Roy Morgan for May

Written By: - Date published: 6:31 am, May 26th, 2015 - 470 comments
Categories: polls - Tags: , ,

The Roy Morgan poll out yesterday for May is pretty brutal reading for the left:

During May support for the National Government was up 8.5% to 54% …

Support for the Maori Party (National partners) dropped to 1% (down 0.5%) while support is unchanged for both Act NZ 1% and United Future 0%.

Support has decreased for all three Parliamentary Opposition parties: Labour’s support is now at 25.5% (down 2%), Greens 10.5% (down 3%) and NZ First 6% (down 2.5%).

This poll was taken after Key’s ponytail harassment, clearly National have not suffered any damage from that fiasco. It was also before the budget, so the effects of that (positive or negative for National) have yet to be factored in.

Even allowing for the variability of the Roy Morgan I find this a very surprising poll, I don’t think anyone predicted it. If National hold at this level over the next few polls then the political Left will need a game-changer (and no I don’t mean tinkering with the leadership again).

470 comments on “Roy Morgan for May ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Facetious 1
    26 May 2015 at 7:11 am

    Ouch. Back to the drawing board to try to reconnect with New Zealanders.

    • Redbaiter 1.1
      26 May 2015 at 9:20 am

      Labour will not get traction until they drop the farcical Key is a right wing demagogue line and move to the right.

      How many opinion polls will it take before the left accept this simple and obvious truth?

      Persisting with the idiot strategy of going further left than National will continue to make things worse.

      Its only brain dead zealots who refuse to accept this reality.

      John Key has stolen Labour’s ground and this is the fact Labour strategists. bound by the same old same old dogma, have no answer for currently.

      Its time for some lateral thinking. Moving right is the only way National’s far left Key faction can be outflanked.

      • leftie 1.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:15 am

        I think you are wrong. The problem is Labour is already being labelled light blue, they need to be left, as a left wing party should be.

        • Clemgeopin 1.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 11:29 am

          “The problem is Labour is already being labelled light blue, they need to be left, as a left wing party should be”

          Are you saying that if Labour moves more left than now, then those who are now voting National will move to Labour? Are you being logical? I am missing your meaning. Can you please explain some more ?

          • DoublePlusGood 1.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 3:47 pm

            The issue is that currently, Labour’s policies aren’t formed from any substantial ethos, they’re just pieced together as a pale imitation of what National does. If they get back to developing policy from sound socialist principles, then they won’t need to be all wishy-washy trying to justify their policies and flipflopping and flailing about incoherently.

            • Clemgeopin 1.1.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 4:48 pm

              ” Labour’s policies aren’t formed from any substantial ethos, they’re just pieced together as a pale imitation of what National does. If they get back to developing policy from sound socialist principles, etc”

              Sorry, you are very wrong there to state that Labour’s policies are not socialist based! Take a look at just some of the policies of Labour at the last election:

              Minimum wage wound have gone $16.50 dollars/hr, All govt and local body contracts wound have required the living wage, Changes to employment laws would have driven up wages and given better rights and security to the workers, NZ power policy would have stopped the rampant power profiteering, Kiwi Assure for New Zealanders would have helped stop money leaving these shores, Changes to reserve bank act would have helped kiwi saver/house deposits instead of paying higher interest rates to the Aussie banks, Cullen fund would have been restarted, Christchurch would have given boost to apprentices to help mop up the young unemployed, More affordable houses built faster through Kiwi build, Paid parental leave extended to 8 weeks, Restrictions on foreign house buying, Auckland City Rail Link, Public Service Television Station, No cosmetics sold in New Zealand tested on animals, A Best Start for all Kiwi kids, Extending Free ECE to 25 hours, Restoring Adult and Community education night classes, Capital gains tax (excluding the family home), Immigration control, Increase government procurement undertaken by small businesses to $500 million per annum, Regional Development policies, Abolition of secondary tax etc. There are heaps more excellent policies and programmes. You can see them all here: http://campaign.labour.org.nz/all_our_announced_policies

              It was just part of the dirty politics and false propaganda from the right wing to make up false hood about Labour . The RW National/ACT/CT spin machine and the obliging MSM & nasty bloggers/commentators and so called ‘journalists’ were very unfair to Cunliffe and Labour by accentuating minor issues as major distractions and thus hampering Labour getting fair publicity to its excellent social, environmental and economic policies which were good for the good of every one and the country. The sooner people open their eyes, the better off will our country be in the long tern, and not primarily for the wealthy or the greedy or the banks or the foreign investors or the corporates as ultimately Key’s and National’s legacy will end up being to the detriment of our future generations.

              • DoublePlusGood …
                27 May 2015 at 12:06 pm

                My problem is that none of that really reverses the damage done in the 80s and 90s.

      • DoublePlusGood 1.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 10:17 am

        Ah yes, John Key, that noted communist, why I heard the other day that he, taking a break from reading Das Kapital, nationalised Countdown. Just another far left day in the life of our dear leader John.
        If only Labour would abandon their rabid Trotskyism and be more like those nice free-market liberals the Act party, so constantly oppressed by the KeyGB…

        • Redbaiter 1.1.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 1:13 pm

          Look, I realise you’ll never be anything but facetious about any comment I write here, but how about you answer Clemgeopin’s question?

    • leftie 1.2
      26 May 2015 at 10:11 am

      @ Facetious

      How honest are opinion polls?

      • Old Mickey 1.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 11:16 am

        Very honest when left is on top, and completely wrong when left is not.

        • alwyn 1.2.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 12:20 pm

          What you are saying Mickey, given that proposal, is that you don’t think there has been an honest poll since 2006?
          That would be the last time that the left were on top wouldn’t it?

          • Old Mickey 1.2.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 12:56 pm

            What I’m saying is judging by the tone of feedback, that unless the poll shows left on top of doing well, the polls get panned. If the polls show Nats doing well, the polls get panned. Its not a question of honesty at all. The polls are the polls, and reflect the connection a party has with the people – albeit the ones who vote and have an opinion.

    • Labour_Voter 1.3
      27 May 2015 at 6:23 am

      No need. Andrew Little needs little (pardon the pun) to work his strategy to defeat John Key. Let us be patient.

    • Hutty 2.1
      26 May 2015 at 8:16 am

      Hard left/right parties only thrive in tougher economic and social times. This is simply not the case in NZ. Therefore there is no chance of Kiwis rustling feathers and picking an extreme party. (In NZ’s case ‘extreme’ is anything but the centre)

      Also why would we aspire to be like any of those countries?

      • Lanthanide 2.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 9:14 am

        +1

      • Michael 2.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 10:50 am

        I agree. I’m definitely supportive of a left agenda like the SNP’s, but I think Labour doesn’t have the political environment to do that right now – it’s about the Overton window. There isn’t really a huge crisis of unemployment, recession, austerity, etc that the left can latch onto. After they win the first election, and there’s a Labour-led government, they can attempt to shift the Overton window and be more progressive each time. All of those parties mentioned won because of extreme circumstances – and, regardless of hyperbole, NZ isn’t going through extreme circumstances that affect mass amounts of people.

        Kiwis aren’t going through the terrible austerity of Greece, for example, which affected everyone including the middle classes. National gives an illusion of continuing the stable status quo. It’s up to Labour to convey an image of doing what National appears to do better, not saying that National is destroying the country – because, as this poll shows, a majority of voters simply aren’t that disaffected yet.

        They need to win over those people who aren’t ideologically attracted to National, but just vote for them because they are voting for continuing the ‘stable’ status quo, for a Government that isn’t seen as radical. John Key is great at seeming extremely pragmatic. Labour needs to show that it can make everyone’s lives better.

        • Bill 2.1.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 11:31 am

          In England and Wales, the UK Labour Party, that’s not a million miles away from the NZ Labour Party in terms of policy and outlook, polled in the low 30% and lost to a Tory Party that isn’t a million miles away from NZ National Party.

          In Scotland the very same Labour Party was utterly eviscerated by the simple, solid left leaning, social democratic agenda of the SNP.

          I agree that Greece and Spain et al are experiencing more extreme conditions than NZ and so comparisons get problematic. But the UK? The lesson is screaming in the face of ‘global’ Labour…same economic/political environment across the entire UK, but with a left alternative available to voters in Scotland; Labour’s heartland where they were the ‘natural’ party of choice.

          Result?

          • Michael 2.1.2.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 11:59 am

            It’s definitely a tricky issue… moving to the left could definitely have some benefits and gain supporters from the Greens and non-voters. But then it could also push more centrist voters to National. Whereas moving right could alienate more solidly left supporters, and might not bring out as many voters, but would win back ex-National supporters.

            Labour needs to do a lot of polling on this and figure out what people want.

          • Phil 2.1.2.1.2
            26 May 2015 at 6:08 pm

            In Scotland the very same Labour Party was utterly eviscerated by the simple, solid left leaning, social democratic agenda of the SNP.

            Hilarious.

            Look at the polling data for Scotland. Labour held a solid and steady lead over the SNP that barely moved in three years between 2010 and 2013. The SNP only came to the fore when the referndum was announced in early 2014 and it became clear that Labour would not campaign for independence.

            In the immediate aftermath of the referendum result, the SNP vaulted upward and their polling remained at pretty much that level through to the election.

            Make no mistake about it. The SNP’s success is, by far and away, a reflection of the strength of feeling for independence. Any left-right policy change is, at best, a marginal influence.

            • Bill 2.1.2.1.2.1
              27 May 2015 at 1:36 pm

              In the immediate aftermath of the referendum the Scottish Green Party membership sky-rocketed too.

              The Scottish Greens sit to the left of the SNP in a fair few areas.

              Here’s a prediction (changed in light of the Carmichael debacle)

              In the Holyrood election next year, the Greens will do rather well. Labour won’t. They’ll be doing really well just to hold onto their present number of seats in Holyrood. The Conservatives will be up. The Lib/Dems fortunes hinge on the fallout from Carmichael making that leak and lying about it. Were it not for that, I’d have said they would bounce back just fine next year.

              The SNP will get a majority, but they won’t wipe the board.

          • Ian H 2.1.2.1.3
            27 May 2015 at 12:14 pm

            Your description of the Scottish National Party completely omitted all mention of Scottish nationalism. But that is the main reason why Scots voted SNP; not because of its “simple, solid left leaning, social democratic agenda”.

            If NZ Labour wanted to emulate the SNP’s recipe for success it would need to start agitating for South Island independence. Of course that probably wouldn’t help the vote in Auckland.

            • Bill 2.1.2.1.3.1
              27 May 2015 at 1:28 pm

              The Scottish electorate have consistently and for decades returned Labour MPs to Westminster. To suggest that the SNP won a landslide in Scotland because of nationalism is to overlook a few wee details.

              1. The SNP stated over and over again that the Westminster election had absolutely nothing to do with independence.

              2. People who have ‘religiously’ voted Labour all their life simply don’t any more. And probably never will again.

              3. To assert that the SNP simply wins votes off the back of some emotive sense of nationalism is to grossly misunderstand civic nationalism (hint: it’s the Scottish National Party, not the Scottish Nationalist Party) and underestimate the intelligence of voters who have engaged themselves in political discourse since the referendum.

        • KJT 2.1.2.2
          26 May 2015 at 6:09 pm

          “There isn’t really a huge crisis of unemployment, recession,”.

          If you live in Parnell or Tauranga.

        • Toby 2.1.2.3
          27 May 2015 at 5:36 pm

          I find it ironic that we need to focus on making the country turn to crap before the country will be able to vote for a left wing party.

          Things are pretty good right now, how about we all just focus on that.
          If things are working well then shouldn’t you do more of that, not try and sabotage it so you can get at change at having a go.

    • Gosman 2.2
      26 May 2015 at 8:18 am

      How’s Syriza working out again?

      • adam 2.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 9:09 am

        You should really read something else apart from that rag the economist Gossy…Or the Torygraph

        • Gosman 2.2.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 9:48 am

          I’d be willing to read something about the great successes that Syriza is having at being able to get out of their current predicament without defaulting and/or leaving the Eurozone if you have it.

      • DoublePlusGood 2.2.2
        26 May 2015 at 10:19 am

        Better for Greece than being completely sold out by New Democracy.

    • Clean_power 2.3
      26 May 2015 at 9:37 am

      Did you write Syriza? You want us to fold like Greece is about to?

    • Wayne 2.4
      26 May 2015 at 11:26 am

      From the Right, I would encourage such a strategy.

      After all, every thinking person knows that New Zealand is in exactly the same dire position as Greece. It just that the sheeple don’t know it. But they can be convinced with enough firebrand rhetoric.

      • Bill 2.4.1
        26 May 2015 at 11:36 am

        What about comparing Labour’s results in England in Wales with its fortunes in Scotland? What would that tell you Wayne?

        (hint: they ran a pretty bad second to a Tory party in England and Wales but got almost completely wiped out (1 seat left) by a social democratic, left leaning, SNP in Scotland)

      • Stuart Munro 2.4.2
        26 May 2015 at 2:02 pm

        Certainly the Greek leadership are as good as New Zealand’s. And their economic management.

        Gerry Brownlee – what a role model! School children can look at him an say “I want to be a lazy gross abusive unaccountable tool too!”

        A parliament of lying weasels – a speaker who has made dysfunction an incunabulum if not an art form – ministers who dare not gather statistics because their performance is so inferior and above all an economy which is going downhill at $7-20 billion a year with no end in sight.

        Greece is much better run – at least their media is free enough that they’re allowed to know they’ve got problems.

      • North 2.4.3
        27 May 2015 at 12:05 am

        Oh get on with that sinecure you’ve been given Wayne.

      • Sacha 2.4.4
        27 May 2015 at 9:00 pm

        Labour make it too easy for you, Wayne.

    • The Real Matthew 2.5
      26 May 2015 at 12:52 pm

      Learn from Greece

      Learn from Venezuela

      Learn from Bolivia

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    26 May 2015 at 7:30 am

    the breakdown of NZ civil society, lowered participation rates in public affairs and the alienation of so many via inequality has been an incremental process since the neo liberal experiment officially begun by the Labour Party in 1984. Key operates open crony capitalism and its deadly spawn such as disaster capitalism in Christchurch

    while even the marxist blog Redline says that the Key government is not neo liberal, the fact is the Nats cruise on the previous structural elements of Rogernomics like the SOEs the Reserve Bank Act and Treasury settings. They also cruise on social democratic policy like WFF which has the effect of being anti working class organisation, the middle class should be organising in unions to get their own wage increases not from the lowering tax take

    the Nats enforce their rule with dirty tricks, a bought media, finance capital shafting everyone with mortgages and interest; they have also managed to co opt aspirational poor people and migrants to the tory team. So the Morgan poll is accurate enough for a certain section of kiwis

    A Labour led government had their chance to restore the Richardson benefit cuts (not that National actually did in the budget) and the right to strike for workers but did not.

    Polls like this (bent as they are imo) indicate a fundamental division in NZ society and a changed tack from the ruling class as in many other countries. The circuit breaker needed is a kiwi version of what is happening in Latin America–unashamed left class struggle based politics

  4. mickysavage 4
    26 May 2015 at 7:37 am

    RM bounces around. General confidence was up. More than anything else this one statistic is vital in determining how people are going to vote. They are willing to forgive all sorts of strange behaviour as long as their job looks secure.

    Two major problems:

    1. The right’s resources are way more than the left’s. Whether it be sycophantic media mouths placed in positions of power by corporates or Government appointees or campaign dollars progressives are missing out big time. And National’s resources are significant. All this flowing of resources to the top 1% is showing and they are not going to give up without a fight.

    2. National is willing to sacrifice good public policy to retain power. Their micro management of issues is at one level inspiring but at another level terrifying.

    It feels like progressives have one hand tied behind our back …

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1
      26 May 2015 at 8:09 am

      ‘Progressives’.

      When the Right start pretending that’s an insult are we going to have to change it again, or will “progressives” realise that it’s called Socialism – or the Left – and stop cowering?

      • mickysavage 4.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 8:14 am

        I used the phrase to include Labour and the Greens. Most inclusive I could think of.

    • Tiger Mountain 4.2
      26 May 2015 at 8:33 am

      yes micky, the NZ 1% is quite sizable according to NBR and Oxfam criteria, nearly 3% are 1%ers–(you have to read the article!) and have an influence on the rest of us beyond their numbers
      http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nearly-3-kiwis-are-one-percenters-oxfam-ng-167589

    • The lost sheep 4.3
      26 May 2015 at 8:51 am

      You haven’t mentioned the number one problem Micky.
      The left is too busy obsessing over John Key and finding lame excuses for their own poor polling to focus up and compete strongly with their own game.

      • mickysavage 4.3.1
        26 May 2015 at 9:10 am

        TLS the last time Labour followed advice from right wingers did not end so well.

        Besides this site talks incessantly about issues facing the country. Yet you equate politics to be nothing more than Key and polling. Speaks volumes.

        • Tracey 4.3.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 10:16 am

          “Besides this site talks incessantly about issues facing the country. Yet you equate politics to be nothing more than Key and polling. ”

          I agree. Many here on the right talk about winning being all that counts, how you do it is not important. Winning is everything. LP has tried the personality stuff Nats used to help topple Clark (directly and indirectly), they have tried focusing on policies (last election Greens and LP released over 80 policies between them)

          So much of the “advice” is vacuous.

        • The lost sheep 4.3.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 10:50 am

          “Yet you equate politics to be nothing more than Key and polling. Speaks volumes.”

          I was actually pointing out the failure of the Left to focus on real politics and up their own game Micky.
          But slide it back to me if it makes you feel better.
          It won’t alter the fact that the current plan is failing and the voting majority is slowly sliding away from the current Left Wing platform.

          • Old Mickey 4.3.1.2.1
            26 May 2015 at 11:20 am

            The lefts main point of difference is that it is not National or the right. The budget displayed that labour is barren when it comes to new ideas and any real alternative to the current platform. Material Turei was the only one who got close, followed by Winston……Labour – still figuring out where the goal post is !

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1.2.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 11:43 am

              🙄

              Labour is so bereft of ideas that National introduced a CGT and raised benefits.

              Are you so blinded by your rhetoric?

    • whatisis 4.4
      26 May 2015 at 9:51 am

      That one hand tied feeling is because we are playing a Right game in a Right playingfield.
      From the moment the average young punter leaves school they follow the Rights set of rules, ie take out a loan and get further training/education. They’re fucked right there, so gotta embrace the system and try to work with it. No other realistic option.
      They could get a job and join a union, but that would seem like tying themselves to a bottom rung for life.
      Debt is their raison d’etre and that is the Rights ace.

      • Atiawa 4.4.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:37 am

        + 1. Makes you wonder what the unionised teachers of the PPTA are actually teaching those kid’s. Surely they get the opportunity to express a view or two on the importance of collectivism to societies??
        ” Debt is their raison d’etre and that is the rights ace” – Absolutely correct. The last thing these people will even contemplate is taking industrial action to improve their life. They would be stung by penalty interest payments if they missed paying the loan repayment.
        Mike Smith’s Fabians contribution to this site re SIR Michael Cullens address to that society said that the left must convince the young that they do have “choice”. Someone needs to convince them that their choices are limited when they become indebted to the “man”.

      • Toby 4.4.2
        27 May 2015 at 5:42 pm

        So i bet you have a mortgage and maybe a couple of HP’s.
        We can’t vote in a new government in NZ and change the whole world. It won’t change a thing. A left wing government will still play by the same right rules.

    • KJT 4.5
      26 May 2015 at 11:21 am

      When so called ‘progressives’ in the Labour party caucus are following the right wing in finding sneaky ways of taking the only GMI we have left (super), off us, they have put both their hands in cuffs, themselves.

      They should be loudly proclaiming how successful NZ super has been in reducing poverty amongst the elderly, and discussing how we can extend it to young families and children in the first instance. Instead of discussing how they can reduce it.
      http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/on-new-zealands-retirement-income.html

      That we cannot afford super, or indeed a Guaranteed minimum income, for all, is self serving bullshit which has been repeated so often, that, even those who should know better, take it as Gospel.

      Similarly with the corporate “Magna Carta that is the TPPA and the tax exemptions enjoyed by the wealthy speculators that are plundering NZ.

    • RRM 4.6
      26 May 2015 at 12:25 pm

      “It feels like progressives have one hand tied behind our back …”

      It doesn’t have to be that way.

      Get some new policies.

      Stop listening to the facebook left, they are mostly children or BA grads.

      Stop lecturing the country about how child poverty is a great atrocity and we’re all part of the problem by not paying enough tax. Nobody wants to hear that. (Well nobody outside of the beltway, the look at me I’m an activist house on Abel Smith St, and 22yo arts grads on Facebook.) Did you notice the Govt just voted every low income family in NZ a $25 pay rise? Normal people can see that that would pay for a big box of weet-bix and several bottles of milk for everybody. So EVERYONE who couldn’t afford to feed their kids before, CAN now, so there is literally and figuratively NO EXCUSE not to. So that should be the end of that.

      Stop with the personal attacks on Key, it makes labour look like the sort of people that might attend a Kim Dotcom rally.

      Stop lecturing the country about the GCSB and dirty politics, most normal people think Nicky Hager is a dick.

      Stop lecturing the country about rape culture, an overwhelming majority of us are not rapists and it makes you look like the kind of histrionic teenagers on facebook who are obsessed with the ponytail thing but have conveniently forgotten that barely 6 months ago they had no problem whatsoever with the @peace song about raping John Key’s daughter.

      Stop with the 20th century class warfare – did you notice how Labour’s polling fell a little bit more EVERY TIME ideas like nationalising the electricity industry, introducing death duties, introducing a capital gains tax were publicised? You’re not even identifying the right problems, let alone proposing the right solutions.

      • swordfish 4.6.1
        26 May 2015 at 3:30 pm

        Yeah, those Abel Smith St bastards !!!

        I’ve got a lot more time for the people of Ghuznee St.

      • DoublePlusGood 4.6.2
        26 May 2015 at 3:59 pm

        The government did not just vote every low income family in NZ a $25 pay rise. Stop lying. And stop using that to say that somehow now low income families can magically feed their children, it shows a moronic inability to understand basic concepts around poverty.

      • Clean_power 4.6.3
        26 May 2015 at 4:11 pm

        Mr RRM, you are the sort of voter the Labour Party needs. Your reasoning and explanations are sensible and make perfect sense. Thank you.

    • SHG 4.7
      26 May 2015 at 2:10 pm

      Two major problems:

      1. The right’s resources are way more than the left’s. Whether it be sycophantic media mouths placed in positions of power by corporates or Government appointees or campaign dollars progressives are missing out big time. And National’s resources are significant. All this flowing of resources to the top 1% is showing and they are not going to give up without a fight.

      2. National is willing to sacrifice good public policy to retain power. Their micro management of issues is at one level inspiring but at another level terrifying.

      It feels like progressives have one hand tied behind our back …

      Or, put another way, “National is so much better at politics than us”

      • mickysavage 4.7.1
        26 May 2015 at 3:23 pm

        Anything but. With their resources they should be even further ahead. If it was not for Key and CT they would be struggling.

        • SHG 4.7.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 4:08 pm

          Yes, if it were not for their leadership and their analysis and strategic planning they would indeed be struggling.

          Anyone would think those things were important.

  5. Puckish Rogue 5
    26 May 2015 at 8:11 am

    This is not surprising at all, you get told this all the time yet the response seems to be “la la la I can’t hear you”

    NZ want a centrist government, center-left or center-right it doesn’t matter but they (the main body of voters) don’t want National to go to the right and they don’t want Labour to go to the left

    But no doubt someone will post paragraphs and paragraphs as to why NZ do in fact want a far left government

    and so it goes

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      26 May 2015 at 8:33 am

      That’s why National never talks about policy eh: because NZers don’t want right wing extremist legislation that conflicts with fundamental aspects of the rule of law.

      Speaking of which…

      • Puckish Rogue 5.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 9:03 am

        Maybe, maybe not but what isn’t in dispute is just how popular John Key and National despite the lefts best efforts to descredit them

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 9:28 am

          Without looking it up, what’s the non-vote and the undecided in the RM?

          • Puckish Rogue 5.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 9:44 am

            Beats me

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 9:48 am

              So your claims don’t really stack up. At best they could be considered to say that people who answer Roy Morgan polls and who already know who they support, support x. But that’s not NZ as a whole, is it. Do you remember how many people didn’t vote last election?

              • Puckish Rogue …
                26 May 2015 at 10:02 am

                I don’t but i do remember National being returned power with similar polling to what they have now and Labour having similar polling as well

                But hey why focus on the things that matter

                • weka …
                  26 May 2015 at 10:49 am

                  Sure, you think the important thing is who can use the system best. But you still can’t claim that most NZers want the person you vote for.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    26 May 2015 at 10:54 am

                    It. Doesn’t. Matter.

                    Whos in power? National. Thats whats most important, it doesn’t matter who did or didn’t vote, how many did or didn’t vote, it only matters whose in power, who holds the treasury benches, who makes the decisions

                    You lot on the left are so blind you can’t see the woods for the trees.

                    • weka …
                      26 May 2015 at 11:09 am

                      That’s what I said PR. YOU believe that power is the most important thing, but you still can’t claim most people support Key. You also can’t claim that NZ wants a centrist govt. Just be honest about it.

                    • KJT …
                      26 May 2015 at 11:34 am

                      It is not a fucking game.

                      If, say, the Greens, get into power by abandoning all principles and following ACT principles, while pretending to be a “Socialist” party, as Labour have done, what is the point.

                      Note that ACT is the only party that openly espouses the right wing policies of destruction of society that National and Labour do by stealth.
                      Their voters, apart from Epsom could fit into a telephone booth.

                      It is blatantly obvious the majority do not want those policies that National are now sneaking, in while they have their turn in our ‘rotating dictatorship’.

                    • SHG …
                      26 May 2015 at 2:13 pm

                      KJT said: “It is not a fucking game”

                      Of course it is, and that’s why the Left sucks at it.

                    • Coffee Connoisseur …
                      26 May 2015 at 4:08 pm

                      And this is exactly why the Left need to target the message of ideaology to get people to understand that they are voting for wealth redistribution. They need to push the message hard that voting Labour is a vote for redistribution of wealth to the middle and working class.
                      Voting National is redistributing wealth away from the middle class to the already wealthy shareholder class.
                      Then they need to point to how National and voting right does this.

                      High CEO salaries to incentivise off shoring and restrutures that result in people being made redundant. leading to more people looking for work – result downward pressure on wages.

                      Open immigration policy. – More people looking for work – result downward pressure on wages

                      Corporate welfare – Think Sky City, Rio Tinto, Hollywood, A 6 million dollar farm in Saudi Arabia bought and paid for by you the New Zealand Tax Payer

                      Watering down of Labour Laws – zero hour contracts.

                      Housing policy that favours already wealthy investors and locks out current and future generations of New Zealanders.

                      and so on..

                      The Right will really struggle if this becomes about ideaology

    • s y d 5.2
      26 May 2015 at 9:16 am

      This is why no one goes to the rugby anymore….
      Two teams of interchangeable ring-ins with no connection to the people they supposedly represent, playing for a franchise set up by the NZRFU.
      Locals are supposed to get excited about the blue(s) team, or the red(s) team but really who cares anymore. It’s so overwhelmingly pointless, there is no connection, but I guess if you’ve bought a shirt and ‘your team’ is winning then it makes you feel a little bit better.

      • Puckish Rogue 5.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 9:45 am

        Well you’re not too wrong there

      • Bill 5.2.2
        26 May 2015 at 11:49 am

        Absolutely s y d.

        So what would it take to fuck the franchise over? Well, first there has to be conversation on something that touches on everyone’s life, yes?

        Y’know, something to get people talking again, where the fallout of the discussion leaves those presuming to represent under no illusions as to where their feet must be planted.

        In a NZ context, I can’t think of anything other than a widespread, fully public and no doubt sometimes brutal discussion on AGW.

        • s y d 5.2.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 12:25 pm

          The franchise may fail when
          (a) no more punters turn up, there is no money to be made and the locals can’t be made to cough up a bunch of dough under a ‘bail out’ package
          (b) some other outfit sets up a rival competition and lures all the ‘players’ away

          but, the same game would continue in a different guise….you really need people to walk away, call it for the bullshit it is and start their own games.

          I agree that there will need to be something that impacts negatively on almost everybodies lives before there will be any meaningful change in this country. Most likely something that can’t be controlled internally – I don’t think it will come about by discussion but will be something we are forced to confront.

    • Lanthanide 5.3
      26 May 2015 at 9:37 am

      Seems the left is screwed, then, because given a choice between a centrist-Labour government (which is going to have to be in coalition with the left-wing Greens) and a centrist-National government headed by Key, they’re just going to pick the-devil-they-know.

      Even if the majority of people voting for National are actually voting against their own best interests.

      • Clean_power 5.3.1
        26 May 2015 at 9:41 am

        You nailed it, Lanthanide. The problem are the Greens, perceived as dangerous radicals by a good sector of the population. Labour should stay keep its distance from them while moving to the centre. It is there where elections are won.

        • DoublePlusGood 5.3.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 10:32 am

          I’ve never quite worked out what is so scary about running your country so it can last longer than 100 years…

        • KJT 5.3.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 11:55 am

          Those, “dangerous radicals” have policies similar to the, unashamedly “Socialist” Labour policies that had NZ with the worlds highest standard of living.

          Policies, research has shown, the majority prefer when they are presented without a party label.

        • swordfish 5.3.1.3
          26 May 2015 at 12:51 pm

          “The problem are the Greens, perceived as dangerous radicals by a good sector of the population.”

          Umm, no…….http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12052015/#comment-1013458

      • Gosman 5.3.2
        26 May 2015 at 9:54 am

        This kind of illustrates that MMP, instead of being the solution to the left’s problems (i.e. winning more of the popular vote but failing to gain majorities under FPP), is actually entrenching the center right in power. The middle ground doesn’t feel comfortable it seems with a Greens/Labour coalition. Perhaps if NZ First and Labour increases their support to a level where they may look like they could form a government together this will change. Until then it is a long row to hoe for Labour.

        • Enough is Enough 5.3.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 10:00 am

          I think the answer is a Labour NZ First coalition (probably minority)

          The Green party could influence policy from outside of government as their vote would be needed for confidence.

    • DoublePlusGood 5.4
      26 May 2015 at 4:02 pm

      Maybe they do want a centrist government. Currently though they have a right wing government, which I suspect they voted for thinking it was a centrist government.
      Still, it’s not like a centrist government would be good for New Zealand either, it wouldn’t properly stop the looting of the country by the very wealthy and the corporates.

  6. Al66 6
    26 May 2015 at 8:31 am

    What does this government have to do for voters to change allegiance – moot concentration camps for political dissidents? If the voting public is really is stupid as it appears then I am starting to really doubt the future of John Key’s NZ Inc

  7. Peter Bradley 7
    26 May 2015 at 8:43 am

    The National government has steered a remarkably left of center pathway throughout their two and a bit terms. Bill English in particular has managed the government books with concern for a very wide political spectrum – balancing financial constraints with broad maintenance of the existing welfare state and even delaying the much desired surplus in order keep a steady hand on government spending. Some speculate that this has been a cynical political move to ensure a wide base of support but this diminishes the on the ground impact that policy choices have. Free doctors visits for under 13’s and raising benefits are substantial for those affected and regardless of motives a shift to the left by National is a recognition of a naturally left of center electorate – that is, most middle voters class do care about “social justice” – though this is typically called being fair minded. That sense of fairness has seen a strong reaction against zero hour contracts to the extent that a National government minister is talking about banning them. If they do go ahead with this it will be a truly remarkable political transformation and may well signal the start of a political consensus around core NZ values.
    There are plenty of us on the left who simply don’t trust National but stacking up some of it’s policies it is clear that they are outflanking Labour on the left repeatedly and it makes you wonder.
    It wouldn’t surprise me if the Conservatives in the UK don’t do something similar and start to tack left – it will be interesting to watch.

    BTW – I am not a National party plant. I vote Labour and I’m a big supporter of the Mana Party.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1
      26 May 2015 at 8:47 am

      Then stop running right wing lines.

      Eloquent as ever, Felix said it best.

      If that’s “left wing” policy, then I guess a centrist policy would be letting them starve, and a right wing policy would be shooting them for sport.

    • cogito 7.2
      26 May 2015 at 9:15 am

      Personally, I have always felt that Bill English has far more integrity than Key.

      • Tracey 7.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:19 am

        so people say, and yet he still thought he deserved to be paid twice for his accommodation… perhaps he has lost that sense of entitlement over the years?

        I suspect it is Key (and the polling he gets) which has led to them pretending to move slightly left, not English. He’s a career bureaucrat. The figures count.

        • Nessalt 7.2.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 10:39 am

          Still going on about the housing allowance? We hate it when the painting, the speeding and the light bulbs are brought up ad naseum, can’t we find something better to pillory Blinglishes integrity with?

          • Old Mickey 7.2.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 11:27 am

            Lets not forget Philada Bunckles housing rort as well….these are the things that matter to the voting public.

            • Tracey 7.2.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 1:16 pm

              Makes you wonder why Key focused so hard for about a year telling the public he and National would act with higher standards than Labour, you know, given no one cared.

          • Tracey 7.2.1.1.2
            26 May 2015 at 1:15 pm

            Someone said he had more integrity than Key. I pointed out something that showed little integrity. He may still have more than Key however. I also conceded he may have changed since then.

            You are the first person to mention speeding painting and lightbulbs in a long time.

            Thanks for your concern though

            • Nessalt 7.2.1.1.2.1
              26 May 2015 at 4:41 pm

              what happened in the last parliamentary term is ancient history, it didn’t affect anyone outside of parliament in a material way. I seem to remember plenty of labour mp’s got busted for a rort on housing allowances too. and electoral fraud if we are on about rorts. the greens somehow get off on a technicality to do with ownership i think? the point is that it’s not important but you wave it round like your own personal gotcha on Blinglish.

              How about a slow steady build up of pressure over the real voter touch points. constant chipping away at things like the economy and jobs and tax, and not trying to get the king hit over non issues or ancient issues rehashed?

      • Clemgeopin 7.2.2
        26 May 2015 at 1:20 pm

        Integrity? The double dipping from Dipton, the stealing of Labour’s policies and his taped secret conversation about selling off Kiwi bank doesn’t count of course!

        • Clemgeopin 7.2.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 1:34 pm

          And blatant lies and broken promises about surpluses, GST increase etc don’t count towards qualities of ‘integrity’ either, do they?

      • Stuart Munro 7.2.3
        26 May 2015 at 2:59 pm

        Yes – but that’s like saying someone is a better doctor than Harold Shipman.

    • DoublePlusGood 7.3
      26 May 2015 at 10:35 am

      Lower income tax, higher regressive tax, selling public assets, going into massive debt, continuing corporate welfare while not improving welfare for those who need it – no, this government is miles to the right of any centrist pathway.
      It appears that you’ve been conned by the small bribes National give away to pretend to be centrist and sensible while they’re actually just plain looting the country for the rich.

  8. Sirenia 8
    26 May 2015 at 8:46 am

    Key has soft interviews in every friendly media outlet so this is not surprising. But I would suggest the support it is just him and not for National generally. There is hope that a strong united opposition that is also very visible throughout the media could start to challenge.

  9. Chris 9
    26 May 2015 at 8:49 am

    I think that the reasons a pretty simple

    Labour need to move more centrist, but in 7 years they haven’t figured this out

    Everyone knows that Labour will need the greens and centrist voters don’t want the greens. It scares them

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1
      26 May 2015 at 8:57 am

      Says who? No-one but right wing parrots.

      • Chris 9.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 9:02 am

        The polls and three elections

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 9:17 am

          Imagine I’m explaining this to you in a patient tone, as though you are a child.

          Who says the election results mean that? No-one but right wing parrots.

          • Chris 9.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 9:28 am

            All good

            We beg to differ

          • Dave_1924 9.1.1.1.2
            26 May 2015 at 10:00 am

            So OAB what does National getting such high election support mean then?

            Why do the Nats use attack lines featuring the nutty greens as a key underlying meme mean then OAB if its not to scare centrist voters away from Labour?

            Genuinely interested in your analysis. Cheers

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1.2.1
              26 May 2015 at 10:09 am

              As I said. right wing parrots do their best to push this narrative, and in the next breath urge the Greens to do a deal with National.

              They’re good lines, invented in some professional liar’s office. Expecting valid political analysis from such tainted sources is a mistake.

              • Dave_1924 …
                26 May 2015 at 12:03 pm

                Hmm… you haven’t really answered OAB.

                Why is the “Labour needs the Greens, and the Greens are nuts” line working?

                The Greens should do a deal with the Nats meme comes with a rider and that rider is move to the centre and abandon your more left wing policies in the social activism area. the greens reject it because they know it would destroy them political to jump full in to bed with the Nats.

                Still interested in a real answer and not just your polly want a cracker replies….

                • weka …
                  26 May 2015 at 1:36 pm

                  “Why is the “Labour needs the Greens, and the Greens are nuts” line working?”

                  To the extent it is, because Labour haven’t sorted their shit out. Highest polling pre-election for both parties was when they presented a united front on policy. But how effective is the meme? It’s probably not as effective as is being made out, which is part of the Crosby Textor approach. Making out it’s effective further undermines the Labour and the GP working together.

                  Chris’s original comment is a nonsense, and confuses correlation with causation. He believes that NZ wants centrist parties, but has no evidence to back this up. His comments is classic right wing trolling, plain and simple. Don’t buy into it.

                  • Dave_1924 …
                    26 May 2015 at 2:37 pm

                    Thanks for that Weka. Is it working? Anecdotely I know a fair few who wouldn’t vote Labour, though they really cared about topics like Child Poverty, simply because of the Greens who they view as fruitcakes – often quoting the homeopathy story that popped up. It was a vote for Labour gets me them and no thanks was the conclusion

                    Ultimately if Labour wants to form a government they need either a really large crisis to generate significant dissatisfaction with National OR they need to be a bit more centrist..

                    A first step might be seeming competent,calm and focused instead of angry, distracted by trivial matters and divided as a party…

                    Anyway thanks for your thoughts Weka

                    • weka …
                      26 May 2015 at 2:44 pm

                      Nice anecdote which I can match with ones about Act or National voters voting Green.

                      Like I said, both Labour and the Greens polled best pre-election when they presented themselves as a credible partnership yo govern. Your ideas about centrism aren’t borne out by evidence.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 May 2015 at 1:50 pm

                  The premise is wrong, as Swordfish’s poll stats (below) neatly illustrate.

          • Enough is Enough 9.1.1.1.3
            26 May 2015 at 10:02 am

            Have to disagree with you OAB

            This is one of the most corrupt incompetent and useless governments in history yet has maintained popular support that we can only be envious about.

            Why is this.

            People are scared of the alternative. Something has to change

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1.3.1
              26 May 2015 at 10:11 am

              Do you also agree with the parrots when they squawk that the Greens should do a deal with National?

              • Enough is Enough …
                26 May 2015 at 10:17 am

                No

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 May 2015 at 10:37 am

                  It would be difficult to reconcile the belief that National want the Greens as partners with the notion that they’re the Bogeyman, eh.

                  And yet that’s the right wing narrative.

                  • Enough is Enough …
                    26 May 2015 at 10:57 am

                    Its not really a narrative though is it.

                    Turei and English in any sort of arrangement is as likely as Sue Bradford becoming the ACT leader.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 May 2015 at 11:02 am

                      Right. But the other story, the one with the Bogeyman in it, that’s totes reliable and straight up honest truthiness, eh.

                    • Enough is Enough …
                      26 May 2015 at 2:21 pm

                      what the fuck are you talking about.

                      People who traditionally voted labour throughout the last decade no longer do.

                      You can run around like a lunatic and say its the Bogeyman, the media, Crosby Textor, dirty politics or what ever other fucking excuse you can come up with.

                      Or you can identify that there is group who do not want the Greens in government.

                      Not rocket science.

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 May 2015 at 3:24 pm

                      Well in my modest experience people those people who so viscerally hate the Greens usually have zero idea of any actual Green Party policy.

                      Except for the bit about the mandatory sandal wearing and tofu eating.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 May 2015 at 4:46 pm

                      E is E.

                      You’re claiming that support for National, ACT, etc. is really motivated by terror of the Greens, rather than, y’know, support for National, ACT, etc.

                      I’m just applying Occam’s razor.

          • RRM 9.1.1.1.4
            26 May 2015 at 1:12 pm

            “Who says the election results mean that? No-one but right wing parrots.”

            Quite right! Bugger this democracy lark! What the public REALLY NEED, is people like US who can decide FOR THEM how their country best ought to be run!

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1.4.1
              26 May 2015 at 1:17 pm

              It’s unclear to me how you equate my pointing out that right wing narratives about the Left are untrustworthy with a desire to do away with democracy.

              Perhaps you’re fucking delusional or something.

              • RRM …
                26 May 2015 at 1:26 pm

                Let me explain it to you nice and slowly.

                No, the General election may not be a SURVEY of every New Zealander.

                But it is still a better form of representative democracy than anything else yet attempted.

                You are of course free to keep insisting that the NZ public really wanted something other than what the electorate REALLY REALLY DID VOTE FOR on Sept. 20th.

                But it’s hard to see what YOUR mandate is.

                In the absence of any other proffered evidence, it appears that you simply believe you know know what NZ wants, better than the voters themselves.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 May 2015 at 1:31 pm

                  keep insisting that the NZ public really wanted something other than what the electorate REALLY REALLY DID VOTE FOR on Sept. 20th.

                  Nope, you poor confused person, I keep insisting that giving credence to right wing stories about the Left is a mistake.

                  To put it another way: when you fail, like a flailing incompetent, to link to the comment where I made any such statement, have the guts to withdraw and apologise for your lies.

                  Put up or shut up.

              • John …
                26 May 2015 at 1:34 pm

                Judging by the response, RRM hit the nail on the head.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 May 2015 at 1:37 pm

                  Yes, because disagreeing with you and RRM, and pointing out that your stories about the Left are total bullshit, is exactly the same as denying the election result.

                  • infused …
                    26 May 2015 at 2:37 pm

                    The only one speaking bullshit, as usual, is you oab.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 May 2015 at 4:56 pm

                      Okay, okay, your incredibly cogent argument has convinced me you’re quite correct, and that support for National is all down to the fact that they aren’t the Bogeyman.

                      😆

        • swordfish 9.1.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 1:07 pm

          Chris “centrist voters don’t want the greens. It scares them.”
          OAB “Says who ?”
          Chris “The polls and three elections”

          And yet……..http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12052015/#comment-1013458

    • Clean_power 9.2
      26 May 2015 at 9:00 am

      Labour lacks a leader and desperately needs one. Come back Helen Clark!

    • Tracey 9.3
      26 May 2015 at 10:21 am

      who paints them as being something to fear and do they use facts or do they play on NZers basic requirement to feel safe and comfortable? Even LP did this when announcing its preferred party was NZF, so the Greens up up against a lot of money and energy being spent/used to smear them (factuallly or otherwise) and the retain 10% f the electorate.

    • DoublePlusGood 9.4
      26 May 2015 at 10:36 am

      I agree about the being centrist, it would be excellent if Labour stopped trying to be right wing.

  10. Enough is Enough 10
    26 May 2015 at 8:56 am

    Its clearly a rogue poll.

    There is nothing that would have caused this rise other than some dodgy pooling methods from RM.

    As always the polls will be favouring the right when we know they are 5-10% out.

    • stigie 10.1
      26 May 2015 at 9:03 am

      But i always thought the left agreed with the RM polls Enough is Enough ?

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 9:22 am

        Enough is Enough,

        Well done, you got “the polls are rogue” in.

        You now need: “the honeymoon is over” and something about landlines and you will have the complete set.

        And, dummy, what the last election showed is the polls are pretty much bang-on.

        Little is now polling below Shearer.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 9:32 am

          So I checked Roy Morgan against the election result, and perhaps you can explain which polls you meant.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 10:13 am

            I didn’t say “Roy Morgan”. I said “the polls”.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 10:39 am

              Yes, so I asked you which ones you were talking about. English comprehension 101?

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                26 May 2015 at 10:42 am

                Sorry, dude, I’ve had it engaging with you. You have narcissistic and psychopathic streaks that I find distasteful.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 May 2015 at 10:47 am

                  😆

                  Don’t fret, I won’t miss you: feeble passive aggression isn’t that engaging.

        • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 9:48 am

          You forgot the only poll that counts is on election day

    • The lost sheep 10.2
      26 May 2015 at 9:33 am

      “There is nothing that would have caused this rise other than some dodgy pooling methods from RM’

      The utterly hysterical over the top frenzy of blatantly politically motivated mouth foaming righteousness from the Left over the Ponytail incident can’t have helped.

      Remember Dirty Politics and what that did for National polling….

    • Gosman 10.3
      26 May 2015 at 10:27 am

      I thought we had seen the last of the whole “Flawed landline polls” argument after the last election when the result was broadly reflective of those same polls.

  11. Sanctuary 11
    26 May 2015 at 9:14 am

    Even Jesus needed active apostles and you can’t shy away from the total lack of performance from Labour’s senior MPs, particularly the ex-Rogernomes who have safe electorate seats. Their best and most productive days are clearly behind them and they seem to be in it these days mainly for the pay cheque and to ensure no one threatens their neo-liberal legacy.

    With every declining result in polls or actual elections the power of the lazy deadwood grows. But their agenda is to disempower the membership, keep their safe seats, enable neoliberalism and create a palace party where courtiers and political careerists approved by them get selected.

    Lets face reality – the deadwood is winning, but their legacy will be a dead party. It’s already in a death spiral unless something drastic is done, and soon.

    • s y d 11.1
      26 May 2015 at 9:34 am

      who is that guy with the hair from christchurch? whats his name again. Clayton something….. Mitchell?

    • Anne 11.2
      26 May 2015 at 9:36 am

      Labour is invisible. Simple as that. They are not responding to National’s actions and decisions with the level of vigour that is going to attract the attention of the MSM. It’s no use ignoring the MSM because the oppo parties need them to get their message across.

      Why are they so scared of sticking their heads above the parapet? Former leaders like Kirk, Lange, Clark and others would never let it happen. They gave as good as they got. That made them look strong and that’s what the voters (bless their cotton socks) find attractive.

      • infused 11.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:03 am

        They are responding. Just not in the correct way. We’ve pointed this out for years now and keep getting rubbished.

        Clearly pony tails are what everyone cares about.

        • Anne 11.2.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 10:39 am

          They are responding. Just not in the correct way.

          True infused, but Labour weren’t the ones rabbiting on about pony tails either. Little’s responses were only replies to media questions. But overall their reactions are way too weak. LIttle brilliantly socked it to Key late last year but he’s gone off the boil. With a few exceptions the shadow cabinet have got to up their game – and smartly!

          • Old Mickey 11.2.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 11:31 am

            Hard to up their game when they haven’t got anything to say that people want to buy into.

            • Tracey 11.2.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 1:20 pm

              …and when they are attributed as beating up a story (ponytail) which they patently didn’t. How would you counter stuff you didnt say or do?

    • weka 11.3
      26 May 2015 at 9:40 am

      I wish that were true, because at least then something new could be built. But I suspect that it will have a long slow demise unless people do something.

    • Clean_power 11.4
      26 May 2015 at 9:49 am

      Labour will struggle while it keeps King, Goff, Mallard and company as MPs. The same tired old faces of NZ politics. A losing party cannot afford them anymore. Out with the old, new faces like Kelvin Davis in with a higher national profile.

      • Tracey 11.4.1
        26 May 2015 at 1:21 pm

        Can you tell me the basis for claiming Kelvin Davis has a higher national profile than, say, Goff?

        • Clean_power 11.4.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 1:30 pm

          My apologies for not being clear, Tracey. I meant to say Labour shold promote Kelvin Davis out there with the intention of highlighting his profile. he is a future leader. Goff is the past, Davis the future.

          • felix 11.4.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 1:58 pm

            I love this old canard.

            Step 1: “Labourz is all too old need clean out fresh faces!”

            Step 2: “Labourz is all too new no experience can’t run country!”

            Yawn.

            • RedLogix 11.4.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 2:05 pm

              Yeah but as experience suggests felix – it’s an old canard because it’s an effective one.

            • Enough is Enough 11.4.1.1.1.2
              26 May 2015 at 2:25 pm

              Can you point out when anyone has argued Step 2?

              • RedLogix …
                26 May 2015 at 2:29 pm

                Not recently … Labour’s been stuck at Step 1 for quite some time.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  26 May 2015 at 5:30 pm

                  Step 2 will come out in the 2017 campaign. Both against Little, and against Robertson as Finance spokesperson. Especially because I think GFC2 will be in full stride in 2017.

    • Ben 11.5
      26 May 2015 at 10:07 am

      +1. Every time I see/hear Annette King she comes across as very angry and bitter, and is more focussed on telling us how the Nats have got it wrong, rather than offerring a postive & workable solution. Negetive politics simply don’t work, and the sooner the grudge-holding, pent-up Labour seniors realise this the better.

      When was the last clear and coherent Labour policy delivered? People on The Standard can most likely point to something, but I sugget that the ‘man on the street’ would be struggling to recall or recite even part of it.

      Does RM poll for preferred PM?

    • Tracey 11.6
      26 May 2015 at 1:19 pm

      Couldn’t agree with you more.

  12. Chris 12
    26 May 2015 at 9:30 am

    What happened to Labour’s massive review of the party they were having after the election?

    • te reo putake 12.1
      26 May 2015 at 9:47 am

      It’s ongoing, Chris. LEC’s, branches and members are being canvassed now to define areas of concern, changes that might be made, etc. That discussion will be firmed up by the time of the conference in October and the first tranche of proposed changes should be addressed there.

      • Bob 12.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 1:54 pm

        Meanwhile more than 1/3rd of the electoral term will be completed, while Labour continues to be seen as the party that talks about ways they could potentially do things in the future.
        “branches and members are being canvassed now to define areas of concern” holy shit, has anyone told the party the election was almost 9 months ago and they are only just ‘defining areas of concern’ now? Where is the leadership and urgency in the Party!

        It’s a complete mystery why Labour are sliding in the polls…

        • te reo putake 12.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 2:01 pm

          Actually, Bob, the party is trying to get the process correct, and not leap to snap judgements. We’ve previously tried doing it without membership support or input, and that hasn’t worked. So, over the last two years, we’ve reformed internally (with more to come) and we’re now looking at how we build a policy platform that genuinely reflects the traditions of Labour, the desires of the membership and the needs of NZ. I don’t care how long it takes, as long as the process delivers good results for NZ.

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 12.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 5:19 pm

            Well start with the roots you claim (exclaim) on your website:

            8 hour working day, 40 hour working week
            State housing for life
            Right to strike

            There we are QED.

      • SHG 12.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 8:01 pm

        It’s ongoing, Chris. LEC’s, branches and members are being canvassed now to define areas of concern, changes that might be made, etc. That discussion will be firmed up by the time of the conference in October and the first tranche of proposed changes should be addressed there.

        Bahahahahahahaha

        • te reo putake 12.1.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 8:25 pm

          I’m sorry, are you entirely well?

          • SHG 12.1.2.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 11:24 pm

            It reads like an Onion gag on middle-management speak. More than seven months since an election thrashing and you’re only now canvassing people to identify areas of concern. And by a year from the election you should be able to address some proposed changes. It’s hilarious.

            • te reo putake 12.1.2.1.1.1
              27 May 2015 at 8:52 am

              Interesting that you think there’s going to be a snap election in 2016. Do you reckon that will be caused by Collins stabbing Key in the back or some other reason?

  13. Jenny Kirk 13
    26 May 2015 at 9:48 am

    Be patient, people. Rome wasn’t built in a day …… and Labour is re-building now but it takes a while for results to show.

    • Puckish Rogue 13.1
      26 May 2015 at 9:54 am

      Hasn’t the rebuild been happening since the 2008 election?

      • infused 13.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 9:56 am

        I don’t think building has begun yet. Still behind red tape.

      • Jenny Kirk 13.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 9:56 am

        Nope PR – only since the 2014 election – not so many months away .

      • Anne 13.1.3
        26 May 2015 at 10:41 am

        Well have a look at the Nats PR. It took them nine years to rebuild – 1999 through to 2008.

        • Puckish Rogue 13.1.3.1
          26 May 2015 at 10:50 am

          1999 – 2005 since the 2005 election was extremely close, only some ham-fisted handling of the bretheren and a certain pledge card kept National out of power (well done to Labour for pulling that off by the way)

          Labour, at the moment, can only dream of getting to within two seats of National but 2020 isn’t too far away I guess

          • Lanthanide 13.1.3.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 11:59 am

            Thank god we didn’t have those tax cuts promised by Brash in 2005, eh? We would have been screwed in the GFC and CHCH earthquakes.

            Good that we had a fiscally responsible Labour government in charge, who ran surpluses and gave us borrowing head-room, as well as instituted forward-thinking policies like Kiwisaver which has allowed many people to get onto the housing ladder, and interest-free student loans so we stopped sending all our graduates over to Oz.

  14. infused 14
    26 May 2015 at 9:55 am

    Everyone on the right predicted it. The left are still deluded as ever.

  15. John 15
    26 May 2015 at 10:00 am

    Just about the only major political news for several weeks leading up to the poll, was ponytailgate.

    Even staunch left-wing friends thought the attack on Key was so ridiculously over the top that it showed those behind it had a terminal disconnect with the real world.

    And who would vote for someone to lead the country when they are clearly very confused about what is actually important to NZ…..and what is not.

    • Bearded Git 15.1
      26 May 2015 at 11:08 am

      @John Agreed-ponytailgate style attacks on Key never seem to work, indeed they backfire, especially when you have broadcaster of the year (gagging here) Hosking calling it crap.

      There is no substitute for good policy and fronting up well on things like the budget. Labour needs to attack the Nats spin that it has moved to the Left-this is laughable.

      I do think all the Gallipoli issue played well for National over this period which may have influenced answers in the Roy Morgan.

    • Tracey 15.2
      26 May 2015 at 1:34 pm

      You know LP wasn’t behind it, speaking much about it or anything like that?

      • RedLogix 15.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 1:41 pm

        All it took was for Key’s office to arrange for that Herald hit on the young woman in question – and to make sure it inferred something about “her political leanings” or some such.

    • Clemgeopin 15.3
      26 May 2015 at 1:59 pm

      We have here a despicable dirty bugger leading our country as the Prime Minister, the Head Honcho, who blatantly disrespects a poor waitress by pulling her pony tail, not once, not twice, but several times over a prolonged period and in spite of being asked not to, and you are saying that the opposition leaders should not subject such a lousy nasty man to serious ridicule and not take him to task? Do you remember the way Key and his dirty brigade took Clark to task for flimsy reasons such as the painter gate signed for charity or a speeding car driven by a driver, not Clark, to the airport?

      • Clean_power 15.3.1
        26 May 2015 at 2:21 pm

        Attacking Key for everything under the sun. No wonder why Labour is languishing in the pools….

        • Old Mickey 15.3.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 5:01 pm

          I think that is the point Sir Michael Cullens is making

        • Clemgeopin 15.3.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 5:21 pm

          Attacking Key for his disgraceful act was the right thing to do. In fact, the media, the opposition parties, the people in his own party and the people in general were too lenient and have helped Key get away with such a nasty behaviour. They should have been more forceful and there should have been mass protests and agitation to demand his immediate resignation.

  16. leftie 16
    26 May 2015 at 10:09 am

    How do you know the opinion polls are true?

    How does Roy Morgan get mobile numbers to randomly call?

    National rely heavily on false perception after all, so what if the pollsters are influenced by the National party, much like the MSM are?

    • Chris 16.1
      26 May 2015 at 10:24 am

      Roy Morgan are working for National.

      That is straw clutching

      • leftie 16.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:26 am

        @Chris.

        Where did I say that? Is that the best you can do?

        • Gosman 16.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 10:31 am

          I think the point was is that the best you can do.

          Next I suspect you’ll try and argue that the election results themselves were manipulated by National.

          • leftie 16.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 10:41 am

            So Gosman, you couldn’t answer the questions either?

          • Stuart Munro 16.1.1.1.2
            26 May 2015 at 2:11 pm

            Key would do it in a heartbeat.

            I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he has – he certainly has no scruples.

            The bugger prevented me from voting for a start. (Abroad over 3 years) And disenfranchised prisoners – never been done in NZ before, but Key needs every margin he can get to maintain his autarchy.

            • RedLogix 16.1.1.1.2.1
              26 May 2015 at 2:27 pm

              Yeah same here.

              Haven’t seen an exact number but I’d estimate well over 300,000 kiwis in Australia who can never vote there – and never vote back home either.

              Probably more world-wide.

              • swordfish …
                26 May 2015 at 3:47 pm

                Yeah, my brother in the UK is the same. Can’t vote there, can’t vote here.

            • leftie 16.1.1.1.2.2
              26 May 2015 at 11:30 pm

              @Stuart Munro

              Of course Key would, and he has. Didn’t the IGIS report confirm serious abuse of power by key’s office?

              “Metiria Turei, the Green Party’s other co-leader, asked Chris Finlayson, the minister in charge of the SIS, what he thought about the agency interfering in general elections.”

              <a href="http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/insults-fly-in-parliament-over-sis-2014112516#axzz3b4VaZd3f

      • Clean_power 16.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 10:28 am

        Sure. The Sun sets on the East and time goes backwards too.

  17. RedLogix 17
    26 May 2015 at 10:15 am

    John Key pulls pony-tails and poses for shirtless-selfies and this increases his popularity because it shows what a real, if forgiveably flawed, sort of bloke he is.

    Helen Clark signs a painting for charity and this is evidence of fraud and her perfidious lack of character.

    How do you break this? I don’t think you can. New Zealand secretly like it when JC pulls pony-tails. In public they’ll tut-tut for appearances sake – in private they read it as evidence of what an alpha-male he really is.

    Call it the Putin-Effect if you like.

    • leftie 17.1
      26 May 2015 at 10:24 am

      So basically that’s what we Kiwis are, shallow and 2 faced?

      • RedLogix 17.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:27 am

        Yes. And it reinforces what Michael Cullen is saying – that the emotional connection trumps all.

      • infused 17.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 11:50 am

        Well, the left keep calling the voting public stupid at every opportunity, so why not add this. It seems to be helping… National.

        • RedLogix 17.1.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 12:00 pm

          Ask any advertising agency if they carefully design their adverts to reason and rationality? Why is it that the last time advertising used a listing of ‘features and benefits’ was some time in the 1920’s?

          Why is it that branding images like names, logos, shapes and colours are so carefully designed and vigorously defended? Why is it that advertising so frequently uses music to engage the emotions?

          Why does sex sell? Why does appeal to snobbery and the illusions of status and success form the basis of most advertising?

          Why is it that no business would never dream of dropping their advertising budget? Because they worry that their customers might object to being treated as stupid?

          • Colonial Rawshark 17.1.2.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 2:41 pm

            Ask any advertising agency if they carefully design their adverts to reason and rationality? Why is it that the last time advertising used a listing of ‘features and benefits’ was some time in the 1920’s?

            They usually have a detailed specifications page at the back of the brochure for the 20% of the market who care enough to read it. They know that the other 80% don’t really give a damn.

            The Labour Party prefers to put that stuff on the front cover though.

        • Kevin 17.1.2.2
          26 May 2015 at 6:13 pm

          Of course they do. Heaven forbid they’re wrong and the public is right.

    • Richard 17.2
      26 May 2015 at 11:51 am

      Clark signed the painting in her first term – and was re-elected afterwards. Most people accept a PM can be busy and don’t mind someone else doing a 2 minute sketch. Like most people know of a confident, extroverted salesman who ‘works the room’ putting (most) people at ease. It’s not a crime. People can sense when a complaint is politically motivated and react against being manipulated by false outrage.
      You ‘break’ this by acting like adults, formulating and arguing policy (traditionally a Labour strength), and staying away from the petty stuff.

      • RedLogix 17.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 12:06 pm

        Clark signed the painting in her first term – and was re-elected afterwards.

        True – but it remained in people’s minds. (And besides National were still pretty much unelectable at that point.)

        It was one tiny political mis-step that happened over a decade ago – yet most people remember it. Compare that to the endless list of lies and distortions Key has spouted in the last six years … yet most people haven’t a clue. Here today – gone tomorrow.

        Even the pony-tail incident will be forgotten in two years time – the job of the media will be to ensure it goes firmly down the memory hole.

        • felix 17.2.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 2:37 pm

          Over a decade, yep. 1999 I believe.

          Odd how John Key can go on national television and recreate the all-blacks logo, sign it, and copyright it, and no-one bats an eyelid.

        • Atiawa 17.2.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 3:03 pm

          We have gotten to the stage whereby people don’t care what they need to do to pay the rent, just so long as its paid.
          The time however is fast approaching that no matter what they do, the rent won’t get paid.
          We will continue to witness a continuation of full-time job loss. Temporary and dependent contracted employees will hold sway with permanent full-time jobs in rapid decline. When that begins to affect more workers and their families, when John Keys new jobs are seen for what they actually are – less than one day a week in many instances -, and if it’s not too late and we aren’t completely owned by foreign investment groups, the left may then have the opportunity to govern again.
          I remember an often quoted saying my dear old mother would voice, which intrigued me when Labour governments were voted out , and she grew up in the slump. It went something like;
          ” They walked to the polling booth to vote us in, and drove in their car’s to vote us out”.

          • Atiawa 17.2.1.2.1
            26 May 2015 at 3:42 pm

            And hot of the press today, the following;

            Thirteen workers at Scott Technology, which manufactures, services and installs equipment for the appliance industry, were informed last week that they have been made redundant.
            Scott Technologies who made a healthy increased profit in 2014, indicated that they want to move away from the employee model and begin relying more on temp workers to fill orders.
            The Scott Technology group has recently purchased several companies both locally and internationally.

            Source EPMU media release 26/05.

            There is seldom a week that goes by, that lay-offs or company restructuring which will lead to lay-off’s doesn’t occur.

            • John 17.2.1.2.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 4:06 pm

              Of course there will be redundancies every week.

              The number of jobs that are lost, and created, every month in NZ is in the thousands.

              In the year to March, there were 74,000 MORE jobs created than lost.

              Scotts made $1.1m 1H profit on turnover of $30m – that’s just 3%. As an investor, or a manager, I would call that a dangerously thin profit. It wouldn’t take much more than a slight currency fluctuation to turn it into a loss.

              So what makes you call it healthy?

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                26 May 2015 at 4:10 pm

                I’m not surprised that you are so blasé about skilled Kiwis losing their jobs.

              • Atiawa …
                26 May 2015 at 5:12 pm

                What types of jobs were those 74,000? Full-time, part-time, temporary, casual, zero hour. dependent/independent contractor??

                What industries? Farming, agriculture, service industry, food, manufacturing, mining, oil & gas, tourism, IT, Real Estate Sales??? Could be food, we seem to be eating more takeaways than ever before.

                What are the pay rates? Enough to service a mortgage or pay the rent, power, food & groceries, contribute to Kiwi Saver, put fuel in the vehicle, pay the mobile communication device costs, have a social night or two out a week to catch a movie or footy game, some savings for the unexpected doctors visit or car repair, insurance?? That’s for a single person of course. It gets worse if you have a child or two. Oh well, there’s WFF to help out there. Will there be enough to put some aside for when the 3% profit on turnover isn’t enough for the business to remain open and you’re on the treadmill again??

                Where are the majority of these new jobs? Northland, Southland, Westland, Gisborne, Whanganui, Taranaki, Hawkes Bay?? Maybe Auckland. You’ll need top pay rates to live in Auckland and the choice of job will not include farming & agriculture or mining. Sure there will be IT ( out-sourcing will have that on a slippery slope ), tourism & associated service industry jobs – our Minister of Tourism prefers warmer climates for his holidays – and an over inflated NZ $ can’t be a huge help for that industry. Manufacturing ( see Tourism ).

                Goodness knows how the job market will look when the Christchurch rebuild is completed. Anyone for an eruption of Mt Eden?

                • John …
                  26 May 2015 at 5:34 pm

                  I can sense your desperation to turn 74,000 new jobs into a doom and gloom story.

                  Stats NZ reports
                  -0.2% rise in part time jobs
                  -5.0% rise in full time jobs
                  -50% of new jobs were in Auckland
                  -50% of new jobs were people under 34 years old

                  • Atiawa …
                    26 May 2015 at 6:04 pm

                    I think all work is important.

                    Your quoting of those figures may satisfy you but I see them as a desperate attempt by you to head the cheer- leading team for NACT.

                    Could any of us nowadays be persuaded to leave say, a teaching job in the regions for a promotion to one in Grey Lynn or Mt Roskil?

                    • John …
                      26 May 2015 at 8:14 pm

                      You’re far more likely to get a promotion the other way around.

                      Unemployment across the South Island is only half of that of Auckland.

                      And the houses are half price.

                      And there’s no traffic nightmare.

                      So it’s win win win.

                      Not to mention better scenery.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      26 May 2015 at 8:30 pm

                      Keep the Aucklanders where they belong, I say

            • Colonial Rawshark 17.2.1.2.1.2
              26 May 2015 at 4:09 pm

              Very sad to hear that this is the model of operations Scott’s owners are going down.

              • John …
                26 May 2015 at 5:37 pm

                For a company that continually needs to increase and decrease staff depending on what contracts they win, it will make everyone elses job more secure.

                With such a fine profit margin, it would be idiotic to employ a whole lot of staff that they don’t always have work for.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  26 May 2015 at 8:31 pm

                  You’re an idiot, and this will be the slide of the company down hill

                  • John …
                    27 May 2015 at 12:15 am

                    Stop promoting your ignorance.

                    They have a slim a slim 3% margin and you want them to employ people they don’t have work for.

                    A great example of when blind ideology is really just idiocy.

  18. Sirenia 18
    26 May 2015 at 10:25 am

    We need a Crosby_Textor for the left. Won’t be able to pay the big money but need that same very clever focus group strategy. All shallow itches that need immediate scratching – nothing difficult or visionary. Just make you feel that things are OK today and stuff everyone else. I’m sure there are some bright young things out there who have these skills but also care about NZ and its future.

    • RedLogix 18.1
      26 May 2015 at 10:34 am

      I think you are more or less on track Sirena.

      The problem would be getting the left to actually listen to the strategy advice it was paying for.

      We know what the issues are:

      1. A gross imbalance of funding and resources

      2. A right-wing media propaganda machine bought and paid for

      3. A total lack of coherent emotional connection with swinging voters

      4. A complete absence of any semblance of a stable, workable coalition on the left

      Each of these factors feeds into each other. We’ve identified and thrashed these issues around here for yonks without anyone being able to show us the exit door.

      And I’m not pretending to be the smart guy in the room who knows the way either. But I do know when I’m going around in circles.

      • Colonial Rawshark 18.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 4:11 pm

        The problem would be getting the left to actually listen to the strategy advice.

        BOOOOM

    • Gosman 18.2
      26 May 2015 at 10:37 am

      The left lack the discipline required of a Crosby/Textor strategy.

    • Puckish Rogue 18.3
      26 May 2015 at 10:39 am

      The problem you have though is that Mr Crosby and Mr Textor are extememly competent and very, very good at what they do and people like that can charge big money because they’re worth it

      If the left try to replicate what Crosby Textor do they’ll end up with a bunch of well-meaning amateurs who don’t really know what they doing, which seems to be the problem for the Labour party these last couple of years

      Yet it wasn’t that long ago that Labour was winning elections sooooo it would seem like a good idea to try to replicate what Labour was doing then (John Key sure did) but Labour being Labour they’ll try to reinvent the wheel, on the cheap of course, and be completely surprised when National is returned to power, again

      • RedLogix 18.3.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:46 am

        Which only re-states my point 1 above – the left are essentially running on the vestigial fumes of a rag that was once slightly oily.

        Labour barely gets enough funding to keep the basic party machinery in place – while National sit on a stuffed war-chest they can barely find ways to spend.

        It’s that gross imbalance in discretional, tactical spending which hurts the most.

        • Puckish Rogue 18.3.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 11:16 am

          Ok so what I’d do if I was running Labour is I would look at the Clark government and see how they run their fund raising

          Then I’d send Little round to all the large potential donors and apoligise for some of the treatment handed out to donors (Owen Glenn anyone?) and to others that the party has maligned (Mad Butcher) and give whatever assurances he can that it will not happen again

          I’d remove Blue Star Digital as they don’t seem to be doing much and shop around for someone/company thatys more effective, regardless of ideology

          It’d be a start

          • Colonial Rawshark 18.3.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 3:06 pm

            And some of that is not silly either

          • SHG 18.3.1.1.2
            26 May 2015 at 5:06 pm

            Ok so what I’d do if I was running Labour is I would look at the Clark government and see how they run their fund raising

            What Labour needs to do is hire people and seek advice from people who have proven their ability to win elections.

            • Colonial Rawshark 18.3.1.1.2.1
              26 May 2015 at 8:32 pm

              Wonder how much Axelrod charged UK Labour

              • Ergo Robertina …
                26 May 2015 at 10:54 pm

                £300,000 according to this Guardian long read before the election:
                http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/the-making-of-ed-miliband
                It struck me when reading the story as being completely outrageous, even those few short weeks ago when it seemed things had turned around for Miliband. A lesson maybe for some in NZ Labour who seem enamoured with US style politics.

                ”The deal was brokered by David Muir, a former Downing Street adviser now based in Washington; in April 2014, Axelrod was signed up for a fee said to be £300,000. Plenty of Labour officials baulked at the sum, seeing the appointment as the expression of an unhealthy obsession with US campaign wizardry and questioning Axelrod’s commitment. (Even aides who extol the acuity of his advice concede that his focus has been sporadic.)”

                • Kiwiri …
                  27 May 2015 at 12:29 am

                  signing up Axelrod and agreeing to the charge is one thing.
                  paying his fee is another thing and should be settled only after the election is successfully won 🙂

    • Chooky 18.4
      26 May 2015 at 6:30 pm

      +100 Sirenia

  19. Gosman 19
    26 May 2015 at 10:35 am

    You can’t say you weren’t warned about the possibility of this happening. After the “Ponygate” story broke a number of people including myself pointed out the risk of making a huge deal of that situation. Morally and ethically you may have a point. Politically you allowed Key to turn this around to his own advantage. The great thing about this is that many of you will never learn and will keep on misjudging situations to your cost. It is the political equivalent of seeing someone poke themselves in the eye repeatedly.

    • leftie 19.1
      26 May 2015 at 10:48 am

      @Gosman.
      Would you had of wanted to let it slide if a Labour PM had of physically abused and harassed a waitress at her place of work like John key has done?

      • RedLogix 19.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 11:06 am

        Of course not. The complicit elements of the MSM would have picked a simple, destructive image and played it over and over until the damage was terminal.

        The apology would have been fed into the narrative as a weasel excuse.

        The debate in the House would have prime time coverage with an outraged National Opposition leader valiantly defending the honour and purity of the nation’s young women. The king hit punch-line would be played over and over like some porn-gif on tumblr.

        The Herald would have sucked dry the internet’s store of pixels with strident headlines like “Pervert Prime Minister” and “The End of Democracy”. Or some such.

      • John 19.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 11:12 am

        It would have been seen for what it was – a playful tease that someone then tried to exploit for political gain.

        As the polls have shown, making a huge deal over minutiae displays to voters a disconnect with the real world.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 1:23 pm

          Is that why the Right attacked Helen Clark’s marriage?

          • RedLogix 19.1.2.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 2:22 pm

            @OAB …. pH = 14

          • Bob 19.1.2.1.2
            26 May 2015 at 2:25 pm

            That is why the Rights attacks on Helen Clark’s marriage never got any traction (outside of the Thorndon bubble), they were off-putting to the general public and no-one really cared.
            Did you see any evidence of Nationals attacks on Helen Clark’s marriage having any impact on the polls?

            • RedLogix 19.1.2.1.2.1
              26 May 2015 at 2:43 pm

              Oh – which is why a series of disgusting Helen Clark emails did the rounds in the months before the 2008 election then?

              Some of us have memories not so easily overwritten.

  20. Hami Shearlie 20
    26 May 2015 at 10:36 am

    So it would seem that David Cunliffe was not Labour’s problem – in fact, David Cunliffe won most debates during the election campaign and I think would speak much more eloquently about this budget in Parliament – He is a heavy hitter and has the intellect and ability to be able to speak about any portfolio with authority – But the old rogernome guard don’t like him so who cares about the struggling people in NZ? Petty personal gripes in the Labour Party towards David Cunliffe are what is making me think that I may not renew my membership! David Cunliffe should have stayed as leader – he had far too short a time there to really show what he could do IMHO. Plus he actually LOOKS the part as a Leader!

    • Puckish Rogue 20.1
      26 May 2015 at 10:42 am

      Plus he actually LOOKS the part as a Leader!

      – No he really didn’t

      • leftie 20.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 11:04 am

        @Puckish Rogue.

        Yes, he really did.

        • Puckish Rogue 20.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 11:19 am

          It helps to have a chin and not sound smug and superior to be a leader (I’m not saying he is smug and superior but thats what he came across as)

          • RedLogix 20.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 11:39 am

            So a nice alpha male chin and an attitude of amused casualness to go with it is what New Zealanders vote for?

            Fuck policy … emotional connection is all.

            • Puckish Rogue 20.1.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 11:54 am

              Read what we’re talking about, its about whether Cunliffe looks like a leader and he doesn’t

              • RedLogix …
                26 May 2015 at 12:10 pm

                OK I’ve re-read this several times.

                Frankly still looks like Cunliffe you are talking about to me. Care to clarify?

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  26 May 2015 at 12:32 pm

                  This is what we’re talking about:

                  “Plus he actually LOOKS the part as a Leader!”

                  My point is he does not, Lefties is that he does

                  Policy has nothing to do with what is being discussed

                  • RedLogix …
                    26 May 2015 at 12:35 pm

                    Totally lost me.

                    • s y d …
                      26 May 2015 at 2:09 pm

                      RL, I think PR is correct in saying that DC didn’t look like a leader, at least to a majority of people.
                      Personally once he went on Campbell Live and walked up to get fish and chips with a white jumper knotted around his shoulders I knew the election was lost.
                      People on the street didn’t want to talk to him.
                      We live in the age of Paris Hilton, Willy Moon, The Kardashians….JK hooks into that, DC not so much.

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 May 2015 at 2:15 pm

                      @s y d

                      I’m not arguing with the perception.

                      I’m asking – where did it come from? And why?

                      Part of it is something manufactured – and part of it is entirely non-rational.

      • Hami Shearlie 20.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 3:23 pm

        He did to the foreign press – he had to talk to them to get Bolger in to Mandela’s funeral, and John Key was called “an unidentified guest”!!

    • Chris 20.2
      26 May 2015 at 10:45 am

      That is great, but the public didn’t like him and his personality and neither did most of his caucus.

      You can be a great orator, but it is rather pointless if you come across as sleazy.

      His Martin Luther King impressions didn’t help either

      • RedLogix 20.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:52 am

        You might pause and ask yourself exactly where did you get that ‘sleazy’ impression from?

        Because in reality Cunliffe is most certainly not sleazy. It was of course a manufactured impression that the media made up about him. And that – because you have never met or worked with the man – is the emotional impression you retain of him.

        This is the power of propaganda. In the modern world it is very finely and effectively tuned.

        At the end of the Cold War one senior KGB official said in an interview, “The difference between the USA and Russia was that the Americans had Madison Avenue – and your propaganda was believed – whereas ours never was”.

        • leftie 20.2.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 11:19 am

          @RedLogix
          +1

        • infused 20.2.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 2:11 pm

          Cunliffe wasn’t sleazy, he just came across as a complete cock.

          The sorry for being a man thing sunk him. That will go down in history.

          Shearer was the best imo. people were starting to warm to him before he got the boot. He’s pretty much the only person in Labour I’ve got time for.

          • RedLogix 20.2.1.2.1
            26 May 2015 at 2:18 pm

            Oh so if sleazy doesn’t stick – lets go with a Clarksonesque ‘complete cock’.

            And if I characterised this as ‘a non-rational emotional response’ … would you feel like I was calling you stupid?

            That will go down in history.

            And in my history book it goes down as a moment of shame – just not for the reason you are thinking of.

          • swordfish 20.2.1.2.2
            26 May 2015 at 4:05 pm

            “Shearer was the best imo. People were starting to warm to him before he got the boot.”

            Is that why Labour’s support skyrocketed (from around 32% to 37%) after Cunliffe replaced him as leader ?

            And there’s no evidence that Shearer’s Preferred PM ratings were improving during his final months. In fact, if anything, they were declining. As were the more detailed measurements on how effective he was as Opposition Leader etc

            • Colonial Rawshark 20.2.1.2.2.1
              26 May 2015 at 4:13 pm

              Is that why Labour’s support skyrocketed (from around 32% to 37%) after Cunliffe replaced him as leader ?

              And then Cunliffe let himself get sucked into the same inward looking strategies and tactics endlessly promulgated by the same Wellington Labour-think types

            • Realblue 20.2.1.2.2.2
              26 May 2015 at 5:45 pm

              “Skyrocketed from 32% to %37%” indeed, then he started talking it all the way down to 25%. People didn’t like the guy. Accept it and move on, he has.

            • SHG 20.2.1.2.2.3
              27 May 2015 at 1:05 am

              Is that why Labour’s support skyrocketed (from around 32% to 37%) after Cunliffe replaced him as leader ?

              And then after the public actually got a look at Cunliffe, Labour support dived to 25%, which is what it got at the election.

      • leftie 20.2.2
        26 May 2015 at 10:53 am

        @ Chris.
        The public had an orchestrated smear campaign and character assignation emanating from John key’s office rammed down their throats by a complicit MSM.

      • left for deadshark 20.2.3
        26 May 2015 at 11:21 am

        Most of that caucus need to go,an in fact will be edged out over the next cycle,don’t no where that leaves Labour, by the way,just waiting for mr power to throw Robertson back into the ring.

        edit: in my humble etc etc

    • John 20.3
      26 May 2015 at 10:47 am

      Cunliffe’s problem was he wasn’t convincing.

      How can people believe what he says, when it doesn’t even look like he is convinced in what he’s saying himself (i.e. sorry for being a man).

      Little is afflicted with another another frailty of opposition leaders – hyperbole.

      A week or two ago he claimed New Zealand had the biggest political deception in our history. The claim is so ridiculous that few people in the street this week would even remember what he was talking about.

      • leftie 20.3.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:57 am

        @John. You mean, how the media made him appear. I never saw such a sustained attack by MSM like they did to David Cunliffe. It was unprecedented.

        • John 20.3.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 11:03 am

          In my view the damage was all done by himself – I simply couldn’t believe what he was saying, as to me (and a large number of people) he came across as insincere and not believing what he was saying himself.

          I have no doubt he’s an intelligent and capable person, but like many others who are intelligent and capable (English, Goff, Shearer), that doesn’t make him a leader.

          • leftie 20.3.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 11:13 am

            @John.

            What did he say that you couldn’t believe, or thought him insincere? Your comment is a repeat of the MSM narrative.

            Wouldn’t call 7 budget deficits in a row Bill English that intelligent or capable, he is a failed leader as well. He led National to their greatest election defeat in 2002, 20.93% Worse than Labour’s result last year.

            • John 20.3.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 11:32 am

              I didn’t believe his false anger about secret donations, when he ran a secret trust himself.

              I didn’t believe his apology when he got caught.

              I didn’t believe he was sorry for being a man – that was SO contrived.

              To me, I could see him talking, but he simply didn’t look convinced in what he was saying. Which came across in his ratings.

              • RedLogix …
                26 May 2015 at 11:52 am

                Which reminds me of the often mis-attributed line about sincerity … when you can fake it you have it made.

                But what the propaganda machine was very careful NOT to tell you was that Cunliffe’s trust was something required under the Party rules he had to operate under. In the event that the media made the trust politically untenable – the donations were returned because he could no longer accept them AND remain compliant with the rules.

                And the propaganda machine very carefully selectively misquoted that line from Cunliffe – which made it clear that in the context he was ashamed of the behaviour of so many men who were violent towards the women and children in their lives.

                I could call you out as a sucker John. But that wouldn’t help would it? Propaganda is an immensely subtle and deeply rooted thing that becomes very difficult to untangle from our self identity.

                All I can do is to suggest – respectfully – is to look carefully at the sources from which you gained these impressions of Cunliffe and ask yourself some questions about their motives.

                • Lanthanide …
                  26 May 2015 at 12:07 pm

                  “But what the propaganda machine was very careful NOT to tell you was that Cunliffe’s trust was something required under the Party rules he had to operate under.”

                  So the blame goes to the “Labour Party” instead of Cunliffe directly. Who leads the Labour Party? Cunliffe. All sheets back to him eventually.

                  • RedLogix …
                    26 May 2015 at 12:14 pm

                    Are you missing a /sarc or is that’s a perverse reading of the events Lanth?

                    At the point in time when that wretched trust was created – Cunliffe was campaigning to become leader, so I fail to see how the ‘blame’ leads back to him.

                    And even then as leader of the Parliamentary caucus – I still doubt he’s responsible for the Party constitution or rules.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      26 May 2015 at 12:53 pm

                      “And even then as leader of the Parliamentary caucus – I still doubt he’s responsible for the Party constitution or rules.”

                      You can think what you like. What matters is how the MSM and subsequently the public see it.

                      Cunliffe himself could have front-footed it, or the LP could have, by saying during their leaders campaign that the candidates were entitled to get donations, but in the promotion of democracy, the donations were to be secret from the candidate themselves, so as no undue influence were possible.

                      They didn’t, the MSM got a whiff and it blew up.

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 May 2015 at 1:03 pm

                      Well Cunliffe did say it – but the propaganda machine made sure it was buried quick smart.

                      As you say truth didn’t matter a damn. Merely the ‘whiff’ of a chance to smear the left winger. That’s all it took Lanth.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      26 May 2015 at 3:02 pm

                      Cunliffe said it *after* the accusations came out.

                      Labour made a big media song and dance about their candidate selection campaign. They could have put out a Q & A thing to journalists that covered the campaign, how it was being run, why, how candidates would be selected and voted on etc. I’d be surprised if they actually hadn’t done that. And in that Q & A, it could have had a note about the use of trusts to elicit donations.

                      The thing about “secret trusts” is that the public didn’t know about it – that they were kept secret from the public, not the candidates, was the problem.

                      Similarly it looked like hypocrisy because Cunliffe was attacking National for having trusts that were secret from the public, when his own party also had trusts that were secret from the public.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      26 May 2015 at 3:08 pm

                      Labour’s strategists and tacticians in wellington really seem to struggle with these basics

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 May 2015 at 4:06 pm

                      @ Lanth

                      Yeah – on the same page there.

                      Ultimately Cunliffe was let down by his own Party’s failure of clarity on this issue.

                      The only options which work are absolute anonymity or total transparency. Hybrid mashups are the political equivalent of loose wheel-nuts.

                • Colville. …
                  26 May 2015 at 3:07 pm

                  Redlogix
                  Are you saying that NZLP required DC to run a blind trust to hide his donors?

                  • RedLogix …
                    26 May 2015 at 4:13 pm

                    @Colville.

                    Yes. Someone else may be able to give the exact details, but from memory the Party rules which applied to Leadership contests required any donations over a certain amount to remain anonymous.

                    Robertson and Little had some donors but below the threshold – only Cunliffe had three or four that were above it. To solve this problem a trust was set up to administer them.

                    Which while it was technically correct require under Party rules – it was of course politically wrong because on the surface it looked like hypocrisy. And immediately that became apparent the trust was dissolved and the donations returned.

                    Please someone feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.

                    • Colville. …
                      26 May 2015 at 6:30 pm

                      I would be utterly flabbergasted if NZLP required LARGE donations to remain anonymous . It just defies logic.

                      But it would avoid the whole John Banksesue saga wouldn’t it! 🙂

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 May 2015 at 6:38 pm

                      So which is it Colville?

                      Keeping MPs ignorant of donor identities* defies logic, or it’s a good way to avoid the sort of criminality exhibited by John Banks and the National Party?

                      *Which is the lip-service observed by the Waitemata Trust, for example.

                    • Colville. …
                      26 May 2015 at 6:57 pm

                      OAB. You have lost me there.

                      John Banks and the National party are linked how?

                      How is John Banks a criminal?

                      What is the Waitemata Trust? Is that the Trust that Len Brown used to launder his donations?

                      IMHO all donations should be declared the moment that are banked, large or small.

                      but obviously the larger the pot of cash the larger the public interest in its source.

                    • RedLogix …
                      26 May 2015 at 7:19 pm

                      Colville – please note carefully the distinction here.

                      These were NOT donations to the Labour party.

                      They were donations to individuals running as candidates in a leadership primary. While it can be argued that they were for a Labour party political purpose – equally it is true that only the candidate they were given to could spend the money on their campaign. Probably mundane things like travel, accom and communications.

                      And as far as I am aware leadership primaries are NOT covered by any Electoral Act requirements. It may well have been only internal Party rules that applied.

                      This kind of thing is relatively new to NZ and I can foresee more work will need to be done to clarify all this.

                    • Colville. …
                      26 May 2015 at 9:53 pm

                      Redlogix
                      So these were not donations to the Labour party just donations to David Cunliffe so he could run for leadership of the Labour Party?

                      We know he didnt have to pay for flights or accom during the primary because he brazingly stole that money off of us muggins taxpayers.

                      That is a mighty small pin you are dancing on.

                      So NZLP would have kept secret the bribes paid to an aspiring party Leader who could (did in the case) go on to try and become Prime Minster. The NZLP would have have it kept secret, because of NZLP rules , who paid for favours from their political pawn?

                    • Macro …
                      26 May 2015 at 10:03 pm

                      @Colville

                      What is the Waitemata Trust? Is that the Trust that Len Brown used to launder his donations?

                      Len Brown would be the last person to be drawing on the Waitemata Trust!

                      The National Party has admitted that its use of secret trusts violates the intent of electoral law and must now reveal the big money backers behind the Waitemata Trust, Labour Strategist Pete Hodgson said today.

                      Over 92 per cent of National’s 2005 election spend-up was financed through blind trusts. Around two-thirds of National’s funding – or $1.2 million – was laundered through the National Party operated Waitemata Trust under the name of Robert Browne.

                      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0609/S00262.htm

                      Google is your friend

              • leftie …
                26 May 2015 at 12:18 pm

                @John.
                So fair enough, you are angry that 5 people donated to David Cunliffe’s trust for his leadership bid, that wasn’t illegal and perfectly within the rules, as it was not a general election, and 2 of those people reserved the right to not have their names disclosed. Are you equally angry at National’s secret trusts that hide the names of thousands of people and their donations?
                Of course you wouldn’t believe his apology, your attitude shows that.

                Was he sorry for being a man? or was he sorry that it is predominately men who abuse women?
                So taking what David Cunliffe said out of context justifies your view does it?

                So, is that it? In other words, it really didn’t matter what David Cunliffe said or did, he was automatically damned from the outset.
                Meanwhile John key who has done far worse, committed so many wrongs, told so many lies, has been outright deceitful many times, but that’s ok, you think it is perfectly acceptable, is that right?

                • John …
                  26 May 2015 at 12:51 pm

                  I wasn’t angry. It just made him look dishonest when he complained about secret trusts.

                  Yes, he is damned form the outset, cause when I (and thousands of others) didn’t think even he believed what he was saying, I didn’t either.

                  Every time he tried to be overly sincere, he came across as insincere.

                  If you can’t even see major past issues, then how are you going to correct future ones?

                  • RedLogix …
                    26 May 2015 at 1:35 pm

                    In a way you have put your finger on it John.

                    Generations of manipulation by the advertising and propaganda industries means most people prefer faked, manufactured sincerity over the real thing these days.

                  • leftie …
                    26 May 2015 at 11:09 pm

                    @John.

                    So, in other words , you were completely swayed by the hostile media ‘s portrayal of David Cunliffe because it suited you, would that be a fair comment?

        • Stuart Munro 20.3.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 3:07 pm

          Cunliffe was a fine leader, and Little has potential too. Shearer had plenty of opportunity but didn’t shine – though if Key had fronted with snapper the arse-licking media gallery would have called it a stroke of genius. Rightwing decapitation attacks need to be seen for what they are.

          When rubbish like English can hold office on the strength of seven years of unrelenting failure even Labour’s lacklustre list have nothing to be ashamed of.

        • ankerawshark 20.3.1.3
          26 May 2015 at 9:19 pm

          1000++ Leftie re Cunliffe. I think that was because he was a genuine threat. He was articulate and knowledgeable and had been a highly competent leader. It disgusts me what happened to Cunliffe.

      • Puckish Rogue 20.3.2
        26 May 2015 at 10:58 am

        But but but Little said “cut the crap”!

      • Hami Shearlie 20.3.3
        26 May 2015 at 10:23 pm

        If Cunliffe was unconvincing how come the “public” voted that he won most of the election debates?

    • Ben 20.4
      26 May 2015 at 10:56 am

      Have to disagree there. DC alienated a lot of people in a big way, whereas Little is just… vanilla.

      • leftie 20.4.1
        26 May 2015 at 10:59 am

        How did David Cunliffe alienate people? or was it more to do with the media alienating Cunliffe ?

        • Ben 20.4.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 11:24 am

          “How did David Cunliffe alienate people?”

          Wow, either your response was in jest, or you were hiding under a rock for most of last year. I don’t think that people dislike Little, he just doesn’t set the world on fire. Whereas Cunliffe was polarising and there didn’t seem to be any middle ground.

          In response to your question, he alienated people by being himself, by which I mean trying to be someone he wasn’t.

          • leftie 20.4.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 12:02 pm

            @Ben.
            You didn’t actually answer the question, next time try and leave the insults out of it. How was Cunliffe polarizing? How was being himself alienating? did MSM have anything to do with that? What role did the MSM play?

          • Lanthanide 20.4.1.1.2
            26 May 2015 at 12:08 pm

            Please be specific about how he alienated people, and how he tried to be “someone he wasn’t”.

          • Colonial Rawshark 20.4.1.1.3
            26 May 2015 at 2:35 pm

            Cunliffe could have been an outstanding Labour PM but required the right team in order to be that; unfortunately the one he had and the one he stuck with was not it.

            • Hami Shearlie 20.4.1.1.3.1
              26 May 2015 at 3:31 pm

              The “team” sure let David Cunliffe down – so many petty small people in the Caucus with their own petty little gripes and overblown egos – not thinking of the bigger picture and surely not thinking of the struggling people of NZ!!

            • leftie 20.4.1.1.3.2
              26 May 2015 at 10:59 pm

              So it wasn’t Cunliffe himself as the right wingers on here attest to, it was a backstabbing caucus, and also, what role did the media play?

    • infused 20.5
      26 May 2015 at 12:02 pm

      Well, I think Little got surprised with the budget.

      I think he had to re-write his speech on the spot, hence why it was so bad. but that kind of makes a leader doesn’t it? How well they can adapt.

      • Puckish Rogue 20.5.1
        26 May 2015 at 1:15 pm

        To me it shows that Labour were suckered in hook, line and sinker by National and were left looking daft

        But yeah that was a pretty dire speech

    • ankerawshark 20.6
      26 May 2015 at 1:51 pm

      1000++ HS re DC

    • SHG 20.7
      26 May 2015 at 2:26 pm

      To be Leader you have to be able to win a nationwide electoral campaign, and David Cunliffe is the worst campaigner in the history of NZ politics.

      • Colonial Rawshark 20.7.1
        26 May 2015 at 4:15 pm

        David is actually an excellent campaigner; but the campaign strategies and team that they used (and which he was a part of) sucked. It’ll probably be 90% the same campaign team going into 2017 btw.

  21. Clean_power 21
    26 May 2015 at 10:53 am

    Where is the Labour new blood?

    It is predictable, almost a certainty, that in 2017 Annette King and Trevor Mallard will again be candidates. Phil Goff will not, because he will run for Auckland Mayor. Where is the new Labour blood?

    • leftie 21.1
      26 May 2015 at 11:02 am

      @Clean_power.

      I think you are wrong about King and Mallard. Phil Goff hasn’t even said he is in the running for the Mayor’s job yet.

      • Clean_power 21.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 11:41 am

        I wish I were wrong …but I am not. Unfortunately you can bet your house A. King and T. Mallard are very likely to run in 2017. On the other hand, it is logical for Goff to run for mayor of Auckland (and he will make a good one).

        • leftie 21.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 12:38 pm

          @Clean_power

          But then again, your guesses could be wrong. Time will tell, like it will with Goff, who said it was curious how the right want him to run. Wonder if it is all different now that John Banks got off on a technicality, and he has another shot at the mayoralty.

    • Phil 21.2
      27 May 2015 at 12:44 pm

      Where is the new Labour blood?

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

      Current Labour MP’s by decade of first election:
      1980’s: 3
      1990’s: 5
      2000’s: 14
      2010’s: 10

  22. b waghorn 22
    26 May 2015 at 10:59 am

    The over whelming sadness I fell that nz supports a political party that keeps as its leader a person of keys personality flaws and that all its MPs are complicit with there methods of holding power is making this a tough day .

  23. Charles 23
    26 May 2015 at 11:08 am

    So Labour need a game-changer huh? How about this: since nothing they do works, don’t issue any new policy, don’t make any more media statements, don’t do any usual Labour party political stuff, don’t enter into the usual adversarial election year debates etc etc. Just go silent. Shrug shoulders. Pick nose. Tell journalists that we’re sure NZ voters will make their own choices. Leave MPs on ballot paper for voting day. Simple.

  24. Lynda Brown 24
    26 May 2015 at 11:25 am

    If we voters are so dumb why isn’t Labour pitching its policies towards dumbos so we can more easily grasp why we shouldn’t so blindly and slavishly follow that devil man John Key?

  25. te reo putake 25
    26 May 2015 at 11:31 am

    Looking at this poll, I can see only one solution: an immediate change of leader. To have failed to make any headway at all and, indeed, to have dropped support despite Ponytailgate, means the current leadership has lost all credibility and cannot possibly continue. There’s no use blaming the polls or saying that the voters are stupid. It’s not that at all. The public just don’t like him and the sooner he goes, the better it will be for the party.

    • Clean_power 25.1
      26 May 2015 at 11:44 am

      Who? G. Robertson or D. Cunliffe? The former seems the obvious choice, but a risky option that will polarise the party further. Difficult decision to make.

    • Puckish Rogue 25.2
      26 May 2015 at 12:00 pm

      Naah as a National voter I think it’d be best to keep Little on

      • Colville. 25.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 12:41 pm

        As a National voter I think its best for Robertson to be given a try !

        • Clean_power 25.2.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 12:49 pm

          Those two Tories’ advice cannot be taken seriously. Back to Kiwiblog, lads.
          Labour’s best option is with the new generation: Kelvin Davis and Chris Hipkins (Ardern does not seem ready yet), or someone with experience like Shane Jones, heaven forbid.

          • Puckish Rogue 25.2.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 1:06 pm

            Of course our advice isn’t to be taken seriously thats why it was prefaced with “as a National voter”

            We’re pointing out just how bad Labour is at the moment

            However Kelvin Davis, from what I’ve seen of him, does seem to be a good candidate for leadership of Labour

            He knows how to fight for his seat even when everythings against him (take note Little) and he speaks in a way people that people listen

            Stuart Nash would also be someone to take note of but of course because of how stupid Labour are it’ll be who the unions want that’ll be the next leader of Labour

            • felix 25.2.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 2:24 pm

              It’s fascinating how in love you lot are with a guy who is basically just a junior Trevor Mallard with a bigger property portfolio.

              Why don’t you try to get him to join National? He’d probably jump.

        • Old Mickey 25.2.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 5:11 pm

          How about Labour try the co-leader model – little & robertson

    • Bill 25.3
      26 May 2015 at 12:02 pm

      The leader ain’t the problem. The problem is that Labour have MPs, many of whom are essentially decent people, who think they can do better things for NZ ers by merely tweaking what the Nats do. This is a problem for Labour Party’s globally as far as I can see.

      What it means for folk like me from the left, is that Labour are basically the hairdressers and others in that spaceship from in Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy. What it means for most people is utter disinterest and disengagement from politics.

      Labour: Out of touch. Useless. No coming back.

      Again. Labour’s fortunes across the UK. It’s not a difficult lesson.

      • te reo putake 25.3.1
        26 May 2015 at 12:07 pm

        What made you think I was talking about Labour? I was referring to ACT. David Seymour is rubbish. He’s had his chance, time for fresh leadership. That Maurice Williamson looks like a safe pair of hands.

        • Bill 25.3.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 12:15 pm

          heh 🙂 I did kind of wonder at you calling for a leader’s head.

          Meanwhile, as for the Labour Party’s problems…?

          • te reo putake 25.3.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 12:27 pm

            No worries about Labour, Bill. We’re in good shape, have a good leader and a membership that accepts the need for internal and external change and is looking for election policies that matter to the majority. Small blips aside, Little looks to have settled into the job in a way Cunliffe, Shearer and Goff never did.

            Off track a bit, but I see UK Labour actually improved their vote in the 18-24 demographic. I’m not sure how, but it might be worth further study, if only to find ways to make voting more attractive for young people.

            • RedLogix 25.3.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 12:33 pm

              Fuck policy trp.

              National made a point of never having any that they were prepared to talk about in public – and still poll stratospherically.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                26 May 2015 at 12:42 pm

                National (and Key) understand and connect with the non-rational and cultural aspects of the Kiwi outlook far better than Labour does.

                Labour somehow hopes that the electorate will give them brownie points for a vision of cutting back workers’ Super.

            • Bill 25.3.1.1.1.2
              26 May 2015 at 1:04 pm

              ..and is looking for election policies that matter to the majority..

              That’s the problem right there. It’s insane that a party has to cast around looking for something it might believe in and that will also resonate with voters. Doesn’t do much for building any sense of authenticity and trust with the public when you’re essentially looking to set yourself up as ‘everyone’s’ favourite political whore.

              • te reo putake …
                26 May 2015 at 1:06 pm

                Well, it worked for the SNP …

                • Bill …
                  26 May 2015 at 1:18 pm

                  Well, no. The SNP were very clear on policy and their policy was a continuation of what had gone before…solid, left leaning social democratic.

                  End austerity. No ifs and no buts.
                  Make Scotland’s voice heard in Westminster. (That line became possible due to widespread perceptions of Labour’s ‘feeble 50’)
                  No to trident renewal.
                  No to user pays education.
                  No to privatisation of NHS.

                  Investment in public services/infrastructure in lieu of ‘balancing the books’ as fast as possible.
                  Protecting and increasing levels of pension payments.
                  Increasing benefit levels in general.
                  Increasing top tax rate.

                  Committing to work positively with any and all progressive elements within Westminster.
                  Abolition of the Lords.

                  And so on.

                  The only thing they dropped, quite reasonably, was any seeking of a mandate for independence, seeing as how there was a referendum last year and it was a UK election.

                  edit: It should be noted that Labour opposed or vacillated on many of the above.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    26 May 2015 at 1:27 pm

                    And look where it got them. They’re not in government and neither are Labour.

                    One of the theories for why Labour did so badly, and the polling was so poor, is that there was a backlash against SNP and people voted for the tories, because they couldn’t trust Labour going into a coalition that relied on the SNP due to their scary policies.

                    • te reo putake …
                      26 May 2015 at 1:38 pm

                      Spot on lanth. The SNP had the luxury of making promises they were never likely to have to deliver on. But now that they have lost the election they are going to look just like every other party on the opposition benches.

                      Even harder for the SNP is that as they have peaked, yet still failed, how do they avoid being blamed for the Tory led backlash that’s coming Scotland’s way? As the leaders in the Scottish parliament, are they going to be forced to impose ‘austerity light’ measures north of the border when the UK government puts the boot in?

                    • Bill …
                      26 May 2015 at 2:12 pm

                      Labour did badly because Labour did badly. Even if every SNP voter had voted Labour, Labour would still have done badly – ie, lost.

                      There was never going to be a Labour/SNP coalition. It was also unlikely that there would have been a confidence and supply arrangement. Neither is necessary given current UK legislation.

                      Miliband buying into the ‘fear’ generated by Cosby and Textor was utterly fucking lamentable. I did a post on it And another one here.

                      As far from the SNP policies being found ‘scary’ – English people were google searching (6th highest search following first TV debate) to find if they could vote for the SNP.

                    • weka …
                      26 May 2015 at 2:39 pm

                      “And look where it got them. They’re not in government and neither are Labour.”

                      That only makes sense if you’re English. If you’re Scottish, the election was hugely successful for the SNP.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      26 May 2015 at 3:05 pm

                      @ Bill:

                      “Labour did badly because Labour did badly. Even if every SNP voter had voted Labour, Labour would still have done badly – ie, lost.”

                      But that’s missing the entire point, that if SNP had not be a big bogeyman in this election, then the dramatic swing to the right may not have happened, and Labour may actually have gotten enough seats to go into a government with a small band of SNP and Lib Dems for support.

                      Instead, SNP did so well that it scared a lot of Labour voters to the tories, leaving SNP and Labour without a chance.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      26 May 2015 at 3:07 pm

                      @ weka: just like the 2011 election result was “hugely successful for the Greens”, despite the fact that they still had no real power at all?

                      Yes, increasing your seats is good, but without getting power at the same time, it’s prone to erosion and backlash. Look at the Maori Party. Look at ACT.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      26 May 2015 at 3:15 pm

                      Spot on lanth. The SNP had the luxury of making promises they were never likely to have to deliver on. But now that they have lost the election they are going to look just like every other party on the opposition benches.

                      it seems to me that the Scottish electorate thinks quite differently to you. And that they decided that it was Scottish Labour who were never ever going to deliver what they had promised.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      26 May 2015 at 3:18 pm

                      Yes, increasing your seats is good, but without getting power at the same time, it’s prone to erosion and backlash

                      I think that’s a wee bit simplistic. It depends on what the expectations of your voters are and whether or not they understand the difference between political influence and political power.

                      BTW Labour has lost 3 elections in a row. Are they now prone to erosion and backlash?

                    • Bill …
                      26 May 2015 at 3:59 pm

                      @ lanth

                      The SNP were never going to into government, no matter the result.

                      And blaming the SNP for strands of ethnic discrimination and bigotry within the English electorate is…odd and a bit sickening.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      26 May 2015 at 5:20 pm

                      @ Bill
                      If SNP were never going to get into government, then clearly they could say any crazy thing they wanted and not be held accountable for it.

                      The fact that the public apparently like crazy things that will never happen, doesn’t seem to matter much in the real world of what actually gets implemented.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      26 May 2015 at 5:57 pm

                      hey lanth

                      You’re exhibiting a similar kind of dismissive and derogatory attitude that Westminster held towards Scottish voters and Scottish politics. And look where that got the Westminster establishment political parties.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      26 May 2015 at 6:36 pm

                      “And look where that got the Westminster establishment political parties.”

                      5 more years in power?

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      26 May 2015 at 6:52 pm

                      And let’s run with another round of trying to position Scottish voters and Scottish politicians as spendthrift and admiring of undeliverable spendthrift promises, because that’s the Scottish way. I mean, wtf.

                      I understand perfectly why they want shot of the Tories, Red Tories, and Lib Dems.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      27 May 2015 at 8:04 pm

                      The British Labour Party increased its share of the vote between the 2010 and 2015 elections.

                      Across the UK, in 2010 Labour received 29% of the vote and in 2015 it received 30.4% of the vote. That increase came in an election that the proportion of the vote in Scotland for the Labour Party plummeted. That indicates that the vote for Labour in England was substantially up.

                      In fact, I remember the breakdown of the vote on the Guardian website showing that the Labour Party increased its 2010 to 2015 vote in England to a greater extent than did the Conservative Party in England.

                      The overall loss of seats by UK Labour from 2010 to 2015 was 24 yet, of course, they lost all but one of their 40 seats they held in Scotland.

                      That all suggests that the SNP did not put off English voters from voting Labour – unless we assume that even more would have voted Labour had the SNP not been in the picture.

                      Well, I suppose that’s possible but the evidence for that counterfactual is, by definition, non-existent.

                    • swordfish …
                      27 May 2015 at 8:54 pm

                      To Puddleglum

                      My post-UK-Election stats (based on BBC figures)…

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-09052015/#comment-1011948

                    • Puddleglum …
                      27 May 2015 at 10:29 pm

                      Thanks swordfish – that confirms the lift for Labour in England was quite a bit greater than the lift for the Conservatives in England (as the Lib-Dems collapsed Labour, unsurprisingly, got a larger share of that collapsed vote).

                • RedLogix …
                  26 May 2015 at 1:26 pm

                  Nah – SNP didn’t need to cast about for policy – it was right there in the name. It was born of the Scottish people’s need for political representation. It was in the Parties DNA from conception.

                  Policy was merely how that need got written down at a meeting somewhere. Personality was the vehicle by which it was conveyed to the Scottish people.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    26 May 2015 at 3:19 pm

                    Yep – people don’t vote on policy – they vote on what they believe you actually stand for. Subtle but important difference.

    • Lanthanide 25.4
      26 May 2015 at 12:11 pm

      Small parties all drop their votes between elections, and pick them up running up to the campaign.

      • alwyn 25.4.1
        26 May 2015 at 12:47 pm

        I am sure that thought will be very consoling to the Labour Party.
        After all, at their current polling level they fall into the “small party” category don’t they.
        If I were a Labour supporter this poll would really worry me. It was taken before the budget. Since then we have had a pretty popular budget, an appalling budget speech by Little and a series of gaffes like the proposed means testing of National Super.
        How low can they go?

        • Lanthanide 25.4.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 12:50 pm

          Yes, second largest party in Parliament is “small”.

          We need better wing-nuts.

          • Bob 25.4.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 4:03 pm

            And yet less than half the popularity of the largest party, does that make National a “Massive”, “Enormous”, “Huge” or “Gargantuan” party?
            Not sure of the terminology to use is such a situation as I don’t think it has happened in my lifetime.

  26. Sirenia 26
    26 May 2015 at 11:55 am

    There is hope that if NZers are fair minded they will decide that it will be time for a change in 2017. Won’t need to be anything logical about it for them. Stranger things have happened.

    • Chris 26.1
      26 May 2015 at 12:17 pm

      Not if it involves a powerful green party

      • Maui 26.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 1:54 pm

        Heaven forbid that happening! We might actually ease Auckland’s traffic and housing crises. Poverty might be addressed properly, and we might look after most peeps in the country with decent social services.

        • Bob 26.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 4:06 pm

          The only people in the country with decent social services at the moment are the elderly and Labour are say that is unaffordable. The Greens better hope they get to govern alone, if they rely on Labour to make it in, social services will likely go backwards!

      • Sacha 26.1.2
        27 May 2015 at 9:02 pm

        Why are people so afraid of the Greens?

  27. John 27
    26 May 2015 at 12:16 pm

    Despite rhetoric about how right wing the govt is, the facts are they have kept major left wing policies of the Clark govt like Working for Families and KiwiSaver.

    Then they’ve added further left wing policies like
    – increase in vaccination rates for young children, and new outreach programmes for vulnerable families.
    – increase in maternity leave
    – free doctor visits for children up to 13
    – free breakfasts in poor schools
    – first non-inflation rise in benefits for over 40 years
    – increasing the minimum wage by 23% – over TWICE the rate of inflation (which was 11% over the same period)

    So there are numerous policies that are MORE left wing than the last Labour govt, therefore in many ways they’ve nibbled into Labour territory.

    On the other side the Greens seem to have reached the extreme left and decided coming back towards the middle into Labour territory will gain them more votes.

    So Labour have been squeezed by both sides, and are also losing demographics to modern technology. I.e. less of the population is made up of “working class people”.

    Add in uninspiring leadership, regular leader changes, and flip flops on CGT, Electricity Market etc (and a superannuation flipflop on the news as I write).

    I think Labour may struggle for quite a few years. IF they can get their head above water again it will be through good people and good policy.

    “Bash Key” as a number one policy, is not only ineffective – it’s counter productive for Labour, as the current poll shows.

  28. Chris 28
    26 May 2015 at 12:27 pm

    Just my opinion but I think Little is falling into Cunliffe’s trap of coming across as just negative.

    • leftie 28.1
      26 May 2015 at 12:41 pm

      @Chris
      What is there to be positive about under this National government?

      • Chris 28.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 12:47 pm

        It is fine to criticise what your party doesn’t agree with, but if you don’t have the positives of what “you” can do then it just comes across as continuous whinging

        • One Anonymous Bloke 28.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 1:02 pm

          If that’s what you believe, do you experience any sense of cognitive dissonance when National never discusses its own policies before elections?

          • Chris 28.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 1:17 pm

            It doesn’t have to be announcing policy. Just some ideas would help

            But at the moment there are so many floating around that no one knows what are still policy, not policy, will be tweaked policy, that how is anyone supposed to know what they are getting from Labour except a powerful green party?

            • Sacha 28.1.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2015 at 9:09 pm

              People need time to absorb what Labour stands for, and how they would interact with other parties to form a believable government. Political communication is about fleshing that out using staged events and well-crafted responses to current issues. But they need to know what they stand for first. And agree not to knife one another or their future coalition parties.

        • Maui 28.1.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 2:02 pm

          Yep, Labour needs to come across with a strong vision of what life will be like in NZ under them and for their voters, they need leadership. Haven’t seen that happen yet.

      • Brutus Iscariot 28.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 3:23 pm

        Statements like that are why the Left isn’t government.

        New Zealanders don’t like to be talked down to, patronised, and made to feel like they’re failing, when on the whole they’re doing pretty well. The National government at least in its rhetoric captures this mood.

        • leftie 28.1.2.1
          27 May 2015 at 9:48 am

          New Zealanders do not seem to mind John key and his government lying to them, talking down to them and patronizing them.

          Provide citation that proves “on the whole they’re doing pretty well.” Given high unemployment, high levels of poverty, and the increased numbers of working poor.

          You mean, the National government at least in its rhetoric is deceptive, and point blank lies to the nation.

          • Sacha 28.1.2.1.1
            27 May 2015 at 9:14 pm

            Problem is that not enough people are suffering – 94% are not unemployed (under the tricky definitions nations use), and enough are doing OK to keep these clowns in office.

            Saying ‘life sucks’ will not resonate with enough voters to bring Labour the votes they need. Might work for Mana, etc. Oh, about 1% you say ..

            The left needs to convince voters it has a plan for a better future and the ability to carry it out, in unity.

  29. Colin 29
    26 May 2015 at 12:52 pm

    Spot on te reo – instead of blaming the polls or treating voters as stupid, why isn’t your gaze turned inwards, wondering why voters continue to turn their back on you? There is just no self-awareness at all, just a blind belief in spite of all the evidence that everyone else is wrong and you are right. Let me give you an example:

    Cunliffe got the axe because he polled poorly (especially at the election), didn’t have the full support of the party members and the caucus, and was only leader because he had the backing of the trade union delegates. He lost the election, so clearly change was called for. And what did he get replaced with? A guy who doesn’t have the backing of the caucus or the party membership, and only got the gig because he had the backing of the trade union delegates, and is now polling just as poorly as Cunliffe was. Lessons clearly learnt! How is middle NZ supposed to believe Little is the best option for PM when even the majority of the Labour Party membership and caucus don’t think he’s best option to be Labour Party leader? Right or wrong, it makes it easy to paint the Labour Party as a puppet of the trade unions, and that is not a positive in any way.

    But really, seriously, where can Labour go? Towards the middle? National are pretty firmly entrenched there, and are doing a good enough job thanks very much – at least for the majority of those who bother to vote. JK and National are far from perfect, but better the devil you know and all that. If Labour go to the left, they’re heading into Greens territory, and most of the electorate regards them as being bat-shit crazy – so even if Labour stay where they are, and take up a coalition with Greens, they’re tainted by association – vote Labour, get the Greens – didn’t go so well last election, did it?

    It is truly unfortunate that Labour is in the state it is now; NZ would be so much the better with them as a strong opposition showing they are a credible alternative to the current government. It would keep National on it’s toes and having to be on the top of its game all the time, instead of stumbling around and basically sleepwalking its way through.

    • Colonial Rawshark 29.1
      26 May 2015 at 2:30 pm

      Cunliffe got the axe because he polled poorly (especially at the election), didn’t have the full support of the party members and the caucus, and was only leader because he had the backing of the trade union delegates. He lost the election, so clearly change was called for.

      This is all bull shit you are spouting.

      Key lost an election; it took him a second run to win. The backstabbing scheming careerist Labour caucus: sure, that was an actuality. A number of those MPs are still there. Cunliffe had the backing of a lot of the membership too – but he needed to do more work keeping the membership on board instead of the inward looking Wellington clique.

      • Brutus Iscariot 29.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 4:49 pm

        Key lost an election? Which one would that be?

      • Bob 29.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 4:53 pm

        “Key lost an election; it took him a second run to win”
        This is bullshit you are spouting CV, Brash lost the election, Key took over almost immediately after and started building a policy platform almost immediately after that, before winning the next election (whether he stuck to his policy platform or not is a different matter).
        Contrast that with Labour, who lost the last election, changed leader soon after and almost 9 months later they are still taking submissions so they can start talking about how they could potentially move forward toward the start of a policy platform! It will be just shy of the next election before they have anything to present to the public!

    • Sacha 29.2
      27 May 2015 at 9:18 pm

      “most of the electorate regards [the Greens] as being bat-shit crazy”

      Can you elaborate? What do you reckon the main issues are?

  30. ankerawshark 30
    26 May 2015 at 1:56 pm

    I think a large part of where National and Labour are at is to do with the media. If the media were hammering the problems National have created and how under Labour we do so much better (I think Blip did a post on this recently), it would be a different story. People believe what they are fed.

    • Colonial Rawshark 30.1
      26 May 2015 at 2:32 pm

      The MSM has been against the left wing for over a hundred years. The only change for Labour is that it has given away the direct communication line it had into hundreds of thousands of NZ households via union membership.

    • RedLogix 30.2
      26 May 2015 at 2:37 pm

      Just to second what CV is stating:

      It is best to think of our commercialised media as a bought and paid for propaganda machine.

      It is very slick, quite subtle and entirely effective. One of the crucial aspects to being believable is that it has to maintain an appearance of even-handedness.

      At least in the early days.

      • Colonial Rawshark 30.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 2:38 pm

        they’ll run a few anti-Key anti-National stories the year after an election…then it’s Blue all the way in from there.

      • Maui 30.2.2
        26 May 2015 at 6:11 pm

        It is very subtle, something I’ve been thinking about lately is why don’t say TV1 just not cover anything controversial to do with the National Party. Because I think they could get away with it and I don’t see what the consequences would be. But they still cover the damaging stories and their journalists still ask the searching questions, but then the next day it’s the end of the questioning.

  31. swordfish 31
    26 May 2015 at 2:23 pm

    We’re 8 months on from the last General Election.

    For comparison, here’s National’s polling during the first 8 months following the last 3 Elections (in chronological order):

    (Roy Morgan Polls in bold)

    After 2008 Election
    44……47……48……48……49……57……60……56……55……56……51……57……50……55……52……52……52……54……52……56…..54

    After 2011 Election
    47……46……46……47……46……49……51……44……50……50……48……47……45……44……47……46……46……48……48……46……48……45……48……51

    After 2014 Election
    44……50……46……50……52……50……49……49…..47……49……46……51……54

    (Note: Figures are rounded)

    • Colonial Rawshark 31.1
      26 May 2015 at 2:32 pm

      Looks to me like National are currently on track for a fourth term.

      • swordfish 31.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 2:39 pm

        We’re certainly going round in circles. Groundhog Day.

        • Colonial Rawshark 31.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 2:42 pm

          Let’s see how the Labour caucus holds up given another rough RM poll or two

          • stigie 31.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 4:07 pm

            “Let’s see how the Labour caucus holds up given another rough RM poll or two”

            Oh dear me, all i can see is them sobbing in their cornflakes.

            • weka 31.1.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 5:10 pm

              I hear them sharpening their knives. Pity they can’t find the right target.

    • RedLogix 31.2
      26 May 2015 at 2:33 pm

      So given that National’s core tribal support never goes below 45% and that Labour +Green struggle to ever get over 42% – there is your answer there.

      National Party government forever.

      • Colonial Rawshark 31.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 2:37 pm

        So given that National’s core tribal support never goes below 45%

        Except we know from English/2002 that National’s core tribal support is actually in the low 20’s.

        Something intrinsic has changed since then.

        • RedLogix 31.2.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 2:55 pm

          Yes – damn good point. I forgot that number.

          Four things have changed IMO:

          1. NZ no longer has an effective public broadcaster of any value

          2. The rise of Cosby Textor and John Key as the ideal vehicle for their strategy

          3. The exodus of native born New Zealanders and a substantial immigration of people who bring with them new patterns of voting

          4. And anyone else noticed now there is a National Party in power – Maori issues all go quiet? And how there haven’t been any RTA truckies protesting in the streets?

          • Colonial Rawshark 31.2.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 3:22 pm

            4. And anyone else noticed now there is a National Party in power – Maori issues all go quiet? And how there haven’t been any RTA truckies protesting in the streets?

            The NATs are excellent at political management.

            And the NATs have been putting through strong Treaty settlements every year. And the Brown Table now consistently votes National.

            • RedLogix 31.2.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 3:32 pm

              The Brown Table always makes the calculation that Labour are in a weaker position than National.

              The Nats can always say ‘no’ to Maori and their core voter base couldn’t care less; while if Labour threatens to say ‘no’ (ie the S&F debacle) – Maori can go all out to attack Labour while the right breakout the popcorn.

              Much the same with the Greens.

      • swordfish 31.2.2
        26 May 2015 at 3:07 pm

        Lab+Green+NZF were regularly topping 48% during National’s 2nd term (and over 50% through much of the second half of 2013). They never came close to 48% in 2008-2011. Since 2014 Election – just three times.

        • RedLogix 31.2.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 3:35 pm

          True – my calculation deliberately omitted NZF because I still do not believe Winston will ever go into a coalition with the Greens. More or less on personal principle.

          That means it has to be either Lab +Grn OR Lab + NZF.

          Neither combination ever gets over the line.

          • Colonial Rawshark 31.2.2.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 3:42 pm

            Not to mention that National will simply be pragmatic and practical about any competing deal that they extend to Winston. More baubles, fewer strings attached.

  32. weka 32
    26 May 2015 at 2:46 pm

    Do we really need another round of National cheerleading and flag waving from lefies?

    • RedLogix 32.1
      26 May 2015 at 3:01 pm

      How more years of magical “the tide will turn” thinking do we need from lefties?

      Michael Cullen said it, it’s been said more than a few time here before – but underestimating John Key is wrong and wrongzer.

      He’s this generation’s Keith Holyoake. I’m just old enough to remember him. Not that anyone actually remembers his government for doing anything – but never forget how effectively he dominated NZ politics, and locked out the left for more than a decade.

    • SHG 32.2
      26 May 2015 at 8:09 pm

      Here’s the difference between Key-era National and Labour:

      National: find out what people care about, how much they care about it, campaign on those things

      Labour: tell people what’s important and if they don’t agree they’re obviously National shills

      • Colonial Rawshark 32.2.1
        26 May 2015 at 8:24 pm

        Uh, that’s a pretty useless non-analysis.

      • b waghorn 32.2.2
        26 May 2015 at 8:29 pm

        I think you’re pretty close to the truth there so what people that want change have to do is come up with ways of shifting peoples opinions then the government will follow.

      • infused 32.2.3
        27 May 2015 at 12:02 pm

        pretty much

  33. b waghorn 33
    26 May 2015 at 2:53 pm

    Maybe labour should forget about beating national and work out how to demolish the NZF party and get some real solid environmental policies going so the greens drop back to a 6% party.

    • Colonial Rawshark 33.1
      26 May 2015 at 4:20 pm

      Yes, turning against the very MMP partners that you need to cross 50% would be a strategy that Labour would actually seriously consider.

      Thing is, I doubt that most Green voters and most NZF voters will ever go back to Labour.

      • RedLogix 33.1.1
        26 May 2015 at 4:31 pm

        So either Labour have to figure out how to manage a durable three way coalition with two parties who hate each other OR we need a completely new party on left – without the baggage Labour brings.

        OR National govern forever.

        Anyone else got any good options?

        • weka 33.1.1.1
          26 May 2015 at 5:07 pm

          The Green Party doesn’t hate NZF, what an odd thing to say. I don’t think NZF hates the GP either. Peters on the other hand…

          “National governing for ever”

          Get a grip. There are options, they get discussed on ts all the time. My suggestion the other day was for the leftie Labour voters and activists to get behind the Green Party. Change the balances of power and support the party that has its shit together and has actual left wing policies. Plus the GP has some pretty competent people as MPs, or waiting on the wings.

          • RedLogix 33.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 5:21 pm

            Well yes I was taking a shortcut there – I accept that the Greens don’t hate NZF as such. Still given the history there cannot be much love lost either.

            Probably the best option of the lot is to wait until the Minister for Courtenay Place finally retires.

            The other option of retiring the Labour Party is on my books too – but realistically there are a few elections left in that old bugger too.

            • Colonial Rawshark 33.1.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 5:27 pm

              Although if you look at Scotland, Scottish Labour were there with 40-something MPs election after election – until the time they weren’t.

            • weka 33.1.1.1.1.2
              26 May 2015 at 5:45 pm

              “Still given the history there cannot be much love lost either.”

              It’s not an issue. The GP will work with whoever on policy. Your original comment implied that a 3 way coalition was unlikely because of antipath from the Greens. That’s not true. The GP builds relationships and works with that.

        • Lanthanide 33.1.1.2
          26 May 2015 at 5:22 pm

          “Anyone else got any good options?”

          Wait for Winston to retire and NZFirst to become an also-ran. Given that they don’t have any electorates (Northland protest vote excepted for good reason – it’s not clear he’ll hold it in 2017), there’s a good chance that without Winston they’ll sink under 5% fairly quickly and that’ll be the end of them.

          Conservatives, on the other hand…

        • Bill 33.1.1.3
          26 May 2015 at 5:23 pm

          Anyone else got any good options?

          Yup. Get that society wide debate started. People are essentially ‘left leaning’ at heart, but for too many of us, our hearts are buried beneath 24/7 propaganda to the contrary and a fear of failing to ‘get ahead’.

          I’ve suggested (again and again) that AGW is a topic that impacts on most aspects of anyone’s life and ought to be the focus of a widespread and on-going public discussion. There would be a lot of fall out from such a discussion/debate.

          I’ve also contended that the Green Party are the ones in the best position to initiate that discussion.

          Apart from that, I’ve only got piecemeal stuff.

          • b waghorn 33.1.1.3.1
            26 May 2015 at 5:31 pm

            People don’t want to be told that
            A ; were are destroying our only home in the universe.
            B ; that to try and stop A happening they have to modify the way they live.

            • weka 33.1.1.3.1.1
              26 May 2015 at 5:49 pm

              We have these people whose job it is to figure out how to say things that don’t turn people off.

            • Bill 33.1.1.3.1.2
              26 May 2015 at 5:55 pm

              Turn that around.

              Politicians have to be made to listen to the fact that:

              a. their bullshit and what they support and what they tell us we must do in life, is destroying our only home in the universe.

              b. that to stop a. they will cut the crap and get real.

            • RedLogix 33.1.1.3.1.3
              26 May 2015 at 6:01 pm

              And too many still don’t want to hear anything that remotely stinks of having to use their precious bloody motor cars a bit less.

              Maybe we just have to wait until that generation dies off.

              But essentially Bill is right – Labour are the proud past of the left, the Greens are it’s future. But right now we’re stuck in this awkward transition where neither can figure out how to work with the baton.

        • Colonial Rawshark 33.1.1.4
          26 May 2015 at 5:51 pm

          Anyone else got any good options?

          The thing is that coalition partner politics is damn common in Scandanavian/European social democratic countries. Labour insists on being stuck in an FPP gear, and even believes that they can get 40%, or close to it, next election. It’s the political equivalent of ordering full steam ahead straight after Scottish Labour has radioed in the presence of icebergs.

          • Bill 33.1.1.4.1
            26 May 2015 at 6:01 pm

            …after Scottish Labour has radioed in the presence of icebergs.

            I think the sinking was too quick for them to have managed to send any S.O.S. 😉

          • Ian H 33.1.1.4.2
            27 May 2015 at 12:33 pm

            Coalition politics is what you do after the election. Labour and the Greens almost seemed to fight the last election as a coalition. It was far too cosy in my opinion.

            Actually I do have a constructive suggestion which might help Labour regain lost ground. Start attacking the Greens. The best way to convince centrist voters that you are not crazy and extreme is to attack people who are more crazy and extreme than you are.

            • Colonial Rawshark 33.1.1.4.2.1
              27 May 2015 at 12:43 pm

              Coalition politics is what you do after the election. Labour and the Greens almost seemed to fight the last election as a coalition. It was far too cosy in my opinion.

              You are quite wrong in your opinion. Coalition politics runs every month of every year in an MMP system.

              Last time around Greens and Labour did not communicate to the electorate that they could work together within a stable government, and boy did it hurt them at the polls.

              • Ian H …
                27 May 2015 at 1:31 pm

                I agree with you about stability. But the problem wasn’t that there was doubt that Labour could work with the Greens; because nobody actually doubted that. The problem was that it was very unclear how the marriage would work and (to use a slightly sexist turn of phrase) who would be wearing the pants.

      • b waghorn 33.1.2
        26 May 2015 at 4:48 pm

        Despite kiwis voting in MMP its obvious that they don’t either understand it or really want it any more, because as soon as a support party gets bigger enough to share power they shit and run back to the safety of one party.

        • Brutus Iscariot 33.1.2.1
          26 May 2015 at 4:58 pm

          The Greens have passed their high-water mark in this country.

          Demographics will tell you that – white urban liberals as a % of the population are in decline. The Greens core vote is in Ponsonby, Epsom and Grey Lynn. Those aren’t growth areas. Tellingly, the green brand simply does not resonate with the growing % of the population that are Asian/subcontinental immigrants or second generationers.

          “Waitakere Man” and/or white rural NZ’ers are a lost cause for obvious reasons. (unless the party was to tilt significantly).

          Furthermore, Maori and Pacific Islanders are more likely to vote Labour, and if they tilt further left, skip the Greens altogether and go Mana/Alliance etc.

          Not a pretty picture for them really.

          • b waghorn 33.1.2.1.1
            26 May 2015 at 5:09 pm

            The names probably part of the problem they brand them selves as a green party but they are more of a left wing party that has some good environmental policy.

          • Maui 33.1.2.1.2
            26 May 2015 at 5:43 pm

            That’s a pretty wrong call considering the Green vote has increased by 150% in the last 15 years.

          • Colville. 33.1.2.1.3
            26 May 2015 at 9:57 pm

            Greens could easily out do recent levels of support if the became a Green party rather than a bunch of watermelons.

            • Macro 33.1.2.1.3.1
              26 May 2015 at 10:26 pm

              You have no idea what your talking about!

            • Maui 33.1.2.1.3.2
              26 May 2015 at 10:57 pm

              Maybe you could launch the blue-greens party. Take two diametrically opposed values and bash them together, bound to be a winner!

  34. Reddelusion 34
    26 May 2015 at 10:22 pm

    the left are truely rooted, the perserverance of the regular die hards above however Deserves some respect no matter how deluded I see on another post they are trying to save the post office, my God only for a time machine for these people so they can go back 100!years where they would fit in

    • leftie 34.1
      27 May 2015 at 12:27 am

      I think you are deluded, and so is everyone else if they think that after all the woes key and National have, in what must be the most disastrous start to a third term by any government in this country’s history, that National can magically jump 8.5% in support in one month. This looks more like a PR campaign to save face, and hoodwink people into thinking all is fine as everything crashes and burns.

      • SHG 34.1.1
        27 May 2015 at 1:13 am

        YES. The fix is in. The entire Roy Morgan organisation is on the National payroll. IT SEEMS SO OBVIOUS NOW

        • leftie 34.1.1.1
          27 May 2015 at 3:02 am

          Why should opinion polls be excluded, when everything else under National has been corrupted?

          “New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll on voting intention was conducted by telephone – both landline and mobile telephone”

          Here is a question for you.

          How did Roy Morgan get mobile phone numbers to randomly call?

          • lprent 34.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2015 at 4:21 pm

            They buy lists or dial randomly.

            • leftie 34.1.1.1.1.1
              27 May 2015 at 9:56 pm

              @lprent

              Sounds dodgy, where would they buy lists? the telcos do not give out that kind of information, and dialing randomly would be time consuming, wouldn’t you say?

              My point is, polling methods are outdated and are unreliable given the changes in technology.

              “Cellphones make political polling tricky ”
              July 2014

              “The rise of the mobile phone is casting a shadow over the reliability of traditional telephone polling.
              There is no directory of mobile phone numbers, and more and more young people are opting to go without a landline.”

              <a href="http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/cellphones-make-political-polling-tricky-2014070616#axzz3b4VaZd3f

  35. SMILIN 35
    26 May 2015 at 10:56 pm

    The only thing im going to do for Key on foreign policy on ISIS is to tell the US if they are goin to fight is to put there forces into the Iraq Syrian Kurdistan border and fight back from there and eradicate the threat dont waste time on PR WE ARE ALL INTELLIGENT PEOPLE thats where the oil is

  36. Colin 36
    27 May 2015 at 8:38 am

    Maui said – ” Maybe you could launch the blue-greens party” with just a touch of sarcasm, but, why the hell not? The Greens go back to their roots, focus solely on the environment, dump the socialism, go into a coalition with National and actually get in to government and make a difference to our enviroment instead of just shouting from the sidelines.

    Except, of course, that they can’t dump the socialism without also dumping most of the enivronmentalism, because the two are now so inextricably linked. All the “cures” for AGW read like a socialist’s wet dream; tax, regulate, control, and a supra-national organisation (UN) redistributing wealth from rich nations to poor nations on the basis of their CO2 emissions.

    So the Greens will remain way out there on the left and will remain a problem for Labour; for the foreseeable future Labour will need the Greens seats to form a coalition government, but the prospect of having the Greens anywhere near the levers of power is enough to deter a sizeable chunk of voters from voting for Labour. Rule out any prospect of a coalition with the Greens, and Labour will struggle to get the seats they need. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    • Ian H 36.1
      27 May 2015 at 1:21 pm

      You don’t need to rule out a coalition with the Greens. However the Green averse voter needs to see where Labour will draw the line in resisting Green demands if the two end up in coalition. Part of the reason why the prospect of a Green Labour alliance seems so scary to those people is that Labour gives the impression of being willing to cave into the Greens on absolutely everything. The relationship between the two is far too cosy in my opinion.

Links to post