless.

    • mauī 7.4
      22 July 2016 at 8:45 am

      Waatea 5th Estate on weeknights is a breath of fresh air.

  8. Pat 8
    22 July 2016 at 8:26 am

    Sample size 864 and 7.5% didn’t give a (useable ) response…..plenty of scope for a rogue. Following a series of polls beginning to show a trend of falling support it needs to be viewed in that context….. besides, polls don’t measure irony.

    • James 8.1
      22 July 2016 at 8:32 am

      I love how people start pulling apart polling methods (after all they know better than the polling companies right?) when there is a poll that dosnt reflect what they want to see.

      You get a loss less of these arguments when Labour seem to go up.

      Next there will be the “I speak to taxi drivers – and they all vote labour”, or “all my friends I talk to vote labour” – so this has to be a rogue.

      Will be interesting when the other polls come out – But I cannot imagine that Andrew Little will be happy with this. Not even a little bit.

      • jcuknz 8.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 8:53 am

        or “all my friends I talk to vote labour” – so this has to be a rogue.

        Then of course being friends they know your views and agree with you to be polite. But in the privacy of the polling booth?

        Similar with polling i/vs … so none to be trusted.

      • Pat 8.1.2
        22 July 2016 at 9:01 am

        lol…individual polls are of little use as pollsters themselves espouse….this single poll runs counter to an emerging trend so taxi driver wisdom not required

        and I am sure Little would have preferred to see a continuation of the trend so will be watching the next couple with great interest…as will Key and Winston.

  9. Muhammad Onfyre 9
    22 July 2016 at 8:33 am

    The trend is the important thing.

    Let’s face facts. The LabGreen trend is down. We need to make changes now ( go back to Cunliffe) and distance ourselves from the Greens

    Three more years of National is not something we want.

  10. AB 10
    22 July 2016 at 8:43 am

    There had been the suggestion of a (weak) trend in recent Morgans that the Nats’ were heading into a range of something like 42-47, rather than the 45-50 we have been seeing since the 2014 election.
    That trend is now looking very questionable. It will correct downwards from 53, but we need to see consistent polls of 45 and under to have confidence.
    To attribute the results of a single poll to particular external events is a bit like backwards soothsaying – claiming magical powers to explain the past

    • Pollster 10.1
      22 July 2016 at 8:48 am

      The answer is far more simple. The Roy is nonsense:

      • Enough is Enough 10.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 10:39 am

        Calling the poll a nonsense is the easy answer to an ugly result. It is akin to sticking your head in the sand and telling yourself everything is well.

        It is that arrogant opinion that blinds many on our side which is the real issue. So many just think the voters are wrong and come election day they will see the light.

        I see it quite differently. This poll (along with every other poll since about 2007) scares the shit out of me. I just wish more people on the left shared my panic that another election is simply slipping away from us. Rather than arrogantly dismissing a poll result, we should be identifying what on earth we are doing wrong.

        Our policy is good.

        Our politics is shit.

        People like our message but don’t like our political leaders for some reason. It is that perception which needs to change.

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 11:57 am

          I think the RM has overestimated National’s support by a few percent and yes it will correct downwards maybe as much as 4% to 5% next poll.

  11. Pollster 11
    22 July 2016 at 8:47 am

    This is completely at odds with the far more reputable UMR poll of a week ago – laughably so, in fact. Anyone who comments on Roy Morgan polls as if they have a shred of validity is showing themselves to be a fool. Anyone who works in and around the polling industry knows this.

    Roy Morgan flails wildly from poll to poll, and the twitterati get themselves into a frenzy every time one comes out because it shows a huge lift for the left or a despairing plunge.

    This latest effort must surely end Roy Morgan’s credibility. You’re talking a 16 point swing in a month with no real explanation. That only has one historical precedent – Orewa. And the last month has not been an Orewa moment for National.

    • mlpc 11.1
      22 July 2016 at 9:26 am

      Reputable?
      How can you say this when the results were not even published?
      You wouldn’t give any credence to the results of a Curia Poll leaked by Kiwiblog.

    • alwyn 11.2
      22 July 2016 at 9:40 am

      Lies, more lies, Morgan lies.
      Micky Savage assured us that the National vote had collapsed and that Labour and the Greens were going into an unbeatable lead.
      Apparently Bomber told him so, and Bomber is never wrong.
      http://thestandard.org.nz/the-times-they-are-a-changing/
      Don’t read this rubbish. Listen only to Bomber.

    • Enough is Enough 11.3
      22 July 2016 at 10:28 am

      Where is the UMR poll?

    • leftie 11.4
      22 July 2016 at 12:01 pm

      Pollster, I think this is in direct response to the UMR poll that show the Nats are goneburgers. The Nats can’t afford to have the public thinking that, so Gary Morgan is fudging his utmost to hoodwink the public, in keeping up the perception that the Nats are untouchable and will win no matter what.

  12. James 12
    22 July 2016 at 8:56 am

    Pollster – Care to point to the detail of that UMR pollster? You know sample size etc? Because linking to the dailyblog isnt really a credible source.

    People here (generally) like the Roy Morgan because it favours the left a bit more than the others (well – thats my view anyway).

    Or do you have access to the special secret internal polling from labour that have them way up in the 30’s?

    • Pollster 12.1
      22 July 2016 at 10:00 am

      The UMR is not secret Labour polling, it is provided to a range of clients, of which Labour is one. It just isn’t published. I see it for one of my clients. Last one had Lab 33, Grn 12, Nats 41. I think that’s a bit high for the left but it’s in line with previous trend, as opposed to the Roy, which is just amateur hour.

      People who quote the Roy as a reputable source are fools.

    • swordfish 12.2
      22 July 2016 at 11:29 pm

      James: “Care to point to the detail of that UMR pollster? You know sample size etc? Because linking to the dailyblog isnt really a credible source.”

      Sample Size: 750 (same as Herald-DigiPoll, slightly smaller than the usual Roy Morgan range of 840-890)

      Party Vote Question wording: Very similar to Colmar Brunton’s

      Polling Regularity: Every Month

      —————————————————————————————————————————–

      James: “People here (generally) like the Roy Morgan because it favours the left a bit more than the others (well – thats my view anyway).”

      No. In fact, the Roy Morgans have been weakest for Labour since the 2014 Election and second weakest for both combined Lab+Green and the Opposition Bloc as a whole.

      Poll Averages since 2014 GE

      …………………….RM …………….CB ……………….RR ……………. HD
      Labour ………. 27.6 …………… 30.8 ……………. 31.2 ………….. 29.9
      Green ………… 13.0 …………… 10.7 ……………. 10.5 ……………. 9.4
      NZF …………….. 7.1 ……………….7.9 ………………. 7.8 ……………. 6.1
      Oppo …………. 47.7 ……………. 49.4 …………….. 49.5 ………….. 45.4

      ——————————————————————————————————————————

      James: “Or do you have access to the special secret internal polling from labour that have them way up in the 30’s?”

      Last 4 UMR Polls have Labour between 28-33% (as opposed to your slightly hysterical “way up in the 30s”)

  13. YNWA 13
    22 July 2016 at 9:00 am

    Curious that neither stuff nor NZ herald are screaming about this bizarre and frankly counter-intuitive poll result…

    • James 13.1
      22 July 2016 at 11:11 am

      Do they not do their own polls which they report on?

      • Lanthanide 13.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 12:26 pm

        They do, and very rarely does a media outfit report on polls conducted by other outfits, even if the polls completely contradict each other.

        Just like Roy Morgan, when they get a poll, they pretend that it’s gospel, and try and back-fit reasons that explain the movement in the poll.

        Which is why Roy Morgan have laughably ascribed the 10% jump in National support to the $1B in emergency housing funding, which commentators have broadly written off as fiddling round the edges and a policy that smacks of desperation.

  14. nukefacts 14
    22 July 2016 at 9:06 am

    I went to their site and read their commentary, and it reads like a Natz party political broadcast. Perhaps Roy Morgan have drunk the cool-aid and become yet another Natz schill-for-hire?

  15. save nz 15
    22 July 2016 at 9:13 am

    Reflecting on it, I can’t see it being right. Probably some dirty trick to destabilise the Labour/Green relationship.

    But, property is a poisoned chalice that Labour/Green seem to be addicted to drinking. The Natz have screwed property up to the point of a massive clusterfuck that any rescue mission will be unpopular. Why they don’t just keep out of it and throw the ball to the Natz, I really can’t comprehend.

    On Planet Key, when things get difficult, Key pops off to Europe or the Pacific while his minions are left to clean things up, mostly last month by hiding at Field days.

    Labour needs to stop parachuting themselves into the headlines over negative news. There is a reason MSM ask them for those sound bytes and air time! Send Twyford out of Auckland and off the mainstream airwaves.

    In my view, apart from property Labour and Greens are really getting it together and National are rattled. Rattled enough to somehow influence the poll, who knows what they are capable of.

    But lets look at what worked the previous month for them to beat National. Labour finally announced they were against TPPA. The announced unity with a Green partnership. Panama papers when the neoliberal trickle down which pretty much more than 50% of our population know is a lie, was revealed where the .1% stash their cash in tax havens. Key was implicated as being the only person on Planet Key than did not think NZ was a tax haven. Our honourable Collins was dispatched to the corruption summit which was a F u to the people of NZ. Middle NZ do not hear about this side of the economy often, and it did not look pretty. As well finding out that our pacific aid money was going to Scenic hotels instead of the poor and they were a big donor to the National party. Nothing to see here, move on.

    Unfortunately this month, Labour/Greens got sidetracked off these heavy blows to the Natz onto their favourite subject how Kiwis are getting rich off property. This is a bad thing as 65% of Kiwis home owners should be taxed on it and are somehow ripping off the rest of the country. (For some reason people who earn $50 million but actually get a refund do not seem to be a target for the left vitriol). Or new migrants who have paid no tax are not targeted for taxes either.

    Middle NZ who have not had a pay rise for 30 years have finally struck gold and they should be punished. Disgusting Kiwi investors like the police sergeant yesterday (probably on $90,000 so again ridiculously rich, sarc) has the audacity to have a 2nd property managed by a supposedly reputable property firm Barfoots and the tenant has sublet the garage for a ridiculous amount. This lead with headlines of “Scum Pig” in some blogs. While that is too late to have influenced the poll, again the pitchfork approach is very divisive from poor to middle class. To win, Labour must capture the middle class homeowner votes. Calling them scum is sending them into the Natz hands.

    Prior to that dropping prices 40% and forced seizure of property were in the headlines, both of which do not sound popular to homeowners to me! More costs of insulation and requirements for rental properties. A road tax was proposed for Auckland which seemed to be more like a capital gains tax on commuters who can not afford Grey Lynn anymore. Apparently the Auckland council has also doubled the cost of parking to $48 per day for an early bird special. Much of Auckland does not even have public transport so this is just one more tax on Aucklanders. There is the stick but the carrot is not a functional option. Meanwhile another 5700 cars will hit the road next month based on the immigration figures, but many migrants have real money from offshore wages and income and can borrow at lower interest rates.

    Investors have always been around in NZ, but it is only in the past few years that the cost of living is so high and people are homeless or in tents. What has been the change/s, (possibly the 69,000 new people living here per year who need houses, social security and jobs too)? While it is clearly not just that, but also the Natz policies of stealing from the country for their cronies, why do Labour and Greens feel compelled to fall into the MSM trap and pick on middle NZ homeowners for punishment?

    Apart from getting as many migrants as possible in to vote, Natz have no plans to win apart from hoping Labour and Greens manage to alienate middle NZ. This is the forth election, Labour and Greens have got their act together, lets all hope the don’t screw it up.

    • red-blooded 15.1
      22 July 2016 at 11:39 am

      savenz – I think you’re assuming that everyone shares your own political values and concerns. Most NZers don’t care all that much about TPPA, who goes to the corruption summit, whether our tax laws are too lax for the off-shore super-wealthy. People who read this site care, but people who read this site are (mostly) politically engaged lefties.

      Housing is an issue that affects all of us, to some extent. You’re right that it affects the middle-aged middle-class less than others and high house prices might even be seen as a boon to those who already own a home, but most of us have family members and friends who are not in this position and I don’t think there are many NZers who are comfortable with the idea of families living in garages and cars. It’s simply a step too far.

      As it happens, I own a rental property (my first home). I don’t feel attacked or vilified, because I keep my property in good order; it’s insulated and well-heated, and I don’t charge an unreasonable rent. (Dunedin rents are a lot more reasonable than plenty of other places, anyway.)

      The Nats have looked disorganised and uncaring over the housing issue. I think Labour (and Phil Twyford, in particular) are doing a good job with this issue. Besides, it’s an important issue and we need to take action – it’s that simple.

      I’m not sure how to see this poll. I hope it’s an outlier. I don’t think we can dismiss it and say it’s “some dirty trick to destabilise the Labour/Green relationship”, though. That would be head-in-the-sand stuff. This poll might make me WANT to shove my head in the sand and ignore my fellow NZers for a while, but it’s not a useful tactic (apart from giving me some time out).

      • Stuart Munro 15.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 11:57 am

        We can’t dismiss it entirely.

        But it may indeed be a dirty trick. Think the Ede machine wouldn’t do one if it could?

        It’s the perfect Key solution – manufacture consent for the failed housing policy. So much easier than messy real-world solutions.

        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 12:02 pm

          I think the reaction to the Labour/Greens MOU has now sunk in, over the last 2 months people have decided what impact this MOU will have (none), and people have decided that on the whole, it is negative.

          Many traditional Labour supporters do not like the tie up with the Greens.

          • red-blooded 15.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 12:18 pm

            CV, how can your two comments stand together? If it people have decided it will have no impact, then how can they also have decided that the impact is negative? It’s an oxymoron.

          • Stuart Munro 15.1.1.1.2
            22 July 2016 at 12:27 pm

            It may be a bit soon to tell – my connections are heavily Labour – they love the Greens.

            It’s like Morgan’s assertion that the $1 billion infrastructure loan was somehow related to the poll result – it requires more support to be more than happenstance.

            So we come down to balance of probabilities – which is more likely – a spectacular month on month reversal in the polls – or a Gnat dirty trick?

      • save nz 15.1.2
        22 July 2016 at 12:06 pm

        I think if you look at the polls red blooded, and see what the issues were of the month the polls can tell the story. If this poll is showing a trend, I’m just pointing out what the issues were in the month labour did well in the polls and TPPA and Panama papers were a big news story that month they did well. Totally disagree about TPPA not being a big issue, it is massive worldwide issue, and probably contributed to Brexit as people looked at ways to show they were left behind. Politicians minimised it then too and look at the mess it has made.

        Natz look disorganised and uncaring on the housing issue I agree, but in Auckland where 1 in 3 votes apparently are cast, the idea of a 40% drop would leave many people in negative equity and since the average house is nearly 1 million dollars that is a lot of money. Wages are not keeping up and this seems to be a worldwide trend. If it is between voting National and potential bankruptcy where do people sit on the housing issue? I’m providing a warning, not necessarily that I believe that the Labour and Green points are wrong on housing. I believe their focus is dangerous on housing, if they want to win the election. They should be in power now, not in opposition and their taxation policy and behaviour last election did not resonate with voters. Maybe their advisors did not warn them, who knows.

        In short I am pointing out, what middle NZ Auckland swing voters might be thinking. A lot of people who comment on this site are very opinionated about housing and renting what others should be doing about it, but there is also the other side of the coin, do most homeowners (a huge electoral chunk) want to be told what to do? National thinks, no, (or Labour does it too) and they are in power.

    • mlpc 15.2
      22 July 2016 at 12:01 pm

      Complaining about dirty tricks is a bit of a cry-baby tactic. But, OK, just for the sake of the argument, I’ll buy the dirty tricks proposition.

      That doesn’t get us very far, though. It only leads to the question of whether Labour are too dumb or inefficient to run a dirty tricks campaign of their own.

      • save nz 15.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 12:08 pm

        @MLPC – Maybe Labour are not corrupt enough to run dirty tricks.

        Little may lack some things, but he is honest.

      • thechangeling 15.2.2
        22 July 2016 at 5:50 pm

        It’s naive to believe that a dirty tricks campaign could not even possibly be operating across NZ through the right-wing ‘networks’ that Key has at his disposal and that includes altering polls to display more deceptive realities.
        After ‘Dirty Politics’ we should have all learned the lessons about the operative possibilities of Key and his cronies. Don’t rule anything out. This poll is probably an outlier however………
        Roll on the house price crash in Auckland. When it does happen I just hope National are in power and not Labour and the Greens because the fall out will be quite spectacular both politically and economically.

    • leftie 15.3
      22 July 2016 at 12:15 pm

      “Probably some dirty trick to destabilise the Labour/Green relationship.”

      YES, because it is having a negative impact on the Nats, You’re on to it there SaveNZ.

      Also to counter the UMR that showed the Nats would be kicked out of the power.

  16. mary_a 16
    22 July 2016 at 9:14 am

    I wonder how many homeless families are polled? Oh yes, that’s right, given the plight of the many living rough, they wouldn’t have phones …

    So in reality, given that point, it does beg the question … exactly how accurately do these polls reflect the opinions, political preferences and lifestyles of ALL NZers in general?

    • Cricklewood 16.1
      22 July 2016 at 9:32 am

      The marginalized aren’t polled but they also tend not to vote. Ergo the polls whilst not reflecting the views of all of NZ capture a pretty good snapshot of those that vote.

    • srylands 16.2
      22 July 2016 at 9:33 am

      How many homeless people vote?

      • Paul 16.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 9:40 am

        If they don’t vote, does that mean you don’t care about them?
        How do you feel about supporting a government that allows this to happen?

        • srylands 16.2.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 9:48 am

          “How do you feel about supporting a government that allows this to happen?”
          _________________________
          Do you read my posts? I don’t support the Government on many policies. I commented this morning that the Government’s housing policies were “awful” for New Zealand.

          Is that clear enough?

      • dv 16.2.2
        22 July 2016 at 10:00 am

        How may homeless people are on the electoral roll, as they probably don’t have an address?

        • red-blooded 16.2.2.1
          22 July 2016 at 11:42 am

          Hey, are you not getting syrland’s message? He/she is simply saying that the polls are about voting preferences and that if people who don’t tend to vote aren’t included, it doesn’t make a poll less valid as a measure of voting intentions. Governments are elected by people who DO vote.

        • leftie 16.2.2.2
          22 July 2016 at 12:22 pm

          DV, Are people with no home address eligible to vote? If not, it suits the Nats doesn’t it? The Nats don’t care.

          • Dv 16.2.2.2.1
            22 July 2016 at 1:05 pm

            I think you have to have a residential address to be on the roll

            • leftie 16.2.2.2.1.1
              22 July 2016 at 1:10 pm

              Well that’s my point, homeless people can’t vote, even if they wanted to. That suits the Nats doesn’t it? Just like the Nats took voting rights away from prisoners, back in 2010.

        • Tom 16.2.2.3
          24 July 2016 at 9:02 am

          They can vote they just have to give a previous address.

    • Rob 16.3
      24 July 2016 at 11:42 am

      So Mary , sounds like you want to grow the homeless as you think they will vote for your team .

  17. No wonder 17
    22 July 2016 at 9:30 am

    If the comments of many on this post are the gauge of the left . . . No wonder lab is at 25.5%

    You all go on about how everyone else is in lala land, have you looked at your own comment?

    People are turned off by such bile. . . Just because someone has a differing view than yours, doesn’t mean they hate this country.

    Once you stop seeing everyone as “stupid” who doesn’t agree with you and out your big boys and girls pants on and have decent, mature dialogue, the left vote might actually recover.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      22 July 2016 at 12:14 pm

      The US working class is working for Trump in droves because they are hateful, misogynistic, racist, immigrant hating, gun loving, uneducated red necks, etc.

    • leftie 17.2
      22 July 2016 at 12:35 pm

      Get over yourself No wonder, this is a debate that includes the right, it’s not exclusive to the left alone, open the other eye, and this forum is not connected with the NZ Labour party. The majority of comments on TS can in fact, be quite anti NZ Labour. Some people hate it with a passion.

  18. Enough is Enough 18
    22 July 2016 at 9:48 am

    This is bizarre!!!!

    It has been weeks since there was a positive media story about the state of the Nation or National itself.

    In that time we have had Labour’s comprehensive housing policy announcement and Little been in the media spot light every day.

    I am generally confused.

    This maybe a rogue poll but the general trend is terrifying.

    • BM 18.1
      22 July 2016 at 10:00 am

      Three reasons.

      I. People don’t care, every man/woman for themselves, the ruthlessness of the 1980’s did rather instill a harder edge to the national psyche.

      2. Nobody reads/looks at the news media any more.

      3.People are spoilt for choice when it comes to their reading and viewing, apart from sad sack Christian lefties no one wants to read or view negatives stories, why full your head with misery and woe when you don’t have to.

      Life is short, dwelling on negative stuff appeals to no one.

      • Enough is Enough 18.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 10:09 am

        And Andrew Little is more than likely a dud who will never be Prime Minister

        • BM 18.1.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 10:17 am

          He’s not PM material and neither is Turei.
          Those two have absolutely no mainstream appeal.

          Andrew Little should be playing a similar role to what Steven Joyce does, he’s a behind the scenes sort of guy, not the sort of person you want front and center as the face of your brand.

          David Shearer was that man but Cunliffe and his supporters fucked that up, probably the closest Labour has to another Shearer would be Stuart Nash.

          Never happen though.

          • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 12:15 pm

            Now it’s down to GR2020

          • leftie 18.1.1.1.2
            22 July 2016 at 12:28 pm

            You only bang on about David Shearer because he belongs in the National party, not Labour.
            I think Andrew Little is indeed PM material.

            • BM 18.1.1.1.2.1
              22 July 2016 at 12:43 pm

              If this was the 1970’s.

              • leftie …
                22 July 2016 at 1:14 pm

                It’s not the 1970s BM, time you moved on isn’t it?

                • BM …
                  22 July 2016 at 1:23 pm

                  Which is why Little won’t win, he was born 40 years too late.

                  You’ve got to be a bit more savvy and worldly to be a PM these days, hay seeds like Little don’t have the required skill set.

                  • leftie …
                    22 July 2016 at 4:28 pm

                    You mean a treasonous lying crook and cheat like John key, who has shamed this country, you mean BM?

                    About time honesty, integrity and transparency was injected into our now corrupted system, I think Andrew Little does have what it takes to make a good PM, one that our country can be proud of. Andrew Little said of himself that he’s no show pony.

                    John Key is cringeworthy, embarrassing, and I am ashamed that he is our PM. Americanized lying, dishonest money traders like key can never be trusted.

          • Stuart Munro 18.1.1.1.3
            22 July 2016 at 12:32 pm

            Feck – Shearer? rofl. Little’s a fine leader for the left – if you liked him we wouldn’t.

            • BM 18.1.1.1.3.1
              22 July 2016 at 12:46 pm

              Nah, he’s poo, which is why he’s on 7%.

              • Stuart Munro …
                22 July 2016 at 1:08 pm

                Frankly that scarcely matters. If his grand strategy was to be a charismatic charlatan like Key it’d be bad – but Little works for a living.

                While the electorate perceives housing as a real problem the flim-flam approach isn’t going to work for John.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  22 July 2016 at 1:10 pm

                  Just remember that Little is a one term MP who barely scraped in for a second term, and even then that result was nothing to do with him and all to do with MMP vote calculations.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    22 July 2016 at 1:34 pm

                    There are so many things that could mean. Awhile ago I lived in Tim Barnett’s electorate – safest Labour seat in the country back then. Was this because of his personal draw, or the ongoing reputation of Labour, or disgruntlement with the Shipley era? Had he contested a marginal seat we might’ve learned something about such matters – but though he might’ve won some, he would’ve lost others.

                    Little is a reasonably good leader for Labour, and reasonably good is all that is required. You might consider how rarely he gets wrongfooted compared to Robertson. Of course no-one is addressing the serious economic and social issues created by decades of neo-liberal irresponsibility, which is annoying for serious political folk.

                    The focus needs to be kept on the failures of the Key government. They are more numerous and ultimately more damaging. Between Labour and the Greens and possibly NZF there is enough talent to make a positive difference. The financial collapse Key’s policies have created may not mature before the election.

                    • leftie …
                      22 July 2016 at 5:15 pm

                      “The financial collapse Key’s policies have created may not mature before the election.”

                      And that is what John key is counting on.

                • leftie …
                  22 July 2016 at 1:17 pm

                  +1 Stuart Munro

                • Chuck …
                  22 July 2016 at 5:33 pm

                  Like it or not Stuart, when it comes to the leader debates next year Little will need to charismatic and at least hold his own against Key.

                  On what I have seen to date, Key will take Little to the cleaners…

                  I can guarantee that the Nats coming into 2017 will have all guns blazing re- housing…all be it a few years late.

                  • mauī …
                    22 July 2016 at 5:49 pm

                    Yep, they’ve got about 6-9 months to show the public they’ve done something meaningful towards the housing crisis. More likely is that state housing and the housing crisis will be increasingly shot to pieces by that time.

              • leftie …
                22 July 2016 at 1:16 pm

                BM, Heck Helen Clark was polling on 2% before she became PM, so your point is what exactly?

                • BM …
                  22 July 2016 at 1:26 pm

                  People were voting for the party not the person.

                  Also Jenny Shipley was despised by everyone.

                  • leftie …
                    22 July 2016 at 4:33 pm

                    So? Helen Clark was still polling on 2% before she became PM. You get my point, don’t you?

          • framu 18.1.1.1.4
            22 July 2016 at 12:38 pm

            “Andrew Little should be playing a similar role to what Steven Joyce doe”

            ?? – you mean the ACTUAL leader of the nats?

        • leftie 18.1.1.2
          22 July 2016 at 12:26 pm

          Sure looks like disaster money trader John key is a dud. Money traders like John key are not PM material, he’s proven that time and again over the last 8 years.

      • ankerawshark 18.1.2
        22 July 2016 at 10:49 am

        interesting BM, but on another post today Lyn P welcomes 70,000 new readers to the Standard this month. Doesn’t quite support your view

        • indiana 18.1.2.1
          22 July 2016 at 11:17 am

          ..those 70,000 new readers may be coming here to remind themselves that their decision not to vote left was the right one…

          • ankerawshark 18.1.2.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 12:03 pm

            I think that is a little bit of a stretch indiana. Surely right voters are more confident in their convictions than that?

      • red-blooded 18.1.3
        22 July 2016 at 11:45 am

        So does one have to be a Christian to be a lefty, then, BM? I’d better pack my bags, then… (Or are you saying that the two descriptors are what qualifies one to be a “sad sack”? If that’s the case, I’m OK!)

    • alwyn 18.2
      22 July 2016 at 10:21 am

      ” Little been in the media spot light every day.”.

      You have answered your question. Labour do very much better when they keep Little well out of sight. Look at how much better they were polling when he was off overseas and well out of the spotlight in New Zealand.
      It is when he is in the limelight that people realise what they are going to have to put up with if he was to become PM. A massive shudder then occurs and the polls swing hard back toward National.

      Labour went from a tolerable candidate, Goff, to an interesting prospect, Shearer and then to a useless one in Cunliffe and have now got someone so bad he actually makes Cunliffe look reasonable.
      Please can we have someone who could be a PM. National are looking very tired but there is no alternative who is even remotely capable. Can Labour not clean out the Augean Stables that is their current caucus?

      • Colonial Viper 18.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 12:21 pm

        Cunliffe would have made an excellent PM.

        Problem is the shits who comprised the majority of his caucus, and the fact that he didn’t have what it took to reign them in, unlike Corbyn.

        • te reo putake 18.2.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 12:28 pm

          Corbyn’s done a great job of reigning in his caucus. They’re almost totally united now. And I like the way his supporters throw rocks through the windows of women MP’s and issue death threats to anyone who disagrees that he should remain leader. That’s the sort of thing that swinging voters are attracted to. Oh, yes!

          • Colonial Viper 18.2.1.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 1:14 pm

            Thanks for running the new Blairite attack lines. They couldn’t touch Corbyn so now they have to resort to attacking him via the behaviour for tens of thousands of people he’s never met.

            Gutless rightwing Blairite MPs and their gutless repeaters.

            • te reo putake 18.2.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2016 at 1:31 pm

              Fuck off, fool. I’m not a Blairite, as you well know. It’s not even a Blairite line. It’s an actual fact that a woman MP was attacked and only just a few weeks after a colleague of hers was killed. Grow up, FFS.

          • alwyn 18.2.1.1.2
            22 July 2016 at 5:55 pm

            “Corbyn’s done a great job of reigning in his caucus. They’re almost totally united now”

            I love it. His “Reign” is about as successful as is that of Hollande in France. How about using the correct phrase “reining in” That isn’t much more successful though is it? They nearly all seem to hate him.

            The only way they are almost totally united is in their wish that he be gone. One comment I saw on this was a quote from the (UK) Sky News.

            “Sky News reported that he lost the vote “overwhelmingly,” with Sky News reporting the official breakdown as 172 votes against Corbyn to 40 in favor, with four “spoilt” ballots and 13 abstaining.”

            172 out of 229 sounds near enough to “Totally United” for me. They are totally united in wanting to be rid of him.

          • adam 18.2.1.1.3
            22 July 2016 at 5:55 pm

            I’m getting sick of this, come on – can you two ignore each other please?

            You are not funny te reo putake, don’t hide behind trying to be funny it’s not working – it comes across as an attack trying to hide behind humor – so you can go “I did it in jest”

            And Colonial Viper, can you avoid having a go at labour for a while please. It may just let this crap cool down.

            • Colonial Viper 18.2.1.1.3.1
              22 July 2016 at 6:20 pm

              Yeah I’ll go ceasefire on Labour for a bit, Adam. It’s going to do whatever it’s going to do.

        • leftie 18.2.1.2
          22 July 2016 at 12:44 pm

          One year out from a general election meant David Cunliffe didn’t have enough time Colonial Viper. He also made the mistake of complimenting his enemies and he placed them in top positions. He was also wrong in giving kudos to John key and the Nats during the election debate. I know why he did it, but it backfired. On the other hand, Andrew Little has done an excellent job of reigning in Labour’s caucus, he should be receiving a lot of credit for doing his job well.

          • Colonial Viper 18.2.1.2.1
            22 July 2016 at 1:12 pm

            In general I agree with your analysis. Basically Cunliffe was too nice a guy and didn’t have the killer instinct required to hold on to the Leadership.

            • Richard McGrath 18.2.1.2.1.1
              22 July 2016 at 11:36 pm

              Cunliffe too nice a guy? That’s stretching it. He came across to many as a vicious narcissist.

              • leftie …
                23 July 2016 at 12:17 am

                Rubbish Richard McGrath, clearly you got sucked in by National’s partners in crime, the msm.

          • Enough is Enough 18.2.1.2.2
            22 July 2016 at 3:46 pm

            That loyalty is going to be tested now though.

            MPs are happy to keep their mouths shut and show loyalty for the purpose of presenting a united front, provided that the united front gets some traction with the electorate. Since Little came to power has Labour gained any support at all.

            Ignore National’s rollercoaster poll results for a second. How has Labour tracked over the past 18 months. In my view it is still treading water.

            This is in spite of some really big policy announcements, Free Tertiary Education, Comprehensive Housing Policy and Green MOU.

            Yet no one is listening.

            Andrew needs to do something different because currently he is failing big time and I don’t think Cunnliffe and other back bench MPs will keep their mouths sut for too much longer with these shit results.

            • leftie 18.2.1.2.2.1
              22 July 2016 at 4:38 pm

              Cunliffe fully supports Andrew Little, he has his full backing.
              Andrew Little is not failing, isn’t that what msm and “National’s rollercoaster poll results” want you to believe?

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 July 2016 at 6:46 pm

                Cunliffe fully supports Andrew Little, he has his full backing.

                But I doubt the reverse true. And if it is, why did Little dump one of his most experienced MPs, former Crown Minister, on to the unranked back benches.

                • Anne …
                  22 July 2016 at 6:59 pm

                  Has it occurred to you that Cunliffe might have welcomed a demotion CV? David has been coping with some private issues in the past year or so. In particular the separation from his wife which I suspect was a direct consequence of the disgraceful conduct of the “Dirty Politics” team and the way the MSM bought into it. I don’t believe for one moment that Andrew Little dropped him from the front bench out of malice. He does not come across to me as a malicious person.

                  • chris73 …
                    22 July 2016 at 7:13 pm

                    Oh please, you’re going to blame dirty politics for his failed marriage? I’d suggest it was more likely he was slipping it to someone else on the side but no lets blame dirty politics instead

                    That really is scraping the bottom of the barrel

                    • leftie …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:12 pm

                      If anyone is scrapping the bottom of the barrel it’s you Chris73. John key’s dirty politics has a lot to answer for.

                  • srylands …
                    22 July 2016 at 7:27 pm

                    You are so funny. So naive.

                  • leftie …
                    22 July 2016 at 8:04 pm

                    Well said Anne. I posted something along similar lines to Colonial Viper some days ago when I said that I wondered if it was to give David Cunliffe and the party a break from the hateful vicious msm that was still hounding him. Cunliffe has continued to do good work without the media pulling him apart at every opportunity. No other backbencher got a mention, but Andrew Little acknowledge Cunliffe, and I think that’s important, even if you don’t.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:10 pm

                      It was in Cunliffe’s own electorate FFS

                      Regardless, I want to see where Little puts Cunliffe in the pre-election reshuffle. Otherwise your nice words don’t mean shit.

                    • leftie …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:24 pm

                      That doesn’t matter. It was showing respect.

                      Like your hateful words don’t mean shit either
                      Colonial Viper.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:26 pm

                      You know and I know that Cunliffe was dumped to appease the Robertson careerist and King right wing factions.

                      Little will get the same treatment as ex-Leader that he gave to Cunliffe.

                    • leftie …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:37 pm

                      No, I don’t know, I wasn’t privy to the discussion Andrew Little and David Cunliffe would have had.

                      That’s just what you want to think. Don’t let that hate make you sick Colonial Viper, and you may not get your wish, Andrew Little may not become an ex leader.

                • leftie …
                  22 July 2016 at 8:06 pm

                  I think Andrew Little does indeed have the backs of his MPs, including David Cunliffe, Colonial Viper. It was awesome that he gave David Cunliffe special acknowledgment in his centennial speech.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    22 July 2016 at 8:12 pm

                    I want to see more than little gestures. A few words does not counteract being dumped into the unranked back benches. Let’s see what happens in Labour’s pre-election reshuffle.

                    • leftie …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:21 pm

                      Why ? So you can have another opportunity to shit on the party again? David Cunliffe might just want to stay where he is, who knows? it’s between him and Andrew Little. I for one don’t want him to be in a position where he is unmercifully attacked by a msm hatefest again close to an election.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:29 pm

                      Ah yes the Cunliffe was dumped to the unranked back benches for his own good theory.

                  • Chuck …
                    22 July 2016 at 8:44 pm

                    With friends like Andrew Little…he would of been kinder to take Cunliffe to one side and given him the opportunity to exit gracefully…not send him to the salt mines of outer Siberia.

                    Its all internal Labour politics…don’t delude yourself leftie.

                    • leftie …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:49 pm

                      David Cunliffe may not have wanted to exit.

                      Bill English didn’t exit gracefully after National suffered it’s worst election loss in New Zealand political history 20.93% in 2002. Maybe you should follow your own advice and not delude yourself Chuck.

                  • leftie …
                    22 July 2016 at 8:44 pm

                    For his own good and that of the party. MSM no longer attack David Cunliffe like they used to.

                    • Chuck …
                      22 July 2016 at 8:59 pm

                      “Bill English didn’t exit gracefully after National suffered it’s worst election loss in New Zealand political history 20.93% in 2002. Maybe you should follow your own advice and not delude yourself Chuck.”

                      Leftie…please tell me where did Bill English end up after he lost the leadership, and how that relates to where Little parked Cunliffe…

                      Here is a clue from 2003… ” the education portfolio for former party leader Bill English.”

                    • leftie …
                      22 July 2016 at 10:46 pm

                      Pfff so what? how convenient that you missed the point Chuck.

  19. ankerawshark 19
    22 July 2016 at 10:04 am

    If this is a reasonably accurate poll of NZders voting intentions I feel deeply ashamed of my fellow Kiwis. They are either utterly greedy and selfish OR they are failing to comprehend the overwhelming evidence i.e. that this govt is hopelessly incompetent and doesn’t represent the interests of the majority of its citizens. OR its both. To borrow from OAB I suspect its both

    • Paul 19.1
      22 July 2016 at 10:09 am

      +100

    • Chuck 19.2
      22 July 2016 at 11:12 am

      “If this is a reasonably accurate poll of NZders voting intentions I feel deeply ashamed of my fellow Kiwis.”

      Herein lies your problem ankerawshark…a good portion of your fellow kiwis don’t agree with you. Its not that they are greedy or are dumb, they can think for them self’s and make up their own minds.

      And they do so not encumbered with a leftwing or rightwing bias…

      • indiana 19.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 11:21 am

        Being ashamed of someone doesn’t isn’t an incentive for them to change…”you’re ashamed of me? Not my problem – they are your emotions, you deal with them”

        • ankerawshark 19.2.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 12:28 pm

          No problem dealing with my own feelings of being ashamed of my fellow Kiwis.
          My comment isn’t aimed at changing your point of view and I am not 100% sure what is your point of view.

          Your point below about the ladder still being there is likely correct. For the likes of Max Key, he will be carried up the ladder into a nice property of his own. Even for my self, it is just possible I might still be able to help my kids up the ladder into home ownership. But I have doubts about even that over the last couple of years. I would like the ladder to be there for all kids, though (as it was when I was the child of a solo mum).

          Now, I am interested to hear your opinion on the Key’s govt management of housing. As I commented to Chuck below John Key referred to it as a housing crisis in 2007 when things were significantly better. What policies has his govt implemented to turn the 2007 “crisis” around? How have they addressed it? Or in your opinion, is how things are in 2016 all good? Interested to hear your views

          • indiana 19.2.1.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 2:05 pm

            If you might be able to help your kids up the ladder, that’s great! You are not relying on the Govt. to do it for you, and I’d say that Max or any other politician’s child is also not relying on the Govt – why we have to specifically refer to Max, I’m not sure.

            When I brought my first home 15 years ago, interest rates were 14% and back then people used also grumble that their children would never be able to afford a home. Interestingly nobody used the term “Housing Crisis”.

            I don’t recall back in 2007 (or anything between 2012-15) any reference to a housing crisis – I do recall issues regarding leaky homes and how the then government was doing their best to wash their hands of the issue. So quite frankly, I don’t really concern myself over how Key has managed housing. NZ has the land and capability to provide housing. The local councils in my opinion should be removed from process so that building consents are issued at lower costs and quickly. The ladder that the govt needs to build is the infrastructure to these new suburbs and then its up to the people to climb them.

            • ankerawshark 19.2.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2016 at 6:17 pm

              Hi Indiana,

              John Key gave a speech in 2007 referring to the housing crisis back them.

              I refer to Max Key, because he has a high profile and it is a good example of how if you have parents who are extremely rich, then there is not just a ladder into the housing market, there is a fast moving lift. I am able to help my kids or maybe in part by hard work, but also luck, but it is now getting to the point where it may be quite a sacrifice. I think working people who live in their cars won’t be able to help their kids into a house but that doesn’t mean they don’t work hard. I don’t think kids shouldn’t be disadvantaged in terms of owning their own home, just because their parents couldn’t get work, didn’t want to work and had no family money behind them. I don’t, begrudge anyone getting state help to get into a house. Ensuring all citizens are adequately housed I think is a basic in a civilized society.

              How do you think National have gone with housing???? Is building the infrastructure alone going to solve the housing crisis? Is that what you believe. If it is all about the infrastructure what are your thoughts about why National didn’t do this 7 years ago???

              • ankerawshark …
                22 July 2016 at 6:35 pm

                Opps a mistake. Didn’t have time to proof read as had to go and see to the dinner. Should read “I don’t think kids should be disadvantages in terms of owning their own home just because they had parents who couldn’t get work, didn’t want to work or had no family money behind them.

      • Muttonbird 19.2.2
        22 July 2016 at 11:24 am

        Ahem. There are greedy. They are ladder-kickers. That is certain.

        • indiana 19.2.2.1
          22 July 2016 at 11:40 am

          …maybe the ladder is still there, but people don’t know how to climb them…no wait! The Government is meant to carry them up the ladder – I’ve been using the ladder wrong all this time…

          • North 19.2.2.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 9:04 pm

            Best Archie Bunker whine there Indiana…….”people don’t know how to climb…..”. You sure know how to talk indulgent, meaningless shit Indiana !

      • ankerawshark 19.2.3
        22 July 2016 at 12:16 pm

        Hi Chuck, It is a problem for me as if this poll is accurate we will get another National Govt.

        If 53% of Kiwi’s judge this government as who they want in power, then I am truly puzzled.

        2007 Key says there was a housing crisis. After 8 years in govt things have got significantly worst in terms of homelessness, housing affordability, speculators houses standing empty, young people not being about to afford a home of their own, wages lagging behind house price increases.

        Housing is a basic human need. Even if you don’t care about the people sleeping in cars and have no humanity about this, the social, health costs of this to future generations will be staggering (poverty in childhood creates extremely poor health outcomes that aren’t ameliorated by doing well as an adult).

        Key’s govt has been worst than useless on housing. Lying, spinning and blaming everyone else.

        IMO on the basis of this particular issue, National should be polling very, very low.
        I conclude if Kiwi’s can’t see this, they are either benefiting from the housing bubble and greedy, or not following/comprehending what’s happening. At this stage I don’t not have another explanation for how that 53% “make up their own mind” . Feel free to supply an alternative possibility to me Chuck.

        • Colonial Viper 19.2.3.1
          22 July 2016 at 12:23 pm

          IMO on the basis of this particular issue, National should be polling very, very low.
          I conclude if Kiwi’s can’t see this, they are either benefiting from the housing bubble and greedy, or not following/comprehending what’s happening.

          They don’t see Labour coming up with credible, serious alternatives to deal with this problem, and they see that National are coming to the party in terms of taking action.

          That’s enough for many to stay with the devil they know.

          Voters will hold their nose next year and vote Key/English in again.

          Labour 25% +/-3%.

          • leftie 19.2.3.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 12:47 pm

            Labour have come up with a credible, serious alternatives to deal with this problem though, National continue to take no action Colonial Viper.

            • Colonial Viper 19.2.3.1.1.1
              22 July 2016 at 1:15 pm

              OK we can wait another few months, for the public to get the message.

              • leftie …
                22 July 2016 at 1:22 pm

                I think the public have got the message, that’s why we are commentating on Nat pr spin.

                • James …
                  22 July 2016 at 5:32 pm

                  If they have the message and this poll result is the outcome. Then labour need another message coz this one ain’t working well is it.

        • Chuck 19.2.3.2
          22 July 2016 at 2:47 pm

          Hi ankerawshark, one thing I think we can agree on is that the Government should of stepped in and waved a big stick at housing way before now. Auckland council in particular a few years ago along with the RMA (fast track developments).

          National and Labour are pretty much the same as in how they both are/would try to deliver solutions to housing supply / cost / temporary accommodation etc. They do differ in numbers and timelines, but overall are similar.

          As CV points out below “They don’t see Labour coming up with credible, serious alternatives to deal with this problem, and they see that National are coming to the party in terms of taking action.”

          Voters will stay with what they know (I know you will not agree with this, however) they see John Key as a steady pair of hands IMO.

          Its well and good for Labour to say they will build an extra 10,000+ new houses a year…voters are not stupid, to ramp up the level of builds takes time. And Labour would have to bring the Greens onside with changes to fast track or circumvent the RMA for example.

          Swing voters see the Greens as anti development – rightly or wrongly they will be viewed as applying handbrakes to mass housing developments…not the ideal partner for Labours “think big build programs.

          Everyone I know does not want people sleeping in cars, of course they want the Government to do as much as possible to help. Will a Labour government end homelessness ? no…

          IMO this is why National is still well supported. If Labour can up their game then it would get interesting…but that would require a new leader, new chief of staff, not being broke, new talent etc 🙂

      • Stuart Munro 19.2.4
        22 July 2016 at 1:10 pm

        think you mean an evil proportion…

  20. stigie 20
    22 July 2016 at 10:07 am

    “If they don’t vote, does that mean you don’t care about them?”

    That’s a silly question especially coming from you Paul !

  21. Tom 21
    22 July 2016 at 10:10 am

    It seems even the last RM poll that saw National fall also showed Labour falling. Labour seem to have a real problem getting any message across. Is it their PR team , is it their leader or is it the message.

  22. stigie 22
    22 July 2016 at 10:18 am

    “Is it their PR team , is it their leader or is it the message.”

    I think it’s the Labour Leader and merging with the Greens Tom.

  23. Gangnam Style 23
    22 July 2016 at 10:22 am

    When will Labour learn to lie to get into power & then ignore & defer any problems/solutions to the next generation. Heavy sarc. “No viable alternative”, bollocks but successful meme unfortunately, I hear it at work & when I disagree with them they realise they talking shite & just repeating a mantra.

    • Colonial Viper 23.1
      22 July 2016 at 12:25 pm

      If Labour told the truth about free trade, neoliberalism, Rogernomics, climate change, etc it would get into power easy. But it has been lying about all of the above for years and their core voters have been driven away over a long period of time.

      • leftie 23.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 12:56 pm

        If John key, his Nats and msm told the truth, they all would be gone in a blink of an eye. People are sick of being lied to. Labour said John key will sell off whats not nailed down, that he would make NZers tenants in our country. That’s whats happening.

  24. McFlock 24
    22 July 2016 at 10:40 am

    Up 10% is weird.
    53% is… highly unlikely.
    A single data point is almost pointless.
    The election is still next year.

    Yawn. Back to work.

  25. r0b 25
    22 July 2016 at 10:40 am

    As per an edit made to comment 3 above, whatever is going on in this RM (which may be nothing, RM has thrown up outliers many times before), it is not a bad reaction to the Labour Green MOU.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-green-mou-well-received-in-poll/

    • Enough is Enough 25.1
      22 July 2016 at 10:54 am

      Ignoring the outlier issue what do you think this terrible poll is a reaction to r0b.

      Housing and National’s bungling of it has been the only show in town for the past couple of months. Labour has had positive endorsements from many commentators who I would not consider friends of the socialist movement.

      National has not had a positive headline for months.

      What on earth is happening?

      • Anne 25.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 10:57 am

        Imo, it’s at least in part a reaction to the ongoing horrific terrorist acts we have seen in Europe, America and elsewhere. Many voters lose intelligent perspective (if some of them ever had it) and vote according to their emotions. Right-wing authoritarian govts. always thrive in these circumstances.

        • James 25.1.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 11:13 am

          “Many voters lose intelligent perspective ”

          Typical entitled opinion – If they agree with you then I assume that its an intelligent perspective?

          • Anne 25.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 12:05 pm

            Bullshit. Up to 50% of the population is below the average IQ. Unfortunately many of them are in positions of authority because the voters elect right-wing authoritarian governments. Them’s the facts so go back and hide your little right wing head in the sand.

            https://www.rt.com/usa/conservative-ideologies-science-group-477/

            • Colonial Viper 25.1.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2016 at 12:29 pm

              My old standby to this is to say: if you think the Left is so much smarter, how come they keep losing so badly?

              By the way, people with better ability to solve shapes puzzles, identify what doesn’t fit in a list and deal with number sequences (i.e. higher IQ) aren’t necessarily better people or better decision makers.

              • red-blooded …
                22 July 2016 at 12:41 pm

                CV, I don’t see the part of Anne comment which suggests that smarter people are better people. I also think your definition of IQ is pretty limited. My main comment to you, though, would be to ask where you see yourself on the political spectrum. This is a serious question: often you seem to disparage people for not being true lefties (calling them “lefty” as if they are making false claims about themselves), other times you disparage “the Left” and use pronouns like “they” which suggest that you don’t see yourself as part of the left. I can’t recall the last time I saw you making a positive comment about anyone in the NZ political scene (maybe David Cunliffe?).

                It would be very refreshing to see a constructive comment from you once in a while. Just a suggestion…

                • Colonial Viper …
                  22 July 2016 at 3:06 pm

                  Most Auckland MPs are doing bloody well with their property portfolios and the commercial buildings they own tenanted by their electorate offices but with their commercial mortgages being paid for by the tax payer via Parliamentary Services.

                  Is that complimentary enough?

                  • red-blooded …
                    22 July 2016 at 6:48 pm

                    a) No; it’s an unsupported generalisation,
                    b) “Constructive” and “complimentary” aren’t the same thing (even if your comment had been a true compliment, which it wasn’t), and
                    c) I don’t see any answer to my actual question in your reply. Maybe the answer is, “I don’t know – I’m just angry”. It was a genuine question, though, and not an attempt to wrong-foot or needle you.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 July 2016 at 7:55 pm

                      The Political Spectrum

                      This is the guts of your question. Left versus Right is now 90% irrelevant IMO.

                      Understanding the dimensions of the new political spectrum will define the new political winners of the coming decade.

              • Anne …
                22 July 2016 at 2:45 pm

                (i.e. higher IQ) aren’t necessarily better people or better decision makers.

                Correct. But overall they tend to have far better cognitive abilities.

            • Puckish Rogue 25.1.1.1.1.2
              22 July 2016 at 12:38 pm

              Hi Anne

              Have you considered emailing this to the Labour so they can use it in their election campaign, it’d be a real vote winner 🙂

            • Lanthanide 25.1.1.1.1.3
              22 July 2016 at 1:03 pm

              It’s not as if having an ‘average’ IQ is something to write home about, either.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                22 July 2016 at 1:24 pm

                I’m actually ok with having an average IQ, I have a reasonably secure job, a decent home, low debt and my wife makes a bit more then me

                Its ok to be average in some things 🙂

              • Anne …
                22 July 2016 at 2:54 pm

                Especially given the average IQ has been trending downwards in the past 20-30 years.

                Which rounds off my comment at 25.1.1

                • Lanthanide …
                  22 July 2016 at 3:08 pm

                  Citation?

                  The ‘Flynn effect’ holds that IQ increases over time.

                  • Anne …
                    22 July 2016 at 3:21 pm

                    It was part of a very recent overseas article I read online but can’t remember where… part of a research paper into the gradual dumbing down of the population since the advent of corporate globalisation and neoliberal ideology in general. It stands to reason when you have the constant dumbing down of educational standards and the utterly shallow crap which passes for media comment everywhere these days.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 25.1.2
        22 July 2016 at 8:00 pm

        The inevitable consequence of Roy Morgan’s polling methodology is happening, as usual. That’s the most likely explanation.

        As has been pointed out many times at The Standard, you may as well read tea-leaves as the results of a single poll.

    • James 25.2
      22 July 2016 at 10:58 am

      I dunno r0b.

      Perhaps it has just taken a wee while for it to reflect in the poll numbers.

      I dont think you can write this off as a certainty.

    • Colonial Viper 25.3
      22 July 2016 at 12:27 pm

      r0b, that poll captured peoples first gut instinct reaction to hearing about the MOU. Almost 2 months later the shine has seriously worn off.

    • weston 25.4
      22 July 2016 at 8:45 pm

      Nationals been on the back foot for weeks they badly needed something really good to drop out of the sky for them……..KAAZAAM..!!! a ten percent rise in the polls ??!!! not a 3percent rise which would still have seemed like magic given the shit theyve been mired in but no ten whole percent like a fairy godmother waved her wand and the universe went into reverse for a time .
      the police are always warning about scam artists and con men preying upon the over trusting public and they invariably reiterate “if it seems too good to be true it probably fucking isnt ”
      i agree the green labour thing is just a red herring albeit a real popular one tonight i usually think people use the troll word a little too often in blogs but ….

      • Tom 25.4.1
        24 July 2016 at 5:19 pm

        If National are on the back foot now. Isnt Labour in real trouble when they come off the back foot in election year?

  26. Puckish Rogue 26
    22 July 2016 at 10:45 am

    Hmm Labour and Greens polling seem about right to me but I’m thinking Nationals a bit high but really its not the numbers that’s important (IMHO) but more that its a small but significant lead over Labour/Green with the potential of NZFirst of still being the kingmaker

  27. Sanctuary 27
    22 July 2016 at 10:52 am

    Here is my bleak view, based on being an appalled observer watching the utter debasement of the NZ I grew up in…

    Labour has come out with a plan for housing, and New Zealand’s class system is so entrenched, selfish, grasping and generally awful that all the aspirational slumlords have flocked to National to preserve their ability to make oodles of cash from poverty.

    After all, National polls incessantly. The fact that they’ve apppeared totally clueless on doing anything about the housing crisis may not be evidence of incompetence so much as evidence of winning the class war for their grateful supporters

  28. ankerawshark 28
    22 July 2016 at 10:53 am

    Where is Swordfish????? A trusty commentator on the polls.

  29. john 29
    22 July 2016 at 10:58 am

    Perhaps…when Labour come out with some workable policies, that can’t be disproved by any 5 year old with a pocket calculator.
    or stop capitulating in the fight by running and hiding behind the Greens.
    or allowing Winston to dominate any opposition and play games with the narrative, which he has done before…”yes means no ……….means yes?? well I suppose”
    ( paraphrase Winston’s past when caught lying).
    or perhaps just stop parroting the union executives message and being puppets for their narrative, (after all nobody voted for them in the General election)
    eg the absolute LIES told about the effectiveness of charter school etc etc
    eg
    “The union is affiliated to the Labour Party of New Zealand, and also has strong links to other left pro-worker parties including Greens and Alliance
    In 2011 the Maritime Union will campaign for the re-election of a Labour-led Government supported by coalition partners that share the political goals of our Union.
    The Maritime Union commits to an active contribution to the election campaign at the branch level.

    The Maritime Union recognizes the importance of not relying on achieving its goals simply through parliamentary methods, and will continue to use industrial tactics and community campaigns to further the
    interests of the majority, the working class share.”

    Note carefully this last paragraph:
    Meaning …if they don’t get what THEY want…..regardless they will disrupt the economy of the country, throw a tantrum and be as ANTI DEMOCRATIC as they can be.
    This is a DIRECT quote/copy of the summing up of a statement made by the Maritime Union of NZ prior to the 2011 election.

    • red-blooded 29.1
      22 July 2016 at 12:14 pm

      John, your comment suggests that you are beyond a position of reasoned debate, but I’m going to give it a try, anyway:
      1) Labour governments have always been more fiscally responsible than National ones. Maybe this is something better understood by people of a mental age above that of a 5 year old.
      2) “Hiding behind the Greens”? You’re on another planet. Labour and the Greens are finally working together for a shared goal. Great. That’s what National and their various hanger-on parties do. Think about your beloved charter schools: National hid behind ACT to push through an awful policy that had been proven many times to fail, saying “ACT made us do it!”
      3) Unions (affiliates) has very little influence in the modern Labour Party. They certainly don’t wield enough power to dictate policy. Having said that, some unions recognise that the interests of their members are best served when a Labour-led government is on power. Who elects them? Well,people choose to join a union out of their own free will, all unions run democratic processes to elect their representative, executives etc. Plus, of course, when a Labour government is elected, it’s the people of NZ who elect them (those in and out of unions.) Who elects the farmers and business lobby groups, John? They all have a political viewpoint, they all lobby, some align themselves with particular political parties, the make donations… Who elects the seventh Day Adventists (who don’t even vote) and gives them the right to try to influence elections? I find that a lot more worrying (because it was dishonest) than an openly debated and published affiliation by a democratic, representative group like a union.
      4) Charter schools (sigh). A failed model imported into NZ, despite the fact that our system already allowed for schools of special character (integrated + private schools – both of which get plenty of government funding) and that our state schools already allow plenty of breadth for innovation (witness the Kura Kaupapa movement, the bilingual units in several schools, the use of alternative qualifications in several schools, the development of Sports Academies, Arts Schools, schools that run apprenticeship training, work experience schemes, have students studying at tertiary and secondary level, teen parent units, schools with high proportions of adult students, schools with flexible timetabling, schools that focus on e-learning models, enquiry-based learning models, shared classrooms and cross-curricular learning models… I’m going to stop now, because I need to get back to work, but basically, John, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • john 29.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 12:55 pm

        1) Mike Moore…The books balance…..NO THEY DIDN’T!!!!!
        Also Kirk/Rowling….surplus to deficit
        Clarke surplus to deficit.

        2)They can’t make it on their own so instead of fighting and coming up workable policies, they ran to the Green’s “crutch”.

        3)BULL…Unions have scripted Labour’s policy on education they are identical, .
        Andrew Little is leader only because of the union.
        4) BULL….Peer reviewed investigations, all over the US, etc show, Charter schools have substantially better results in poorer areas, in the base subjects of reading writing and maths.
        These reviews done by University of Washington, Stanford and others.
        Early results in NZ are encouraging!!
        The best thing that all these reports say and has happened in NZ ….when they fail, you can close them and don’t have to spend time and resources throwing good money after bad!!!!

          • john 29.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 1:55 pm

            Yes read it:
            Seems Moore left a deficit of about $500m
            Bolger/Shipley left surplus of over $3b
            and Clarke?? recession and deficit.

            • Colonial Viper 29.1.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2016 at 8:06 pm

              I thought Bill English was complaining about the huge surpluses Michael Cullen was running, saying that Cullen should give some of that money back to tax payers?

              • leftie …
                23 July 2016 at 12:44 am

                It was jealous John key, the then leader of the National party complaining that the Labour government under Helen Clark was running huge surpluses.

                Huge surplus shows Labour has gouged taxpayers

                Wednesday, 11 October 2006, 1:29 pm
                Press Release: New Zealand National Party
                John Key MP
                National Party Finance Spokesman

                11 October 2006

                “Huge surplus shows Labour has gouged taxpayers

                The greedy Labour-led Government should apologise for gouging New Zealand taxpayers following the announcement of an enormous $11.5 billion surplus, says National Party Finance spokesman John Key.

                “New Zealand is now running the second biggest surplus in the developed world. Only Norway runs a bigger surplus.”

                <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0610/S00174.htm

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  23 July 2016 at 12:54 am

                  Yes. National do understand that it’s actually government that funds the economy and NOT the private sector. Thus a government surplus is actually less profit for the private sector which National cannot abide. This is actually why they’ve been so profligate to corporations with our money over the last 8 years while cutting everything else.

                  • john …
                    24 July 2016 at 10:12 am

                    BULL (great piles of it) The private sector is the only place money is EARNED and expansion occurs.
                    The Govt., any govt., only has 2 ways to get money , taxation and borrowing, taking money OUT of the economy.
                    They are merely an administration body, that has purchasing rights to large items that would be impossible to organise via collective private bodies. That is why we vote every 3 years, to get the best managers of OUR money.
                    So long as labour have this ridiculous attitude that it’s some how their money (govt.’s money) they will never be qualified to do the JOB of govt.
                    Labour ran surplus’ during “the best (international) economic conditions of a generation” (yes I am quoting commentators of the time), their ridiculous policies were masked by those conditions, NZ was actually lagging behind the rest of the western world, which was shown up, when the international economy started to fall.
                    Result …NZ went into Mr Cullen’s “Technical recession” a full year BEFORE the “Global Financial Crisis” hit.

                    • leftie …
                      24 July 2016 at 2:06 pm

                      If anyone is posting great piles of bull, it’s you John.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      24 July 2016 at 3:03 pm

                      The private sector is the only place money is EARNED and expansion occurs.…

                      Wrong. See, you’re confusing earning money, the creation of it and the nations real wealth which is the resources within its borders.

                      The government should create money and spend it into the economy by providing government services and a UBI. In fact, this is the only rational way for money to be created and entered into the economy. Taxes really are there to take money out of the economy – to control inflation. In fact, it’s actually the only way to control inflation that works.

                      The private sector would then exist solely as a result of the money that the government spends into the economy. The dead-weight loss of profit would then show up quite clearly.

                      This is how the economy should be.

                      The reason why this government is running such a huge deficit is because they understand the creation of money and what wealth really is. Then they play upon ignorance such as yours to make it look like they’re doing good things when really they’re fucking over the nation to enrich rich people.

            • leftie 29.1.1.1.1.2
              23 July 2016 at 1:10 am

              John. Clark’s Labour government paid down debt and posted 9 budget surpluses.

              Labour is the party of economic competence

              <a href="http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-is-the-party-of-economic-competence/

        • red-blooded 29.1.1.2
          22 July 2016 at 2:07 pm

          John, I think Pat’s handled the budgetary issues (thanks, Pat).

          As for the education policies, you’re spectacularly under-educated about this matter. For starters, what’s “the union” you keep banging on about? NZEI? PPTA? TEC? And which policy do you see as identical? All these unions have different priorities and dozens (hundreds) of different active policies. True, they all believe in a publicly funded, free, education system (how dreadful!), but that’s a core principal which helps to inform policy; they each differ in many ways.

          As it happens, my union, the PPTA, and NZEI have both accepted the Nat policy of communities of schools focused on sharing best practice. It wouldn’t have been either union’s top priority, but it was what this lot offered and it had some benefits so we accepted it and have been working on it for the last year or so.

          Charter schools: I notice you totally ignored my comments about the variety already catered for in the NZ system. Could this be because;
          a) you know very little about the current system, or
          b) it didn’t fit your narrative and showed that these free-market experiments were not needed?
          Either way, you’re cherry-picking your research. Stanford, for example (one of the universities you’ve reference) are actually very critical of charter schools:
          https://credo.stanford.edu/, https://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/Online%20Press%20Release.pdf

          and in NZ their owners got nice little bonuses from the public purse despite only one in five meeting their performance targets (and one being closed down already). http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77349421/Charter-schools-given-60k-in-performance-payments-despite-contract-issues

          I would say that the definition of throwing good money after bad!

    • framu 29.2
      22 July 2016 at 12:42 pm

      “Perhaps…when Labour come out with some workable policies, that can’t be disproved by any 5 year old with a pocket calculator.”

      remember how national gained office on the back of “its our turn”, and tax cuts,
      then again with a ten point bullet list and a bunch of slogans?

      thats some weird disconnect NZ has going if they demand policy from labour yet will vote for… well… not that much really, in nationals case

      • john 29.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 1:02 pm

        National came to power on the back of labour trailing in the polls, almost from the DAY after the 2005 election, if Helen had not have called an early election, she would have lost by November.
        Also in 2008 we had been in Cullen’s “technical recession” for over a year (before the Global Financial Crisis hit)
        and the Electoral finance act, The worst piece of anti democratic garbage ever written, to deny any anti labour voice…. was roundly vilified.

        • framu 29.2.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 3:18 pm

          which has little bearing on your point 1 as im talking about 2 election cycles

          “The worst piece of anti democratic garbage ever written, to deny any anti labour voice”

          get over yourself – i guess you could have equated her to hitler by marching up the street with swastikas – cool look that

          • john 29.2.1.1.1
            24 July 2016 at 10:18 am

            Wasn’t she the one that had a guy charged with sedition, for putting an axe through her electorate office window?
            Sedition……REALLY??? Not protest of vandalism??? but sedition, suggesting an ARROGANCE of the highest order. Sedition, can only be perpetrated against the state!
            So what Helen was saying by this was:
            Helen Clarke = The state and the state = Helen Clarke….What does that sound like to you??
            Not a leader of NZ but the kind leader in Germany 1944, or the USSR or even North Korea.

  30. Bearded Git 30
    22 July 2016 at 11:02 am

    I have found the Roy Morgan poles so jumpy that I have done a graph that is a moving average. This smooths the results over the last 5 poles with one added and one dropping off each time.

    My graph shows:

    Lab/Gr/NZF 50.1
    Nats 46.0

    Lab/Gr/NZF 50.1
    Nats/ACT/MP 48.3

    So don’t panic!!

    • Enough is Enough 30.1
      22 July 2016 at 11:05 am

      And what happens if you remove NZF from your little graph

      We need a Labour Green government. Anything short of that will not deliver the fundamental reforms this country desperately needs.

      • leftie 30.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 4:43 pm

        Can’t see Winston supporting the Nats, last time he apologized for it in 98′

    • john 30.2
      22 July 2016 at 11:17 am

      and since Winston shows zero sign of being in any govt. that has the Greens in it.
      Your graph falls apart.

      • Bearded Git 30.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 11:22 am

        Winston hates Key with a passion.

        • Enough is Enough 30.2.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 11:34 am

          Winston hated Bolger more…

          • leftie 30.2.1.1.1
            22 July 2016 at 4:50 pm

            Winston hates John key more than Bolger.

          • North 30.2.1.1.2
            22 July 2016 at 10:09 pm

            Winston used to drink scotch with Bolger. Winston wouldn’t have had as much as a beer with Key. Don’t mean literally but you know……

            And there’re plenty of National Party scalps deservedly to be had. They’ve treated him very badly over the years.

            BOO !

        • Chuck 30.2.1.2
          22 July 2016 at 11:36 am

          A knighthood and posting to London will sort out any hard feelings.

      • leftie 30.2.2
        22 July 2016 at 8:32 pm

        Actually Winston has moved on from that position of 10 years ago. Apparently, he’s not so anti Green anymore.

    • leftie 30.3
      22 July 2016 at 4:45 pm

      I think the Nats are panicking, that’s why RM has come out with such an unrealistic poll. The Nats haven’t done a thing to warrant a 10% surge like that. It’s laughable really. It appears RM doesn’t mind losing all credibility.

      Nice effort there Bearded Git +1

  31. The Unliving 31
    22 July 2016 at 11:37 am

    From the RM Poll we have the following quote from Gary Morgan, Executive Chairman, Roy Morgan Research:

    In further good news for National the Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating increased strongly to 127pts (up 6.5pts) in July. The large jump in support comes immediately after Prime Minister John Key announced a $1 billion housing infrastructure reserve in early July.

    The infrastructure reserve will fund the construction of tens of thousands of new homes in high growth centres including Auckland, Christchurch, Queenstown and Tauranga. The funding will provide interest free loans to councils to help build new roads and other infrastructure needed to support new housing in these important growth centres.

    Is it just me or does that read like a National party press release? Tens of thousands of homes (plus infrastructure loans) built for $1 billion? Seems unlikely.

    I would have expected more considered analysis from RM on this one given the outlier nature of the poll and the various problems the country is currently beset with.

    • Lanthanide 31.1
      22 July 2016 at 1:41 pm

      The problem RM is faced with, and other pollsters, is that polls cost a fair amount of money to create, and you only get one chance to poll in a particular period.

      So whatever bullshit results they get, they have to try and spin as if they’re an accurate reflection of the electorate, even if the people who conducted the poll are dubious, or they’re significantly different from other polls release at the time.

      Hence why RM are touting the $1B infrastructure fund as the cause for the shift in the polls. If it weren’t for that infrastructure fund, they would have had much less plausible examples to construct their narrative around. Not that the one they landed on is plausible to anyone who keeps current in politics.

    • leftie 31.2
      22 July 2016 at 4:56 pm

      Yes The Unliving, it does indeed read like a National party press release. Read through Gary Morgan’s comments, they often run like that. He’s a big Nat fan, no question about that.

  32. Paul 32
    22 July 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Amazing all these right wingers who have the energy to discuss a poll result.
    But they have little to say about this.

    • srylands 32.1
      22 July 2016 at 12:59 pm

      I have already said that the Government’s housing policies are awful for New Zealand. And yes this situation, if true, is deplorable.

      Your division of people in to “left” and “right” is very unhelpful. I would rather refer to people who support poor Government policies, vs those who support good Government policies. The latter allow markets to work, support prosperity, and make New Zealand a liveable country with an inclusive society and a thriving natural environment. In that country welfare is transformed over time into carefully targeted social investment. The tax system is broadly based, has low rates, and is efficient. The Government’s role is well defined around market failure. The Government has exited all business ventures such as coal mining, farming, and electricity generation. Urban planning is light handed and efficient.

      Bad policies are the opposite of all those good policies.

      Sadly, the current Government is not doing enough of the good policies. The problem for the “left” is that the parties are promising to do even fewer good policies and more bad policies. Or they are confused about policy. Like Andrew can’t come out and say that Auckland house prices need to decline by 60% to make houses affordable.

      So my advice would be for the Labour Party to cast adrift the communist Greens. for labour they are a death trap. For gods sake get some decent policy (see list above). Then you will win the 2017 election. If you don’t and keep on the current track, National WILL win the 2017 and the 2020 elections. JK will be PM in 2021. he will retire in 2022 at the age of 61 with heaps of time to enjoy the rest of his life.

      You are welcome for the free advice.

      • DoublePlusGood 32.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 8:19 pm

        Please go away and learn what communism is. It has nothing to do with Green party policy.

  33. Saarbo 33
    22 July 2016 at 12:20 pm

    I reckon its a bit of an outlier because I hear a lot of unhappiness about how the Nats are running things, from people I thought traditionally supported them.

    On the other hand, they are campaigning hard, in our local community paper the local Nat MP advertises weekly, which allows her to place regular editorials (page 2). We have also had visits from John Key and other National MP’s. I have in the last 2 weeks been approached to purchase National Party Raffle tickets.

    I suspect real estate money is powering their machine.

    • Puckish Rogue 33.1
      22 July 2016 at 12:48 pm

      A simplistic way of looking at it would be to see how many people own houses, they don’t want the market to tank and chances are their kids don’t want to see their parents houses tank either so why would they put their main retirement income/kids inheritance at risk for a Labour/Green vote?

      • BM 33.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 12:51 pm

        Or their parents have gone guarantor on their house purchase or stumped up a considerable deposit for their house.

        Prices drop it will take out both them and their parents, no one wants to see their parents out on the street.

        • Puckish Rogue 33.1.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 1:13 pm

          That as well, I just think the lefts idea of demonising NZs house owners is not a good way to go

    • john 33.2
      22 July 2016 at 1:30 pm

      and, Hipkin’s and Mallard have been advertising and writing articles (in Hipkin’s cases)
      for the past 8 years in every local paper……So what???
      Labour have been filling my “junk” email folder with offers to sell ‘T’ shirts for nearly 6 months now.

      • ianmac 33.2.1
        22 July 2016 at 3:23 pm

        Kaikoura Electorate MP Stuart Smith has a full page of photos on 21 July, of him visiting mostly businesses around the electorate. National Logo is in large print across the top. In very faint print at the bottom is the message that this is paid for by Parliamentary services. Us. The Taxpayer. Must have cost heaps! I have written to the paper suggesting that the money would be better spent on the cash strapped organizations like the Alzheimer Society.

        Are other MPs taking out full page ads?

        • Colonial Viper 33.2.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 8:08 pm

          PS pays for informational (but not party political) campaigns by the local MP

        • john 33.2.1.2
          24 July 2016 at 12:26 pm

          and hipkins had brochures printed (multi page)using parliamentary services money to promote him and the labour party. Distributed to, of all places, my mothers old folks home, much to the disapproval of many of the residents.
          Check out how much air travel Hipkins, Mallard, Robertson, King and Fa’ Foi on the tax payer all Greater Wellington electorate MP’s.
          They are NOT on govt. business, they are not on parliamentary business (flying to their electorates), they live locally…so what are they spending this money on???

          • One Anonymous Bloke 33.2.1.2.1
            24 July 2016 at 12:35 pm

            You really don’t know the answers to your querulous whinings? Are you genuinely ignorant or just pretending to be?

            • john 33.2.1.2.1.1
              25 July 2016 at 10:38 am

              No argument then?
              No evidence produced, so you figure all you have to do when confronted with evidence, is call someone a liar.
              Go look at the travel expenses of these LOCAL MP’s, why do these local opposition MP’s need to fly anywhere on the tax payers funding. It is certainly NOT part of their job description.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                25 July 2016 at 10:52 am

                Yes, there’s no need to dig any deeper:

                1. Look at the travel expenses.
                2. ???
                3. Condemnation!

                Get a clue, Lying John, it’s your narrative: it’s not up to me to provide charity to your ignorance.

  34. Muttonbird 34
    22 July 2016 at 1:34 pm

    Jesus. They say that NZ politics is poll-driven.

    Funny that.

    • adam 34.1
      22 July 2016 at 2:19 pm

      I agree it is a stupid and to the left, a pointless distraction.

      • James 34.1.1
        22 July 2016 at 3:07 pm

        Indeed – they should keep doing what they are doing now. Its the only intelligent thing to do.

        And heck – it seems to be working right?

        • adam 34.1.1.1
          22 July 2016 at 3:25 pm

          And there is my point in spades.

          What does a poll tell you, what is the motivation for the poll, who asked it, what do we do with rouge polls. Lets drop everything because a poll came in. Let’s be tethered to polling to find the answers.

          He’s something, how about we run a country via the polls, then we can strip out what people are not focused on, by asking them questions of perceived problems, fixing those in the short term, then go onto the next poll.

          It’s a treadmill for human goofers. And all the time, more homelessness, falling real wages, mass underemployment, then if we are real lucky, we will get polled on the next big distraction.

          Yeah polls working for working people, and making their life better. As Kafka’s nightmare slowly washes over us all. Sure change because of a poll, not becasue we have a rotten economic system, and a set of values based on greed. Change because a bloody poll told you to, and not because this system of inverted totalitarianism slowly strips out all our humanity.

          Sorry James but I hate polls and how they are used. Personally have a look at the road we are on. The polls won’t give you a damn clue what we are walking into to with eyes wide shut.

  35. srylands 35
    22 July 2016 at 1:44 pm

    And right on cue. This is an example of why the Greens are toxic and will never be in Government:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1607/S00301/greens-will-establish-a-minister-for-manufacturing.htm

    “New working groups within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) will be created ”

    …yeah that will help.

    • adam 35.1
      22 July 2016 at 2:20 pm

      yes dear

    • Mrs Brillo 35.2
      22 July 2016 at 2:40 pm

      Oh, I don’t know…
      Just take away Min Housing’s requirement to turn a profit and put that onus instead on MoBIE.
      Now that is one government department that seriously needs to earn its extremely luxurious keep.
      Worth a try!

    • leftie 35.3
      22 July 2016 at 5:01 pm

      It might help. I think that idea has a lot of merit Srylands.

    • Lanthanide 35.4
      22 July 2016 at 5:02 pm

      The Greens are toxic, because they want to encourage high-value manufacturing and production in this country, and steer us away from polluting sunset industries such as mining and farming?

      They’re actually stepping up and making a ministerial position to advocate and drive change in this direction?

      You’ve got a strange idea about ‘toxic’.

      And before you scoff at farming being a sunset industry – lab-grown meat and milk are likely to be commercially viable products within 5 years. How fast they will become popular in the market is of course another question, but new technologies, combined with farming being one of the biggest contributors to climate change – as well as one of the biggest victims – ensures that the fortunes of farming over the next 50 years are unlikely to improve on the fortunes of the previous 50 years.

      • leftie 35.4.1
        22 July 2016 at 5:08 pm

        Good points Lanthanide. To note, India, for example, has been producing synthetic milk now for a number of years.

        • Lanthanide 35.4.1.1
          23 July 2016 at 12:37 am

          I’ve never heard of synthetic milk being made in India. A quick google found this: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/agra/Synthetic-milk-defies-test-crowds-market/articleshow/44785895.cms

          That’s really not the type of lab-made milk I’m talking about.

          • leftie 35.4.1.1.1
            23 July 2016 at 6:52 pm

            Yes, that is illegal and has been banned in India, but it hasn’t stopped people doing it unfortunately. Indian scientists have been working on producing milk in the lab.

            Is this what you are referring to?

            Milk made in laboratories to hit shelves

            A new milk could threaten New Zealand’s $17 billion dairy export industry.

            Made in the lab from yeast, and due to be on shelves in 2016, it will be a product virtually indistinguishable from cows’ milk.

            Because it will have the same proteins, fats, sugars, vitamins and minerals, it will also taste the same, according to Perumal Gandhi, co-founder of Californian research and development company Muufri.

            But the milk will be able to be made without the typical cholesterol, allergen lactose and bacteria in cows’ milk, meaning it will be healthier and won’t need to be refrigerated, giving it a much longer shelf-life.

            Soon after its introduction, it would become far cheaper than its cow-made rival, Gandhi said.

            <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/10258565/Milk-made-in-laboratories-to-hit-shelves

            Seen similar articles on Labs producing meat.

      • Chuck 35.4.2
        22 July 2016 at 5:20 pm

        “lab-grown meat and milk are likely to be commercially viable products within 5 years.”

        I hope then it does not involve anything to do with GE!! the Greens would have kittens 🙂

        • leftie 35.4.2.1
          23 July 2016 at 6:55 pm

          A lot of people who aren’t members of the Green Party have an aversion to GE products Chuck.