Roy Morgan poll

70 comments on “Roy Morgan poll ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   5 June 2010 at 8:49 am

   Sad but true in so ar as the media are largely responsible for these poll values by making a lazy, self serving (blind trusts anybody) gov’t which has just produced the largest shift in wealth from low/middle up to the rich with Budget 2011, is decimating the education/workers rights/akl/democracy (eCan) etc etc yet according to the msm they’re awesome and aren’t we lucky.

   Wake up Labour….you want power in 2011 Goff needs the chop…..he carries the spectre of Clark/Cullen and whilst he’d make a great PM hasn’t mastered the 10 sec soundbite and with our media the election will be all froth and bubble…..no substance so you can’t see them winning a campaign that’ll be all style no substance with Phildo.
   • TightyRighty 1.1

     5 June 2010 at 9:37 am

     First there’s rogue ones, then corsby/textor, an indifferent electorate, the media, moonbeams, crop circles. is there anything or anyone who isn’t to blame for labours continuing poor form? I notice labour is very rarely at fault.
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       5 June 2010 at 9:50 am

       I would’ve thought this was pretty clear:

       “Wake up Labour .you want power in 2011 Goff needs the chop”

       IMO there’s a higher chance of Cunliffe being the next PM than there is of Goff.
       • I dreamed a dream 1.1.1.1

         5 June 2010 at 11:31 am

         Replacing Goff won’t make any difference. Elections are always for the governing party to lose. Like it or not, voters vote based on the performance of the incumbent government. Usually it take more than one term for the bad performance of a government to fully affect the voters. Currently, there are issues that will contribute to the erosion of support for the government, Foreshore and Seabed, Super City, GST rise, Costs of Living rise, Mining, Kiwibank sale, Assets Sale, ACC, Early Chilhood funding, Tuhoe, “Smile and Wave”, etc, etc. and there’ll be more issues to come into play. For sure, I don’t think this government will last more than two terms if it wins Election 2011, because by the second term the winter of discontent from people suffering will truly have set in, and the NACT government will lose.

         The key question is, barring a major scandal, whether the winter of discontent will set in early enough, i.e. this term, to for the government to lose the 2011 Election.
         • Salsy 1.1.1.1.1

           5 June 2010 at 5:03 pm

           Replacing Goff won’t make any difference. Elections are always for the governing party to lose.

           Did you take a look at the UK elections? Did you notice the reaction to National when English stepped aside to let Key be the new leader?
           I believe we are in an age where leadership is everything. Ponder this: If Key were to switch over and become the Labour leader, can you imagine National still soaring ahead?
           • Marty G 1.1.1.1.1.1

             5 June 2010 at 6:02 pm

             key’s election night result was in line with what brash was polling when he resigned
           • I dreamed a dream 1.1.1.1.1.2

             5 June 2010 at 6:22 pm

             “Did you take a look at the UK elections?”

             The Conservatives in the UK did not win via leadership. It’s because Labour lost the election over a raft of issues, and Gordon Brown happened to be identified with those issues. Discontent set in during the time Brown was leader. Consider also Nick Clegg did well in debates but never pulled in the votes, in fact they did worse.

             “Did you notice the reaction to National when English stepped aside to let Key be the new leader?

             The turning point was the Orewa speech by Brash. That’s why voters’ discontent were stirred up. Again nothing to do with leadership. It’s what Brash managed to stir up. Also being in government for 3 terms caused tiredness.

             About Key, it’s not because of his leadership, it’s him stealing many of Labour’s policies, being Labour-lite. If he goes for the traditional Nats policies, he’s finished.
             • Salsy …

               5 June 2010 at 7:00 pm

               If he goes for the traditional Nats policies, he’s finished.

               Traditional National Policies circa 2003

               1. Dealing with declining New Zealand incomes and the gap in standards-of-living between New Zealand and Australia
               2. Education, specifically the number of young adults leaving school with poor literacy and numeracy skills
               3. Decreasing dependency on welfare
               4. Security, including domestic law-and-order and external defence policy
               5. Ending a perceived drift towards racial separatism in New Zealand, and the need to treat all New Zealanders equally before the law.

               I cant help seeing a pattern here..
               • Armchair Critic …

                 5 June 2010 at 8:07 pm

                 “I cant help seeing a pattern here…”
                 Me too, it’s that pattern where National say one thing and do something else, usually the opposite of what they said they would do.
       • Fisiani 1.1.1.2

         5 June 2010 at 12:29 pm

         Dissapointing poll. Incredibly there are still 3 in 10 people who would vote for Labour. And still 6 people in every 100 who are deluded in believing in Phil Goff
         • Lanthanide 1.1.1.2.1

           5 June 2010 at 12:49 pm

           Yes, it is surprising that both numbers aren’t higher.
     • lprent 1.1.2

       5 June 2010 at 1:29 pm

       I’d suggest that you appear to ignore opinion and commentary that doesn’t match your preconceptions. For instance, what does it say at the end of Dancr’s post?

       But then dumbarse wingnuts (like you?) appear to ignore anything that they can’t explain with a glib phrase.

       Don’t be such a ignorant and unobservant troll…
       • jcuknz 1.1.2.1

         5 June 2010 at 4:23 pm

         It suggests I visit another site, but really at this stage of the election cycle does it matter if he goes or not … I don’t know enough to say either way. But it disturbs me that ‘tc’ repeats the falsehood about the budget stealing from the poor to pay the rich … such obvious errors will not gain support.
         A tax cut doesn’t take money from anybody but simply leaves more money in the worker’s pocket, at whatever income level they are.
         • Lanthanide 1.1.2.1.1

           5 June 2010 at 5:01 pm

           The money that the rich people were going to be paying to the government, which in turn would mostly be redistributed to the benefit of the poor, is now not being paid to the government.

           Instead, the government has raised GST, so now money that would have stayed in the pockets of the poor is going to the government.

           You might like to try and spin it as not “stealing money from the poor to give to the rich” but that is the ACTUAL OUTCOME of the changes they have made and doesn’t change whatever silly semantic games you want to play.
2. really 2

   5 June 2010 at 8:58 am

   You need to chop more than Goff, try all the aging rump of the Clark years. ya know?
   • Jilly Bee 2.1

     5 June 2010 at 10:56 am

     According to N Z Herald this morning – Pete Hodgson is not seeking re-election in 2011. I agree – it’s time for some more of that ilk on both sides of the house to throw in the towel.
     • jcuknz 2.1.1

       5 June 2010 at 4:31 pm

       It is front page of the ODT too. So that he has time to put his post parliament time to productive use … he’ll be 61yo at the next election. Asked if he thought John Key would give him ‘some post’ he said “No way!” …. it doesn’t specify if that will be because JK won’t be PM then 🙂
3. kriswgtn 3

   5 June 2010 at 10:06 am

   and then go through national and get rid of Smith ,English Brownlee- they been there since like forever
4. Marty G 4

   5 June 2010 at 10:07 am

   there’s that post-budget bounce i was expecting.

   it won’t last
   • I dreamed a dream 4.1

     5 June 2010 at 11:08 am

     Yes, I agree entirely that the Roy Morgan poll relects the post-Budget bounce.

     When I saw the post-budget Colmar Brunton poll, I was shocked that it did not help National. This Roy Morgan poll is in line with my expectations.

     And I wouldn’t be surprised if the TV3 poll (this weekend?) gives the Nats a boost as well.

     It’s the subsequent polls in a few weeks’ time that will tell the real picture, i.e. as to whether the underlying trend (Nats slide and Labour consolidation) will continue or not. Those upcoming polls will be the milestones that show more clearly whether Labour will have a chance or not.

     But much better news from the Auckland front though, in terms of the Supercity Mayoralty. Latest UMR survey has Len Brown 52% vs John Banks 35% (lead of 17%), broken down as follows: Manukau City Brown 66 vs Banks 25, Auckland City 48 vs 39, Waitakere City 44 vs 37, North Shore City 41 vs 45. Brown is trailing only in the North Shore, but he’s working his way up through Auckland City now and will soon be in the North Shore. (Source: Manukau Courier, 4 June 2010).
     • Nick C 4.1.1

       6 June 2010 at 12:54 am

       And i suppose the last 12 months of good polls have been the 2009 post budget bounce?
   • mickysavage 4.2

     5 June 2010 at 3:54 pm

     It was way bigger than I though but I am an optimist.

     This is a good lesson in Government 101. A budget tends to nuke the opposition publicity unless it is really bad. They then have to spend the next 6 months working out where the cuts are and publicising the damage that is being caused. Night school classes is an example of this.
5. Emp 5

   5 June 2010 at 10:51 am

   Dancr you are the most honest and least partisan poster here and you show that even with anonymity you can ask sensible questions. Good on you for asking the right questions.
   • Marty G 5.1

     5 June 2010 at 11:00 am

     don’t mistake dancr’s criticism of goff for any lack of leftwing politics
6. Redbaron 6

   5 June 2010 at 10:54 am

   The poll reconfirms the degree to which National have managed to capture the imagination of the voting public since 2008. However if the poll accurately captures the public sentiment then it would appear the deciding majority are also in favour of the current Government’s policies. This includes for instance the recent budget where 50% of working people will at best break even and will be worse off if a major unanticipated expense crops up post-budget; full scale mining in the national parks; and plans to privatise a bit or all of Kiwibank.

   In Auckland the poll and the others preceding would suggest that most Aucklanders have for a long time been at ease with the corporatist blueprint of their new supercity and what this entails – in particular the potential loss of previously enjoyed opportunities for their voice to be heard and taken into account by decision makers. Furthermore one can reasonably surmise that the majority are also sanguine about the prospect of previously unmooted increases in rates and council charges down the line in order to cover blow-outs in the cost of the new supercity’s establishment?

   Somehow this doesn’t ring true to me. It is most unlikely that the majority of the voting public are politically nihilistic – the turnout pattern at general elections strongly suggests they are not. However what it does indicate is that the deciding vote continues to be cold toward the left of centre. There are a number factors driving this. However it also means that we have a lot of work ahead of us…
   • RedLogix 6.1

     5 June 2010 at 2:56 pm

     (I originally blogged for many years as just Logix, but when registering here someone else apparently had pinched the name…in a moment of thoughtlessness I prefixed a Red on it and now I wish I hadn’t because it’s become a bit of a cliche.)

     But yes your comment really hits the spot. Do the majority of people REALLY support the nihilistic policies of this govt or is there something else at play here? Is it just the blatant media bias? Is it just the powerful manipulations of C/T?

     Partly I think contemporary NZ culture is shallow-rooted and feckless; we so lack a sense of shared history and values that our aspirations barely rise above the merely personal, the small business, the beemer, the bach…the blondie to bonk. In one generation the notion of public service has become an object of ridicule, and we’ve almost completely abandoned our capacity to act collectively.

     In this Helen Clark’s deep and extensive promotion of the arts was pointed in the right direction…but alas blown back in our face by an overwhelming torrent of imported Americana.

     If for instance we had truly understood how much entities like NZ Post and NZ Rail had been an expression of who we were as a people, of how hard our elders had worked to bring them about, and how much they underpinned our unique identity as a nation….we would not have one instant tolerated their sale. By contrast the sheer numbers of us who have experienced our wilderness first hand and value it deeply, meant that Brownlee never stood a chance at his dreams of digging it up.

     Where the left has gone astray is that we have lost contact with the people in an emotional, cultural sense. It’s why I still admire Chris Trotter because he still understands and remembers where we came from as a people and exactly those moments when we began to forget.
     • Ag 6.1.1

       5 June 2010 at 6:47 pm

       This is the endgame of democracy. In the end, a political party ends up being just another product to be sold to individuals who pay with their votes, and political parties are now created and marketed as products (focus groups anyone?). Markets don’t work to provide many of the things that we as a society need, and they don’t work to provide decent government. Crappy neoliberal governments are what democracy looks like. The amount of energy expended by the political left to avoid admitting that this is true could power the Sun. Enough already. Democratic politics is managerial, and consists of having a good brand and not much else.
       • just saying 6.1.1.1

         6 June 2010 at 9:47 am

         Extremely well said Ag.

         ‘The amount of energy expended by the political left to avoid admitting that this is true could power the sun’ – The elephant in the Standardista room.

         Admitted privately occasionally by some, I’m sure, but tucked away in the ‘better we don’t think about that and everything that entails’ file 99 percent of the time.

         I can’t agree about the inevitability of this, because ‘all that entails’ becomes unthinkable, as you follow the threads to their natural conclusions Hell if you really take a cold hard look at what the left is blithely accepting of right now, in the smug, ‘I’m alright Jack’, sprit of There Is No Alternative, you are chilled to the bone.

         I hope like hell the Labour marketing campaign doesn’t continue to prevail, because it might just set the politics of NZCorp in concrete for many more years to come.
     • Nick C 6.1.2

       6 June 2010 at 1:00 am

       And thank god we did sell them. Otherwise poverty and debt would have become an expression of who we are as a people.

       The situation in 1984 when labour took over wasnt pretty.
   • the pinkpostman 6.2

     5 June 2010 at 4:18 pm

     My wife says serve them right they voted National and the get whacked.
     Unfortunatly I am finding that I am begging to agree with her.
     What is it with working people when they continuously vote for an anti-worker party.They crushed the unions thus reducing working conditions over night. They are about to reduce holidays and the mininum wage is a joke.
     I could go on and on ,we all know what the barstards are like , yet workers still put them in parliament what the hells wrong with them.
     Even solo mums and the unemployed .I had one young unemployed fellow tell me at the last election he was voting National because National believed in full employment, and a Solo Mum who believed the Nats loved solo mums and would raise the DPB . One does not need to ask why the Nats win elections .
     • jcuknz 6.2.1

       5 June 2010 at 4:59 pm

       The reason that I was ambivilant about John Key becoming PM was that for this term with minor exceptions he is maintaining the socialistic approach of the previous Government and National under JK is acting reasonably for the conditions we are living in. True there are the far right in NACT who make me worried about a second term. There are also the stupid gaffes by supporting players just like what followed Labour’s win a decade ago.
       I think the examples you quote are rather sad but we know that the knowledge level about politics in the average voter is pretty low. If leftwing continue to hammer the end of democracy with regard to Auckland people will get sick of it and ignore it. For the average person who knows he hasn’t a dogs show in hell of influencing the Council it doesn’t matter if he’s voting, if he can be bothered, for one in a thousand or one in a hundred thousand.
       I wonder if these trivialities such as vasectomy and trusts are just smoke screen to keep the public from thinking about serious issues. I would have said that the Governments disinclination to raise the tax on alchohol is more the likely outrage by the boozers than JK’s ownership of 1/10th of a vineyard. And didn’t he have 100,000 shares in something else? even if they were Allied Farmers, which I doubt. Sounds like 1/10 is small beer to him.
7. Dancr 7

   5 June 2010 at 11:10 am

   actually my question wasn’t meant as a criticism – it was actually a question! is the trip a good use of time, can it get Goff local coverage, would it be better for someone else to go in his place, who is going to fill the media space in his absence, can Labour afford not to have someone else fill the space, is enough going on that it doesn’t matter? Those sorts of questions lead to strategic decision making. Then if you disagree with the call (in this case that Goff goes on the trip) you know that the case has been made, and that there’s a plan.
   • Emp 7.1

     5 June 2010 at 11:52 am

     Those are very good questions Dancr. Let me respond by asking another question. Has anything Goff done in a week in New Zealand helped his poll rating? Did his axe the tax bus campaign when he toured the country assist labour’s chances?

     Goff doesn’t seem to be able to get anything right in New Zealand. He can’t control his own caucus while he’s here, gollum doing another h fee smear and Mallard still acting like he’s a cabinet minister prime examples. Goff isn’t filling the media space very well while he’s in New Zealand anyway.

     Goff will never be prime minister. It’s hard to see that anyone else on labour’s front bench will either.
     • the pinkpostman 7.1.1

       5 June 2010 at 4:28 pm

       Bullshit ! The one thing Labour has in its favour is the input at the last election of young very talented people / Jacinda Ardern, Nash. Moroney , Twford ect. What we are doing wrong is that we are not using and advertising this new intake enough .Lets get them out and about Now!!
       • Oscar 7.1.1.1

         6 June 2010 at 11:48 am

         And the likes of Nash, because he’s a bit too Right for the party, may not get back in, come 2011, simply because he’s not high up on the list enough.

         I look at the front bench, and I grimace now. The left complains about the boogeymen of the National front bench having been there since the 90’s, yet the likes of Dickhead Carter, Trev Mallard, Moony King, Fillin Goff, Pete Hodgson, Ruth Dyson and Wharekura Horromia have been in for the entire decade and more.
         They should be on the backbenches providing support where needed. Not leading the attack on the government.

         Of course, if Goff really wants to make a mark, he’d reshuffle the caucus and stam,p his authority on the rest of the party, something he hasn’t even come close to doing.
8. mickysavage 8

   5 June 2010 at 3:58 pm

   Emp you miss the point. The axe the tax tour really struck a chord. Believe me I was there when it started and it was the beginning of Goff showing that he is an alternative leader. It will not happen overnight but it will hopefully happen in time for the next election.

   And Labour’s caucus is remarkably solid and united.

   Don’t worry about the H fee. Of course Labour had to check it. And be aware that Key’s invincibility is now gone.
   • RedLogix 8.1

     5 June 2010 at 4:10 pm

     Don’t worry about the H fee. Of course Labour had to check it

     At the time I thought Mike Smith went down the wrong rabbit hole with the h-fee matter. There remains something fishy about Key’s CV at that period. The statements he has made on the record about what he was doing at the time do not correlate properly. There must be a reason for this, and it will not be a pretty one.

     All it will take is a determined researcher and an insider willing to spill. It won’t be the crime that will get Key, it will be the cover-up. It always is and in the long-run he cannot avoid it.

     [lprent: Mike Williams – not Mike Smith. Just because they have the same first name doesn’t mean that they are the same person…….]
     • Adrian 8.1.1

       5 June 2010 at 6:02 pm

       I agree Red, it’s really murky around the H-fee. Item 1, I always thought that Mike Smith went to Oz because he had heard that a Herald reporter was already there sniffing around the records. What did they know. Item 2, the signature on the document. Here in the backblocks we get the real early edition of the Dom (so that it can get on the plane) and on the front page was a comparison of Key’s signature and the actual one on the docos and boy they look similar. Key denied it and said it was somebody elses, this somebody of course was not found. I tried to get a later copy of this edition but it had the denial but with the signatures removed, possibly before it even hit Wellington streets. Funny that. If anyone has a copy and was able to get a handwriting expert to look at it, it may make interesting reading.
       • lprent 8.1.1.1

         5 June 2010 at 8:18 pm

         Mike Smith went to Oz

         I suspect you mean Mike Williams *sigh* Just because they have the same first name, it doesn’t mean that they are the same person.

         Just like I’m Lynn, and my partners name is Lyn. Doesn’t mean that we’re the same person…
         • Adrian 8.1.1.1.1

           5 June 2010 at 8:39 pm

           Sorry my mistake, I’ve put up so many hoardings with Mike Smith’s name on them it must have become imprinted a bit too much.
           • Mac1 8.1.1.1.1.1

             6 June 2010 at 10:35 am

             Adrian, I hope you weren’t too imprinted by the main message of those other hoardings! (Private joke, everyone).
     • RedLogix 8.1.2

       5 June 2010 at 8:39 pm

       Sorry …total brainfart.
   • Inventory2 8.2

     5 June 2010 at 4:42 pm

     @ mickysavage – your dedication to the cause is impressive; however it’s a clear fact that the Axe the Tax tour lost much of its impact when Goff was pressed on the issue and said that Labour probably wouldn’t Axe the Tax at all. He wasn’t helped by Jacinda Ardern’s confession on Breakfast (4 March 2010) that the slogan “probably should have been Axe the Tax Rise, but that doesn’t look snappy on a billboard”.

     As far as Labour goes, not having gained any ground despite the government slipping in one poll, and dropping 3.5 percentage points in another whilst the government gained is really, really bad news.
     • mickysavage 8.2.1

       5 June 2010 at 8:22 pm

       it’s a clear fact that the Axe the Tax tour lost much of its impact when Goff was pressed on the issue and said that Labour probably wouldn’t Axe the Tax at all

       You mean like John Key when he said he would not sell Kiwibank and then he said he would and then he said he might and then he said he might not and then he said that he would have to wait until after the next election?

       Goff was being responsible. Of course he should not do something if the country’s finances made it the wrong decision.

       Should he have lied now and then said later that he had been misunderstood?
     • Armchair Critic 8.2.2

       5 June 2010 at 9:20 pm

       “As far as Labour goes, not having gained any ground…whilst the government gained is really, really bad news.”
       Umm, nah, the question was “if an election were held tomorrow…” Here’s a news flash – an election won’t be held tomorrow. It’s a mid-cycle poll. While it doesn’t contain any good news for Labour, it is not really really bad news. And there’s another one out in two weeks.
9. the pinkpostman 9

   5 June 2010 at 3:59 pm

   Can this poll be true .I have serious doubts .Who do they ask ands where,
   However having said that there is no doubt the Left is doing something wrong.We need to hit the headlines .How about promising the Rail connection between Hamilton and Auckland? That will win both Hamilton seats .Make it impossible for any goverment to sell Kiwi
   • Salsy 9.1

     5 June 2010 at 4:50 pm

     So the question for labour really is why does National remain so popular? Not a dent despite hugely unpopular policies, means only a few possibilities:

     a). Voters believe they are in a true democracy … Negative public reaction mean policies are revoked until a publically presentable option is found (or forced through under urgency) – therefore National are trustworthy if keenly watched and micromanaged

     b). The voting public are entirely self interested…. Doubtfull..

     c). The alternatives are worse..Most likely..

     Since I believe C to be the case, I find it all the more frustrating to see Labour simply refuse to investigate, poll and test to find out why the country is not at least starting to flock back. They have the resources to know this by now.

     Perhaps Labour already have all the answers and are playing a game of strategy. Sadly I doubt it. With National continuing to soar in the polls even through the tough times, and stalled Labour refusing to rethink the leadership, perhaps there was a game, and its all but over.
     • gobsmacked 9.1.1

       5 June 2010 at 6:12 pm

       All but over? Blimey, that’s taking pessimism to new lows.

       In 2011, the primary goals for the broad centre-left are a) preventing a National/ACT majority, and b) defending MMP. Both those goals are very achievable, and very important. If achieved, it will finish off the hard Right for a generation.

       National are not “soaring in the polls”. The trend is steadily down, over many months, before this one poll, which contradicts the one other post-Budget poll.

       If National are so bullet-proof, why do they keep backing down at the merest hint of unpopularity – like Kiwibank, mining, Tuhoe, etc? Clearly they don’t think the election is a foregone conclusion, so why should we?
10. aj 10

    5 June 2010 at 7:37 pm

    And if they are really so high in the polls we wouldn’t see the Nats …
    1/ being so skittish and sensitive on issues like mining and assest sales
    2/ Key being kept out of interviews where he would be exposed eg Plunkett
11. gobsmacked 11

    5 June 2010 at 9:05 pm

    Speaking of polls, and backing down … How will this one play out next week? Could it be the government’s biggest drama yet?

    Friday PM: Iwi leaders have rejected the Government’s proposed reform for the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

    “About 100 iwi representatives met in Auckland this afternoon to discuss a plan to be taken to Cabinet next week to replace Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed with a regime where no one is considered to own it.
    …
    Ngai Tahu chair Mark Solomon says what’s offered falls far short of what iwi are seeking.

    “We did put a proposal and the proposal was the foreshore be vested, not a title, that it be vested equally in the treaty partners on behalf of all New Zealanders, that it be vested as a taonga tuku iho, in other words that it’s inalienable, it can never be sold. The Crown flatly rejected that concept,’ Mr Solomon says.

    The Crown has indicated it wants the issue settled by the end of the year, or it is off the table and the existing legislation remains in force.

    (from Radio Waatea – emphaisis added)

    Commentators routinely tell us that the Maori Party’s big gain is repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. But they’re wrong.

    It hasn’t been repealed. For the benefit of any lurking MSM commentators (hi, love your work!), here it is, one more time: It. Has. Not. Been. Repealed.

    So will it be? Will Key do a “Tuhoe” on the Maori Party? Will the Maori Party cave? Will Hone Harawira walk? (answers – yes, yes, and yes).

    Tune in next week for the big fight!
    • I dreamed a dream 11.1

      5 June 2010 at 9:57 pm

      If the Maori do not accept the Nats’ proposals, Key will do a Tuhoe to great effect. He’ll tell the Maori to take it or leave it, and it will result in the status quo with the Foreshore and Seabed Act intact. Sure, they may alienate the Maori, but Key would probably gamble that more pakeha will rally behind the Nats to give them a bigger majority to govern alone in 2011. It’s sad in this modern day and age, the race card is still a very powerful card for any political party. The general public is not interested in the nitty gritty of politics that we discuss in blogs like this. The general public vote based on self-interest — in the case of F & S, it’s pakeha vs Maori.
      • gingercrush 11.1.1

        5 June 2010 at 10:37 pm

        Its stupid vs stupid if you ask me. At the end of the day. The Foreshore and Seabed between the government and Maori has come down to symbolism. Of course in politics symbolism is everything.
    • gingercrush 11.2

      5 June 2010 at 10:36 pm

      National should fold over and accept what Maori want in relation to ownership. That is fundamentally what its come down to now. No mention of anything else but ownership. In other words Iwi are quite happy with everything else in relation to the Foreshore and Seabed but what they and National can’t come together on is ownership.

      Ownership is everything. It might not actually change what rights Maori have in relation to the foreshore and seabed. But that matter of ownership is of course what the original fight between Maori and non-maori was all about. That’s why Labour struggled so much with the matter and why National originally got so much coverage with it.

      For National giving into Maori is rather easy except for where the matter is ownership. For while it won’t change access to the beaches and while they’re happy to give rights to Maori that non-Maori may not have. For ownership brings back to what the issue was about in the first place.

      Personally to me both sides are being stupid. Here you have the foreshore and seabed and National have given more rights than you currently have. The fundamentals are all there. Yet one can’t agree on ownership for each position is untenable to the other. Politics can be mightily stupid sometimes. For both sides in the end it comes down to symbolism and symbolism only.
12. Santi 12

    5 June 2010 at 9:38 pm

    Goff, the gift that keeps giving, and the fastest way to Labour’s catastrophic defeat in 2011.
13. Geo 13

    6 June 2010 at 12:04 am

    The polls are not about Phil Goff.They are about polling.Who knows what lies ahead.
    Do I trust the party to grow.Yes.In time for the election.Yes.Are we just a leader.NO.
    If we do not have the policies in place or the structure to deliver them to the New Zealand voters we will lose.If we have I think we have a fighting chance.I live for that battle.
14. infused 14

    6 June 2010 at 12:05 am

    Labour are not getting any votes because of what we’ve been saying for along time. Goff is a door nob. Labour is not going to progress with him. Labour are still out of touch. No one cares/trusts Labour policies.

    The biggest for me is, I still don’t know what Labour stand for. Goff and the Labour party are all over the show. Trying to get a headline here, headline here, just for the sake of getting a headline. It’s coming across as desperate.

    Anyone ignoring the Goff problem needs to take another look. Very unscientific, but asking many of my friends, no one has faith at all in Goff. Many ask why he’s still there.
15. swimmer 15

    6 June 2010 at 3:13 pm

    I see the knives are out for Goff from the right. I tend to agree with I dreamed a dream it wouldn’t make any difference getting rid of Goff. I think Labour does need to get more traction on some of these issues. It’s not so much that Labour or Goff are doing anything horribly wrong, it’s that National is popular.
16. Santi 16

    6 June 2010 at 3:18 pm

    The longer you deny it, the better it gets for Key & co. Goff is no opposition, no leader, no new idea, so he needs to go.

    You keep dreaming with Goff and the nightmare will continue. I sincerely hope so 🙂
17. swimmer 17

    6 June 2010 at 3:26 pm

    I think in getting rid of Goff Labour would be giving the right exactly what they want, no leader and no opposition.
    • Brett 17.1

      6 June 2010 at 3:34 pm

      Labour doesn’t have a leader and sucks as alternative to National.
      Time to rebuild guys.
18. swimmer 18

    6 June 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Hard to rebuild something that was never really broken in the first place.
19. belladonna 19

    6 June 2010 at 3:55 pm

    It seems the left have little confidence in Labour with Goff at the helm so why would anyone think those swinging voters will have. I heard him comment on TV that Helen had low polling at the start as that was justification for his low polling which seems to be a little naive to me. I am sure he is a nice guy but he just doesnt have what it takes to be PM. Have Labour decided to give next election a miss and concentrate on the next one. What makes them think they will get into govt then!
    They need to get some courage and take a chance on a new leader -what exactly will they lose.
    A slightly inexperienced leader with an experienced deputy leader could work – we are desperate arent we.
20. swimmer 20

    6 June 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Giving the next election a miss? What a daft idea. If anything they should be doing the opposite and thinking the opposition of everything that you wrote in your comment. As for your last sentence, that sounds like a very party damaging idea. It was hard to read your comment as it was revolving.
21. Salsy 21

    6 June 2010 at 5:07 pm

    As for your last sentence, that sounds like a very party damaging idea

    Have you looked at the set-up over on the right lately? The National party did very well using an experienced but not-so-popular deputy along with completely inexperienced leader. In fact its quite obviously a recipe for success – personality that suits the public out the front, policies come a dismal last.
    • I dreamed a dream 21.1

      6 June 2010 at 5:48 pm

      It’s not so much the inexperienced leader-experienced deputy combination that made them successful at the last election. Don’t be fooled by Key. Key is very experienced in spin. He’s fooled people into thinking the Nats are an improved version of Labour. He tells people what they want to hear and hides their real agenda. But alas, people are fools and they’ll wake up one day when the Nats’ real agenda hit home. Hopefully they’ll wake up in time for Election 2011. Otherwise, the election (2014?) after that should be safe for the Left because by then the reality would really have hit and people would truly have woken up.
22. swimmer 22

    6 June 2010 at 5:15 pm

    I don’t think that an inexperienced leader with an experienced deputy is in itself a good thing. I think that National pulled off a very clever campaign. I prefer substance to personality, not that Goff lacks that.
    • Salsy 22.1

      6 June 2010 at 8:53 pm

      Hopefully they’ll wake up in time for Election 2011. Otherwise, the election (2014?) after that should be safe for the Left because by then the reality would really have hit and people would truly have woken up.

      Okay great, Ill just sit back and wait for 2014…

      I think that National pulled off a very clever campaign.

      What..and Labour cant????

      I prefer substance to personality, not that Goff lacks that.

      Yes, I agree that policy should be foremost, but we make up only 6% of the voting public, its the other 94% who need the personality type. Since they are the majority should there not be concessions made for them?
23. swimmer 23

    6 June 2010 at 9:00 pm

    I never said Labour couldn’t pull off a clever campaign. Er, if you’re in the 6% doesn’t that make you a Goff fan? Key is one type of personality, no two leaders have the same personality. Concessions? Why? There’s nothing wrong with Goff’s personality.
    • Salsy 23.1

      6 June 2010 at 9:26 pm

      Sorry what i mean to say is : yes i agree in substance over personality, yes im a labour voter and would vote for Goff but you and me and around 4 more out of each hundred kiwi voters is not good enough. IMO Labour needs to engage with the public via the leadership.
24. swimmer 24

    6 June 2010 at 9:37 pm

    I agree with you, and I hope they do just that. 🙂

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS