- Date published:
11:04 am, August 28th, 2019 - 239 comments
Categories: jacinda ardern, leadership, Politics, polls - Tags: why is jacinda so popular?
In statistical process control we would call this common cause variability ie measure something frequently and it will fall within a range of expected values with no special cause. Or in other words all noise and no signal.— Andrew Jull NZRN 💙 (@1CommonReader) August 27, 2019
If you’d like to see that in context,
Analysis from Swordfish yesterday,
full details here
Thanks Weka. Useful info. As Chris T said on open mike, her popularity is back to where it was before CHch.
BTW if my theory about Ihumatao is correct, it doesn't really matter. Those voters who are upset with Ardern over this will vote Green, if they didn't already. Nothing wrong with that. We need Greens in to form a good coalition.
Labour are damned if they do or don't. Some people want them to buy Ihumātao and will vote on that, others don't want them to and will vote on that. Or poll on that. Labour are lucky this is happening in August 2019 not August 2020 😉
Yes I agree Weka. I hope the dispute is resolve quickly to everyone's satisfaction.
Jacinda is popular, because she is a very likeable person with a ton of chrisma and geniune with it. But on top of that she is extremely articulate and rarely puts a foot wrong. She has demonstrated high levels of competence at managing the coalition.
I think she is outstanding.
I think you've swallowed something nasty. I have met Jacinda Ardern on a number of occasions. She is without doubt a very nice person, however she is so clearly out of her depth that your praise of her resembles some kind of serious delusion.
How is she clearly out of her depth? I'm genuinely interested.
She has had little or no real world experience. That hurts her, and it shows in her dealings with people and issues.
Kiwibuild is a good example. Labour had been advised for a very long time that their numbers simply couldn't be achieved. Ardern had the information, and the political capital to call a reset as soon as she became leader, but she failed to do so. The failure of one of her party's flagship policies will mark her tenure.
Another example is the CGT. Another key Labour Party policy that she failed to deliver. Sure it was NZF that scuppered that, but WP has opposed CGT in the past. She should have read the tealeaves and parked that much earlier, then she would have avoided the embarrassing back down.
There are any number of other examples.
We have all moved on from the CGT Shadarach.
Kiwibuild is being re-set in well before the next election.
You are here to stir. Note to myself. Don't bother responding
The Greens still have CGT as policy.
When was that re-set due again?
Greetings ankerawshark. I came to that conclusion a long time ago. In fact I skip Shadrach's posts. Pointless raising my blood pressure
[Please pay attention to your user name when you submit a comment]
She has had little or no real world experience.
Speak for yourself matey.
She was the president of the International Socialist Youth Movement for several years. I guess that makes her a Communist in the eyes of the ignorant – like yourself.
She was also a parliamentary staffer on Tony Blair's team in the 1990s. I guess that is counted as a black mark against her from the ignorant – like yourself.
All in all she has had a cross-section of experience not many people can boast about. But no, in the eyes of the arrogant and ignorant she's just a pretty little Communist. "
So she ran a socialist youth movement, was a political staffer, and flipped burgers. Yep, I was right.
So. Unlike you, she didn't suck off the "State teat" all of her life.
Unlike me? I earn a living from a private business. I've never worked for the government, and never drawn a benefit. JA has never had to make a pay check, turn a profit, or actually run a business. Her life has been politics and fish and chips. She may be the least qualified PM this country has ever had. And of course it shows.
A business dependant on the State.
As I said: the arrogant and the ignorant.
So you think that running socialist youth and being a policy wonk qualifies someone to run a country? Clearly not.
Some of our best MP's never ran a business.
And, some of the worst have been corporate bootlickers..
Being a prime minister requires vision and leadership. The ability to get people motivated and working together.
Which Jacinda Adern is obviously good at.
A live human came out of her. More than I've ever done in the world…
Oh my gosh. Let's make every woman who has ever given birth PM.
Having little experience of the real world can be levelled at Key and Bridges as neither of these people have ever engaged in real work or interaction with genuinely working people. Key was a gambler, a speculator and opportunist divorced from reality as he wheeled and dealt in snake oil. Bridges played at being something or other until he found existence as a word mangler and blatherer.
Bridges was a Crown prosecutor.
The haven for lawyers who cannot make it in the much more lucrative, commercial law.
Before that he was a litigation lawyer with Kensington Swan. With all his limitations, that still beats flipping burgers.
Thanks for proving my point.
Burgers are something that anyone could need. Litigation lawyers are usually needed only by the rich and discontented.
"Burgers are something that anyone could need. "
And a really useful qualification for running a country?
She does seem to have a good sense of when Bridges has been thoroughly cooked in the House. One doesn't want to char him too much, it would begin to look like punching down.
"Do you even know that opposition MPs sit on select committees?"
Of course they do. They examine legislation. Ask questions of Government agencies. It's all very transparent.
And change legislation.
All very transparent, except when one person asking the questions and guiding the discussion hasn't told everyone else that he has a hundred thousand shares in a company directly affected by the business of that committee.
"And change legislation."
Not on their own, they can't.
"All very transparent, except when one person asking the questions and guiding the discussion…"
Is subject to the Committees Chair, and all other members of the committee. You so seem to have a very high opinion of Key.s
A very low opinion of someone who sits on a committee with an undeclared conflict of interest.
It doesn't matter that he wasn't a dictator. It matters that nobody on the committee knew he was arguing in favour of decisions that might have affected his personal interest more than the public interest.
But please, keep arguing in favour of this being an acceptable part of our parliamentary process: MPs making bold policy stands ostensibly for the public good, when secretly they might be making coin on framing the debate to further their own financial gain.
"A very low opinion of someone who sits on a committee with an undeclared conflict of interest."
There was no conflict of interest. Unless you are a left wing KDS sufferer. Now, back to benefit fraud…
cf now public knowledge:
Best bit is the timeline:
Yes yes yes, a good timeline. But you have claimed there was a conflict of interest, but you have failed to show one.
By what definition of ‘conflict of interest’, and precisely how, according to that definition, did a conflict of interest arise?
Litigation lawyer. Crown Prosecutor. Those certainly trump flipping burgers and being a policy wonk.
I would have thought being a "policy wonk" better prepares a politician for policy work than trading currencies or even practising law.
The person on the pointy end of a sword might be able to offer tips on design, but to forge and shape the steel an apprentice blacksmith would be more use when actually making the sword.
"I would have thought being a "policy wonk" better prepares a politician for policy work than trading currencies or even practising law."
So give her a job on the back benches, or chairing a select committee.
You have to ask why someone would leave private practice, if they were competent, to be a much lower paid court functionary.
Anyway the low standards of competence, of the current National lineup is obvious.
Key and English were their remaining competent pair of thieves.
They don't even have a credible replacement for Bridges.
"You have to ask why someone would leave private practice, if they were competent, to be a much lower paid court functionary."
So ask him. Could be the same reason David Cunliffe and John Key left private sector careers to enter politics.
That's where all politicians start, the back benches. Even those anointed by nact party funders to be the next leader, even though they're devoid of qualifications for the job.
But some backbenchers have experience relevant to political life and policy development, while others traded currencies and forgot which companies they owned shares in.
"That's where all politicians start, the back benches. "
And we'd all be far better off it that's where JA had stayed. But of course Labour was utterly stuffed, and would have made Boris Johnson their leader if it meant votes.
At least Bojo had some political experience before entering parliament, and wasn't just a currency wonk
"At least Bojo had some political experience before entering parliament, and wasn't just a currency wonk"
JA's being a 'policy wonk' isn't what got her the job. It was Labour's utter desperation. She won't last as long as JK did. As the star dust is wearing off, she's already finding it tough. The UN beckons.
Shadrach's awfully agitated, isn't he!
Shadrach excels at agitation but fails at litigation.
Because the movement towards competent politicians actually working for New Zealanders, instead of his tax cuts, scares the crap out of him.
Shadracks ideal prime Minister, is a competent fraudster.
The movement towards competence in any area of paid employment scares the crap out of him. He'd end up on the dole.
"Because the movement towards competent politicians actually working for New Zealanders…"
I rest my case.
"The movement towards competence in any area of paid employment scares the crap out of him. "
We're talking about Jacinda Ardern. When did that change to a 'movement towards competence'?
Thin end of the wedge, dude. If we accept competence in politicians as normal, sooner or later people might expect it from you.
"If we accept competence in politicians as normal, sooner or later people might expect it from you."
They already do, and I would expect nothing less. For a while JA was held to a lesser standard, simply because post Clark Labour had been so poor, she attracted a kind of uncritical attention. The worm is turning.
I don't agree with your assessment of Ardern or this government, and if your character here is anything close to you IRL then I don't believe that anyone expects anything from you other than mediocrity with a side-order of gross conceit.
"I don't agree with your assessment of Ardern or this government…"
Given how much you twist and turn when you're arguing any issue, that really doesn't carry much weight. 'My' assessment of Ardern is increasingly shared by those who follow politics. The media loved her, because she was young and new and idealistic. Now they are waking up to the fact that she's just another in the line of left leaning politicians who have no actual substance beyond 'feelings'.
Graph in the post says different.
"Graph in the post says different."
The graph shows a fall in her popularity. It is only the beginning.
PS – as her popularity falls, Labour will go back to where they were pre-Ardern. How many Labour leaders did Key see off again?
you're mighty confident on the basis of two datapoints.
"you're mighty confident on the basis of two datapoints."
I'm mighty confident on the basis that it is a long time since we've seen a PM so out of his/her depth. One can only smile and wave for so long.
8 years for dunnokeyo, not counting hair-pulling
John Key, like Helen Clark, actually knew how to lead. They knew how to get things done, implement policy. And they knew the difference between action and virtue signalling.
Key wasn't big on feeding kids. You're just using alt-right shorthand to keep your cred with other jerks. "Vulture signalling", lol.
"Key wasn't big on feeding kids."
Key was big on getting families to feed their own kids.
More like helping him and his mates trough it.
"More like helping him and his mates trough it."
Key? Trough what? You're starting to sound like KJT.
He started troughing as an opposition MP:
As PM he was happy with troughing ministers, including double-dipton.
Then there's his "blind" trust and PM-branded bottles of wine while he's setting alcohol policy as PM.
Good riddance to that corrupt piece of shit.
So you have a 'not an example' (Michael Cullen himself stated Key was not insider trading, and Key wasn’t even in Government!), and an example of someone NOT Key. You are hilarious.
Key is very, very smart. He has made a lot of money, which I know rankles with you lefties, and was hugely popular. Which also rankles with you lefties. I wouldn’t otherwise defend him, particularly, but just seeing the KDS in your comments makes it enjoyable.
Meanwhile, Ms incompetent shuts down a viable and environmentally sustainable project because Labour are just plain stupid. And/or far too influenced by the nut bars in the greens.
It is obvious that you comment here for your enjoyment and entertainment and for no other reason. It speaks volumes to your genuineness. And who am I to spoil your fun party fun so here is some more enjoyment for you.
John Key is by all accounts very smart because he’s made loads of money. Good on him. He sold his Parnell property at a huge profit and didn’t pay one cent in tax. Smart man.
He made loads of money for himself and his mates. Good for them. They are not held back by moral considerations or doubts and anything that’s ‘pretty legal’ is good enough. Seems this is still his MO now he’s at the helm of ANZ. Brilliant guy! The RBNZ must be suffering from KDS too …
Indeed, he was hugely popular. It helps if you run an orchestrated smear campaign from your Office to dirty your opponents.
I hope you enjoyed that!
Your moral compass is so broken you can't even identify a clear conflict of interest.
Nor can you figure out the minister who makes a call on a project (let alone the validity of that decision) when they’re named and pictured in your own link.
And you think you're qualified to comment on leadership.
"Your moral compass is so broken you can't even identify a clear conflict of interest."
There was none. Key was not in a position of power. And his questioning was in the public domain.
"Nor can you figure out the minister who makes a call on a project (let alone the validity of that decision) when they’re named and pictured in your own link. And you think you're qualified to comment on leadership."
Did you think that comment out before writing it? No, I doubt it. JA is the leader of this Government. She is accountable for any decision one of her Ministers makes. That's leadership. She failed. It was a stupid decision.
And yet you give gunnokeyo as pass for what he actually did, let alone his ministers' behaviour.
Interested you think members of parliament and select committees have no power. You're obviously as politically incompetent as to are morally bankrupt.
"They are not held back by moral considerations or doubts…"
You're just pulling that out of your arse. You have no idea what his moral considerations are. This is a discussion about competence, BTW. Key was popular because he was smart and competent, not because he was rich. I know how that burns with some.
Oh, sorry, I didn’t know it was about competence only. Next time, please make this clearer.
You’re right though, I have no idea except that John Key was PM for nine years. The Smiling Assassin lied and broke his word many times and other times he simply forgot what he’d said or done. He ran an orchestrated smear campaign from his Office. He made a throat-cutting gesture in the House.
Maybe you should pull your head out of your arse and get some fresh oxygen to your brain. The light might burn your eyes but you’ll get used to it, eventually.
"Interested you think members of parliament and select committees have no power."
I don't know why you'd be interested in something I didn't say. But Key wasn't in a position to make decisions that benefitted him via his shareholding. He was in opposition.
"And yet you give gunnokeyo as pass for what he actually did, let alone his ministers' behaviour."
You made the point of saying that JA didn't make the call on the hydro plant, that Parker did. In a discussion about leadership. You really are a fool.
"And yet you give gunnokeyo as pass for what he actually did, let alone his ministers' behaviour."
You named one incident that you claimed was troughing. It wasn't. And yet you support a party that stood behind an admitted benefit fraudster.
Do you even know that opposition MPs sit on select committees?
"Maybe you should pull your head out of your arse and get some fresh oxygen to your brain."
Yep, definitely following me around. Look JK was far from perfect, but start a new OP about his record v's Ardern's and I'll happily engage with you.
John Key ran the Global Forex for Merrill Lynch. He was a member of the Fed Forex Committee in NY. He was an enormously successful man, who had lived with responsibility and pressure. And Jacinda has made burgers and been a policy wonk.
It appears we're a nation that would rather have our ideal neighbour at the helm. My neighbour has a key to my place.
I want someone competent at the helm. Jacinda Ardern's lack of experience is becoming all of our problem. I’d be happy to have Jacinda Ardern as a neighbour. I have serious doubts about her performance as PM.
It's a supreme spokesperson role Shad, nothing more. She speaks for her government's machinations and on behalf of us. That's the gig.
Competent at stealing?
"It's a supreme spokesperson role Shad, nothing more."
I would hope it was more. The role should entail leadership, the ability to get policy across the line, maintain the confidence of the key stakeholders in a nation and particularly it's economy. JA has failed on the policy front. She has failed on the confidence front. She's great at initiating talk fests and the feel good stuff, but even that is wearing off.
"Competent at stealing?"
You have a fetish about stealing. Weird. No I'm talking about competence at running a country. There are plenty of examples of JA's ineptitude for her to be considered anywhere near competent. A good neighbour, maybe.
@Alan….great post. Word perfect.
you forgot to repeat the bollocks about key being a businessman, in your line about real world experience.
How do you define 'businessman'? At one stage I believe Jacinda Ardern claimed she had small business experience. I guess she was stretching things a bit.
By my standards, there are very few real business people in NZ.
The vast majority of them are simple fools who only work in our domestic economy and have no idea about how to run a business because the competition is so limited.
Over the decades I’ve worked for or assisted with corporates, startups, farms, small towns, cities, accountants, lawyers and just about everything else in a multiplicity of roles – usually based around their computer systems but also in management roles as well. About the only thing that I avoid is government and banks. My brief encounters with both has convinced me that you have to be somewhat warped to like working in them. But I am a child of business and world wide markets.
Offhand I never ever seen a trace of business acumen or skills out of virtually any National politician or Labour politician worth mentioning. In fact the only business people who seem to wind up in politics are the rejects from business who seem to have made their fortunes by grafting into political profits. Stephen Joyce being the prime exemplar. Being a good business person isn’t about just making money, it is more about how you do it and what you build on the way through.
On the other hand, I also have an extensive and long voluntary hobby around local politics in NZ. In my opinion, competent business skills are pretty useless in politics and the operation of government. They generally screw things up far worse than professional politicians do. Different time specs and some really stupid ideas of how to deal with the required multiplicity of objectives.
Personally I tend to view business experience as being the least of desired objkectives
Interesting. However it was Woodart who mentioned 'business' experience. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. We’re seeing the damage lack of experience outside the political bubble can cause in this administration.
Funny, because unlike National, they are achieving things. Not as fast as I would like, but in the right direction.
National's "achievements" myriads of new charges and taxes, borrowing and, I almost forgot, tax cuts for the rich.
"Funny, because unlike National, they are achieving things."
They are failing at more things.
This week they excelled at stupid. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12262859
Shadrach …………ha, ha ha ha ha ha.
Who was talking about "confirmation bias".
She is so popular because she doesn't look like Simon, Crusher or You shady.
Raising someone's 'looks' is not a great road to travel.
Yes but many dissatisfied Maori don't vote Green
Losing the Māori Party and Mana will cost NZ big time I think. I hope Labour can pick up those votes by having something real to offer, but it's on Labour and the Greens that we don't have more diversity in parliament now.
if jhonkey was so popular how come he quit and how come he is hiding away from the nz public
He quit after 8 years as PM. And he's hardly 'hiding away'. He was a speaker at the recent National Party conference. He holds a number of Director and Chairmanship roles. In fact, like Helen Clark, he keeps himself fairly busy.
Still ripping off the New Zealand public. A constant in his career.
If he is ripping anyone off, you'll be able to press a prosecution. When will we see the news?
Still can't see the difference between "legal" and ethical. Eh!
Typical right wing.
"Stealing is fine so long as it is "legal".
Well when you make the case, send it to the company shareholders then. In the meantime, he is in high demand, whereas you…?
Don't worry about me Shadrack.
I get head hunted for real jobs.
Meanwhile Key gets his pay back for looking after ANZ’s profits.
He would last about five minutes in my work.
Yeah yeah. Let me know when you've lodged the complaint.
"It was legal, so it was fine".
Says all we need to know about your moral compass.
He'll probably have "It was within the rules!" engraved on his headstone.
Er… Key, that is, not Shadrach.
Except I never said that. If Key has done anything illegal or morally wrong, state your case. Publish a blog with the evidence. Don't just make unsubstantiated accusations.
It is on the internet Shadrack. How they played with the NZ dollar. Costing the country millions.
A moral person would not have accepted the ANZ directorship, or Air New Zealand, after his dealings with them while in Government.
All legal of course.
"It is on the internet Shadrack. "
So is the flat earth society. 911 conspiracy theories. People who deny the moon landings.
People who believe "free markets" work.
"People who believe "free markets" work."
You're picking it up!
jhonkey has been busy potting in the back ground as he is the one that has encouraged Luxon to go into politics endorsing him but it looks like his tory mates have there own ambitions to be the next PM and they ain't gonna let him just slide in there like our snake in the grass last pm jhonkey
Yep, you do have it bad.
We all have it bad – we've just come out of a decade of suppurating corruption created by Key and his accomplices.
Napier was rebuilt after its earthquake in two years, and that place was flattened. Under the corrupt and inept Brownlee (Cera employees were actually shown to be corrupt but were allowed to resign instead of being sacked with prejudice). Christchurch is still in ruins, with Southern Response, another of his sleazefests, in the gun for at least $300 million for bilking the people they were supposed to be helping rebuild.
This is what passes muster with a [deleted] like you as "competence" so clearly your ability to judge doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
He's busy employing his questionable talents in the service of ANZ. No one does, deflection, distraction, minimisation and evasion quite so well as John Key. He's the acknowledged master of "Nothing to see here. Move along."
We should be so lucky
You must be living in a cave if you think Key is hiding away.
Hardly a week goes past without him on the media.
There are several stories why he quit, most fairly unsavory – but I would suggest he left as he read the tea leaves of an election defeat and was able to negotiate a knighthood from his successor. Key’s hiding is consistent with what he did in power, do smile and wave stories but when there are issues someone else fronts!
Jacinda Adern IS popular…amongst those seeking change, and that popularity makes her unpopular (in some cases feared) by those that seek the status quo.
That popularity is tied to her ability to deliver change …as it ever was.
Jacinda Adern IS popular…amongst those seeking change
Boy must THOSE people feel ripped off. No wonder her support is dropping.
yes…its a hard row to hoe….I dont know what Id do in her position as it is a decision made on behalf of others, easy if youre making it for yourself.
Pat, the PM (or perhaps more accurately her party) created expectations they could never deliver. (Kiwibuild, child poverty etc etc) Her task is to sell that failure hence headlines like this one https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/ardern-labelled-hypocrite-enforcing-drug-sanctions-beneficiaries
Wouldnt disagree with that…having said that motive is always important…whats Simons?
Oh I have no idea. I'll give you this – I do believe Jacinda Ardern is well intentioned.
Which on it's own is a huge improvement on Nationals bunch of thieves and useful idiots. A recent example is that AGW denying dimwit from Northland.
Being a well intentioned failure is a hard act to follow. Still, there'll always be a job at the UN.
The "failure" is only in your biased imagination.
Not a policy I agree with, but definitely hasn't failed.
They should have built State rentals along with rent to own.
But they had to cater to right wing nut Jobs, who think any money spent on infrastructure such as housing, is wasted, unless they benefit directly from it.
Big construction projects always take a while to ramp up.
You’re saying it all for me. Keep it up.
REad the chart SHG. It has dropped back to where it was before CHCH
Yes the way that the chart shows her support dropping is the thing that prompted me to observe that her support is dropping
So she is as popular as Trump.
Its a neat statistical fact,so is a number even relevant.
I was thinking the numbers over time were the interesting bit.
This is breakdowns of states he won in 2016 and is now falling like a stone in approval ratings from Jan17 to Jul19
Examples Pennsylvania was +10 now -8
Thats irrelevant,the poll comparison is national.
If you want to compare geographical then show me the polling say from the maori seats.
So what is Jacinda's disapproval rating then?
Does it too compare with Trump's 54%?
I would venture that it is because, on the issues she and her colleagues choose to address, she is consistent in choosing solutions in the direction of good governance. This not only attracts those whose issues are addressed, but those who hope theirs might be.
There is also a kind of moral aikido in play – when she is inappropriately attacked by bottom feeding turds like Alan Jones, there is a tendency to unite in her defense.
And here on TS, James' snippy attempts to dent Jacinda's popularity serve only to unite us in our admiration for her
Like Alan Jones, James is useful in that way.
I have a feeling he'd make a splendid coffee table ornament, if we could only find a mute button.
That ornament would be better placed in the cupboard under the stairs, where no one ever goes.
"You're an economic wizard
HarryJames 😀 "
Robert Guyton 100 %.
Yes James et al come on here to dent our morale. Good to see it as the meaningless noise it is.
Yet people bite every time. Making it too easy.
yes , specimens like jones et al remind us that old white bigots should be treated with the contempt they deserve…(waiting for old white bigots to jump in )
Why does she not use her popularity to inact bold change? Especially to demolish neoliberalism and its frankly disgusting outcomes for our most vulnerable. If someone on the left as popular as Ardern currently is, wont go there, who will?. Winston has said he wants transformational change and has been a critic of neoliberalism, so why not #letsdothis. Unless of course all the anti neoliberal talk was simply that.
Why does she not use her popularity to inact bold change?
1. Because a poll rating for preferred Prime Minister and seats in Parliament are two different things.
2. Because voters didn't give her a mandate to enact bold change.
3. because she's a PM not a dictator, and the Labour caucus remains largely neoliberal.
4. because JA and Labour are centre left, not left wing.
Peters doesn't strike me as particularly anti-neoliberal. While some NZF policies are a tempering force on neoliberalism, his rhetoric at the last election was long honed strategy of how to increase his voting base.
Its time people began joining some dots.
Jacinda Ardern is hamstrung in implementing radical change here, unless she can convince a significant proportion of major economies to also change otherwise she risks creating the conditions which will see her removed from office PDQ.
If she was the President of the US, or leader of the EU, or China she could write the rules and have a fighting chance of succeeding….NZ aint the US, EU or China and is exceedingly vulnerable.
There's a difference between being hamstrung and there being obstacles to overcome. NZ could have been moving in the right direction and leading globally on change rather than doing a big radical swing. I think a core reason we haven't is because Labour are ideologically ok with neoliberalism.
I disagree…some Labour members perhaps.
The reality is any leader of any non major economy (that is pretty much only the ones mentioned previously and Japan) are stuck.
Since the fall of communism and capitalism has had a free hand all western economies have been increasingly run on business lines (neoliberalism)… what is the ultimate business success?….monopoly, and the methods big business use to keep heading for that goal are purchase (buyouts of companies that have the potential to threaten) and bankrupting the opposition (competition through deep pockets)
NZ was bought out in the 80s and if it decides it no longer wishes to sell out it will be bankrupted…The Gov are all too aware of that and so can only tinker at the edges….National may be idealogically wedded but Labour is I submit an unwilling partner…and it dosnt change the grief its going to cause because ultimately this can only arrive in one place.
A new FDR in the US is the best hope
Yet let's watch the Dems select Biden instead.
I've been watching the Dems selection process for sometime now and whilst Biden is the most recognised candidate – and hence at the present time the most popular – he is far from a shoe-in. There is a good way to go. Also note that Biden is being forced by other candidate policies – that are far more progressive – to shift his political alignment to the left as well. Particularly as the more progressive candidates – notably Sanders and Warren – become better known and understood, and gain in the polls.
An interesting analysis on fivethirtyeight.com which uses a favourability rating of each of the 20 odd Democratic Candidates – ie approval minus disapproval. (See Swordfish's comment below).
The candidate with the highest favourability rating is not the candidate with the highest approval rating (Biden) but is Warren with a favourability rating of 54% and she leads Biden who has a favourability rating of 52% and Sanders with a rating of 51%.
But does that take account of the biased internal party selection processes?
Last para of my link above:
"I disagree…some Labour members perhaps"
Sorry, when I say Labour I'm usually referring to the caucus and major office holders.
still I submit 'some members maybe'….who knows whats in the heart of all cabinet members…after all Roger Douglas was a Labour cabinet member. …but I trust that Jacinda Ardern and the bulk of Labour MPS wouldnt ascribe to the outcomes of neoliberalism (assuming they have thought about and understand them)
Labour are ideologically ok with neoliberalism.
Not correct imo weka. There's an element within Labour who might be ok with neoliberalism, but the majority (like me) have learnt to accept the reality that the current political culture cannot be changed overnight. It has become too embedded in every aspect of our lives.
The hope for most of us is that over time we can turn the tide away from the selfishness and greed associated with neo-liberal sentiments, and then it will be possible to introduce the caring society we aspire to having.
Helen Clark started the process but it's going to take a long time to achieve. Although it is possible Climate Change, when it starts to fully kick in, might help to accelerate the process.
Edit: Oh, I see Pat has already said the same only coming from a different angle. And I see weka has explained…
Pays to read ahead before bursting into print.
it's good to be reminded of wider Labour. I'll try and be more specific in my comments. Also, I'd be annoyed if someone was talking about the Greens without reference to the membership, so bad weka.
Clark was part of Cabinet in the Fourth Labour Government, holding portfolios like Labour, Housing, Health under Lange. All that “neoliberalism” you hate was her work.
BULLSHIT AND JELLYBEANS.
She fought them all the way. They hated her. (Maybe not Lange but the rest of them did.) But in the end she was too canny for them. Oh boy, could I tell the clandestine story about how their minions tried… from the moment she was selected as the candidate for Mt Albert in the early 1980s.
That should read:
Oh boy, could I tell the clandestine story about how their minions tried to destroy her…
Yes. I was there. I remember.
Hell KJT. I wonder if I know you? 😯
Balmoral church hall, when Helen was introduced as a candidate.
My stomping ground was Mt Albert Central. Played an integral role in the selection process. The Clark enemies were not impressed….
I was more of a fly in the neo- liberal ointment.
Until the shere numbers of them convinced me that I was wasting my time trying to change Labour, and joined the Greens.
Always respected Helen for carrying on the fight from the inside.
Always respected Helen for carrying on the fight from the inside.
Helen was always at war with Eastasia
"She fought them all the way."
And then unwound everything they had done when she became PM. Oh wait…
Those two statements follow each other rather than being mutually exclusive – fail bubby please try harder
It is if course possible HC became a 'neo-liberal' between fighting these alleged 'neo-liberal reforms' all the way, and becoming PM.
still don't get the logic? – somehow I'm not surprised – that's the brain power needed to be a gnat and bridges supporter
Clearly you lost the train of thought.
yes you are silly I agree
Not forgetting that the neo-liberals fucked things so comprehensively, they have made it almost impossible to reverse.
Wayne Mapp mentioned some of the costs.
Plus the clandestine pressure from the USA. Etc.
Of course. And 911 was an inside job, aliens shot JFK…
Next you will be saying the Yanks had nothing to do with the Bolsanaro, Dictatorship, or the invasion of Iraq, the toppling of elected Governments in Indonesia, Iran and dozens of other countries.
Get with the times. Even the CIA, have had to own up.
And. Doing 911 as an inside job is way beyond the spooks competence level.
You're telling the story. It's a wild one, but you're telling it.
Denying history, as well as AGW, now, Shadrack.
Why does the y-axis of the preferred prime minister graph start at -5%?
If the method of getting that data allows for negative numbers in the results to be valid, how is it that Judith Collins isn't in the negatives?
Is it so that the zero or near zero results aren't on the lowest line (makes the graph easier to read)?
It may be a deliberate choice made in the (mistaken) belief it makes it easier to read. Or maybe the charting tool in whatever app used just made that choice.
But either way, it makes the bottom-feeders look massively more popular than they actually are. So if the chart was created by the author of a piece written to try and bag Ardern, then I would guess it was a deliberate choice to try to make the opposition look more like a viable alternative.
You may be right. I haven't read it, but this is the article its from
Ardern is popular even though her government doesn't deserve it.
Ardern is popular for communicating well that she has delivered on miniscule promises that get smaller every day.
Also for having a baby and getting engaged: good at media profile locally and internationally. TaDaaaah!
She'll get another term but only because there's no one else on offer inside Labour who can string sentences together.
In hindsight I wish Little had not given up and had become the PM with Jacinda as his deputy.
The Labour government would have eventuated with Little in charge. National did not lose any support when he handed the reigns over. Rather Labour got a bounce at the expense of the Greens and NZ First. What we would have had was a slightly smaller Labour caucus with slightly bigger NZ First and Green parties. National, could not under any scenario have formed a government.
Little does not, and would not have got lost in the waffle and side issues that Jacinda often does. I feel there would have been a more focused government which demanded results. Just look at the port folios he holds and the policy development going on there. That could have been a whole of government type thing.
A Little lead government would not have allowed Kiwibuild to become the disaster it has.
Enough is enough………..Labour under Little was polling at 24% . As it was under Ardern we only just got enough to string the coalition.
You are talking bullshit. I like Little a lot, but do you remember the court case with those people over the resort? Ardern would never find herself in that position. She choses he words so carefully. She is incredible
Did you read my comment?
What was National polling when Little gave up? Answer, essentially the same as they polled on election day. How were they ever going to form a coalition on their own?
The National v opposition block did not change substantially between when Little resigned and the election.
lol a little fan – how sweet – Little did the exact correct thing by stepping down, although at the time I shook my head and wondered wtf – the young brains saw the future and thank the Goddess they did.
For heavens sake stop hyper-ventilating Ad. That is puerile nonsense.
Ardern is popular because she is clearly the best person for the job.
So using your “logic” key (who was more popular) was probably even better.
He ran away……let him go.
I can think of worse people to have in charge but I'm no supporter.
So long as the words " compassion, kindness, caring, well being and transformational' never come out of her mouth again I will tolerate her as PM.
I'll do a bit of an extended analysis here:
First to repeat yesterday's comment:
Jacinda Ardern says drop in popularity natural for Government taking on big issues
Henry Cooke Aug 27 2019
(1) She remains the second most popular PM (after Key & ahead of Clark, Muldoon, Lange, Bolger)
(2) Both Key & Clark experienced falls in the Preferred PM during their first term
(though much more so Clark … she fluctuated wildly … plunged from 48% to 35%, then modest revival, then fell again from 38% right down to 30% before another revival. Key higher & steadier,but began to fall after the 13 month mark)
Colmar Brunton: Preferred PM
First 12 Months (in chronological order)
Clark: 43, 48, 46, 41, 35, 38, 36, 34. 30, 37 … (range: 30-48) … (average: 38.8)
Ardern: 37, 41, 37, 41, 40, 42 … … … … … … …(range: 37-42) … (average: 39.7)
Key: 51, 51, 51, 50, 54 … … … … … … … … … … (range: 50-54) … (average: 51.4)
Month 13-21 (in chronological order)
Clark: 39, 34, 38, 41, 37, 39, 42, 38 … … … (range: 34-42) … (average: 38.5)
Ardern: 39, 44, 51, 45, 41 … … … … … … … (range: 39-51) … (average: 44.0)
Key: 49, 48, 46. 45 … … … … … … … … … … (range: 45-49) … (average: 47.0)
(Note; Latest Colmar Brunton was at the 21 Month mark)
Clark's average was consistent over those two time periods / Key's average fell 4 points / Ardern's average rose 4 points.
Second, the latest Colmar Brunton was conducted 21 months after the 2017 Change of Govt. Here's Ardern's Preferred PM rating compared to her predecessors at the 21 month mark.
Key … … 45% … (lead over Oppo Ldr 36 points)
Ardern … 41% … (lead over Oppo Ldr 35 points)
Clark … .. 38% … (lead over Oppo Ldr 24 points)
Lange … .. 31% … (lead over Oppo Ldr 18 points / Lead over Muldoon 12 points))
Bolger … .. 11% … (6 points behind Oppo Ldr / 14 points behind Winston)
Third, Cooke also cites evidence from Hooton:
Here's Hooton on RNZ (Politics)
26 Aug 2019
And here's Hooton on Twitter (more precise & more concise):
A number of points:
(1) Let's be clear precisely what "net favourables" actually means. A number of Matthew's followers appear to have assumed that he was suggesting just 35% of voters / poll respondents now have a favouable attitude towards Ardern (in fact, some Nat-leaning people on Twitter seem to have become even more confused & assume this is her UMR Preferred PM – as opposed to Favourability – rating).
The UMR Net figure is either positive or negative. A positive Net 35 rating means that the % of people who regard Ardern favourably is 35 percentage points higher than the % who regard her in an Unfavourable light. (Hoots "inadvertantly" … probably through some sort of "ghastly misunderstanding" … forgot to mention the Net positive bit).
Assuming Matthew's info is correct … then I would estimate that Ardern has gone from something like:
73% Favourable / 22% Unfavourable (Net Score:+ 51) / 5% DK (give or take 3 or 4 points either way)
… to …
currently something like:
65% Favourable / 30% Unfavourable (Net Score:+ 35) / 5% DK (give or take 3 or 4 points either way).
So, currently almost two-thirds with a Favourable attitude towards her / a little less than one-third negative. (Her DK % was always in single figures last year … (I have all the precise UMR stats for 2018) … so 5% is a reasonable DK estimate which, in turn, tells us what the other stats are)
(2) 65% favourability = is significantly higher than Govt Bloc support levels in the UMRs.
Which means that – quite apart from solid support across the board for Ardern from Coalition supporters – there are clearly also still quite a few non-Govt Bloc voters who are generally positive toward her (presumably a mix of Nat voters / minor extra-parliamentary party voters / voters who are undecided on which party they support). Whereas, Hoots is trying to strongly imply that the Coalition's own supporters are growing wary of her, sinking ever deeper into disillusionment & despair.
(3) (as with the Colmar Brunton Preferred PM figures) this putative fall in UMR Favourability is by no means unprecedented … both Clark & Key plunged heavily in UMR favourability during their first terms.
Helen Clark's Net Favourability rating, for instance, fell by more than 20 points between March & May 2000, then mildly fluctuated, before plunging another 20 points between August & September. (from +58 way down to +16 over that entire March to Sep period)
John Key's Net Favourability rating fell by 8 points (Jan to Feb 2010), by another 9 points (March to April 2010), by a further 5 points (April to May 2010) … & then, later in the year, (having recovered from the previous series of plunges) falls by another 15 points in one month (Dec 2010 to Jan 2011).
+ 16 = Clark's weakest Net positive Favourability rating during First Term
+ 42 = Key's weakest Net positive Favourability rating during First Term
+ 35 = Ardern's current Net positive Favourability rating (according to Hoots)
Highest Favourability % during First Term
Clark = 77%
Key = 81%
Ardern = 79%
(Key's 81% is a record for all political leaders in UMR surveys extending back to 1991, Ardern 2nd / Clark 3rd)
(4) although we don't know Bridges' current UMR rating … we do know his scores from late 2018 (thanks to a substantial leak at the time):
Bridges: 58% Unfavourable / 27% Favourable (Net Score; minus 31)
… and from the leak to Newshub a month ago:
July 2019 UMR
Bridges: 60% Unfavourable / 26% Favourable (Net Score; minus 34)
I'm pretty sure these are some of the weakest results in the UMR for any Opposition Leader.
(Newshub Reid Research had 54% agreeing Bridges was performing poorly the same month)
None of which means Labour / Govt should be complacent about Ardern's drop in both the Preferred PMs & Favourability ratings ( Clark's much greater plunge, after all, did happen during the Winter of Discontent when things weren't going particularly well for her Govt) … but beware of Shock Horror !!! claims or suggestions this sort of fall is unprecedented & impossible to recover from.
After experiencing similar or worse declines during their First Term, both Clark & Key. of course, went on to win the subsequent General Elections with a wink, a smile & consummate ease.
Yes I do believe your analysis here is the correct interpretation. Poisson above tries to make that point that the 40% favourable rating she scores is about the same level as Trump's approval rating in the US. However, Trump's 54% disapproval rating would mean a -14% favourable rating; which compared to Jacinda's 40% says it all.
Thank you. So Ardern's net favourable score is about 70% ahead of Bridges'
Thanks so much Swordfish. I have heard Hooten twice saying that Jacinda had dropped 16% which would be a worry if true. Thanks for your reassurance.
I'll just add that UMR's Favourable & Unfavourable options on the Party Leaders are further sub-divided into Very & Somewhat categories.
(In the same way that TV3 Reid Research divide their Leader Performance measure into Very Well, Fairly Well, Fairly Poorly, Very Poorly)
UMR only ever seem to provide the aggregate Favourable vs Unfavourable figures … but Reid Research lay out data for all 4 options … and almost always this shows that a lot more people choose one of the milder options (Fairly Well, Fairly Poorly) rather than the stronger sentiment (Very Well, Very Poorly).
So, assuming the same pattern holds for the UMR Leadership measure … it's probably more than likely that Ardern's 16 point fall (essentially an 8% swing from Fav to Unfav … albeit with DKs adding an extra layer of slight complexity) … was largely the result of a segment of National voters (& perhaps a few Undecideds) simply swinging from Somewhat Favourable to Somewhat Unfavourable.
Not really a big deal.
It could be viewed as the beginning of a slight intensification of political polarisation as we head toward Election Year, the figures suggest a minority of intending National voters still hold a favourable attitude towards Ardern … but not as many as a Month ago. Nowhere near, of course, the hardcore polarisation of either the Muldoon years (in particular) or the latter stages of the Key years (when the Country was almost split down the middle between Favourable vs Unfavourable attitudes towards the impish fellow).
Close to two-thirds of voters are still positive about Ardern.
Also … here's a UMR Goff / Bridges comparison at the same point (21 month mark) into the First Term.
Goff ……… … plus 7
Bridges … minus 34
Interesting because Goff, Bridges & Jim McLay are the three weakest Oppo Leaders in the Preferred PM (very similar range & averages). And yet Goff was clearly held in higher esteem by the electorate than Bridges currently is.
Interesting. Has anyone dipped lower than minus 34?
Don't have all the data … but my understanding is that minus 34 is the worst ever result for an Opposition Leader since UMR started polling back in 1991.
I believe Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, though, fell to a very similar Net Negative rating in UMR a few months before the 1999 General Election, as her ramshackle Coalition of bits & bobs reached its nadir (although, remarkably, she was still competitive with Clark in the Preferred PMs).
Ha haaa ! … just managed to track down a UMR graph (knew I had it somewhere) and it shows that Shipley fell to … wait for it ! … minus 33. Her worst ever result.
So I can now say quite unequivocally that Bridges UMR Net Favourability rating of minus 34 is THE WORST of any Major Party Leader (whether PM or Oppo) since UMR commenced polling in 1991.
No one else (apart from Shippers) came even close to it … not Bolger, not English, not Brash, none of the 4 consecutive unsuccessful Labour leaders during the Key years. Very rare for anyone to dip below minus 20.
Onya. Now there's a headline.
Rather than focussing on the popularity of the Prime Minister, it is more analytically useful to focus on the popularity of the Labour Party compared to the National Party.
The answer is stark: currently more prefer the National Party and it's tracking more that way.
The useful question out of that is: why is Labour losing polling traction this much half way through its first term?
Could they not have kept it together for 2 years even?
After all don't we have awesome overall employment levels, lowering crime, tremendous societal cohesion after the massacre, plenty of public money to spend, big union payoffs, and transformational events and infrastructure from Invercargill to Auckland and most places in between?
Surely National should be polling as if it were shit? It's doing fine.
Why are the polls tracking away from Labour and towards National?
That party poll-of-polls rolls together the cumulative failures, disappointments, half-assedness, failure to perform to get the answer:
More of the public don't believe in this government.
Comparisons to previous governments are kinda interesting as fleeting shadows of contrast but nothing more.
In the "Year of delivery", we see $50 mil shoved here and there, but no powerful programme, and no lift in mood or confidence.
I sure don't have quick answers and I don't need to.
Labour sure does.
Why would you compare only Lab and Nat? We have not had FPP for decades now. Get with the times, pops.
Because National and Labour are the two dominant parties in New Zealand: it is their leadership, policies and ideology which will dominate the next government.
Do you seriously believe eliminating Winston First or the Greens would make no significant difference to the governing coalition's policies? Or the same in the previous one for Act, Dunne, and the Maori Party?
Certainly not for the Greens, who have gained little in this term.
While some of our small parties have a few trophies they can point to – such as Act's Auckland legislation, or Dunne's Transmission Gully – on the evidence without the small parties there would generally be little difference to New Zealand society through its government.
Chloe Swarbricks bi partisan work on mental health and James Shaw's forcing National to at least pay lip service to AGW, solutions, are just two of the many achievements of our Green MP’s.
We will see much more next term from Marama Davidson on social welfare. The hard work she has already began.
Julie Ann Genter is behind much of the Governments work, on having a transport system for the future.
Unlike National, Greens look for evidence based, best practice policy, rather than knee jerk cronyism, policy paid for by funders and ideological burps. That takes time.
That mental health budget is only going to new initiatives, meaning that DHB core staff and programmes get nothing more, and will get strip-mined for staff into new NGOs which will take many years to make any inroads. Big budget number, small effect.
Who knows indeed whether the budget number will even be remembered the next time we have record?
suicide figures, again, published in election year.
James Shaw hasn't achieved his Bill yet. And it's not exactly strong is it?
Not a harvest for the Greens this term.
Early days. But when you add it all together…
it is their leadership, policies and ideology which will dominate the next government.
Big whoop – it's right bloc vs left bloc that will determine the next government, so the only useful question is how Nat/ACT/any other sock puppets currently stack up against Labour/Green. How Labour individually is doing against National individually is of academic interest only.
Your idea shown to be completely wrong over multiple elections by New Zealand First. They don't belong to any stable "bloc", and choose on their own reasons. Their voting record and caucus sympathy is very similar to Labour's in almost all areas, including the marginal social legislation.
Let’s see what swordfish has to say about the state of The parties right now. That’s if he kindly has time.
all of the rest is rather meaningless spin, particularly by the likes of Hooten and Hoskings.
Btw re kiwibuilt I note it’s been a roaring success in Wellington.
No doubt about it Shadrach is still a trolling slit of a turd on the run.
Shadrach can back up everything he says, you on the other hand Charlie are a troll.
Nope – Shad's like a Gnat mate – he's got nothing. Never had.
Suicide sadly up. Maori NCEA achievement sadly declining. Murders increasing. Limited successful economic initiative. Jacinda is great in some aspects but this government really is struggling. We don't really need nice…we need success and decisiveness.
because "Suicide sadly up. Maori NCEA achievement sadly declining. Murders increasing. Limited successful economic initiative."…we need nice more than ever
We have enough nice. We need govt to deliver on their plans. Nice alone doesn't deliver results.
"Murders increasing"? What kind of idiotic argument is that? MAGA for morons?
OK, let's have some real action. How about moving immediately to change the law, so that when you want to commit 51 murders you can only commit 10, because you have to reload? Come on Jacinda, let's see leadership! Save lives! Stop talking about it and just do it.
Oh, you did it already. Well, Mike Hosking has forgotten and he tells me what to grunt, so that one doesn't count.
Jacinda is brill, fantastic at her job. I feel she is becoming bogged down by the mediocre delivery of the aspirations she shares with us. Her role is to share the vision, she and we count on others to pull the levers and deliver.
Part of the problem is a lousy job of sharing the goals that they are kicking. A politician in a hi-viz vest and hard-hat is campaign soap-box flim-flamming from the 50's. Pluck our heartstrings, lets meet the tearful Mums in their first new homes.
We'll see some major go forward with Kiwibuild now that Dr Woods is in charge….we've had a month of tumbleweeds. Hopefully Megan will identify that those holding a $100k deposit aren't those that are treading water.
I think Jacinda is great at what is required of her. But cripes, her front of stage promises are being let down by a soft backstage delivery.
I would love to understand why this govt are so consistently awful at comms.
Lack of money Sacha. They don't have the wherewithal to hire PR companies and other specialist groups to do the hard yards, allowing them to swan around reaping the rewards and taking the plaudits.
They have staff. The public pay for many of them. I expect better.
I was thinking more in terms of the Labour Party rather than the parliamentary party. With the exception of ministerial press officers, most parliamentary staff are public servants and are not paid to produce party political broadcasts for them.
Yeah, I’m making excuses for ministers in particular because they do often make a mess of their comm. techniques. The most glaringly obvious to me is the habit of saying in 100 words something that could be said in less than 30 words. Then they wonder why they lose their audience.
Not the party, not the Ministers, just those whose only job is managing communication. Or making sure their advice is heeded. Problem somewhere in there and it is not lack of money.
I suppose the real distinction here is between those who compare Ardern with the ideal leader they want, and those who compare Ardern with other leaders who actually exist here on Planet Earth. I'm definitely in the latter category.
New Zealand's imperfect Prime Minister is, by any reasonable measure, better than Trump, Johnson, Macron, Trudeau, Morrison, Bridges, any alternative in National, any alternative in Labour, and so on. I would add Corbyn to that list, and any (realistic) future UK PM, and any (realistic) future USA President. And if you want to include past leaders, the list would eat up the internet. Who is/was seriously better? (and minor party leaders don't count – that's a very different job description, 5% versus 50).
Merkel would be the least bad conservative (but I'd still take Ardern) and I can't think of any preferable left-leaning leader in other democracies. But I admit I don't have any profound knowledge of Slovenian social democrats or Nova Scotian liberals.
If you want fantasy, watch Game of Thrones. In the fact-based universe, Ardern is doing OK.
Yeah, I think that's part of the NZ ethos. We'd rather be represented by a loving Plunket nurse than a media rockstar.
Viva la Kiwi
Good way of looking at it, Observer.
Wow……with friends like these who needs enemies!
Perhaps you will be happy when your pointless whinging results in Simon bridges as your prime minister….then lets see how you get on!