Updates, upgrades, and polls

111 comments on “Updates, upgrades, and polls ”

• Comments are now closed

1. outofbed 1

   5 April 2012 at 9:39 pm

   Why do Morgan sate this “If a National Election were held today the National Party would likely be returned to Government, however a Labour/ Greens alliance could form Government.”
   WTF
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     5 April 2012 at 10:04 pm

     LAB/GR/NZ1 if the Hair and/or the Mp swings their way.
     • David H 1.1.1

       6 April 2012 at 5:31 pm

       More like GR/NZ1/Anyone else/ Labour. Until they get rid of Shearer and his bunch of sleepy silent ones, and get some politicians in who can actually string 3 words together. And a complete cleanout of the old hangers on in the Labour party.
2. toad 2

   5 April 2012 at 9:41 pm

   The Greens seem to look like pretty good option for those pissed off with National but don’t think Labour is cutting the mustard.

   At the end of the day, it is the coalition or confidence & supply numbers that stack up, and I’m sure a bigger Green share in a Labour-Green coalition will result in a policy direction that promotes social justice and ecological sustainability to a greater extent than happened in the last Labour-led Government that was constrained by the influence of Dunne & Peters.
3. Policy Parrot 3

   5 April 2012 at 9:46 pm

   There is a possibility in the future that except in times of exceptional popularity/unpopularity on the part of Labour/National respectively, that Labour will not win a plurality. It may be National that wins a plurality on the bulk of elections. But the Labour-Green alliance will be what wins Government for Labour.

   This means that the parties have to get ready to cooperate, now. Cooperate in opposition, differentiate in government – so the minor party isn’t subsumed (and we have to face the fact that the minor party may not always be the Greens either in such an arrangement, it could well be Labour).

   Public theatrics is one thing, but on certain core business agreed upon, so that stability is not affected, need we go back to the Alliance and Afghanistan? (I’m pretty sure the Alliance party only tried to oppose the troop deployment to Afghanistan, they weren’t about to bring down the government in order to prevent deployment).
   • Uturn 3.1

     6 April 2012 at 4:58 am

     Whatever small groups there are inside both the Labour and Green Party that do share some goodwill, neither party made that translate to a public showing last election, when it was most needed. The best they could manage was a general similarity in “caring for the poor and children of our future”. The public had to work it out. It wasn’t a difficult riddle, but clearly it was still too cryptic. Changes to the Labour leadership and some evidence of internal fracturing pretty much rules out a joint campaign in the future. Labour are in a hole, making digging noises.

     But there is an interesting possibility. If a Greens Mana movement picked up enough of the vote to make Labour a junior/equal party to a Left coalition, then the group could maneuver to utilise the financial management knowledge of those in Labour party without picking up the further swing out to the right that the new Labour leadership have signalled. It would make a true coalition, not just big brother little brother stuff, a viable alternative to a public that is disillusioned with the corruption of the majors. I’m not saying that Greens don’t know what they’re doing with money, but they have a public perception problem that a team from Labour could fix.
4. the sprout 4

   5 April 2012 at 9:49 pm

   National takes a nose dive and Labour picks up next to none of the support, Greens take it all

   Perhaps Labour’s master plan of sleepwalking to victory with a near catatonic, burnt-out husk for a leader at the helm isn’t such a good idea after all.

   What will be Labour’s share of the party vote next election – sub 25%? Small wonder Shearer was the rightwingers’ Labour leader of choice.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     5 April 2012 at 10:05 pm

     Oh don’t be a sourpuss, Labour could probably get 30%.

     Edit – and with the Greens on almost 20% – how would you guys like the DPM position? Actual responsibility and all that.
     • the sprout 4.1.1

       5 April 2012 at 10:11 pm

       Really cv? How have they lifted their game since last election’s 28%?

       A more competent and compelling leader than Goff?
       A new set of strategists?
       Bold policies that might re-ignite activist support?
       Any policies that might inspire the disenfranchised non-voting left to actually vote? 

       Must be something I’ve missed. The swing to Greens suggests just relying on Key’s declining popularity isn’t going to grow that 28%.

       Edit – at this rate Greens might be offering Labour the DPM
   • RedLogix 4.2

     5 April 2012 at 10:09 pm

     As a Green Party member I’m not in the slightest bit interested in seeing Labour fall below 30%.

     There are only two useful places for the left to get votes; the 1m or so people who didn’t vote last election… and the soft National vote.
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.1

       5 April 2012 at 10:12 pm

       Just get the 0.75M plus core left vote who couldn’t be assed last elections a good Left Wing reason to come out and make it happen.

       The soft National vote can go twist in the wind.
       • RedLogix 4.2.1.1

         5 April 2012 at 10:40 pm

         I agree with your sentiment CV; but this result more or less suggests the opposite doesn’t it?
         • Matthew Whitehead 4.2.1.1.1

           6 April 2012 at 9:05 am

           Not necessarily, no. That 4% could have come from non-voters, or labour, and National could be hemorrhaging away to either of those places.
           • RedLogix 4.2.1.1.1.1

             6 April 2012 at 9:34 am

             Matt,

             Technically you are perfectly correct. Of course a poll is not the same as an election.

             The election had an almost 35% non-vote; by comparison the Roy Morgan poll reports, “Of all electors surveyed 3.5% (down 0.5%) didn’t name a party. “.

             You can only assume that the 35% who didn’t vote at the election, would probably have voted much the same as those who did vote… with perhaps a modest bias towards the left.

             The other factor is that the core Labour vote really has never fallen below 30%… and that on that basis I’d expect very few have switched from Labour to Green.

             The core Labour vote, bless them is typically socially conservative working class, whereas the Greens are a quite different liberal constitutancy. Personally I see it more likely someone could swing between soft National and the Greens, than from hard core Labour to the Greens.

             This is not a bad thing. Personally I see it as a huge strength for the left if the two parties can intelligently connect with these two distinct groups.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               6 April 2012 at 10:06 am

               You can only assume that the 35% who didn’t vote at the election, would probably have voted much the same as those who did vote… with perhaps a modest bias towards the left.

               I was looking at the brand new Auckland phone book. First thing I noticed was that it’s far smaller than what it used to be. It used to be quite large (Close to A4) and nearly 2 inches thick, now it’s smallish (Close to A5) and less than an inch thick. Looking at my family name, which has never been copious, I noticed that it’s shrunk from about a full column in the large directory to 8 in the new one. This despite the fact that Auckland has grown quite a bit since I last looked at the phone book (probably early to mid 1990s).

               Roy Morgan, and most others, are a phone poll and they get the phone numbers from the phone book. Anecdotes aren’t research but chances are, those 35% aren’t even in there.
               • RedLogix …

                 6 April 2012 at 10:11 am

                 Yes… that postulates that there is a correlation between “does not have a landline” and “does not vote”. Which is not an unreasonable suggestion… but unproven as far as I’m aware.

                 The problem here is that until some reliably identifies this group, and accurately polls their views we really have no idea how they might influence any future election.

                 Assuming that is that they ever do get motivated enough to vote.
                 • the sprout …

                   6 April 2012 at 11:33 am

                   strongest correlates of no landline:

                   1. low SES
                   2. students flats 

                   ie. two significant non-voting demographic predictors
               • felix …

                 6 April 2012 at 10:18 am

                 Frankly I’m surprised there are even that many with your family name, Mr Bastard.
                 • RedLogix …

                   6 April 2012 at 10:25 am

                   Made my day felix…
                   • LynW …

                     6 April 2012 at 10:28 am

                     🙂
               • RedLogix …

                 6 April 2012 at 10:32 am

                 Part of the reason DtB is a change in format that saves a lot of space…
     • lprent 4.2.2

       5 April 2012 at 10:23 pm

       I’m kind of worried that it will wind up in the Don’t Vote party
5. just saying 5

   5 April 2012 at 10:41 pm

   My prediction is that this trend will continue. Paganiism, which proved itself to be a dismal failure for Labour in the first three years of National’s reign, will increase incrementally until the only difference between National and Labour is simply the colour scheme. Maybe the two parties will merge into a glorious right-wing purple. Purple is a traditional colour of the elite.

   The good news is at last we have the beginnings of an effective opposition. May it continue to gain momentum and strength.
   • Eddie 5.1

     5 April 2012 at 10:56 pm

     Paganism is that great danger. You might win an election or two, but in the long-run more and more people are just turned off the process entirely, which leaves politics to the elites and the fanatics – the position that the US is in. I don’t think that’s a recipe for a healthy and adaptable society.
6. Draco T Bastard 6

   5 April 2012 at 10:53 pm

   Labour had better get their collective arses into actions or they will probably keep bleeding voters to the NonVote.

   There’s only one thing that Labour can do and they won’t do it. That’s the problem with being a centre-right party pretending to be a party of the left – when the leaders see a drop in support they go further to the right.
   • Muzza 6.1

     6 April 2012 at 7:02 am

     So Labour have been taken to the right, deliberately. Greens become the new controllable left , simple plan.
     Voters with the impression it will make a difference, and that we still live in a democracy, what a farce this is going to end up as with nothing to resemble the traditional left, and who knows maybe labour will end up center right enough to co govt with national the way they are heading!
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       6 April 2012 at 10:33 am

       Greens are Left but they aren’t a real working class party. Comfortable middle classes and professionals with Greenpeace sponsorships and a two year old Prius maybe.
   • Colonial Viper 6.2

     6 April 2012 at 10:29 am

     There’s only one thing that Labour can do and they won’t do it.

     Please spell out this “one thing” in simple terms so I might understand it.
     • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1

       6 April 2012 at 10:44 am

       Move to the left.
7. ianmac 7

   5 April 2012 at 11:04 pm

   Notice how English likes to have a dig at Labour by giving “praise” to the Greens when giving some answers at Question Time. Trying to drive a wedge since Labour/Green may be a real threat?
   • xtasy 7.1

     6 April 2012 at 3:27 am

     Blinglish and his wife have a number of children. Maybe one or a few of them are actually “green”? This is worth a thought, perhaps.
   • Matthew Whitehead 7.2

     6 April 2012 at 9:19 am

     Like anyone missed what he was trying to do.
8. bad12 8

   5 April 2012 at 11:13 pm

   If the Greens refuse to trade off their ideals of Conservation,and,Social Justice for the plastic baubles of pathetic pragmatism then We can see a time in the not to distant future when We all begin an address of a likely coalition as being Green/Labour etc,

   Labour lost many of us at the point of Sir(spit)Roger Douglas and when given the chance to make amends chose instead to carry on with the neo-lib agenda simply by doing nothing,

   Doing nothing simply allows for the have nots in society to mark time waiting for the Tories to come along and chisle another big piece of the pie off for themselves while giving the have nots the usual kicking…
   • Matthew Whitehead 8.1

     6 April 2012 at 9:21 am

     The Greens are already a pragmatic party, and have always been. Of course, this means pragmatic in terms of getting their policy aims implemented, where other parties use that word to mean joining the government benches for the wrong reasons.

     I don’t think the Greens are likely to lose their focus on policy any time soon, and if it starts happening, they are very accountable to their members, so that might keep them on track anyway.
9. xtasy 9

   6 April 2012 at 3:21 am

   Voters have some power, and expressing this is much neglected in NZ. It is time for people to inform themselves, take a stand and express it. This National government is facing annihilation in the coming election. The Greens have some good ideas, but Labour is not offering enough of substance to form an alternativ e government. Other opposition parties play their roles as expected.

   Voters and party members should now put pressure on parties to get them to address their concerns and interests. The Greens could do well with some further economic management enlightenment, Labour really needs to take more on board and get real about renewal. I do not know what to recommend to NZ First, as it seems to continue to simply be Winston’s party. Hone is doing OK , but that is not enough.

   So we are in for interesting months ahead. Wake up NZ, get real about what matters and take a bloody stand. The future cannot be left for a former currency trader and his elite crowd to simply look after their interests.

   Kia kaha.
   • Matthew Whitehead 9.1

     6 April 2012 at 9:23 am

     Greens don’t need to be stronger on the economy, they’re just suffering from the usual left-wing perception bias here that sound economic reasoning isn’t serious when it comes from left-wing sources.
     • Pete George 9.1.1

       6 April 2012 at 9:32 am

       More like they are suffering from lack of credibility for their idealistic policies. It’s hard to see how they could achieve their aims in practice.

       I hope that when Greens finally do get in to a coalition Government they don’t have too many seats and too much sway. They need to learn the reality of implementing policies with a guiding hand of practicla experience. Actually governing is much different – and more difficult – than promoting grand sounding ideals from the sideline.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1

         6 April 2012 at 10:14 am

         I hope that when Greens finally do get in to a coalition Government they don’t have too many seats and too much sway. They need to learn the reality of implementing policies with a guiding hand of practicla experience.

         Translation: They need to be centrists just like me and not do anything I consider radical.

         Yeah, nothing like standing up for principles eh PG?
       • Reality Bytes 9.1.1.2

         6 April 2012 at 12:20 pm

         “More like they are suffering from lack of credibility for their idealistic policies. It’s hard to see how they could achieve their aims in practice.”

         Funny that, I have exactly the same view of the Nat’s. Idealistic dreams of a brighter future thanks to poorly timed tax cuts funded by the sales of profitable strategic assets. It certainly is hard to see how they could achieve their aims in practice.

         Mind you, I have to give credit to National for at least standing for something and sticking to their guns, and not being merely the sellout party. Ever wonder why your party barely scraped in a little over 0.5% of the list vote, and the Greens got over 11%? Credibility. Greens have it, your party does not.
       • fender 9.1.1.3

         6 April 2012 at 8:05 pm

         More pompous drivel from the ultimate grand stand flake.

         That crap reads like Dunne himself spoke it.

         Imagine if UF had some of that credibility you talk about PG, instead of selling out for the continued supply of hair product.

         UF can’t claim to be a centrist party can they. The Hair will up anchor as required, must be the benefit of having a political party without foundations.
10. ScottGN 10

    6 April 2012 at 6:28 am

    This is a great poll. Not surprisingly there is no mention of it on TVNZ’s online news site since it pretty much contradicts their polling. Worth remembering though that Roy Morgan consistently seems to favour both Greens and National over Labour – their election eve poll last year overstated National by about 2 points, the Greens by about 3 points and understated Labour by about 4 points compared to election day results.
11. bad12 11

    6 April 2012 at 6:49 am

    What do the have not’s want from a Government firmly holding fast to ideals and ideas of left leaning policy, and, can a heaviy influence of Green in a Government actually ”work”,

    The short answer to that question would have to be ”not a hell of a lot”, its not often that for instance the unemployed are heard hollering from the roof-tops that they want more cash,

    Having said that, it is obvious to any-one with at least one eye open that the unemployed don’t create employment, employers and Government policy do that, every extra worker tho when made unemployed by either an employer or Government policy simply means that the next worker is that much closer to also losing employment,

    So, in all reality the number of unemployed at any given time is simply a reflection of the FAILURE of Government policy and what we want to see is a bi-partisan aknowledgement of this along with the ceasing of pathetically stupid Orwellian ventures of restructure as far as the benefit system used to sustain the unemployed and other beneficiaries is concerned,

    Obviously, We would ”like” to see the ”tax credit” offered to those with children extended to those children reliant on a welfare benefit for their sustainance, our view of this is that if the children of those working families earning what 60? 70? 80,000 a year NEED those tax credits then the children of those surviving on 30 grand or less sure as fucking hell need them as well,

    Again it is obvious that the country needs a State House building program aimed at the provision of 20,000 additional State Houses of all sizes in the next 5 years, We have addressed this here befor making the point that any Government can build such using a debt generated and held between the relevant Government departments without having to resort to taxation or borrowing to have the desired outcome achieved,

    We will answer the question of can a Government either lead by or with a heavy Green influence ”work”, of course it can, it is in fact all a matter of perception, how many of us make use of recycling our waste either with a economic, and/or conservation imperative in mind???

    For the moment we will rest our case on that point but when you think about it WE ALL, even the alcoholic putting the empties out in the recycle, have over the past decade become in our daily lives far more ”Green” than many of us realize…
    • Uturn 11.1

      6 April 2012 at 9:33 am

      Unemployed people are only non-creators of work/jobs if you view people through a lens of, well, hell, any kind of economic policy or political agenda to the right of bottom-up, reactionary socialism. The term “unemployed” is the language of the capitalist. Just as it has been argued here that winz type “benefits” are in reality a payment to maintain a secure social arrangement, or social security, so too are many terms in industrial relations skewed to maintain a particular view.

      A recent real world instance of unemployed people creating work would be those left “unemployed” after the collapse of the Menem regime in Argentina. There, the workers did create their own jobs; occupying abandoned factories and equipment and literally just taking and using what was left behind by the cutting crews as they fled. The lie contained in capitalism is that human energy is difficult to “release”.

      Incidentally, once the cowards who had fled realised the stuff they didn’t want had value they hadn’t noticed, they tried, with legal means, to stop the workers working to feed themselves. They didn’t act in too dissimilar a way to the SOP of our current bunch. Look, if anyone needs an example of how evil capitalism is, of how greedy and pathological “free-market forces” are, they just need to review the behaviour of those guys. The “market” has no conscience, and never calls a halt. It does not self-adjust on the side of human need, and to paraphrase the words of another man, it leaves a place as barren as any terrain Attila the Hun’s horses trampled. The trick, though, is that self-interest makes you myopically stupid. A self-interested person cannot see the worth of what is before them, just the dollar value. Because of that, they are always on their way to losing control of the people.

      People seeking freedom need to adopt a view of neutral reality when deciding where to go, collectively: imagine we are new to earth, that we know basic physical laws, but that economics is not part of natural law. Then we see people, their needs and how they expend their energy and how it applies to productive activities, how people benefit – and not an imaginary group of “unemployed” people.

      We all know what we need to live productive, healthy lives. What we’ve become are human prisoners in a weird kind of global zoo; developing a Stockholm syndrome relationship with our zookeeper overlords. By the time most of us wake up, the youngest generation are already part way through the same subtle indoctrination we received as children in schools. Our self-appointed overlords are not special, we let them have their power and the first thing to do to end that dysfunctional relationship is start seeing the world for how it is, not how we have been told it is, or should be to maintain the inequalities we know are immoral and unjust.
12. Pete George 12

    6 April 2012 at 7:11 am

    Having said that, it is obvious to any-one with at least one eye open that the unemployed don’t create employment

    Obviously most jobs are created by employers, and some by government. But not entirely.

    Some unemployed people do create jobs for themselves by becoming self employed, and some of them go on to employ others. I’ve done this myself, four times over my working life I’ve created a job for myself and each time that resulted in employing others.

    And to an extent the attitude to work of unemployed people can increase employment. There are employers who would at times employ more people but don’t because they can’t find people with the right skills or work attitude.

    If more unemployed people get better training and are prepared to put themselves forward more for work (with more flexibility) it can increase employment.
    • bad12 12.1

      6 April 2012 at 8:07 am

      ”Some” employment is created by Government,(snigger), please book a return ticket to the planet Earth befor posting future comments,

      In the small New Zealand economy the Government has always been the largest employer either directly or through contracted service provision,that is said without further addressing the effect on employment of ”policy direction”,

      A minister of Finance addressing the various business groups would only need give them the message that the Government He or She represented was strictly in favor of having more people in direct employment by those business people,

      As a further explanation and incentive that Minister of Finance only need suggest to such meetings of business people that should Government ”have” to directly employ more people to meet its policy targets such employment would have to be paid for by way of taxation,

      Further pointing out that such taxation might in fact become a larger cost to the business people than the cost of directly employing people to meet the Government policy targets on the issue,

      betcha unemployment numbers would drop like a rock…
    • bad12 12.2

      6 April 2012 at 8:50 am

      PS, So your a 4 times FAILURE in the realm of business and you sit here attempting to tell us that your ideas of efficiency and flexibility hold any validity in just how to manage an economy in a manner which delivers the best end result for all residents of that society,

      We could here also break whats-his-faces law and point out which (failed) regime also held strictly to the strictures of efficiency and flexibility but you obviously already operate with that understanding,

      Incidently, whats his faces law was simply formulated in an attempt by those who wished to broadcast such policies of efficiency and flexibility as ”mainstream thinking” so as to have people ”forget” which other (failed) regime in history held such as core beliefs…
    • Matthew Whitehead 12.3

      6 April 2012 at 9:31 am

      Employers don’t create jobs, they offer them. Jobs are created by demand, which means consumer confidence, or to phrase it in a more ironic way, people already in jobs deciding to spend their money.

      Becoming self-employed is not creating a job, it’s creating a business, which is manifestly not the same thing, and if a person has the resources to start their own business, they weren’t going to be unemployed for long. That isn’t about someone’s attitude to work, it’s about whether they have the support in place (either material or social) to lift themselves out of a bad situation.

      Training the unemployed is an excellent idea, (but we’d need to fund it first) but so-called “employment flexibility” is a way to reduce the number of people needed for a given job. Yes, being flexible will mean that sometimes you’re more likely to be hired. But saying everyone should be flexible is moronic- I don’t want to live in a country or work in an industry where I can’t get the security of fixed hours, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask that of people coming out of unemployment- otherwise you get cases where WINZ refers you to a “full-time” job where you only end up working two or three days a week because they require “flexibility”, and you’re stuck going broke because WINZ would likely refuse to backpay you the benefit they cut off.* Yay codewords.

      *Yeah, that’s a personal story of someone I know.
      • Lanthanide 12.3.1

        6 April 2012 at 10:02 am

        “Employers don’t create jobs, they offer them. Jobs are created by demand, which means consumer confidence, or to phrase it in a more ironic way, people already in jobs deciding to spend their money.”

        Disagree. It is entirely possible for a company to hire staff it doesn’t need. Or is more often the case, not hire staff that they do actually need.
      • bad12 12.3.2

        6 April 2012 at 10:05 am

        Such was at the heart of the prots of Auckland dispute between Management and Wharfies,

        In the case of Ports of Auckland ,Wharfies with a collective agreement which meant at least a paid 40 hour working week who had on the basis of such employment grown families, taken out mortgages,etc etc were being told that they had to become ”flexible” employees and enter into a collective agreement that would in future not guarantee the hours of paid work,

        Who then is supposed to pick up the cash deficit this would have caused every Wharfie employed under the collective agreement,

        WINZ perhaps???

        What we see there is a pathetic plan by an over-indulged elite of Management and Direction at the Ports of Auckland attempting to make their bottom line look good at the expense firstly of those who hold collective labour agreements with the Ports of Auckland and secondly the NZ taxpayer who would be left to aide the picking up of the pieces of the lives of the Wharfies and their families if such outrageous excesses of (mis)management were allowed to occur,

        Our view is that Ports of Auckland should be legislatively dissolved as a company,control of the Port of Auckland should be placed under the direct control of the Auckland Council and then the Mayor can negotiate a collective directly with the unions involved…
13. SMSD 13

    6 April 2012 at 7:17 am

    From my rough calculation, and depending on how many seats the Maori Party win, this result would basically mean that either Labour or National would only be able to form a Government with the cooperation of NZF.

    I’m not really concerned if the Greens improve relative to Labour, to me that might mean Labour can’t just play the Greens off against its centre right partners, like last time.

    I just hope that over the next two years, Labour develop a clear articulate voice to tell the public what a Labour govt will look like.
    • bad12 13.1

      6 April 2012 at 8:13 am

      We have a certain belief that Labour dont really understand the need for the Parliamentary Labour Party to make changes in direction,

      Labour in Parliament would seem to hold to the core ism of neo-liberal economics, and, it will only be from having a large Green presence in the next Government who hold and grow their support that Parliamentary Labour will in effect learn to apply leftist thinking and ideals to pragmatic policy decisions…
    • Anne 13.2

      6 April 2012 at 9:20 am

      I’m not really concerned if the Greens improve relative to Labour, to me that might mean Labour can’t just play the Greens off against its centre right partners, like last time.

      I was disappointed to hear Metira Turei allude to this ‘myth’ yet again the other day. I don’t believe Labour played the Greens off against other prospective partners after the 2005 election. It was the way the voters – in their infinite lack of wisdom – chose to deal the cards. They put Labour in an impossible position. On the one hand, NZ First and United Future (both had more MPs so more bargaining power remember) refused to be part of a coalition that included the Greens. On the other hand, a coalition with the Greens only would have left the Labour led govt. struggling to maintain a majority for the next 3 years. If the Greens had managed to hold on to their pre-election polling numbers, then we would have seen a Lab./Green coalition between 2005 and 2008.

      If you want to place the blame somewhere put it where it belongs – in the lap of NZ First and UF.

      Mind you I concede that Labour probably also took into consideration that it was better having Winnie on the inside pissing out than the outside……

      I’m delighted the Greens are doing so well and I hope it holds up this time. A Lab/Green coalition is the best combination we could have.
      • Anne 13.2.1

        6 April 2012 at 9:46 am

        On a lighter note… lets mix green and red and have a sprinkling of brown (Mana) too. Now that would be even better. 🙂

        Hone Harawira has been saying some good things lately.
14. Bonn 14

    6 April 2012 at 8:39 am

    I see whale blubber is attributing this nosedive in National polling to the Boag faction. Daresay his good friend Collns posturing and attempting to use taxpayer dollars to throw lawsuits at her critics hasn’t helped National either, but it wouldn’t suit his agenda to admit that.

    The real question is, what will Labour do to pick up votes?
    • Carol 14.1

      6 April 2012 at 9:26 am

      The real question is, what will Labour do to pick up votes?

      I don’t really care. If Labour is set on it’s current right-leaning/”centrist” path, hence further decline, that’s their problem. Meanwhile us lefties have the Green and Mana parties to negotiate with, and their approaches and policies look far more beneficial to the left, and the country/society in general.
15. bad12 15

    6 April 2012 at 9:28 am

    Cameron has His uses,helping tear down the false facade that is the National Party would seem at first sight as to fall into the realm of the unintended consequence of such use,

    National are lucky that none of the organs of mainstream press chose to run the footage of Nationals golden boy Slippery in a self induced rapture of condescension OPENLY LAUGHING as he ‘answered a question on the floor of the Parliament about the size of the Governments shortfall in revenue from taxation from the Greens Russell Norman,

    Slippery,s answer, ”Ha ha ha yeah but imagine the size of that deficit if We hadn’t raised GST Ha ha ha”, unquote,

    That’s the real Slippery in panic mode knowing National have lost it in the polls and the media minders have lost control of Slippery’s mouth…
16. Dr Terry 16

    6 April 2012 at 9:53 am

    The outstanding thing about the Greens is “intelligence plus clear policy”. They might yet do as Labour did in 1935. The Greens are on a rather steep rise.
    As I have been saying constantly, Labour threw away its chance by not making Cunliffe leader – their most intelligent member, inspiring orator, not abandong ideologies of the Left.
    Everybody (of any Party) would do well to read the biography of Michael Joseph Savage, “From the Cradle to the Grave” by Barry Gustafson,. Where is there to be found, today, a humanitarian and selfless leader of this nature? Labour, go back to your roots!
    • Pete George 16.1

      6 April 2012 at 10:14 am

      The outstanding thing about the Greens is “intelligence plus clear policy”.

      Then maybe then you could give a clear answer to a policy question I asked yesterday.

      Does that mean Greens want all current mining and drilling ceased, and no more allowed?
      • bad12 16.1.1

        6 April 2012 at 10:37 am

        Nope not an immediate cessation for current mining a simple sunset clause will suffice,as far as future mining in New Zealand goes,which part of the anti-mining Drill it,Mine it,Sell it campaign cant your intellect come to grips with…
        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1

          6 April 2012 at 10:44 am

          NZ is going to dig up and use/sell all the coal it has. That’s the inevitable response to $2/L diesel and $3/L petrol.
        • Pete George 16.1.1.2

          6 April 2012 at 10:47 am

          If Greens are going to be a major influence in the next Labour led government then they need to be clear about the extent of what they propose, and the viability of any proposed alternatives.

          We need to hear a lot more than “surely we can get 100,000 green jobs, they’re out there in the world somewhere.”
          • Kotahi Tane Huna 16.1.1.2.1

            6 April 2012 at 10:50 am

            Why would you care? We all know when they form part of the next government the Hair will suddenly realise he has supported their policies all along, and you will still keep fluffing him.
          • PJ 16.1.1.2.2

            6 April 2012 at 11:06 am

            but Pete, what’s the difference between that and what Key and his cohort have done? remember, 170, 000 jobs promised again and again and again, with no substance in reality
            • Pete George 16.1.1.2.2.1

              6 April 2012 at 11:13 am

              Fair point.
          • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.2.3

            6 April 2012 at 11:13 am

            they need to be clear about the extent of what they propose, and the viability of any proposed alternatives.

            Its not fucking hard to get alternatives more viable than the nonsense provided by Key, English and Brownlee.

            Look at how well their Christchurch rebuild is going. A viable plan for sitting on your thumb while the central city continues to depopulate.

            Can i also add that the Greens had huge details of policy going into the last election. National had NADA. You better apply the same standards to the Hair’s coalition partners eh?
          • KJT 16.1.1.2.4

            6 April 2012 at 11:23 am

            Bullshit.

            Read the Greens policies PG.

            http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/policy

            Go into a lot more detail than Labour or National.

            We should be saying “show me the money, Key/Dunne”.

            At least Labour’s borrowing would have gone into actually stimulating the economy.

            Not billions with nothing to show for it.

            And better than most of UF’s.
            Blindly support radical right wing Neo-Liberalism while pretending it is centrist and pragmatic.

            Building houses for Christchurch instead of leaving it to the market, makes more sense, for starters.
          • Frank Macskasy 16.1.1.2.5

            6 April 2012 at 1:33 pm

            If Greens are going to be a major influence in the next Labour led government then they need to be clear about the extent of what they propose, and the viability of any proposed alternatives.

            Why, Pete??? Why should the Greens (or Labour) be held to as higher standard when very little of National’s pledges have been implemented.

            Shall we do a little checklist?

            * stem the flow of New Zealanders to Australia? – FAIL
            * raise wages? – FAIL
            * train unemployed for skilled labour shortage? – FAIL
            * create jobs? – FAIL
            * grow the economy? – FAIL
            * succeeded in getting our credit rating down-graded by S&P and Fitch- BIG TICK

            Dear Leader makes all manner of promises and pledges and high-sounding speeches – and delivers on none of them.

            Do you know how many of the 4,000 jobs for the National cycleway eventuated?

            Do you know that we are bringing in skilled migrant workers instead of using our own 150,000 unemployed?

            Do you know that the “bene card” for 16 and 17 year olds is a promise from National to stop kids buying booze & baccy – when it’s already illegal for retailers to sell that stuff to 16 & 17 year olds?

            Do you know that the last three job-growth media stories have centered around gambling, tobacco, and prostitution???

            Let me know if you’d like more examples. I need to stop for a break – my stomach is turning.

            By the way, the latest Roy Morgan poll backs up my previous anlysis of the TVNZ/Colmar Brunton Poll on 1 April. And it paints the same picture: National is on it’s way out. People are waking up to this government’s shabby performance:

            http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/bugger-the-polls-part-rua/

            Prepare for a change of government.
            • Pete George 16.1.1.2.5.1

              6 April 2012 at 2:27 pm

              I think all should be held to a higher standard. Don’t you?
              • Colonial Viper …

                6 April 2012 at 2:36 pm

                Moral platitudes from PG, in the style of the Hair.
    • Olwyn 16.2

      6 April 2012 at 10:18 am

      +1
      • Olwyn 16.2.1

        6 April 2012 at 10:19 am

        That +1 was meant as a response to Dr Terry.
    • Hami Shearlie 16.3

      6 April 2012 at 10:20 am

      I agree with you Dr T! Cunliffe would have made the polls change for Labour!
    • Anne 16.4

      6 April 2012 at 11:18 am

      Labour threw away its chance by not making Cunliffe leader.

      Yes, I was bitterly disappointed too but we’ve got to make the best of what we now have. To me, David Shearer is making good progress but the voters will take a lot longer to pick it up. David Cunliffe has an important future role to play but he is being wise to stay out of the limelight for the time being. Any effort by him to attract attention will be portrayed by the Nats. and the media as an attempt to undermine Shearer.

      Patience… patience… patience (sigh).
      • Colonial Viper 16.4.1

        6 April 2012 at 11:46 am

        “we’ve got to make the best of what we now have”

        Yes that’s true, apart from those Labour Party activists who have decided that’s just not good enough, and who have resigned from the party, joined other parties, cancelled their donations, or generally just given up volunteering for Labour.
        • the sprout 16.4.1.1

          6 April 2012 at 11:58 am

          well put cv.
          for my part i’m not interested in making ‘the best of’ something that no longer represents my beliefs or goals, despite having contributed a lot to the party.
          on the contrary, i’m now committed to fighting what it has become. in my case paganiism has converted an activist, who knows where some quite rancid skeletons are buried, into an opponent.
          • Colonial Viper 16.4.1.1.1

            6 April 2012 at 12:16 pm

            “Paganiism”

            Very catchy and descriptive, that is.
    • Frank Macskasy 16.5

      6 April 2012 at 1:37 pm

      “Where is there to be found, today, a humanitarian and selfless leader of this nature? ”

      *sighs* Indeed…
17. lefty 17

    6 April 2012 at 10:00 am

    The Greens are different to Labour but being different does not make them more left.

    In one sense they are almost a mirror image of Labour. Labour’s membership tends to be leftish and its leadership and MPs right wing. Green Party members are overwhelmingly right wing but their MPs (with a couple of exceptions) are more to the left.

    They would manage the economy slightly more sensibly than Labour or National but their economic policies are essentially neo liberal.

    The political trajectory of Green Parties when they have gained power elsewhere tends to be to the right and the middle class make up of the NZ Greens means they are unlikely to be any different.

    And social democrats must ineveitably bow to the wishes of their capitalist masters anyway.
    • bad12 17.1

      6 April 2012 at 10:32 am

      ”The political trajectory of Green Parties when they have gained power elsewhere tends to be to the right”,

      Really???can you perhaps enlighten us as to which Green Party,s in what elsewheres have gained a major say in Government so as to be able to be considered to have ”gained power”,

      We assume this will be the insinuation from ”the right” that they will attempt to use to prompt voters from voting ”for” the Green Party,

      Thats as laughable as the ”wasted vote” line used on those who showed an inclination to vote NZFirst at the 2011 election…
    • Dave Kennedy 17.2

      6 April 2012 at 11:16 am

      I would love you to provide substance to these interesting claims regarding the neo liberal elements within the Greens. While the Greens see properly regulated markets functioning in environmentally sustainable ways. while also recognizing social responsibilities, we hardly support the free uncontrolled markets that are the basis of neo liberalism.
      • Colonial Viper 17.2.1

        6 April 2012 at 12:05 pm

        I know quite a few young people who voted Green this time around because they felt it was important that we protect the environment for future generations, and told me that their second choice would definitely have been National – because National don’t tolerate slackers, bludgers and parasites like Labour does.
        • KJT 17.2.1.1

          6 April 2012 at 12:16 pm

          Shows the value of perception over reality.

          “National don’t tolerate slackers, bludgers and parasites like Labour does”.

          What could be a bigger parasite than those with inherited wealth.
          Bludger than MP’s who leave to gravy train directorships.
          Slacker than our present, “Don’t plan, leave it too the market” Government.
    • outofbed 17.3

      6 April 2012 at 11:58 am

      Green Party members are overwhelmingly right wing

      well i have been to lots of GP conferences and know a hell of a lot of gp activists and I would say that GP members are generally more of the marxist end of the spectrum.
18. Dave Kennedy 18

    6 April 2012 at 10:51 am

    I agree with bad12, National has had an easy run with the press and while they have had scandal after debacle, blame has been effectively deflected elsewhere in most cases. If this next term sees the media developing greater intellectual rigor and a backbone we will see a National implode like Act as their leadership struggle for personal survival on their sinking ship and start blaming each other. With Collins being forced to fund her own legal costs, this process is already beginning.

    I can see the Greens have a real chance of getting over 20% support in the next election: http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/easter-poll-and-new-beginnings.html
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      6 April 2012 at 11:48 am

      Nope, I don’t think so, over 20% is far far too optimistic.

      I’d put real money down on 15%-16% though. To achieve that they will have to play the game very smart and very strategically on the ground, but it is do-able.
      • KJT 18.1.1

        6 April 2012 at 12:18 pm

        No. I think Greens will outstrip Labour over time, if Labour still fails to offer a credible alternative to National.
        • Jackal 18.1.1.1

          6 April 2012 at 6:12 pm

          I think the political landscape will be one of cooperation instead of conflict long before the Greens are on a par with Labour re public support. The problem is one of mismanagement built on ideology instead of doing what is best for New Zealand. This is because politics is currently subjective to the few who are in power.

          The current scenario is National gets in, racks up a huge government debt while a Labour coalition comes in and has to spend its first year or two changing things back and fixing the damage caused.

          Our political system is costing us dearly when our limited funds could be better spent on productive social and economical benefit. The fiasco of an ideological political agenda that is devised to benefit one sector of society over another must change… but into what, I’m not sure.
      • Dave Kennedy 18.1.2

        6 April 2012 at 1:57 pm

        When you consider Labour’s unproven leadership and policy void to the Greens growing resources, stable leadership, influx of capable new blood and a growing back room team that includes Laila Harre 15-16% is a given and 20% is very possible. After 22 years the Greens party membership and structures are well established and there is enough depth within their list to ensure there will be no reliance on one or two individuals.

        While Labour and National continue to operate under the continual threat of a poorly resolved scandal the Greens have been particularly adept at managing crisis or the odd rogue member. The increase in the Green vote last time was amongst the more affluent and educated and this group tend gain more information outside of mainstream media where the Greens often suffer from lack of exposure. This is a fairly stable constituency and because the issues that will face us in the near future are in areas where the Greens have the most credibility, this support will logically grow.
      • RedLogix 18.1.3

        6 April 2012 at 2:18 pm

        Agree with KJT and DK above.

        Labour has a proud heritage. It has achieved much and I for one will always have a huge respect for that. But from about 1980 their world changed on them, and what Labour originally stood for, or at least the way they framed it, has slowly lost traction with the electorate. Even Labour itself, with few honorable exceptions (I’m thinking Cunliffe), seems to have a fragile grip on it’s own core values.

        The Greens are the future. Theirs is a vision born of the 1980’s, a wider one that encompasses not just social and economic justice… but looks into a future dominated by environmental limitations and the end of the rule of money.

        Within a decade the Greens will be the equal if not dominant partner on the left. It’s the nature of this sort of power transition to be bumpy. There’ll be mishaps along the way…. but the outcome is the pretty much inevitable in my mind.

        If anyone wants to see this as hubris; it’s exceedingly useful to recall that Labour has formed five major governments and achieved much. It has a history, depth and voice of experience. By contrast the Greens in this country have yet to get onto the Treasury benches… and that will be a hugely testing day for a party so far innocent of the inevitable accidents and compromises of power.
        • Dave Kennedy 18.1.3.1

          6 April 2012 at 4:09 pm

          I agree that Labour has a long history and does contain a memory of being on the Treasury benches but I think you will find that those who have the greatest institutional knowledge in Labour are no longer amongst the top leadership. The Labour’s management systems are not as democratic as Nationals and there will have to be some major changes to the way they operate and develop policy if they are to retain their 2nd party status at the end of the decade.

          While the Greens have not had experience within government they are hardly naive and are more successful than Labour at pragmatically advancing Green policy while outside. I can imagine once on the Treasury Benches they will be particularly successful as most Green MPs have a high level of experience in planning, management and governance.
          • Colonial Viper 18.1.3.1.1

            6 April 2012 at 4:18 pm

            To clarify – when I put the Greens at a limit of 15%-16% I meant for the 2014 elections, which is what DK was referring to originally.

            Over the medium term – I have no doubt that the Greens have momentum and vision on their side to go further than that, compared to the way Labour looks today.
          • Pete George 18.1.3.1.2

            6 April 2012 at 4:20 pm

            I thought Greens were going to struggle when Jeannette retired, but I thought they handled the leadership transition and rebuilt very well.

            Labour’s long history isn’t that relevant any more. They wasted the last term, going backwards instead of seriously rebuilding. While some of their MPs have experience in government they could learn a lot from the Greens before they get back there.

            While there is plenty to query about some of the Green policies (hard to argue with others) they currrently look a lot more credible and assured than Labour do.

            I think the electorate is wary of Greens having too much say in power but are happy with the way they represent an important constituency.

            Ah yeah (whispering) I agree with CV ^ – but not / – I’m happily married.
            • Colonial Viper 18.1.3.1.2.1

              6 April 2012 at 4:21 pm

              Labour’s long history isn’t that relevant any more.

              We’re not all rootless like you mate.
              • McFlock …

                6 April 2012 at 4:30 pm

                no roots, no spine, primitive guts that produce a lot of shit.
                    
                A slug, maybe?
                • Colonial Viper …

                  6 April 2012 at 4:33 pm

                  Amoeba? Protozoa? Something parasitic anyways.
            • felix 18.1.3.1.2.2

              6 April 2012 at 4:33 pm

              “I thought Greens were going to struggle when Jeannette retired”

              That’s because you know nothing about the Greens. It’s never been built around any single person, unlike that tawdry little ego-stroking excersise you call a “party”.
            • bad12 18.1.3.1.2.3

              6 April 2012 at 7:33 pm

              This little rant would tend to suggest that your about to admit to having flogged a dead horse for years and are now thinking of changing your electoral overcoat to one of a different colour…
19. Maui 19

    6 April 2012 at 10:59 am

    Lprent: congratulations on the site, providing and moderating a forum for a wide range of voices, and leaving traditional media waka in your wake.

    Will you take a phone call from Rupert ?
    • lprent 19.1

      6 April 2012 at 4:12 pm

      Nope…
20. Olwyn 20

    6 April 2012 at 11:26 am

    While the Greens’ polling remains under 20%, and Labour’s around 30% (where it has been jammed since the exit of Helen), the Greens are able to attract a vote based on fashion, since they seem unlikely to hold the levers of power. I certainly do not think that their entire vote is based on fashion, but it is possible to ignore the housing policy of a party who is not going to get to execute it, and at the same time feel good about having voted for them . Labour holds less attraction for such people since it still seems likely that they would end up with the levers of power if voted in, and actually do whatever they have claimed they will do.

    Hence, perhaps in the belief that the comfort of such people makes the difference between winning and losing, and that indulging them may attract bigger donors, a certain faction of Labour has seen fit to move the party to the so-called centre (meaning right), risking both its activist base and its core vote in doing so. The problem is, when it comes to their comforts, these people still have National, who is considerably more reliable in that regard, or the Greens to assuage their consciences, so long as they do not get to eclipse Labour.

    So we find ourselves with an unknown quantity as a LP leader, who has so far failed to win either the trust of the activists and core supporters, or the interest of the targeted group. Given these conditions, 30% seems surprisingly high.
    • the sprout 20.1

      6 April 2012 at 11:53 am

      Given these conditions, 30% seems surprisingly high.

      agreed 
21. belladonna 21

    6 April 2012 at 11:49 am

    Maybe the Alliance party could be resurrected and David Cunliffe could become its leader?
    • Colonial Viper 21.1

      6 April 2012 at 11:57 am

      Heard that one said, too. Many issues with the idea however.
22. Olwyn 22

    6 April 2012 at 12:07 pm

    @Belladonna: Asking Labour to be true to its core values is not the same as asking it to be the Alliance Party. Any party that hopes to lead a government has to be broadly rather than narrowly left. Achieving this, however, takes moral courage, commitment and imagination, not just shifting camp around the political spectrum. In fact the Greens are the part of the Alliance that has lived and thrived.
23. bad12 23

    6 April 2012 at 5:34 pm

    A working class hero is something to fear,so the song goes,

    We see Labour as subscribing to the theory that if ”they” sit there for long enough they only need wait for National to fashion the noose of electoral suicide and sling it over a convenient branch,

    Cunliffe is probably the most passionate of Labour’s leadership potential and the feel we get is that a large part of the Parliamentary Party couldn’t stomach Cunliffe as Leader because He may have had the mana to galvanize the enrolled non-vote party to come out voting Labour, which would have lead to expectations of change within Labours economic policy,

    From where we sit well outside the Party we have the distinct impression that Dave Shearer,(nice bloke that He may be), was simply parachuted into the Leaders role as someone who would not provoke the left and right factions within Parliamentary Labour to start an open war over the Leadership issue…
24. Carol 24

    6 April 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Cunliffe.. yes. But also Andrew Little has gone up in my view with the way he’s responded to the ACC issues. I had my doubts about his much touted leadership potential before.
    • bad12 24.1

      6 April 2012 at 6:42 pm

      Aha,Cunliffe if we had ever been asked who we would see as the most electable of the Labour MP’s as a future Prime Minister,

      From what we have seen Labour’s Deputy Leader in the middle of a fight and in the middle of a TV interview appears to possess a good amount of ”it”, that quality which makes us sit up and take notice of what is being said by whom…
25. bad12 25

    6 April 2012 at 7:25 pm

    News: 100s of Kiwis, including children spent the first day of their Easter Holiday break cleaning up the debris washed up on beach,s spilled from the shipwrecked Rena,

    Put another way,100s of enviromentally aware Kiwis including children again provided their labour for free on behalf of the Planet to alleviate another ugly scar having at its root the excesses of the capitalist system and its need for ”efficiency”,

    Those Kiwis on that clean up were not organized as a political imperative by the Green Party and in their own self motivation to clean up the mess it is easy to see the under-lying motives for the surge in Green Party polling,

    We made allusion to all of us having become far ”Greener” in our daily lives in an earlier post and what happened with that clean up just serves to prove our point,

    The Greens hardly ”need” an advertising budget, the odd Rena here and there suffices…
    • Pete George 25.1

      7 April 2012 at 6:00 am

      Do you think the Greens should push for a moratorium on shipping until it can be proven safe?
      • bad12 25.1.1

        7 April 2012 at 11:49 pm

        We could answer that by asking do you think old skunk-head will survive another term as the MP for Ohariu and are you (laughably) jockying to become the front runner as candidate,

        Our advice should this be the case is to roll Him now as UF Party Leader as an unknown loser from other electoral contests hasn’t much of a hope in Ohariu,

        Now to your quisle of a question,The Greens have no intention of calling for a moratorium on any shipping,

        The interim finding released on the cause of the Rena grounding is one of cutting corners in a diversion from the ”usual” shipping lanes in an effort to make up for lost time and save a few bucks on port charges at Tauraunga,

        Upon the release of these interim findings the Greens proposed to the Parliament that the ”usual” shipping lanes be legislated as the lanes a ship must use when travelling within New Zealand coastal waters and any deviation by a ship from those shipping lanes would have to be at the discretion and with the permission of the relevant authority,

        That to us seems to be an imminently ”sensible” response to an enviromental disaster and being so ”sensible” We would have expected your master to have instead of taking the vow of the silence of the mice, fully supported it,

        Perhaps He was far to busy with hair placement at the time…
        • KJT 25.1.1.1

          8 April 2012 at 6:59 am

          No. That was not the real cause of the Rena grounding.

          The most proximate cause, if you look at their schedule, was most likely fatigue.

          But the real cause is the usual suspects.

          http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/rena-neo-liberal-failure.html

          “Tired, overstressed, low paid crews, cheaply built and maintained ships, inadequate or ignored regulation and excessive workloads are the norm at sea”.

          The real cause will not be addressed as it is embarrassing to our authorities and the people who, “opened up our coast” to substandard shipping..

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS