Horrible for Labour. Details here. I note it continues the trend of Labour losing votes to the Green Party.
TVNZ political Guyon Espiner attributes Labour’s 15 year low rating to their introduction of a Capital Gains Tax. I don’t really know what ‘the voters’ think about anything any more, so the CGT could be wildly unpopular – but I don’t think one week after a policy leak is an accurate predictor of public opinion. Journalists like to think the public are avidly following their stories and instantly switching their voting behaviour in response, but I just don’t think it works like that. Besides, more than half Labour’s lost votes went to the Greens, who have a more comprehensive Capital Gains Tax. My guess is that this poll responds to Labour’s curious decision to post all their confidential donor information on the internet. People don’t want idiots running their country.
And if you look closer at TVNZ’s poll numbers we see the real explanation for Labour’s enduring unpopularity. Voters really, really, really don’t like Phil Goff. He’s 45% behind Key in the preferred Prime Minister poll. The problem is deeper than Goff in the sense that even when Labour had the chance to replace him there was no alternative – due to Helen Clark’s legacy of promoting people who weren’t any threat to her – but the fundamental issue is still one of personalities, not policy. They desperately need to retire their entire front bench – with the arguable exceptions of Parker and Cunliffe – not change their policies.
Besides, more than half Labour’s lost votes went to the Greens, who have a more comprehensive Capital Gains Tax.
Because they felt that the Greens had a better idea on what implementing on CGT would involve?
Comment by Peter Metcalfe — July 17, 2011 @ 7:30 pm
This is bad for Phil Goff.
Comment by townbelt — July 17, 2011 @ 7:34 pm
Another plausible explanation (given the timing as I understand it), is that folks “outside the Beltway” – sorry, I hate that Americanism — were not as impressed with Labour’s burlesque routine as you.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 17, 2011 @ 7:37 pm
“outside the Beltway” – sorry, I hate that Americanism
Use ‘Thorndon bubble’?
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 17, 2011 @ 7:46 pm
Let’s remember that Colmar Brunton polls are conducted using landlines even though they are stated to be representative.
These are the same pollsters that keep getting it wrong – the recent Te Tai Tokerau result demonstrates that Colmar Brunton polls are not reliable and one should view them with skepticism.
Comment by mel — July 17, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
“outside the Beltway” – sorry, I hate that Americanism
I prefer “outside the travelator”
Comment by Wilbur Townsend — July 17, 2011 @ 7:49 pm
Clearly it has escaped most of you that Kiwis aspire to owning a rental or two. Smashing the haves only works when the have nots don’t want to be haves as well.
Comment by Barnsley Bill — July 17, 2011 @ 7:56 pm
TVNZ: “News political editor Guyon Espiner said with media reports widely signalling the capital gains tax in the preceding week it is hard to argue that the policy didn’t have an impact.”
Maybe uninformed guesses and suppositions and certain comments that mentioned daggers in comparison with the unannounced policy had an effect, yes.
The next few polls will be more interesting.
Danyl: My guess is that this poll responds to Labour’s curious decision to post all their confidential donor information on the internet.
What period of time do these polls typically occur over? TVNZ indicated that the poll closed the day before the CGT policy was officially announced, but doesn’t indicate when it started or what proportion of people were polled before the leak.
Comment by MikeM — July 17, 2011 @ 8:01 pm
“Clearly it has escaped most of you that Kiwis aspire to owning a rental or two.”
If that were true, and I actually don’t think that a clueless limey knows much about “Kiwi” aspirations, that would pretty lamo.
Comment by Guy Smiley — July 17, 2011 @ 8:02 pm
MikeM, they usually run for six days or so. So to the extent this reflects anything about the CGT, it reflects a week of Labour’s opponents’ framing of the policy.
Still a disappointing result, compounding a string of disappointing results.
L
Comment by Lew — July 17, 2011 @ 8:23 pm
the real explanation for Labour’s enduring unpopularity. Voters really, really, really don’t like Phil Goff.
Partly it’s Phil Goff, but partly it’s also Russell Norman.
Comment by Phil — July 17, 2011 @ 8:25 pm
Actually Guyon indicated that the poll was taken during the time that the not-so-secret CGT was being debated in the media, so the polling period ended just before the official launch but during the time when it was being openly leaked.
As for aspirations, that is why Brazil, for example, has not had a revolution in spite of its poverty and big gap between rich and poor – a lot of people think they will get the break that others before them have had. You shouldn’t summarily dismiss “aspirations”.
As for Helen Clark’s legacy – it shows that she was the sort of manager that preferred less competent people around her so that she wouldn’t feel challenged. Most of us have experienced those sorts of managers ourselves, and they do not leave behind a healthy vigorous organisation when they leave, although I have to say that I have been rather lucky in that regard.
Comment by David in Chch — July 17, 2011 @ 8:26 pm
Funny thing is you know, Guy Smiley, your ‘clueless’ limey knows how to write a literate sentence.
Perhaps you need some education.
Obviously you haven’t yet cured your acne or yet learned to shave, otherwise you would know that in Australasia, English people are known as Poms or Pommy Bastards. Limeys are American.
Danyl, I don’t think the website debacle had much to do with it. It was too long ago and people have very short attention spans. On the other hand, Labour’s tax policy really got EVERYBODY’s attention because they announced it and then clammed up. Everybody said ‘Heeeeeeeyyyyy what was that all about?’ and the nation’s curiosity was well and truly aroused. Their fatal mistake was dribbling out the detail in time for people to get the shits and register same with Colmar Brunton.
Guyon Espiner here, I think is on the button.
The biggest guessing game now will be “Who goes first? Goff, Gillard or some other Gitt?
Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — July 17, 2011 @ 8:26 pm
They desperately need to retire their entire front bench
Then the prevailing meme would be one of chaos, switching horses in mid-stream, nitpicking the CVs of all the new frontbenchers, etc etc. Stop drinking the DPF kool-aid, Danyl.
Comment by Acid Queen — July 17, 2011 @ 8:26 pm
“you would know that in Australasia, English people are known as Poms or Pommy Bastards. Limeys are American.”
Do you ever tire of being wrong “Adolf”? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=limey.
Comment by Guy Smiley — July 17, 2011 @ 8:34 pm
Oh please. Next month it’ll be Labour up 4%. Got to be good news for Labour even if its just the poll rebalancing itself. Labour need not to be concerned about that. What they should be concerned about is the figures Joyce has been releasing. So far National and infact any critic of CGT have been floundering. If National and critics of CGT can get themselves credible answers to throw back on Labour, Labour will get on the defensive. And that won’t be good.
Comment by gingercrush — July 17, 2011 @ 8:38 pm
Phil Goff ‘s body language betrays him.
In most of his interviews (and yes, again launching Labour’s CGT) he looks uncomfortable with his message. He looks like he’s saying what he thinks he has to say, and not what he feels and believes.
He’s been in politics long enough to be familiar with dealing with media interviews, so it’s not inexperience.
Goff looks like he is an uncomfortable party puppet, a party that is dragging him in directions he’s not comfortable with.
Possibly he is doing it because he thinks it’s for the good of the party.
Possibly he is doing it to try and keep his job.
Whatever it is, Phil Goff rarely looks like he really believes in what he’s saying. His mouth and his heart are disconnected.
Goff won’t win popular support unless he can run Labour how he’d like the party to be. It’s probably too late to do that, even if he decided to try and was able to carry it off . Unfortunately Goff hasn’t been able to lead. He is an uncomfortable front person of a party with it’s own discomforts and demons of the past.
Phil Goff, nice guy. Has been competent in government roles in the past. But now he keeps appearing like a fish out of his true political water.
He’s done the best he can trying to rebuild a party that’s resisted transition. It’s hard to see anyone else in Labour who could have done any better. But Goff’s body language betrays him.
Until Labour as a whole makes fundamental changes to it’s psyche and forgets political gimmicks any leader will struggle to look the part.
Comment by Pete George — July 17, 2011 @ 8:43 pm
Guy – can’t you read or are you a natural blowhard?
1. limey
a British person, term comes from sailors who came to the New World preventing scurvy from sucking limes. Term indigenous to North America
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=limey
Comment by will — July 17, 2011 @ 8:45 pm
lol, how true.
1. guy smiley
A close relative to the “skippy”, a guy smiley is a relentless loser who is overly friendly, overly excitable, painfully annoying, and has an overall goofy appearance. Guy smiley’s are almost always completely unaware of their extreme dorkiness. Guy smiley’s are often homosexual, or at least raise suspicion to their sexual orientation.
“Remember our music teacher from middle school?”
“Yeah, a complete guy smiley”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=guy+smiley
Comment by will — July 17, 2011 @ 8:47 pm
Nice bit of homophobia there will. Classy as always.
Comment by The PC Avenger — July 17, 2011 @ 8:49 pm
Phil: Partly it’s Phil Goff, but partly it’s also Russell Norman.
Maybe it’s also that voters on that side (the left or whatever) just tend to be more open to coalition governments. Shifting support between parties likely to be in parliament isn’t unreasonable if it’s a vote for a similar likely coalition and just shifts the influence, and seems a very MMP thing to do.
National supporters don’t seem to have gone this way as yet, but IMHO large parties are a relic of FPP where it was necessary for all the same coalitions and agreements to happen inside the party behind closed doors. Maybe I’m wrong, but if MMP’s kept long term then I think National and Labour’s days as bigger parties are numbered, and that shouldn’t be a bad thing.
Comment by MikeM — July 17, 2011 @ 8:52 pm
Pete: Possibly he is doing it because he thinks it’s for the good of the party.
That reminds me of Bill English when he got into that boxing match with whatsisname.
Comment by MikeM — July 17, 2011 @ 8:54 pm
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=phil+goff
Comment by will — July 17, 2011 @ 8:55 pm
So a limey’s a Brit, not an American then. Thanks for clearing that up will.
Comment by Guy Smiley — July 17, 2011 @ 8:55 pm
Mike, I agree on large parties fading, I’d rather see a pools of smaller parties and independents.
And I agree on English boxing, that was cringe, worse than anything Goff’s done but Goff has consistently not really looked the part.
Comment by Pete George — July 17, 2011 @ 8:56 pm
Really I think if MMP continues it won’t be long until New Zealand is a 3 or 4 party parliament. NZ First I think is truly gone. United Future rests on however long the vote gets split too much that Dunne loses to either Chauvel or Shankes (or any other National candidate). Could even be this year. Act don’t look that promising. They might return this year but a party reliant on a bunch of old guys really has no long-term future. The Greens look good but we’re still to see what happens to them in a formal or informal coalition arrangement (and is their support 10%, 8% or 6.something%?). Both the Mana and Maori parties are reliant on electorate seats and I’m yet to be convinced either are keepers. I see New Zealand remaining dominated by National on the right and Labour on the left.
Comment by gingercrush — July 17, 2011 @ 8:58 pm
In fact, what the Colmar Brunton polls show is a very consistent result for National, and some fluctuation within the opposition support.
This is a much less sexy headline than “Labour plummets”, and National’s solidity is hardly good news for the opposition, but ACT aren’t making any significant inroads either, so the real story is … nothing much has changed for two years, or is changing now.
The rest is media noise, really. Hone and Don and Goff coup talk and Winston, it’s all just poli-addicts giving themselves a regular fix while the public get on with their lives.
Barring major cock-ups, Key will get re-elected, Labour won’t plummet or soar, the Greens will be there, Winston won’t, ACT won’t improve, Dunne will be the party of one, Hone might get one buddy … that’s what the voters will deliver, and we’ll just have to put up with a lot of full volume pundit noise pollution before we get there.
Comment by sammy — July 17, 2011 @ 9:02 pm
Poll watcher’s note: Changes between consecutive polls are (usually) mostly random noise. (Remember Labour’s surge back in May?) Two years of twenty point gaps are the real problem for Labour.
Statistical rant: A poll report that doesn’t report sample size or margin of error is as irresponsible as Labour’s web development.
Comment by bradluen — July 17, 2011 @ 9:14 pm
Pete: I agree on large parties fading, I’d rather see a pools of smaller parties and independents.
The kicker would be for National and Labour to form a coalition one day, which should happen because they’re relatively close (in both trying to appeal to “the middle”) but it’d probably be the immediate death of at least one big party and there’s also still too much of the old guard hanging around who’d never consider it on principle. Maybe after some more fading and splitting off it’d seem a smarter way to go.
The left/right metaphor that’s so embedded from FPP days is a bit of a let down.
Comment by MikeM — July 17, 2011 @ 9:16 pm
Yeah Mike, I’d rather see the best in parliament in cabinet regardless of party, at the moment nearly half the MPs bide time for each three years.
I don’t see it happening with current parties, National will want to hold as top party as long as they can, and Labour just don’t want to let go of their past, they can’t see outside their bubble.
Comment by Pete George — July 17, 2011 @ 9:23 pm
Statistical rant: A poll report that doesn’t report sample size or margin of error is as irresponsible as Labour’s web development.
And seeing as it’s entirely possible TVNZ just copied an American poll and changed the party names, that’s doubly suspicious.
Comment by gazzaj — July 17, 2011 @ 9:25 pm
Then the prevailing meme would be one of chaos, switching horses in mid-stream, nitpicking the CVs of all the new frontbenchers, etc etc. Stop drinking the DPF kool-aid, Danyl.
Obviously they can’t purge their front bench five months out from the election – but it’s what needs to happen immediately afterwards.
Comment by danylmc — July 17, 2011 @ 9:27 pm
Strong personalities fronting the good (well, popular which I accept are often far from the same thing) policies are BOTH required I suspect. Either without the other won’t hold up.
Leaks around CGTs were never going to improve voter impression as it was a theoretical argument – how the people fronted and framed that argument is what will move them.
And let’s be honest, if this stays as core Labour economic policy (fingers crossed) then it will be in play one day – it’s a long way from a deal breaker on its own for the vast vast majority of voters…
Comment by garethw — July 17, 2011 @ 9:31 pm
This is good for the Greens.
Comment by Amy — July 17, 2011 @ 9:32 pm
A question:
If ACT gained 4% at National’s expense, what would the One News headline be?
Comment by sammy — July 17, 2011 @ 9:35 pm
I have to ask, are 53% of the country really that stupid? (Excluding Act’s numbers because the answer is, yes, they really are).
I’m no reflexive Labour supporter by any means, but it seems to me that all National has to offer is “that nice Mr Key”. They’ve achieved very little in 3 years, and the mandate they are seeking for next term will screw the country over big time.
Comment by rainman — July 17, 2011 @ 9:37 pm
Geez, Goff is a goofball and watching Cunliffe on Q+A it’s apparent that the game breaking tax pack is smoke and mirrors.
Comment by will — July 17, 2011 @ 10:20 pm
…all National has to offer is “that nice Mr Key”. They’ve achieved very little in 3 years…
That’s a bit unfair. They’ve done their job: driven wages down, lowered taxes for the rich and undermined the public sector. It’s what they always do, and re-electing them will provide three more years of it. The weird thing is 53% of voters being keen on it – just goes to show how much having an amiable front man can do for you.
Comment by Psycho Milt — July 17, 2011 @ 10:22 pm
Will, Cunliffe didn’t do much for me on Q+A either. A couple on The Standard raved about his performance over Espiner but they must have been watching from behind the telly.
Psycho – I wouldn’t say 53% are keen on it, they just don’t see any other viable option.
I think the polls will wave in the wind until November, there seems to be a lot of soft votes floating around. At the moment the main options are on how much vote National should get, and where to vote to limit the level of National’s power.
I guess Labour could try another Hail Mary but their options are very limited if CGT flops on them, voters seem to know that a lolly scramble is dumber than ever this time.
Comment by Pete George — July 17, 2011 @ 10:31 pm
danylmc
“Obviously they can’t purge their front bench five months out from the election”
Not obvious at all and in fact it’s what they must do immediately if they are to staunch the flow of blood.
They have nothing to lose. Goff and Mallard were timid and screwed up big time because of it. These guys now really do have to be bold.
Get the new faces in front of the public. The media will fall over themselves to accommodate such a move.
Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — July 17, 2011 @ 10:33 pm
will, sorry to say, your humour isn’t funny. Go back to sipping alco-pops and making sex jokes with your 15 year old buddies and not on blog sites would ya?
Comment by DT — July 17, 2011 @ 10:35 pm
One month. Unless it’s something as dramatic as 9/11, I expect the general public to take 3 or more weeks to form solid opinions on _anything_.
This is no different.
Comment by George D — July 17, 2011 @ 10:37 pm
+1 for ‘Thorndon bubble’ over ‘beltway’
Comment by Sacha — July 17, 2011 @ 10:53 pm
Ginger: What they should be concerned about is the figures Joyce has been releasing.
Mallard doesn’t sound worried about it. Gleeful, in fact.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 17, 2011 @ 11:14 pm
Not quite as embarrassing as 27% and counting.
Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — July 17, 2011 @ 11:32 pm
oh, a tweet from Trev that is irrefutable evidence.
Comment by will — July 18, 2011 @ 7:53 am
Even at his worst he’s more reliable than Joyce and farrahrah.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 18, 2011 @ 8:14 am
Trev’s campaign is not proving reliable for Labour’s polling. It’s looking more like disaster than miracle.
Comment by Pete George — July 18, 2011 @ 8:21 am
Not quite as embarrassing as 27% and counting.
You mean they could get as embarrassed as National was in 2002? Yes, that would be pretty shameful alright.
What they should be concerned about is the figures Joyce has been releasing.
Or not concerned, as the case may be.
Comment by Psycho Milt — July 18, 2011 @ 8:24 am
They shouldn’t be concerned about Joyce’s numbers – the public aren’t interested in details.
Comment by Pete George — July 18, 2011 @ 8:26 am
Let’s try that again: Or not concerned, as the case may be.
Comment by Psycho Milt — July 18, 2011 @ 8:26 am
OK, I defer to the greater collective aka Struthio camelus.
Comment by will — July 18, 2011 @ 8:27 am
Keith Ng’s summary”
The polls seem to agree. That feeling would have been prevalent before Thursday’s launch.
Comment by Pete George — July 18, 2011 @ 8:35 am
Apart from Parker and Cunliffe, I’d also defend the performance of King, who has been a workhorse in a thankless job. And Mallard’s role is necessary even if he sometimes needs to be reminded that he’s supposed to make the Government look like douchebags, not himself.
A Labour front bench based on performance:
Ardern
Chauvel
Cunliffe
Dalziel
Davis
Jones
King
Mallard
Parker
Robertson
Well, it’s an improvement, but it’s not like Dalziel, for example, would have National shaking in their boots.
Comment by bradluen — July 18, 2011 @ 8:52 am
No obvious leaders on that list bradluen, but several who would do a better job that Goff.
Comment by Newtown News — July 18, 2011 @ 9:05 am
If you’re an uncharismatic rabble that doesn’t act like a government-in-waiting, then, aside from mass suicide, the only effective rapid solutions are to appoint a control freak to sort out the rabble, or a media-friendly charismatic leader to hide the unsavory rabble from voters.
Labour historically has been an uncharismatic rabble, and it was only H+H that sorted them out enough to win successive elections, as they usually managed to shoot themselves in both feet with just two cartridges and without external help.
Politicians have to be worth our contempt, and Labour currently aren’t.
Comment by Bruce Hamilton — July 18, 2011 @ 9:30 am
…or a media-friendly charismatic leader to hide the unsavory rabble from voters.
aka “the current government.”
Comment by Psycho Milt — July 18, 2011 @ 10:03 am
These polls are rubbish on two counts:
1. They never state the size of the dont know / undecided. If THAT fluctuates, it can play havoc with the party standings.
2. Colmar-Brunton over-sample National voters consistently (for over a decade) leaving National with 6% to 8% more in the C-B poll than they have in most other polls.
Comment by Steve — July 18, 2011 @ 10:54 am
On the money, Milt.
@ bradluen – essentially agree with the ranking though I would put Robertson higher. King is as you describe but that does not make her compentent as opposed to merely a thick skinned, party functionary.
Danyl has it right IMHO. The decks muct be cleared forthwith. The old apparatchiks like Mallard and lightweights like Curran must be purged post election. They have no credibility.
Whether Cunliffe come across as too cerebral for NZLP leadership is possible, but as a 3-5 year placeholder to rebuild the party before handing over the reins to Ardern; he might just be the guy.
Comment by Gregor W — July 18, 2011 @ 11:13 am
If we’re going to quote Keith’s blog, it seems fair to also quote this part:
“Numbers from Treasury” indeed.
Full post here:
http://pubadr.es/7202
Comment by Russell Brown — July 18, 2011 @ 11:14 am
@ bradluen – essentially agree with the ranking though I would put Robertson higher.
Only be renaming him Grant AAARobertson, it would appear.
Comment by Russell Brown — July 18, 2011 @ 11:47 am
@Gregor W,
It might just be coincidence, but I suspect bradluen ranked those MPs in alphabetical order.
Comment by Jordan — July 18, 2011 @ 11:48 am
My post has been surpassed in timeliness and quality…
Comment by Jordan — July 18, 2011 @ 11:49 am
Quiz time: Name the democracy where this happened today …
1) Opposition party hit 15 year low.
2) Inflation hit 21 year high.
Turns out it’s not the economy, stupid.
Comment by sammy — July 18, 2011 @ 11:56 am
The main point of “It’s the economy stupid” was not that it’s the economy — it’s that symbolic arguments work better when people think they’re about something material. “It’s the economy, stupid” wasn’t about the economy; it was a symbolic argument about priorities; an appeal to down-home common sense. It worked so well that everyone thought it was actually about the economy.
L
Comment by Lew — July 18, 2011 @ 12:14 pm
And I’ll ask this again: Could this poll prove little more than Labour’s CGT fan dance was frightfully “clever” media strategy but not very smart. If you think CGT and socking it to the rich pricks is a good idea, why not throw you support to the Greens — after all, they’ve been making the case for years. And it sure looked like Russell Norman was doing all the heavy lifting in the House while Phil Goff and David Cunliffe were all foreplay and no putting out.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 18, 2011 @ 12:24 pm
Craig, I think the strategy hasn’t yet played out. Ceding the field to the CGT’s opponents was always going to be a bit ugly; they were always going to scaremonger, & scaremonger they did. The flipside is that Goff, when unveiling the actual policy, would get to allay those scaremongered fears, reassuring the electorate & making the scaremongers look like fools. Jury’s still out on whether that’s happened, but it certainly is not shown in this poll.
L
Comment by Lew — July 18, 2011 @ 12:30 pm
Craig, I think the strategy hasn’t yet played out.
Lew:
You may well be right, but quietly it’s a hell of a high-risk game to play. And I really hope someone’s been assigned to make sure Trevor Mallard’s not allowed on the internet without adult supervision. Oy. And vey.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10739184
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 18, 2011 @ 12:44 pm
The flipside is that Goff, when unveiling the actual policy, would get to allay those scaremongered fears, reassuring the electorate & making the scaremongers look like fools.
Except to the faithful I don’t think his presentation was reassuring, it came across as earnest insincerity.
Unfortunately that’s normal for Goff, he’s fronting something but doesn’t look convinced it’s is what he wants to be doing.
Cunliffe’s performance on Q+A was praised by a few too, but he looks and sounds too much like he’s evading revealing important details.
Comment by Pete George — July 18, 2011 @ 12:44 pm
@ Craig
I read the email and to be honest am more surprised that it made the news. I am sure the blue team sends out similar emails and so they should, its all part of paty politics “ok team talk up the positives don’t dwell on the…… ‘ It just shows that lazy Trevett reads whale oil, and interviews her keyboard and that Mallard is involved in politics.
Comment by andy (the other one) — July 18, 2011 @ 12:54 pm
andy (the other one):
If I got an e-mail from a senior National Party campaign strategist telling me not to “dwell on the details” of our flagship, policy — it just confuses the stupid peasants, you know — another desk would be headed on its way to Furniture Heaven. If the detail of your supposed game-changing policy that will change New Zealand forever (and for the better) is a “negative”, why should anyone else take it seriously?
And I’d respectfully suggest that if such an e-mail found its way to someone at The Standard, who posted it with much deserved mockery, “lazy Trevett” would think there’s a story in it too. (I’d also note Mallard has not denied that Whale Oil’s post is accurate.)
Still you may be right, and that’s “just politics”. And politicians wonder why they’re so often viewed with cynical contempt…
Comment by Craig Ranapia — July 18, 2011 @ 1:16 pm
So last week I saw some hope of Labour getting its shite together – a clear policy difference with National and good slogan for campaigning. At last.
Now there is a negative poll reported negatively, will they get frightened and lose their nerve? They need to follow this up with boldness, but I’m afraid they’ll start to wimp out.
Comment by Me Too — July 18, 2011 @ 1:20 pm
@ bradluen / Jordan
I am notably blind to the obvious
Comment by Gregor W — July 18, 2011 @ 1:56 pm
Apols Russell. Please replace bradluen with your own name above.
Comment by Gregor W — July 18, 2011 @ 2:00 pm
You may well be right, but quietly it’s a hell of a high-risk game to play.
It is, but at this point in the polls and the electoral cycle, is there much virtue in slow-but-steady approaches? Labour needs a game changer, and trying to create one is not going to work with only low-risk strategies.
Comment by Hugh — July 18, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
“Still you may be right, and that’s “just politics”. And politicians wonder why they’re so often viewed with cynical contempt…”
Politicians do think it’s “just politics” – and yes, still wonder why they’re often viewed with cynical contempt. On both counts they don’t have a clue.
Repeating stupidity and blaming the bad press/polls on everything and everyone but themselves.
Comment by Pete George — July 18, 2011 @ 2:08 pm
“Labour needs a game changer…”
They’re like a drunk driver hoping new tyres will steer them in the right direction.
Shouldn’t it be “Labour needs a people changer”?
Comment by Pete George — July 18, 2011 @ 2:17 pm
Labour needs a Labour changer – which is, I guess, Danyl’s exact point…
Comment by Sam — July 18, 2011 @ 2:45 pm
And who exactly are the stars in the Labour backbenches who are going to radically improve things?
The theory that “Things would be better if the people involved were better” is always seductive because it’s always possible to imagine a smarter/more organised/more charismatic/more competent person, even if it’s hard to actually identiy one, and because there’s always room for improvement on this score – nobody’s perfect, after all. But I think it’s ultimately a blind alley. A healthy institution (such as a political party) will function even with mediocre people in charge.
Comment by Hugh — July 18, 2011 @ 3:31 pm
A healthy institution (such as a political party) will function even with mediocre people in charge.
The NZLP is the chain smoking, diabetic, morbidly obese party lumbered with several necrotic limbs.
Its doctors reckon it has a 27% chance of making it to November.
Comment by Gregor W — July 18, 2011 @ 4:10 pm
Right, and that’s exactly my point. A new frontbench is not the equivalent of a dietary change or a cold turkey regime. It’s more like giving it a Queer Eye style makeover.
Comment by Hugh — July 18, 2011 @ 4:15 pm
This is good news for Chris Carter!
Comment by Gregor W — July 18, 2011 @ 4:37 pm
“And who exactly are the stars in the Labour backbenches who are going to radically improve things?”
What I’ve seen locally doesn’t fill me with confidence. Hodgson retires and the Labour replacement expected to stroll into the seat as long as he keeps away from tennis balls looks like another dedicated party clone. From reports he’s a nice enough guy with an ok background but unfortunately also seems like a decidated party parrot, if this is anything to go by. He must be on Mallard’s email list.
Comment by Pete George — July 18, 2011 @ 4:53 pm
you’re in Dunedin North, Pete?
I never understood why they didn’t nominate David Parker for that seat.
Comment by kahikatea — July 18, 2011 @ 5:03 pm
Yeah, I think that surprised a few here. Parker stood for Waitaki in 2008 and got about half the votes Jacqui Dean got, but Labour have a new candidate there this year.
Parker must have wanted to just cruise in on the list with no electorate association, althought he’d have cruised in if he’d stood for Dunedin North too, so odd he passed on it.
Comment by Pete George — July 18, 2011 @ 5:16 pm
Maybe I’m Goff’s fool, but when he appeared on bFM this morning he sounded calm, composed, extremely on-message, and like somebody who had very good soundbites. Maybe they filter through to potential voters, maybe they don’t. But I’m not sure how he could have been any better, this morning at least.
I think the bubble takes its own hypermediated opinions far too seriously.
(Oh, and all you lot whinging about Labour’s bench… Anne *freaking* Tolley is currently Minister of Education. Also whoever put Davis on that list above needs their head checked – he’s alright, but I he isn’t cabinet material yet.)
Comment by George D — July 18, 2011 @ 6:02 pm
decision may be to do with other interests in Auckland….
Comment by insider — July 18, 2011 @ 6:02 pm
OK, so now we know.
Tonight’s TV One poll shows more support for a CGT than for both Labour and the Greens combined. Note: this is the same poll sample, asking the very same people that gave the party vote results which were broadcast last night.
Therefore, as correctly surmised by some on here, the low polling for Labour was not because of the advance discussion about a CGT.
Congratulations to Key/Farrar/Hooton for framing last night’s result as something it clearly wasn’t. No congratulations at all to the useful idiots like Bryce Edwards, who fell for it.
Comment by sammy — July 18, 2011 @ 7:28 pm
OK, so after seeing the other Colmar-Brunton results I’m confused. There is a fifty-fifty split on CGT, so far so good.
We have 155,000 unemployed. The economy is suffering stagnation, with very low growth and and racing away inflation. And somehow 53% vs 24% of the public think National are better economic managers than Labour? What.The.Fuck?
I know that the unmployed are no longer regarded as newsworthy or even worth a tinkers cuss to our plump and exceedingly right wing media. But I didn’t know we’d been so brainwashed by three decades of neo-liberal TINA talk that objective analysis and empirical evidence now no actually count.
Comment by Sanctuary — July 18, 2011 @ 7:33 pm
*now no LONGER actually count
Comment by Sanctuary — July 18, 2011 @ 7:34 pm
The apparent dissonance you suffer from is derived from idealogical blindness. The Labour party are useless, the public hate them, do not trust them to implement a lemonade stall and even though they think CGT might be a reasonable tax policy they would rather vote Green than re-elect Labour.
I’m afraid Danyls’ barometer is reading the public mood accurately – Labour need to clean out the detritus.
Comment by will — July 18, 2011 @ 8:10 pm
The Labour party are useless, the public hate them… they would rather vote Green than re-elect Labour.
Labour 27%
Green 10%
Sorry to bring some statistics to the mix.
Comment by Hugh — July 18, 2011 @ 8:41 pm
Labour support went down, Green support went up.
Comment by will — July 18, 2011 @ 8:47 pm
It’s one thing to say Green support is going up, but to say “the public would rather vote Green than Labour” is inaccurate as long as Labour’s poll rating is higher than the Greens’.
Comment by Hugh — July 18, 2011 @ 9:31 pm
Nobody will read this far down, but just in case …
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2011/4685/
So, Labour gain 6% in three days. CGT = Labour up, Greens up.
Well, that’s as valid an interpretation as anything Guyon Espiner came up with on Sunday.
Comment by sammy — July 20, 2011 @ 8:25 pm