Three polls is a trend

Written By: - Date published: 7:05 am, February 23rd, 2015 - 79 comments
Categories: polls - Tags: ,

Last night on One News:

Poll reveals big boost for Labour and Little

Labour has surged six points to be back over 30% for the first time in a year. It now sits at 31%.

National has also risen however – climbing four points to 49% – with the minor parties taking the hit. The Greens meanwhile are down to 10, New Zealand First is back two points to six and the Maori Party is steady on two.
…
ONE News Political Editor Corin Dann says Labour’s success in the poll can be attributed to the party’s leader. “Andrew Little has done it and I think that will give him a great boost of confidence,” he said.

That’s the third poll this year to have Labour well up to 30% range (see also Roy Morgan and 3 News. Partly this is just the usual post-election drift back to the main parties, but it’s larger and consistent for Labour, smaller and inconsistent for National. Good news.

79 comments on “Three polls is a trend ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Upnorth 1
    23 February 2015 at 8:01 am

    Trend lines show National still competently ahead in all polls – Labour have just got support from the minor parties – nothing really has changed.

    People deserted the Greens at the election and that is the trend.

    I read the poll as – honeymoon voting for Little and the real polls wont start until 2017 when Little and Labour will be put under the blowtorch by the voters.

    just remember Little have not launched one policy so that will be interesting when they do.

    It is sort of like round robin games in the world cup – there are a few scary results along the way – but the real champions don’t appear until the semi-finals.

    That is when players step up to the mark

  2. Pete George 2
    23 February 2015 at 8:44 am

    Promising for Labour and it was important for Little in particular that things looked up quickly this year.

    The Roy Morgan polling period was 2-15 February (up to last Sunday), the One News polling period was 14-18 February (up to Wednesday) so Andrew Little’s trickier week will be barely reflected in the latest results. That may be forgotten by the next poll, but there’s likely to be downs as well as ups. It will take months to get a good idea of overall trends.

    • mickysavage 2.1
      23 February 2015 at 8:55 am

      And I bet Pete that Andrew’s late paying of a bill will have exactly precisely no effect on his popularity.

      And if you want to focus on who is being trickier how about Key hiding the Donghua Liu donation for 12 months and Joyce hiding the fact the Government knew that the Sky City Convention centre cost had blown out for 12 months as well. Talk about tricky …

      • ropata 2.1.1
        23 February 2015 at 9:09 am

        Not forgetting Key’s cover up of the Sabin scandal

      • Clemgeopin 2.1.2
        23 February 2015 at 10:02 am

        And not forgetting the FORTY THREE THOUSAND dollar bill the irresponsible, arrogant and ‘superior’ Lord Gerry Brownlee caused the taxpayer for his stupidity in jumping the security gate at the Christchurch airport! This too will have an effect as it sinks in. I think if you or I had done that, we would not have been allowed to board the flight, have been arrested, questioned and charged.

        The hapless Aaron Gilmore had to RESIGN and was hounded out out of National and parliament for a comparatively lesser offense of asking when drunk , “Do you know who I am?”.

        http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/taxpayers-get-43k-bill-for-brownlee-inquiry-2015022215#axzz3SSW62d2e

        • Murray Rawshark 2.1.2.1
          23 February 2015 at 6:28 pm

          I was chatting to an airport security guy and asked him what he’d do if Brownlee barged through. “I would give him a spear tackle” was his reply.

          • Clemgeopin 2.1.2.1.1
            23 February 2015 at 11:07 pm

            It is a serious issue and the serious questions which no journalist seems to have asked or reported on, as far as I know, are these:

            * How would they have treated an ordinary person that barged through an illegal entry into an airport boarding area like Brownlee did?

            * What are the consequences for such an individual?

            * Would that person be allowed to board the plane without arrest, without interrogation and without being questioned/detained by the security?

            Remember there were his entourage too that followed Brownlee through the same illegal means!

            Remember the huge consequences that befell the hapless Aaron Gilmore for his stupid ‘Do you know who I am?’ query?

            • Lloyd 2.1.2.1.1.1
              23 February 2015 at 11:31 pm

              If you are small, transvestite and polynesian you get handcuffed and thrown to the ground, shattering your shoulder into pieces and have people screaming at you for half an hour before the first-aiders are called to treat you and have the hand-cuffs removed.
              That appears to be current police policy for treatment of noisy banner waving during a gay parade – not at all a threat to an aircraft, which has potential to threaten many lives.
              Surely then, should Jerry Brownlee not have been shot before he managed to get to the plane? Gunning down the following entourage would also appear to have been justified in this world of terrorism. Fortunately Jerry is large enough to absorb several bullets.
              Please note I am not really advocating mass slaying, just comparing degree of threat from public disobedience and the consequences.

  3. Lanthanide 3
    23 February 2015 at 9:17 am

    I don’t think 3 polls taken around the same time showing the same result is a “trend”. Merely it’s a fair confirmation of where Labour is really at.

    A trend would be if the next 3 polls from each company show the same or increasing result.

  4. Colonial Rawshark 4
    23 February 2015 at 9:19 am

    Well done to Labour. Keen to see what things are at, at the 12 month leadership mark. We are still in the honey moon period, it must be remembered. At a similar early stage in Cunliffe’s leadership Labour was consistently polling in the low to mid 30% range.

    • fisiani 4.1
      23 February 2015 at 7:25 pm

      National must be quaking in their boots. The rise and rise of Labour looks an odds on certainty. 2017 should be easy for Labour.

      • McFlock 4.1.1
        23 February 2015 at 7:34 pm

        Yeah, if that’s the best talking point you can come up with, it’s not looking too bad. Key’s tired and making mistakes, his cabinet a a festering pile of feuding incompetents, and he’s got another 2.5years to go. Reckon he’ll stick it out?

        • Paul 4.1.1.1
          23 February 2015 at 7:42 pm

          I dunno fisi could explain why the Sky City deal is so great or why we should be in Iraq or why we should spend money on billionaire yachtsmen before hungry kids or why Key was right to ignore the Sabin issue for so long…..

      • Clemgeopin 4.1.2
        23 February 2015 at 11:54 pm

        “2017 should be easy for Labour”

        fisiani, you idiot,

        No, it is never easy for the good to triumph over evil.

        It is a hard slog fighting with integrity and honour against the crooks, the wealthy, the arrogant, the liars, the powerful, the cunning and the corrupt. Very very hard, but as true as day follows night, ultimately truth will let the people free and the Little people will vanquish the greedy Key bull shitters and rejoice with sunlight and joy. That is the story of life, of politics and of the world. Fact. Look at all the previous and even recent history.

  5. Redbaiter 5
    23 February 2015 at 9:41 am

    I told you more than a year ago right here on this blog that Andrew Little was your man.

    To improve upon this success Little has to move away from the Watermelons and the Progressives, stay away from socially divisive issues and direct his policies at the working man.

    • ropata 5.1
      23 February 2015 at 9:46 am

      I am not sure that Little & Labour should go for the boofhead redneck vote, but you may have a point

      • Redbaiter 5.1.1
        23 February 2015 at 10:15 am

        If Little was getting good advice rather than listening to that idiot McCarten he’d wake up to where the votes are. The way to get an advantage over Key is to portray him not only as unreliable with the truth and devious, but more importantly as captured by the wets/ progressives in his own party.

        Also, Key stands for nothing and everything he does and says is merely a reaction to polls. He does not lead, he reacts. He won’t fight, he just adopts a more compromising position. Little can win points by painting this as a major character weakness.

        And as I said, stay away from the Greens. They’re correctly perceived as spaced out job killers by the struggling workers Little needs voting for him.

        • Sacha 5.1.1.1
          23 February 2015 at 11:22 am

          Outflanking the Nats on their right is so obviously the answer for Labour! Why didn’t any of those leftie strategists think of it? You’re a genius.

          • Murray Rawshark 5.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2015 at 6:31 pm

            “Why didn’t any of those leftie strategists think of it? ”

            I think half the Labour caucus, especially the remaining Rogernomes, already did think of this. For some unfathomable reason they were overruled and have had to settle for taking the NAct position on security and surveillance issues. There is still the raising of the retirement age, which hasn’t really gone away, as well.

    • Lloyd 5.2
      23 February 2015 at 11:34 pm

      not that many working men left really. not enough work…..

      • ropata:rorschach 5.2.1
        24 February 2015 at 12:43 am

        Plenty of building work in Christchurch at the moment. Plenty of fruit picking jobs around if you’re willing to move towns. Big skill shortages looming in IT…

        There’s work around if you are healthy or have the skills.

  6. Brutus Iscariot 6
    23 February 2015 at 10:28 am

    Success breeds success.

    Doesn’t matter if the votes are coming off the Greens and NZF. He had to recapture territory from them, before then looking at a wider offensive on those who voted National last time.

  7. Enough is Enough 7
    23 February 2015 at 10:31 am

    The depressing problem is – it does not matter now. The damage has been done.

    As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, National will lose support and consequently lose a general election. Probably in 2017. At which point it will be mission accomplished from their perspective. The war on the poor will have resulted in the transfer of wealth to the 1%.

    When we win, ( and it better be 2017), it will feel like a hollow victory for me because of the left’s failure to actually win when it mattered, before the wealth transfer had been completed.

    On that pessimistic negative note – Onwards and upwards to victory team.

  8. Sable 8
    23 February 2015 at 10:50 am

    I find all of this depressing. Neither National or Labour have this country and its peoples interests at heart and yet people keep on supporting them. NZ voters are like OCD lemmings….

    • JanM 8.1
      23 February 2015 at 10:58 am

      Do you really think that describes Andrew Little’s attitude? I think, myself, that he is very concerned for this country and that, over time, that will show more and more clearly, despite the MSM

    • Clemgeopin 8.2
      23 February 2015 at 11:07 am

      ” Neither National or Labour have this country and its peoples interests at heart “

      Labour DEFINITELY has the overall interests of ALL people at heart, including the poor and the rich, employees and employers, the elderly and the young, but in a doable, reasonable, pragmatic and fair way.

      National and ACT are socially pretentious but are primarily working for the welfare of the wealthy and the corporates.

      • Redbaiter 8.2.1
        23 February 2015 at 2:27 pm

        You do realise that John Key and National are probably redistributing about $20 billion more today than Helen Clark was when she lost government.

      • Bob 8.2.2
        23 February 2015 at 3:53 pm

        Which is why National have raised the minimum wage at a rate higher than inflation every year they have been in power? Because they are primarily working for the welfare of the wealthy and the corporates?

        Let’s be clear here, Labour, National and every political party (except maybe the Conservatives, I’m not sure what the hell they stand for apart from a soap box for Colin Craig) ALL have the interests of ALL people at heart, they simply all have very different ideas on how to benefit all people.

        Just because your perception of the best way to run the country is diferent to National’s or ACT’s doesn’t make their way wrong, but this is the beauty of politics, there is no right answer to anything, just ‘best practice’ or ‘best guess’.

        • ropata:rorschach 8.2.2.1
          24 February 2015 at 12:52 am

          Nope, the first goal of every political party is to gain power or influence.

          You must have been living under a rock if you think National serves anyone but themselves and their corporate pals. National are basically a PR organ (coached by Crosby Textor) working for banks and giant corporations. They throw a few sops out now and then to keep the revolting masses at bay.

          Read Dirty Politics, and don’t be a mug.

  9. swordfish 9
    23 February 2015 at 11:05 am

    Certainly good for Labour (up 5 points (Roy Morgan) and 6 points (Colmar Brunton) on their 2014 Election result). And for the Left Bloc as a whole (up 5 points and 4 points respectively).

    Unfortunately, though, it comes partly at the expense of NZF, down 3 points in both polls. As a result, despite the pleasing results for Labour and the Left, the broader Opposition Bloc is up just 2 points and 1.5 points respectively.

    On the other side, the Nats, are up 2 points in both polls (which more than compensates for a slide in support for the minor parties of the Government Right), resulting in Government Bloc support climbing 1 point and 1.5 points. (So the latest Colmar Brunton actually suggests no change between the major Govt/Oppo Blocs – both up 1.5 points).

    But just as Labour’s rise comes partially at the expense of NZF, so National’s rise is on the back of a 2.5 point Conservative fall***. All of which means that although the Govt Bloc (like the Oppo Bloc) is up, the Broad Right (Govt+Cons) are down 1 or 2 points.

    All you can really say is: Labour seems to be consolidating its position on the Left, the Nats are possibly doing the same on the Right, but for all we know everything else could well be sampling error. At best, a very minor Right-to-Left swing has taken place.

    ***(All in net terms, of course. We don’t know what sort of swings and counter-swings have been going on under the surface).

    Bloc………..2014 Election………….RM…….Diff…………….CB……. Diff
    Lab+Green……35.8…………………..42…….+ 6.2……………41………+ 5.2
    Left Bloc………37.2…………………..42…….+ 4.8………….. .41.4…….+ 4.2
    Oppo Bloc…….45.9…………………..48…….+ 2.1……… ……47.4…….+ 1.5
    Govt Bloc……..49.3…………………..50…….+ 0.7…………….50.8…….+ 1.5
    Right Bloc…….53.2…………………..51.5…..- 1.7……………..52.2……..- 1.0

  10. AUDNZD 10
    23 February 2015 at 11:53 am

    It looks like the Greens are losing supporters, who are turning to Labour. Long may it continue.

    • swordfish 10.1
      23 February 2015 at 12:06 pm

      You reckon ?

      Greens UP 1.3 (Roy Morgan) and DOWN 0.7 (Colmar Brunton) = minimal change or sampling error.

      Compare that with NZF – DOWN 2.7 in both polls.

      • Macro 10.1.1
        23 February 2015 at 5:34 pm

        Yep – and taking into account the bias in Colmar Brunton probably a small uplift in support if anything.

        It never fails to astonish me the ignorance in the comments some make on here.

        • Chooky 10.1.1.1
          23 February 2015 at 7:37 pm

          +100

        • Pete George 10.1.1.2
          23 February 2015 at 8:08 pm

          “taking into account the bias in Colmar Brunton probably a small uplift in support if anything.

          It never fails to astonish me the ignorance in the comments some make on here.”

          Funny.

          What bias are you talking about?

      • Pete George 10.1.2
        23 February 2015 at 8:06 pm

        But that’s just one poll to poll movement for the Greens. Since the election Greens at Roy Morgan:

        Sep 29-Oct 12: 17.5
        Oct 27-Nov 9: 14.5
        Nov 24-Dec 7: 12%
        Jan 5-18: 11%
        Deb 2-15: 12%

        RM round to the nearest 0.5 so 11 could be up to 11.49% and 12 could be down to 11.51% and there’s about ±1.9% margin of error.

        Considering Greens tend to poll higher than they get in elections there’s a downward movement then a leveling off trend which suggests Greens have lost support since the election.

        • Paul 10.1.2.1
          23 February 2015 at 8:07 pm

          Were you surprised by the Southampton Liverpool result?

        • swordfish 10.1.2.2
          23 February 2015 at 9:19 pm

          “…..Greens tend to poll higher than they get in elections…..”

          No, their support tends to rise during the final few weeks of the campaign, they generally can’t sustain that new support and on election day end up close to the average they were polling a few months out.

          “…..suggests Greens have lost support since the election.”

          No, suggests the Greens experienced a dramatic, almost unprecedented rise in the first post-election Roy Morgan (assuming it wasn’t a rogue poll in this respect) and that by late November last year, they were back to their normal polling level again. You’ll find plenty of pre-Election polls with the Greens on 11-12%. And even a few where they’re on 9-10%.

          So they gained dramatically immediately following the election, then slowly lost that new, unexpected support – which certainly isn’t the pattern implied by your argument here.

          • Pete George 10.1.2.2.1
            24 February 2015 at 6:27 am

            Green support fluctuated right through 2014 up to the election (and since).

            11
            12
            10.5
            14
            13
            11.5
            14.5
            13.5
            9
            12
            12
            15
            12
            11.5
            16
            13.5

            While the 16 two polls before the election was abnormally high (and the 9 in June abnormally low) that is a pattern of fluctuation rather than rise to the election.

            In 7 of 16 polls they got 13-16.

            Average was 12.5% and median 12% so the election’s 10.7% is lower than they usually poll (they polled less than their election result only twice).

            That they polled 16 and 13.5 leading up to the election and 17.5 in the first poll after suggests that 10.7% is below what Greens poll.

            The 17.5 could be an outlier but support was obviously high post election, as it was at times right through 2014.

            • Clemgeopin 10.1.2.2.1.1
              24 February 2015 at 9:41 am

              Could you make a similar detailed analysis of the poll numbers in 2014 for the United Future and ACT please? Thanks in advance!

            • swordfish 10.1.2.2.1.2
              24 February 2015 at 4:31 pm

              Right, so let’s untangle the issues at hand…

              (1) The point I originally responded to was AUDNZD’s suggestion that former Green voters are currently (ie over the last month or two as allegedly shown by the most recent polls) swinging to Labour in droves. I suggested the poll evidence does not, in fact, support this contention.

              (2) You, Pete, then introduced the somewhat broader notion that the Greens have lost support since the 2014 election. I argued, in turn, that, no, the Party experienced a dramatic rise in support in the immediate wake of the election (whether the poll be an outlier, or whether, alternatively, it reflected Labour’s post-Election disarray) and then slowly lost this new, unexpected support over the next few months.

              (3) You also introduced the general notion that the “Greens tend to poll higher than they get in elections”. I responded that, no, their support tends to rise during the Election campaign, that they generally can’t sustain that new support so that, on Election Day, they end up close to the average they were polling a few months out.

              So let’s start with issue 3.

              Do the Greens:
              (a) have a tendency to poll at a higher level throughout the year than they receive on Election Day (as you contend) or
              (b) have a tendency to poll at a higher level only during the campaign, ending up on Election Day below their final monthly poll averages but close to the averages they were polling a few months out (my argument)

              2005 (Sep Election)
              From Jan to June, the Greens’ monthly poll average is 4-5% (depending on the month). In July, as the election campaign starts to gather momentum, their average rises to 6% and remains there in August and September. At the 2005 Election, they receive 5.3%. Lower than their average during the campaign, the same or slightly higher than they were averaging a few months out.
              CONCLUSION: swordfish 1, Pete George 0

              2008 (Nov Election)
              The Greens average 6-7% support in polls throughout the year (depending on the month). In the final few weeks of the campaign, their average rises to 8%. On Election Day, they receive 6.7%. Lower than their average during the campaign, roughly the same as their average throughout the rest of the year.
              CONCLUSION: swordfish 1, Pete George 0

              2011 (Nov Election)
              From Jan to July, the Greens average 6-8% (depending on the month), in August their average rises to 9%, in Sep and Oct 10% and then, in the final few of weeks of the campaign, 12%. In the event, the Greens receive 11.1% on Election Day. Less than they were averaging in the final few weeks, but in fact more than they were averaging throughout the rest of the year.
              CONCLUSION: swordfish 1, Pete George 0

              More to follow (when I have time available)…….

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                24 February 2015 at 4:49 pm

                Your score is wrong and implies only three points separate you and Racist George.

                Zero is infinitely less valuable than any positive number, let alone a substantial one.

  11. Old Mickey 11
    23 February 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Good result, and hope that the distancing from the greens continues. HOWEVER , before the danelion tea is brewed, National are on 49%. So despite the sabin beatup, despite the unpaid workers bill beatup, despite NOVOPAY debarcle, despite Gerry Browlie enquiry, a 3rd term NAtional Govt still has the best part of 50% support today. What policy platform with Little outline, post the election-review, that will make a real difference to those who voted National last time ? National will retain Northland, Winston wont run (ego cant take it), Labour candidate has NO chance. Majoirty secured, ACT & Poodle Pete will ensure National policy platform will continue to be rolled out. Fewer teen pregancies, fewer dependants, and more jobs.

    • JanM 11.1
      23 February 2015 at 1:18 pm

      You have to wonder what atrocities they need to commit before the great unwashed see them for what they are, don’t you!

      • Old Mickey 11.1.1
        23 February 2015 at 2:00 pm

        Thats my point – beltway issues are not seen as atrocities by the great unwashed, so why bother bleating about them ? 49% speaks for itself.

  12. SHG 12
    23 February 2015 at 2:43 pm

    A trend is something that happens over time. This is a collection of polls all taken at the same time.

    • Chooky 12.1
      23 February 2015 at 7:40 pm

      +100…sometimes it takes a while for things to sink in with the general public…I am still convinced Labour’s vote is soft and could swing to Mana or Greens or Winnie NZF quite easily…people will be watching

  13. DS 13
    23 February 2015 at 2:50 pm

    >>>ACT & Poodle Pete will ensure National policy platform will continue to be rolled >>>out. Fewer teen pregancies, fewer dependants, and more jobs.

    Are you somehow implying that the Tory policy platform will somehow result in more jobs?

  14. AUDNZD 14
    23 February 2015 at 3:00 pm

    When was the last time we saw Labour on 49%? Decades ago? Can anyone answer?

    • swordfish 14.1
      23 February 2015 at 5:02 pm

      When was the last time we saw Labour on 49%

      As I’m sure you’re well aware, we live under an electoral system called…..can you guess what it is ?….that’s right, MMP. You know…….. where governments form coalitions and support arrangements with allied parties ?

      As I’m sure you also know, Right Bloc support coalesces far more tightly around the Nats than Left voters do around Labour (the latter, incidentally, is a more healthy situation – diversity of views properly represented as MMP intended).

      So, it goes without saying that the appropriate poll stats to look at are for the respective Blocs. Your question should be….When was the last time we saw the Left Bloc or broader Opposition Bloc (Left+NZF) winning majority support ?

      And the answer is: Not that long ago at all.

      In September 2013, the Left were on 50% in the polls, with the Opposition Bloc on 54-55%

      In January 2014, the Left ranged between 45-47%, with the Oppo Bloc 50-52%

      Even in March 2014, immediately after the Dirty Politics-inspired MSM campaign against Cunliffe kicked off, the Left were still polling 46-47% and the Oppo Bloc 51-53%

      And as late as May, well into the anti-Cunliffe tirade, the Left were taking 45% in the polls, with the Oppo on 51%.

      So, yeah, the chances of a change of government were still relatively high less than a year ago. Thanks for reminding us, Sweetness.

      • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.1
        23 February 2015 at 8:10 pm

        we live under an electoral system called…..can you guess what it is ?….that’s right, MMP. You know…….. where governments form coalitions and support arrangements with allied parties ?

        It’s Labour I think you need to remind.

  15. Skinny 15
    23 February 2015 at 3:29 pm

    As long as Key stays Centre its a hard road ahead for the Left. This is unless Labour really turn hard Left and infuse the previous non voters to vote.

    • Maui 15.1
      23 February 2015 at 6:27 pm

      I would rather see Labour go hard left, but I think that would require a major revolution in the Labour Party and a minor miracle. They’ve gone soft on mass surveillance and poverty in the months after election, all indications are they’re heading for the middle.

    • Lloyd 15.2
      23 February 2015 at 11:39 pm

      When was Key ever CENTRE? The guy is so far-right he should be wearing a black shirt and jack-boots.

      • SHG 15.2.1
        24 February 2015 at 12:01 pm

        When was Key ever CENTRE? The guy is so far-right he should be wearing a black shirt and jack-boots.

        It’s this kind of foaming-mouth hysteria that ensures victory for National.

      • Brutus Iscariot 15.2.2
        24 February 2015 at 2:31 pm

        Obviously you haven’t studied either history or politics (contemporary or otherwise), or probably even opened a newspaper.

        NZ politics is extremely moderate by global standards. The equivalent of the French mainstream left party in New Zealand is probably Mana. Similarly if moved to the US, the National Party would probably approximate the Democrats.

        The natural constituency for far-right parties is very small and fractious in New Zealand, and it would be right to say that they currently have no explicit representation in Parliament. The NZF Party, and to a lesser extent the Conservative Party, are probably the equivalent of the 1970s National Party. Authoritarian socially and “command-economy” biased. That part of the “Right” in New Zealand is populated mostly by old white faces who hark back to NZ’s conservative and insular agrarian roots.

        Parties like Act don’t have an obvious place in your “analysis” because they have about as much in common with Hitler or Mussolini, as Metiria Turei does with George Bush. This is partly because historically the classical liberal movement in New Zealand has often sold itself out to reactionary forces and big money interests. Small state and socially liberal ideas should be taking youth votes from the Greens and more liberal entrepreneurial Nats, rather than Act pandering to guys like Louis Crimp who have wet dreams about “putting the natives in their place”. Anyway, that’s an aside,

        Similarly there is little to no market for far-left ideas (as demonstrated in say South America) in New Zealand. New Zealand’s far-left exists pretty much in the student domain and the urban liberal bourgeoisie, and is thus rather ephemeral.

  16. Maui 16
    23 February 2015 at 6:35 pm

    I think it’s dangerous to get caught up in these polls and be optimistic. We all know the media are in National’s back pocket. One concerted digging up dirt effort by the media could probably strip 10% off the Labour vote, and if it the same was done to National it would probably boost them by a couple of percentage points! I don’t know how you get around that, the Labour leader is going to be in a fragile position for the next 3 years even if Labour starts to take a big lead in the polls. John Key’s bulletproof vest must have about 100 holes in it by now.

    • b waghorn 16.1
      23 February 2015 at 7:41 pm

      And if they can’t find any dirt in there digs they’ll just manufacture some and feed it out through there dirty channels.

  17. Michael who failed Civics 17
    23 February 2015 at 8:45 pm

    No need to campaign in 2017 then, or bother trying to reconnect with the base. Sleepwalk all the way into the Beehive on the basis of three, increasingly unreliable, polls. Next, I expect we’ll hear all about Labour being the “natural party of government” again. The word “Hubris” springs to mind.