The prospects of a snap election

85 comments on “The prospects of a snap election ”

• Comments are now closed

1. James Simpson 1

   10 June 2022 at 2:23 pm

   Why on earth would Jacinda go to the polls now where there is a reasonable prospect of losing? It would be dumbest move since the drunk Pig did it in 1984.
   • Blade 1.1

     10 June 2022 at 7:17 pm

     Drunk Pig? What are you talking about?

     ''Why on earth would Jacinda go to the polls now where there is a reasonable prospect of losing?''

     I was about to answer that then decided it would be a wasted effort.
2. Puckish Rogue 2

   10 June 2022 at 2:28 pm

   The death of a thousand cuts is starting to take effect
   • Tony Veitch (not etc.) 2.1

     10 June 2022 at 2:32 pm

     Rather – wishful thinking by the Natz.

     They know the longer Luxon is in the media limelight, the more his incompetence and religious fundamentalism will be exposed.
     • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1

       10 June 2022 at 2:38 pm

       You didn't see many comments about leadership changes a year or so ago.

       It now feels like everyday theres a story about crime or housing, wasn't happening a year or so ago.

       'They know the longer Luxon is in the media limelight, the more his incompetence and religious fundamentalism will be exposed.'

       Remember when Key was first made National leader, then it was hes just a flash money man, he'll be exposed

       Didn't work out so well for Labour then

       Same with Ardern, when she was first made Labour leader it was shes inexperienced, shes got a nice smile and nothing else, she'll be exposed

       Didn't work out so well for National then
       • Blade 2.1.1.1

         10 June 2022 at 7:39 pm

         Well said PR.

         The health system is about to collapse. It's so bad senior doctors are leaking information to media. In my area seeing the doctor you have enrolled with will take days, even weeks.

         Crime? Out of control. Station employee stabbed today.

         https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/06/auckland-transport-staffer-rushed-to-hospital-after-being-stabbed-on-sylvia-park-train-station-platform.html

         Maori – Out of control re racist legislation. Where's ya proof? Were do I start? Tonight on 3 News it was said the home bowel screening programme will be brought down to start at 50 years old because of the increase in bowel cancer. The catch? It's not for you whitey…but only for Maori and Polynesians. Bloody disgusting.

         https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/06/five-year-wait-for-nationwide-cancer-screening-has-cost-kiwis-their-lives-bowel-cancer-nz.html

         Education? Completely stuffed.

         https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/06/school-principal-warns-of-horrendous-consequences-for-new-zealand-amid-truancy-crisis.html

         I won't rant on. Is Mickey right? At the moment probably. But he should be aware NZ is a powder keg of issues that could blow our once great nation apart at any moment. Unless National shoot themselves in the foot multiple times, how can things improve for Labour leading up to the election? That's when the call may go out for an early election.

         If I was advising Jacinda, I would be briefing her on various exit strategies.
         • Grafton Gully 2.1.1.1.1

           10 June 2022 at 7:57 pm

           "Tonight on 3 News it was said the home bowel screening programme will be brought down to start at 50 years old because of the increase in bowel cancer. The catch? It's not for you whitey…but only for Maori and Polynesians."

           Makes sense to me because (my bold) finding it early by screening means less likely to have spread so more likely curable

           "Māori and Pacific patients <75 had worse all-cause and cancer-specific survival than New Zealand European. Historically, Māori have a lower incidence of CRC compared to New Zealand European,22–24 but this incidence has been rising.5 Our data are consistent with poorer health outcomes often observed in Māori and Pacific cancer patients in New Zealand6,25–28 and is in line with reported survival rates of indigenous and ethnic minority populations in other countries.23,29–32 Of interest was the finding that in the over 75 year age group, while Pacific patients had poorer survival (OR 1.35) compared with New Zealand European, outcomes for Māori were similar (OR 1.06). Factors contributing to the ethnic disparities seen in New Zealand cancer care are well documented; Māori experience more inequalities/barriers when accessing health services than non-Māori,27,28 experience a lower level of care from those services26 and do not get the same access to treatment.33 Māori and Pacific patients are also more likely to present with metastatic disease,6,28,34,35 experience delays to diagnosis6 and present to the emergency department compared to non-Māori /non-Pacific patients.6 Disease biology and culture (eg, diet, help-seeking behaviour),27 deprivation level,6 and higher levels of comorbidity for Māori and Pacific patients6,28,31,33,36 are also factors that contribute to these disparities."

           https://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/the-characteristics-and-outcomes-of-patients-with-colorectal-cancer-in-new-zealand-analysed-by-cancer-network#:~:text=Patient%20and%20tumour%20characteristics%20by,and%20only%205.4%25%20were%20Māori.
           • Blade 2.1.1.1.1.1

             10 June 2022 at 8:18 pm

             Look, I'm not going to argue the toss with you. We both have different opinions on this issue. Your comment makes complete sense from the medical treatment perspective.

             I see it as a racist two tier system that cannot be sustained without a deadly backlash at some stage because it will be a death sentence for some European. The uptake of Maori doing the home screening is a moot point. From my experience it's roughly a 50/50 split of Maori participating in the programme.

             ''Māori experience more inequalities/barriers when accessing health services than non-Māori''

             I also don't agree with that. Talkback has asked Maori representatives time and again to outline examples of inequalities/barriers in our health systems. None could. That's because there are few. There are now way more racist doctors and nurses around. The reason? They have had a gutsful of abuse and non compliance of Maori to follow treatment advice.
             • Incognito …

               10 June 2022 at 10:01 pm

               I won’t ask you to link to those alleged talk-back shows because you simply refuse to front up and support your assertions because facts don’t matter to you.

               A simple Google search, however, gives plenty of info, which you’ll probably ignore too, as usual, because of weak methods, weak data, and mostly because it doesn’t fit with your narrative and doesn’t confirm your bias.

               Table 3. Barriers to health experienced by Māori patients and their whānau.

               https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1753-6405.12971

               Experiences of Māori of Aotearoa New Zealand's public health system: a systematic review of two decades of published qualitative research
               • Blade …

                 10 June 2022 at 11:04 pm

                 ''I won’t ask you to link to those alleged talk-back shows because you simply refuse to front up and support your assertions because facts don’t matter to you.''

                 It's a fluid medium and I usually catch the tail end of interviews. I have now taken to having a pad near the radio so I can take some notes. The first result is the interview with Sir Lockwood Smith on the HWEN thread. ( incidentally, probably the best interview on this topic, on this blog)

                 Now, do you know why those spokespeople on talkback couldn't give answers to simple questions? It's because they are used to talking and writing in lingo like this from your link.

                 ''Methods: A systematic search using PRISMA protocols and reflexive typology organised around the categories of Māori, public healthcare and qualitative research identified 14 papers that covered all three categories. We undertook a qualitative metasynthesis on these papers using a critical community psychology approach.''

                 ''Correspondingly, Māori families accessing hospital care for a child encounter systemic barriers.13 Biomedical and reductionist models that focus on presenting symptoms dominate health research approaches,14, 15 and the experiences of marginalised groups are subsumed into dominant individualistic, colonial narratives.15 In short, Māori healthcare needs are not being met.''

                 Sounds fantastic. Very important. Vey concise and well researched.

                 But when taken off this reservation of puffery and asked a simple question demanding an objective answer grounded in reality…they flounder.

                 How do I reach my conclusions. Simple, I ask people I know who work in the health system. Most admit they have little time for Maori. And it shows. When I have had appointments at hospital clinics, or I have accompanied family members, at least 50% of doctors and nurses treat me/us disrespectfully. I have to earn their respect( that annoys me). But here's the thing, once I/we have shown the doctors we have done what they ask…they change and fall over backwards for us. Never have a problem with them again. Eg:

                 I took an old aunt for an out patients appointment. The doctor was at his desk holding his chin in one hand( body language sign for negative thoughts) He tersely introduced himself and said '' I don't suppose you brought your medications with you?'' I said ''Yes, we have them. We also have her discharge papers from her last stay in hospital and a GPs letter.''

                 Lol.. he looked up in surprise and said good… good.. very good. He now looks after aunt like his own mother. Hell, the staff have to make her a cuppa after her appointment. Why the change? Because he had some Maoris who actually met him half way.

                 Yes, you are correct. I reject most of your korero.
                 • Sacha …

                   11 June 2022 at 10:58 am

                   What is "disgusting" are ignorant fools braying their flatulent reckons about complex population health programmes based on talkback and anecdata.

                   The case for reduced screening ages for equity is not at all in doubt. Should have been done from the get-go, as experts advised. I worked alongside many of them at the time.

                   You are just embarrassing yourself.
                   • Blade …

                     11 June 2022 at 2:42 pm

                     '''What is "disgusting" are ignorant fools braying their flatulent reckons about complex population health programmes based on talkback and anecdata.''

                     What would you know?

                     'The case for reduced screening ages for equity is not at all in doubt.''

                     Can you read? I have written this to Grafton Gully.

                     ''Look, I'm not going to argue the toss with you. We both have different opinions on this issue. Your comment makes complete sense from the medical treatment perspective.''

                     What about Pakeha, Sacha?

                     They'll just have to try pot luck, eh? Let em die in the gutter. They can afford a decent funeral. You make me puke.

                     By the way, I wonder who on average would be taking better care of their health – 50 year old Pakeha, or 50 year old Maori.

                     You have no trouble consigning fellow Nzers to a possible death sentence because of your racism.

                     ''You are just embarrassing yourself.''

                     I don't mind embarrassing myself if it means I'm not a racist like you.

                     Oh, here's a gift from talkback radio. Who knows it could work for bowel cancer?

                     https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/health/rectal-cancer-checkpoint-inhibitor.html
                   • Incognito []

                     11 June 2022 at 6:07 pm

                     One of the he worst forms of racism is when one resists and rejects any attempts at dealing with racism with the absurd argument that this would amount to reverse-racism. In effect, these are racism apologists and they continue to propagate racism.

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

                     If you keep up these unhinged absurd attacks on others who call out your ignorance you will receive a ban.
                   • Blade …

                     11 June 2022 at 7:36 pm

                     ''One of the he worst forms of racism is when one resists and rejects any attempts at dealing with racism with the absurd argument that this would amount to reverse-racism.''

                     But that is predicated on our health system being racist towards Maori. I have told you my experiences GENERALLY show otherwise if you meet doctors half way. You have only offered studies and other peoples opinions.

                     And if all these Maori don't like our general health system, why aren't they enrolling themselves at Hauora Maori health services? Something doesn't gel. Sure they may still have to use public health services, but most general care would be done in a holistic Maori way.

                     ''In effect, these are racism apologists and they continue to propagate racism.''

                     The problem here is a definition of this situation. You are focused on supposed racism around medical treatment Maori receive. But Maori get lush funding across a variety of sectors, including health.

                     I'm taking a global approach. You cannot have this two tier system and expect our nation not to divide and a backlash to ensue. It just isn't possible.

                     Have you not learnt from South Africa, Rhodesia, tribalism in Africa etc. These are paths we are going down and you seem quite happy with that.

                     ''If you keep up these unhinged absurd attacks on others who call out your ignorance you will receive a ban.''

                     How can it be an unhinged attack when we are throwing fellow NZers under the bus? That's a fact. I point this out and you want to ban me.
                   • Incognito []

                     11 June 2022 at 9:45 pm

                     You have only offered studies and other peoples opinions.

                     You missed the point again. I offered you a Table with barriers, which is what you asked for, and then you reject it because it doesn’t align with your own limited experience and you start bleating again about what happened when your aunty hurt her toe.

                     You are focused on supposed racism around medical treatment Maori receive. But Maori get lush funding across a variety of sectors, including health.

                     So, I gave you one paper that included 18 years of research in this area based on numerous accounts and individual experiences and you retort with “supposed racism”!? You’re in denial about anything that you cannot see in your yard and supermarket. You’re as blind as a bat, Blade. And you think you know best because only your account matters or matters most.

                     Whether or not Māori “get”, whatever that means, lush funding is not the point. The point is whether any funding, targeted or not, reaches them and has appositive impact on outcomes for them. The overwhelming evidence so far tells us this is not happening. This is the difference between inequality and inequity.

                     You can take whatever approach you like because it will be to no avail. There’s already a 2-tier system in NZ, which is called health inequities, so you don’t have to go look afar and can stay close to home.

                     The unhinged attack was on another commenter, which is bannable offence here. But you already know that.
                   • Blade …

                     11 June 2022 at 10:55 pm

                     ''Whether or not Māori “get”, whatever that means.''

                     How about ''receive''?

                     ''The point is whether any funding, targeted or not, reaches them and has appositive impact on outcomes for them. The overwhelming evidence so far tells us this is not happening. This is the difference between inequality and inequity.''

                     Do you realise what you are saying? You are saying millions is going down the gurgler, some to Maori health providers, with little impact on Maori health outcomes.

                     '''This is the difference between inequality and inequity.''

                     I'm sorry. To my way of thinking this is incompetence and poor accounting. Heads should roll.

                     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300591643/budget-2022-mori-health-receives-299m-from-multibillion-health-spend

                     ''You can take whatever approach you like because it will be to no avail. There’s already a 2-tier system in NZ, which is called health inequities, so you don’t have to go look afar and can stay close to home.''

                     OK, here's the bottom line for you in my opinion. You won't hear this from anyone else on this blog:

                     " This coming election will be about race. And National will win barring a disaster that allows Jacinda to shine. But it will be just the beginning because National won't get on top of crime. And they won't have the balls to force change that makes Maori more accountable for individual health outcomes. The country will part along race lines even though to an outsider things will look normal. Mixed partnership relationships will go through hell, and schools will become off limits for many. Personal safety will be at risk every time you leave your property. That's the way I see it if you want to keep doing down this path of inequality and inequity.

                     In fact the split is starting already in urban areas.
                 • Incognito …

                   11 June 2022 at 1:23 pm

                   Now, do you know why those spokespeople on talkback couldn't give answers to simple questions?

                   No idea, because I don’t know whom you’re talking about and as far as I know you’ve made it all up in your head – without some back-up evidence we cannot listen & check for ourselves. You fail at this time and time again. I also note that simple questions are often meaningless because they’re often based in ignorance & bias. A good interviewer guides the interviewee(s) to build, explain, and argue their case rather than going for lazy cheap point-scoring inter-rupting talking-over gotcha’s to confirm the bias of their listener-base and bosst their show's ratings (and their ego, of course).

                   But when taken off this reservation of puffery and asked a simple question demanding an objective answer grounded in reality…they flounder.

                   Nope, you flounder, in the technical stuff, which you then use as an excuse to reject and ignore the findings even though they came from well-researched studies over 18 years including 372 participants. WTF is an 'objective answer' anyway?

                   If you had opened your mind and taken a little of your time to read the linked paper you would have seen that your own anecdotal experience might fit in well with that of others, for example:

                   Experiences of coldness, micro-aggressions, discriminatory behaviour and shaming communicate a sense of ‘not-belonging’ and result in Māori patients and whānau disengaging and/or actively avoiding healthcare-related interactions as much as possible. This disengagement is a sensible tactic that works to sustain and maintain one's sense of self when under attack.

                   I note that you appear to have very low levels of respect for others whom you dislike and prone to using your fists.

                   Table 3 of the linked paper was easy enough to take in without all the techno lingo, but you found an excuse to even ignore that even though you asked for it!?

                   These 14 studies covering the past 18 years of Māori experiences of healthcare tell of an alienating public health system. Māori patients and their whānau consistently experience barriers between themselves and the health treatment they require (and are legally entitled to). Such experiences are a continuation of ongoing exclusion.

                   There are none so blind as those who will not see. Your conclusions are flawed and weak, your views are therefore flawed and distorted (aka biased) and it shows in almost every comment you make – debating with you is an exercise in utter futility, as others have already found out and you keep confirming fo us time and time again.
                   • Blade …

                     11 June 2022 at 2:11 pm

                     I think we can't communicate because you have to run everything through your ideological filter, and then you accuse me of basically the same thing. Who knows, we may both have a point.

                     I have stated I will now take notes re talkback. Anything I repeat from talkback will now be time stamped if possible.

                     ''I note that you appear to have very low levels of respect for others whom you dislike and prone to using your fists.''

                     Crikey, have you seen some of the replies to me on this blog lately? I can post a few if you like. Prone to using my fists? That's not true. Where do you get that perception from?

                     So , I have sat at my key board thinking how I could sum my views up in as few words as possible to save the tit for tat:

                     ''Maori are the authors of most negative experiences they encounter in our health system. Their ignorance, in many cases, reinforces the behaviour of already bigoted health professionals. Other fair minded health professionals are driven towards racist attitudes by the abuse they receive from Maori. That leads to most Maori copping negative outcomes when engaging with our health system.''
                   • Incognito []

                     11 June 2022 at 6:26 pm

                     I think we can’t communicate because you have to run everything through your ideological filter, and then you accuse me of basically the same thing.

                     Interesting thesis. What would my ‘ideology’ be, in this context? Perhaps fact-based reasoning leads to better debating outcomes and is more likely to produce a discernible truth or interpretation of reality that is mutually agreeable?

                     You refuse to back up your assertions and claims of fact, your explanations leave much to the imagination and a lot to be desired, and you write off any counter evidence and counter-arguments when they don’t feel right to you. In other words, yours is the ‘ideology’ of a troll.

                     Your idiosyncratic disrespect is ubiquitous and omnipresent. You only seem to have respect for talk-back and Raptor Squad. And you brag about knocking out others.

                     Your views are rigid and set in stone. You have not taken in one thing from a simple Table about Barriers to health experienced by Māori patients and their whanau and keep reverting back to your own narrow-minded views and self-limited anecdotal experience.

                     You almost tick all the stereotypical boxes of a RWNJ listening to shock-jocks on talk-back. Some would argue that we should listen to and engage with people such as you. I’d say that this appears to be an utter waste of time and you’re just a huge distraction here and a megaphone for RWNJ noise & nuisance.
                   • Blade …

                     11 June 2022 at 7:01 pm

                     What would my ‘ideology’ be, in this context?

                     There is no context. You are a Leftie and everything goes through the same filter. Unless I have you pegged wrong and you are to the Right of politics but have a liberal social justice view?

                     Perhaps fact-based reasoning leads to better debating outcomes and is more likely to produce a discernible truth or interpretation of reality that is mutually agreeable?

                     Debating facts is one thing. Understanding trends is another. Notice as a general rule how I'm half a step ahead of what will break in the news, or on this blog, as a item of interest? For example at the time of you banning me for a month
                   • Incognito []

                     11 June 2022 at 9:23 pm

                     You’re throwing around lazy labels and bumper stickers to see what might stick. No substance whatsoever, just another excuse for you to continue your inane and mostly unsupported comments here. My ‘ideology’ or ‘filter’ have got nothing to with your comments.

                     A trend based on what? On feels from talk-back? You understand very little of what you read here, elsewhere, or what you hear on talk-back and you cannot construct a decent argument. You lack understanding and your spoiler is feels and ‘psychic imprints’ laced with ‘paramagnetism’.

                     You’re so far behind that you think you’re ahead and the rest of us are catching up with you. Please bail out gracefully.
                   • Sacha …

                     11 June 2022 at 7:08 pm

                     Some dolts just will not listen. I take it this one has a history?
                   • Incognito []

                     11 June 2022 at 9:24 pm

                     He’s certainly making history here, in a Trumpian sense.
                   • Robert Guyton …

                     11 June 2022 at 7:42 pm

                     He certainly does.
                   • Blade …

                     11 June 2022 at 7:44 pm

                     This reply should not have been posted.

                     *Blade…11 June 2022 at 7:01 pm

                     What would my ‘ideology’ be, in this context?
         • Muttonbird 2.1.1.1.2

           10 June 2022 at 8:04 pm

           You need to have a lie down, son.

           When isn't the health system under pressure in winter, and in the first winter of a one in one hundred year pandemic? If rich prick boomers would stop dodging buying rentals and dodging tax for five seconds, the health system might have a fighting chance.

           Crime seems acute right now but we have assimilated a lot of people on the edges of society (from Australia) in the last two years. It's what responsible countries do.

           Bowel cancer screening targeted to those at high risk? Well, blow me down, that seems sensible to me considering the limited resources we have.

           Using attendance stats right now, again in the middle of a one in one hundred year pandemic, is not helpful. Everyone is asked to stay at home if symptoms are present. Also, families are cautious about bringing Covid into vulnerable, multigenerational households. This is sensible right now but our behaviour will adjust as we slowly return to what was considered normal.

           You are catastrophising, for political purposes.
           • Blade 2.1.1.1.2.1

             10 June 2022 at 8:35 pm

             ''If rich prick boomers would stop dodging buying rentals and dodging tax for five seconds, the health system might have a fighting chance.''

             We call that the nutty Left. These types of weird nebulous synapse connections in SOME lefties has always intrigued me.
             • Bearded Git …

               11 June 2022 at 3:58 pm

               That would be like the raving right then, who say things like "removing the top rate of tax doesn't help the rich".
       • Bruce 2.1.1.2

         11 June 2022 at 11:53 am

         https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/dramatic-footage-of-15-person-karangahape-rd-brawl-in-auckland-released-by-police/YBHHZHGYV5KYNHTQENWNFGVIF4/

         6 yrs ago

         I its pretty much same old same old, just the results of years of oppression and unfortunately it will take a lot more years to reverse and I believe with Luxon at the helm it never will.

         I believe your a prison officer, in a position better than most too see the situation and my question to you is how many of your clients would be there if they had had a dad to get them plum job at unilever : ( 3rd biggest plastic polluter i read yesterday)
     • Mat Simpson 2.1.2

       11 June 2022 at 7:13 pm

       " They know the longer Luxon is in the media limelight, the more his incompetence and religious fundamentalism will be exposed "

       Yeah that has been proven to not be a vote loser after all Key's bullshit and dubious claims they still voted for him and the other deplorables in 2008 , 2011 and 2014.

       There seems to be this belief that New Zealand voters will see through a dismal opposition Nasty Natz leader……they don't ! the worse they are the more votes they get.

       You can always rely on the hobbits to vote to vote for their own demise ..present leadership accepted of course.
3. Belladonna 3

   10 June 2022 at 2:48 pm

   Can't see any reason for Labour to call a snap election.
   NZ voters, traditionally, don't like them; incumbent governments don't do well.

   And, on current polling, it would very much be a toss up, if the left won (and would be a coalition Labour/Green possibly TPM, rather than the outright majority they currently have).

   They'd also effectively junk all of the legislation they have in train (even if they won, it would be a politically new ballgame over 'government' legislation).

   It would also be bitterly opposed by the majority of the Labour list MPs – at high risk of losing seats.

   Really, not a valid choice. What could Labour possibly gain?

   And, who would think that Ardern would be so politically naive?
   • Bearded Git 3.1

     11 June 2022 at 3:59 pm

     Agreed Bella…itsnotgonnahappen.
   • Mat Simpson 3.2

     11 June 2022 at 7:20 pm

     " NZ voters, traditionally, don't like them; incumbent governments don't do well "

     Helen just did fine in the winter election of July 27 2002 , she maintained her majority, the first since Muldoon's scnapps election in 1984 after getting a canning in the right wing media for asking the G.G for a dissolution when the Alliance collapsed and was going to have problems passing legislation in the house.

     Now LINO would be hard pressed to gain a majority but MMP can deliver some unusual results.
     • Belladonna 3.2.1

       11 June 2022 at 10:44 pm

       Have a look at the opinion polls, directly after the snap election was announced. Labour went from a positive polling result (against an unprecedentedly weak right wing) of over 50%, to an election night result of just over 40%.
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2002_New_Zealand_general_election#Graphical_summary

       A lot of that support went to the centrist United (Peter Dunne) party & to Peter’s NZ First (see Swordfish’s excellent analysis, below)

       Really, centre NZ doesn't like snap elections. Which are always (so far) perceived as electioneering by the Government.

       There's a very strong argument, that Clark would have done much better to wait until the 'official' election date in Oct/Nov. She could very easily have eaten a bit of humble pie and gone to the Greens for confidence and supply for the next 4 months – if she, indeed, needed to – it's highly unlikely that the other parties would have formed a coalition against her (I mean, can you envisage Alliance and Green MPs voting in the House with National?). And there is, in any case, little significant legislation usually passed in the 4 months leading up to an election. As it was, many voters just saw this as electioneering – and her hoping to turn the (then) high Labour support into an outright majority.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_New_Zealand_general_election
       • Mat Simpson 3.2.1.1

         12 June 2022 at 11:48 am

         " Have a look at the opinion polls, directly after the snap election was announced "

         I don't need to I was around at the time and well remember the polling numbers. Its hard to see her keeping those numbers before the early election announcement as her thinking was going to the country on October 6th 2002 but went three months early and a some loss of polling support was going to occur.

         She was always going to face a split in the vote on the right due to the catastrophic collapse of the National party and it made no difference when the election was.

         She was still returned with an increased majority on 1999 hardly a failure.

         As for swordfish I always appreciate your in depth analysis as it helps contributors like Belladonna with factual information.
         • Belladonna 3.2.1.1.1

           12 June 2022 at 12:54 pm

           She was in with a chance of an absolute majority. Dropped signifiantly in the polls (10%+ is a significant change). Had to negotiate with Dunne & Peters.

           Even you said: "Some loss of polling was going to occur"

           Yes, that's the point, as I said, NZ centrist voters don't like snap elections. Labour won in 2020. There is a very strong argument that they would have had a greater majority if Clark hadn't called a snap election.

           Like Swordfish, I provide facts and links — you just provide 'reckons'.
           • Mat Simpson 3.2.1.1.1.1

             12 June 2022 at 7:26 pm

             " She was in with a chance of an absolute majority "

             In with a chance but not guaranteed !! Exactly she was never going to get a majority in a right wing media , business environment and when people had a chance to focus on the issues the date of the election was soon forgotten about.

             I just provide " recons " and you just provide " what ifs "

             The date of the election as she said herself and many people who held an opinion was that they had made up their minds by polling day and returned the Labour party in significant numbers that opportunists like Dunne and Peters came to the table to negotiate with Clark not English and despite the " early poll " the next government was a Labour led one in a MMP parliament.
             • Belladonna …

               12 June 2022 at 7:30 pm

               Once again, no links – just your opinion, entirely unsupported by facts.

               Surprisingly (not) you agree with Swordfish, but disagree with me. Newsflash! We're saying the same thing.
               • Mat Simpson …

                 13 June 2022 at 8:36 pm

                 Newsflash !!!

                 I disagreed about your argument regarding the early election announcement. Helen was never going to go into the general election that year whenever it was held with 52 % support.

                 Incumbent governments always drop some , a little some a lot depending on circumstances at the time.

                 Yes my opinion after watching and participating in election campaigns in this country since 1984.

                 Loss of support for calling an early election ….well to make you happy then some members of the electorate took offense ….but only the ones who never intended to vote for Clark -Cullen anyway.

                 Labour voters still came out in the middle of winter and voted ..Labour up from 39% in 1999 to 42% in July 2002 and delivered 52 seats
                 • Belladonna …

                   13 June 2022 at 8:40 pm

                   And do you also disagree with Swordfish?

                   No doubt, you believe that Ardern should call a snap election right now – because all those Labour voters from 2020 will be out in droves in the middle of winter to vote for her.

                   Meanwhile, in the real world….. the rest of us recognize that calling a snap election would be a losing proposition for the Government.
                   • Mat Simpson …

                     13 June 2022 at 9:12 pm

                     " No doubt, you believe that Ardern should call a snap election right now – because all those Labour voters from 2020 will be out in droves in the middle of winter to vote for her "

                     No when you decide to go to the country you weigh up all possible scenarios including a pandemic.

                     2020 and a majority was down to the fear the electorate was expercining regarding the pandemic and the governments approach.

                     This is 2022 not 2002 in case you lost track of time.

                     I have never suggested that this diversion of a snap election which is just nonsense would need to be called now. The government still has a majority to pass laws ( the one's they choose to ) and has the numbers on the select committees unlike 2002.

                     Meanwhile, in the real world….

                     Yeah come and join us Bella …Donna
4. alwyn 4

   10 June 2022 at 2:54 pm

   The New Zealand public don't really seem to go for parties calling snap elections. The only 2 recent ones, 1984 and 2002, didn't really work out to well for the party that called them.

   For example, in 2002, Labour dropped from about 52% to 41% in the month before election day. Those people all seem to have swung to NZF (up from 3.8% to 10.4%) and United (up from nothing to 6.7%). That was certainly not what Helen Clark expected I suspect.

   I used to know Jack Marshall. He once commented that the only effect of calling a snap election in 1951 was that National had 8 years in power instead of 9.

   If Labour tried to call a snap election this year I suspect they would be hammered by the electorate. There is no excuse to do it except the hope that they can scrape back in for another term before their support goes far below having any hope. I really don't think that the public, or the Maori caucus, would go for it. Grab what you can while you can is more likely and they will hold on until the end of November 2023 before going to the Polls.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2002_New_Zealand_general_election#Party_vote
   • swordfish 4.1

     10 June 2022 at 7:54 pm

     .

     For example, in 2002, Labour dropped from about 52% to 41% in the month before election day. Those people all seem to have swung to NZF (up from 3.8% to 10.4%) and United (up from nothing to 6.7%). That was certainly not what Helen Clark expected I suspect.

     Probably more complex than that. The New Zealand Election Study Campaign Flow-of-the-Vote data suggests easily the largest swing away from Labour during the campaign was, in fact, into non-voting. Almost a quarter of those expressing an intention to vote Labour when the 2002 campaign commenced ultimately stayed at home. Which was considered extraordinary at the time.

     The 2nd greatest 2002 campaign defection from Labour was indeed to NZF (but far, far behind the move into non-voting), followed by those switching from Labour-to-National (yep, even though the Nats fell to their 21% nadir, a Lab-to-Nat swing still occurred) … and then, in 4th place (in terms of Lab campaign defections) Labour-to-United.

     NZF's campaign surge certainly came largely (though not exclusively) courtesy of erstwhile Labour voters … but United's sudden boost appears to have come fairly equally from previously-intending Labour & National voters.

     Reason ?: A Question of Gates

     The NZES found Paintergate & Wormgate did the lion's share of damage to Labour support during the 02 campaign …

     … (although it's certainly also true that Clark's decision to call a Snap Election in the first place proved unpopular with the electorate … and her stated desire for single party government was deemed arrogant by many according to polling … so these provided a kind of background context that probably slightly loosened the attachment of a segment of intending Labour voters, putting them up for grabs once Paintergate & Wormgate reared their less-than-pretty heads).

     The fallout from Corngate (including the Left looking divided) appears to have only played a secondary role in Labour's plunge (ie overshadowed by the other -gates)

     Paintergate saw Clark lose credibility with a hefty segment of erstwhile Labour intenders on what were her strongest attributes – trustworthiness & competence – & therefore she took a clear hit in her Preferred PM rating (which NZES was measuring on a daily basis throughout the campaign).

     Whereas Wormgate provided those centrist / swinging voters who were intially intending to vote Labour with a (suddenly new) viable alternative (United), closer to their broad policy preferences.

     In the dying few days, however, Clark did manage to recover a little of the lost ground (Labour had fallen toward the mid-to-late 30s by the start of the final week) & she recovered all of Preferred PM rating … demonstrating, as in the 1996 campaign, her ability to rise to the occasion at pivotal moments (although, of course, only a very partial Party Vote recovery).
   • Mat Simpson 4.2

     11 June 2022 at 7:39 pm

     If Labour tried to call a snap election this year I suspect they would be hammered by the electorate.

     Yes once the corporate media run with " paintergates and other distractions designed to erode public credibility.

     Funny how one of the biggest scandals in recent history was Key's henchmen involved in a concerted effort to destroy the reputations of their opposition opponents and whale oils participation in attacking and destroying people's reputations and a black ops being run out of the PMs office yet unlike " painter gate " Key escaped unscathed.

     Friends in the corporate media are good friends to have ..they are fearful of you and want to keep their jobs. Money talks as well. Key made sure he cultivated the media.
5. tsmithfield 5

   10 June 2022 at 3:23 pm

   I think the prospect of a snap election is very unlikely.

   The possibility would be more likely if Labour was in a position to win at the moment, but felt the chances of winning were decreasing with the progress of time towards the election.

   However, based on current polling, there is a good chance that Labour could lose in a snap election scenario. Especially since the voting public takes a fairly negative view of snap elections, especially if they are seen to be a cynical attempt to stay in power.

   So, the logical thing to do would be to hang on and hope things turn around for them between now and the election.

   So, unless there is some compelling reason for a snap election, such as half the Labour caucus resigning at once, then I just don't see it happening.
   • James Simpson 5.1

     10 June 2022 at 3:37 pm

     And in 12 months 3 Waters will be a distant memory and inflation will be under control.

     Those two issues are the only things keeping National in the game currently. With them gone, Labour should ease back into office (perhaps with the support of the Greens)
     • tsmithfield 5.1.1

       10 June 2022 at 4:05 pm

       That is what they will be hoping for I am sure.

       3 Waters may or may not be an issue by then. But it does feed into a narrative that National will build on around similar issues, and will probably be part of a picture that National tries to paint about a government being out of touch and refusing to listen.

       Inflation will be a much harder one to crack by then. We have had huge amounts of money printing going on within NZ that has fed into our own inflation. Plus we are importing inflation from other countries that have been doing the same.

       The big problem for Labour is that any capacity to borrow and spend has already been borrowed and spent. So, any new spending they promise during their election campaign is going to feed into inflation issue. Something I am sure National will jump on gleefully.
     • Alan 5.1.2

       10 June 2022 at 4:17 pm

       I think you are being a bit optimistic about that James, I expect that inflation and co- governance/3 waters will still be front and centre in 12 months.
     • Sacha 5.1.3

       11 June 2022 at 11:08 am

       Perhaps? It's the only way they get re-elected.
     • Patricia Bremner 5.1.4

       11 June 2022 at 6:38 pm

       Yes, though the old "Drum of Crime" is getting beaten.
6. Ad 6

   10 June 2022 at 3:36 pm

   Ardern is doing better and better every time she flies overseas.

   But onshore it's like she's Lange 1986.
   • Patricia Bremner 6.1

     11 June 2022 at 6:41 pm

     She is not having an affair, she is not an evangelical mess with destructive mates.
   • Mat Simpson 6.2

     11 June 2022 at 7:50 pm

     " But onshore it's like she's Lange 1986.

     Yeah and he was up against James Bolger in the winter campaign of 1987 and returned to government on polling day August 15th.

     Lange although suffering a bout of the flu was as sharp as a shard of glass and funny.

     Jacinda is not funny or that sharp.
7. Stuart Munro 7

   10 June 2022 at 6:18 pm

   The Snap Election chatter shows that National have deployed their most powerful policy initiative: Wishful thinking.

   A switched on media would have great fun mocking them mercilessly for it, but the freaks and monsters that dominate contemporary NZ media are part of the joke.
   • Anne 7.1

     10 June 2022 at 6:42 pm

     I well remember the fun that was had over the silliest remit ever passed at a Labour conference. Back in the 1970s someone wanted public servants to be banned from wearing shorts and roman sandals during the summer months. Instead they were to wear long shorts (below the knee) knee length socks and shoes. The cartoonists, comedians, McPhail and Gadsby had a ball.

     I suspect a Labour official with an S.o.H. let the remit go to conference.
     • Mike the Lefty 7.1.1

       11 June 2022 at 8:04 am

       Wasn't that featured on an episode of "Gliding On"? I seem to recall there was something like that.
       • Anne 7.1.1.1

         11 June 2022 at 10:57 am

         I recall a couple of TV skits but they were independent of any TV productions. The "Gliding On" series was among the best comedy produced in NZ. The characters came across as so realistic. I think they are all dead now.
         • Mike the Lefty 7.1.1.1.1

           11 June 2022 at 3:11 pm

           It was a great NZ production. I remember that government minister Mike Moore made a cameo appearance in one episode. They don't make comedy like that anymore.
     • Mat Simpson 7.1.2

       11 June 2022 at 7:54 pm

       Anne those were the days..lol
8. Mike the Lefty 8

   11 June 2022 at 8:03 am

   A snap election, now?

   National must have been listening to that old sixties Burt Bacharach song "Wishing and Hoping".

   A government with a majority on its own in an MMP parliament, half way through a term and with a full legislative book of things to do does not go for a snap election.
   • Louis 8.1

     11 June 2022 at 12:47 pm

     +1 Mike the Lefty
9. MickeyBoyle 9

   11 June 2022 at 11:25 am

   There are two arguments on this.

   If you truly believe Labours polling will improve over the next 12 months, then yes, you should wait and hold a general election next year.

   But on the other hand, if you believe Labour will continue to lose support over the next 12 months, then an early election would be their best bet.

   For me, I don't see Labours polling improving anytime soon. I believe the rot has set in, inflation will hit near on 10% and the war on Ukraine will continue unabated. Add to this that the media and public in general are far more hostile towards parties of the left lately, covid fatigue has set in, and brand Ardern is becoming more toxic, I don't see how people can be optimistic about our future prospects.

   What policies or future outlook are people seeing that makes them confident that Labours fortunes will turn?
   • Louis 9.1

     11 June 2022 at 12:45 pm

     That sounds like wishful thinking on your part MickeyBoyle

     Desperate would describe Hooton and Prebbles. Looks like the right wing see Jacinda as the road block to National gaining power. Hooten & Prebbles know a snap election is not even on the cards. This is just dirty politics.

     What policies or future outlook do National have?

     In what way has "Brand Ardern" become toxic?

     Do you have a crystal ball to know with 100% certainty, what will happen over the next 12 months?

     Baseless rumours of impending resignation etc put out by right wingers is not new

     https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/11/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-says-she-s-in-it-for-a-long-time-not-a-good-time.html
     • Blade 9.1.1

       11 June 2022 at 1:30 pm

       ''Looks like the right wing see Jacinda as the road block to National gaining power.''

       Allow me to correct you, Louis. National used to see Jacinda as a road block to gaining power. She could do no wrong. The mushy middle vote loved her. The world sung her praises. But that shine has tainted; a grey patina is all that's left. She is now a National Party asset, along with Robbo Hood and Kris Faafoi.

       What policies or future outlook do National have?

       Here's one. It's completely inadequate but better than nothing.

       https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/national-party-favours-non-consorting-laws-to-disrupt-gangs-from-the-inside-out/QFJXAHQDYZEEIB7CCCTUCTQ2T4/
       • Louis 9.1.1.1

         11 June 2022 at 2:53 pm

         Your opinion isn't a correction.

         Obviously the right wing still see Jacinda as a threat.

         Is that all you've got Blade?

         https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-17/anti-consorting-laws-wont-stop-bikie-violence-in-canberra/10908048
         • Blade 9.1.1.1.1

           11 June 2022 at 3:00 pm

           ''Your opinion isn't a correction.''

           Well, what would I know. I'm just a simple man.

           Is that all you've got Blade?

           You asked a question. I stumped up a link. And this commentary:

           ''Here's one. It's completely inadequate but better than nothing.''
           • Louis 9.1.1.1.1.1

             11 June 2022 at 3:50 pm

             It appears you don't know much Blade and it is a nothing.

             https://twitter.com/ClintVSmith/status/1535430697334509568
             • dv …

               11 June 2022 at 4:01 pm

               How is a gang defined?

               Could the NATZ be a gang?
               • Louis …

                 11 June 2022 at 4:14 pm

                 imo dv, yes!!
               • Macro …

                 11 June 2022 at 4:20 pm

                 Good question.

                 Here is one go at defining "gang":

                 There is no consensus on the exact definition of a gang, however, and scholars have debated whether the definition should expressly include involvement in crime. Some gangs, but not all, have strong leadership, formalized rules, and extensive use of common identifying symbols. Many gangs associate themselves with a particular geographic area or type of crime, and some use graffiti as a form of nonverbal communication.

                 Robbing from the poor to give to the rich is one quality (eg Lowering taxes, cutting public services, etc.. )

                 Strong leadership….. ??

                 Formalized rules…… ✅

                 common identifying symbols and graffiti ……..

                 Yep! All the hall marks
               • Craig H …

                 11 June 2022 at 4:22 pm

                 Probably not, but gangs could start using political party logos as patches if they wanted to rub it in.
                 • dv …

                   11 June 2022 at 5:51 pm

                   Nice one Craig!!!!
             • Blade …

               11 June 2022 at 4:12 pm

               It seems you have a problem with comprehension. But I won't take it further. At the end of the day it will be of no importance because Labour won’t be the government.

               Oh, this may be a reason. While Rome burned, Poto and Labour were to busy doing a Marco. Gadflying with shades on…what what!

               https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/06/auckland-gang-wars-more-shooting-incidents-overnight-across-four-suburbs.html
               • Louis …

                 11 June 2022 at 4:17 pm

                 I don't have a problem with comprehension, but it appears you may though Blade.
             • Craig H …

               11 June 2022 at 4:20 pm

               To add to that, the tax policies are basically the 2017 policies reheated.
   • Kiwijoker 9.2

     11 June 2022 at 1:12 pm

     “ and brand Adern is becoming more toxic”

     that’s assuming her brand was toxic in the first place. If you really want an experience head to the toxic wasteland that is Kiwi Blog or the Heralds comments section.
     • Stuart Munro 9.2.1

       11 June 2022 at 3:27 pm

       It was for the likes of Blade that certain European royalty adopted the motto Honi soit qui mal y pense.
       • Macro 9.2.1.1

         11 June 2022 at 3:56 pm

         
   • Belladonna 9.3

     11 June 2022 at 4:15 pm

     What policies or future outlook are people seeing that makes them confident that Labours fortunes will turn?

     Other way around, I think. It's virtually too late for a snap election to capitalise on Labour in a lead position – that boat has sailed.

     It would only result in them losing power a year early (as I said above, even if they won it would be as a 2- or 3-way coalition – rather than the outright majority they have now)

     So, lots of pain, little or no gain.

     However, if they wait, there is the hope that 3 waters will have settled, inflation will be more under control, and the various building/development programmes they have underway will have had a chance to show some real benefits.
     I wouldn't be confident or even optimistic that this will happen, but there is always the chance.
     • pat 9.3.1

       11 June 2022 at 4:18 pm

       "Events, dear boy, events"

       Harold Macmillan
       • Blade 9.3.1.1

         11 June 2022 at 6:24 pm

         Yeah, that's what worries me. Jacinda has been blessed with disasters. That's when she's at her best. And I would be guttered if the gods gave her another disaster in 2023. Something like an earthquake, terrorist attack on the Sky Tower or China attacking Taiwan. Kiwi voters are so thick they would look at her managing another disaster and think: 'This woman deserves another go.'' Groan!
         • Belladonna 9.3.1.1.1

           11 June 2022 at 6:31 pm

           "guttered" = in the gutter (or extinguished, in the sense of a candle guttering out)

           "gutted" = deeply upset.
           • Blade 9.3.1.1.1.1

             11 June 2022 at 6:50 pm

             Correct. Doesn't worry me which one is used. I would feel the same either way.
             • pat …

               11 June 2022 at 7:25 pm

               Or in the vernacular of the current youth….guts
10. pat 10

    11 June 2022 at 6:33 pm

    If someone, anyone, could step up with a roadmap to solve the obvious problems we have it wouldnt matter whether he, she or they was tattooed from arsehole to breakfast time or had no dress sense or was eccentric, whatever…if they could offer more than waffly criticism and convince me they had a plan to address our problems I'd vote for them tomorrow ….we can all, myself included itemise the problems, the leadership we need has to outline a convincing solution…where are they?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS