The Dim-Post

May 26, 2014

Brumaire

Filed under: polls — danylmc @ 9:15 am

I’ve updated the tracking poll. The bias corrected poll is below. Non bias-corrected here.

maypoll

  • Things aren’t great for Labour. But they could be worse! According to John Armstrong, Shane Jones’ exit had Labour polling at ‘a mindblowing low of just 23 per cent.’ That was in National’s internal poll though. Weird how none of the public polls ever replicated that.
  • Speaking of weird, there are going to be some interesting people a ways down the New Zealand First list who will probably be MPs in six months time.
  • Not pictured but ACT is still on less than 1%, and they have a tough decision ahead of them: stick with running as a ‘classical liberal’ party or play the white supremacy card?
  • As always, when the sun goes down and the night darkens all the rivers, cups the peaks and folds the final shore in, and nobody, nobody knows what’s going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old I think of David Shearer and look at Labour’s trajectory over this term. I think of David Shearer.

71 Comments »

  1. You can see the very human reason why Labour must quietly hate the Greens polling so well. The entire focus on the bit of Morning Report I could be bothered with this morning was a FPP narrative of a 20 point gap between Labour and National. It must drive them nuts.

    Comment by Sanctuary — May 26, 2014 @ 9:33 am

  2. The entire focus on the bit of Morning Report I could be bothered with this morning was a FPP narrative of a 20 point gap between Labour and National. It must drive them nuts.

    There is an extremely simple way to change that narrative.

    Comment by George — May 26, 2014 @ 9:36 am

  3. “There is an extremely simple way to change that narrative.”

    Disenfranchise all munters?

    Comment by nigelsagentinthefield — May 26, 2014 @ 9:52 am

  4. Well, Labour were pretty firm about the fact that there is no Labour-Greens coalition, so a 20 point gap seems like a fair comment.

    Comment by danylmc — May 26, 2014 @ 9:52 am

  5. Cunliffe giving the impression the Greens can be useful from time to time isn’t a great look.

    Apparently he’s going to showing his human side sometime soon.

    Comment by NeilM — May 26, 2014 @ 10:05 am

  6. Well, Labour were pretty firm about the fact that there is no Labour-Greens coalition, so a 20 point gap seems like a fair comment.

    If the Greens can poll at 20%, then the problem is solved. Even pundits can do simple maths.

    Comment by George — May 26, 2014 @ 10:31 am

  7. Well, Labour were pretty firm about the fact that there is no Labour-Greens coalition

    I must have missed that….sure there’s no hugging or kissing in public but that’s not the same thing as no coalition.

    Comment by Ross — May 26, 2014 @ 12:12 pm

  8. Labour were firm about no pre-election coalition.

    Comment by Phil — May 26, 2014 @ 12:24 pm

  9. I think they were firm about a strings-attached coalition. Not quite the same thing.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/labour-rejects-green-party-coalition-offer-5898618

    Comment by Ross — May 26, 2014 @ 1:02 pm

  10. any particular reason why the trend like for national is consistently beneath the majority of its point observations? is it a compensation for the low election night result?

    seems like the residuals above the line are… many.

    Comment by Che Tibby — May 26, 2014 @ 2:59 pm

  11. any particular reason why the trend like for national is consistently beneath the majority of its point observations? is it a compensation for the low election night result?

    Really? We’re going to have to go through this conversation again?

    Look at the big dots on election night and how they relate to all the little dots that came before it.

    Comment by Flashing Light — May 26, 2014 @ 3:08 pm

  12. Come on guys everybody knows that if Labour admits that the Greens were right all along they will explode upwards in the polls.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — May 26, 2014 @ 4:36 pm

  13. Why does Classical liberal need scare quotes? You can’t admit to yourself that Jamie Whyte is a liberal?

    Comment by Swan — May 26, 2014 @ 4:48 pm

  14. “stick with running as a ‘classical liberal’ party or play the white supremacy card?”

    A question most parties in the parliament have faced at various times in their history, with both National and Labour opting for the latter at different times in the last 20 years. When ACT had its largest caucus they were divided between the former and the latter camps, with Rodney Hide leading the second.

    Comment by Tinakori — May 26, 2014 @ 4:54 pm

  15. There is no way Jamie Whyte will go down the white supremacist path have you met his wife and child ? Doesn’t fit with his personality either.
    Armstrong must be mortified

    Comment by David — May 26, 2014 @ 6:02 pm

  16. @flashing light. Yep.

    As I thought. This is what I get for not reading comments

    Comment by che tibby — May 26, 2014 @ 6:22 pm

  17. I think the quotes around classical liberal are more to do with the fact that so far Whyte has been peddling the same old tough-on-crime populist junk as his predecessors.

    Comment by Rob — May 26, 2014 @ 6:25 pm

  18. @Swan,

    Why does Classical liberal need scare quotes? You can’t admit to yourself that Jamie Whyte is a liberal?

    Well, until I hear more of his views on our incest laws, on drug decriminalisation, on abolishing the minimum wage and on testing shampoo and makeup on rabbits, I can’t be sure. So I think he really needs to talk about these a lot more before I can make an informed judgment.

    @Che,

    Yeah – sorry for snippiness. It’s just on every comment thread on every one of these tracking poll posts, the same Q&A takes place.

    Comment by Flashing Light — May 26, 2014 @ 6:32 pm

  19. “there are going to be some interesting people a ways down the New Zealand First list who will probably be MPs in six months time.”
    Dunno, McCarten has Cunliffe playing the immigration card as a sad last ditch effort, so Labour may claw some back from the Racist Party.

    “Not pictured but ACT is still on less than 1%, and they have a tough decision ahead of them: stick with running as a ‘classical liberal’ party or play the white supremacy card?”
    And that’s an incredibly stupid and offensive comment, have you seen his family?

    Comment by Grant — May 26, 2014 @ 6:41 pm

  20. @Flashing: Somebody needs to step up and start a Dimpost wiki, or at least a FAQ

    Comment by kalvarnsen — May 26, 2014 @ 6:48 pm

  21. Currently it’s Labour and NZF running the anti-immigration line rather than ACT.

    Comment by NeilM — May 26, 2014 @ 7:06 pm

  22. Don Brash’s (now ex) wife is from Singapore. Didn’t seem to affect his dog-whistling at Orewa.

    Libertarians are pretty good at dismissing evidence and practising double-think, I’m sure Jamie will find a way to internally rationalise virtually anything if he has a need to.

    Comment by Rob — May 27, 2014 @ 8:56 am

  23. Nor Rodney Hide.

    Comment by Tinakori — May 27, 2014 @ 9:06 am

  24. I’d prefer it if political parties didn’t choose election year to talk about immigration in a negative manner.

    Perhaps kiwis with a spare $4m to spend on holiday homes have more to do with home the property market is.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 9:13 am

  25. stick with running as a ‘classical liberal’ party or play the white supremacy card?
    They’d be late to that ball it would seem, according to TV3’s coverage:

    Labour leader David Cunliffe has taken his hardest line yet against immigrants, blaming them for rising house prices.
    It follows a 3 News-Reid Research poll which shows almost two-thirds of voters say immigration should be restricted.

    It’s probably time for a principled Green Party stand on this issue.

    Comment by Tom Hunter — May 27, 2014 @ 9:19 am

  26. NeilM: “Perhaps kiwis with a spare $4m to spend on holiday homes have more to do with home the property market is.

    So, the answer is obviously a massive capital tax on non-residential / second homes and steeply progressive income taxation to ensure that no-one has a spare $4M available with which to distort the property market?

    Comment by RJL — May 27, 2014 @ 9:21 am

  27. It was an allusion to Cunliffe helping his rich kiwi friend living in the US buy a property in NZ for $4m at the same time complaining about foreigners.

    It’s a bit rich to be blaming immigrants when Cunliffe and his friends are ok in their multimillion dollar houses.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 9:30 am

  28. The reality is that Auckland is chock full with infrastructure that can barely cope with the existing population, and is also the major destination of immigrants. It is not anti-immigration to acknowledge that we preside over an unsustainable situation, and that increasing Auckland’s population is not going to help matters.

    Comment by Mikaere Curtis — May 27, 2014 @ 10:01 am

  29. I see Labour candidate wannabe James Caygill shares your concerns on white supremacy, Danyl, but about this own party.

    Comment by Tinakori — May 27, 2014 @ 10:03 am

  30. Without immigration Auckland would still be the very dull place it used to be. It’s the increased number and diversity of its population that is responsible for that.

    I’m not inclined to listen to Cunliffe with his multimillion dollar house with his friends also pouring money into houses bang on about immigrants just because he’s down in the polls.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 10:12 am

  31. The reality is that Auckland is chock full with infrastructure that can barely cope with the existing population, and is also the major destination of immigrants. It is not anti-immigration to acknowledge that we preside over an unsustainable situation, and that increasing Auckland’s population is not going to help matters.

    I want more immigrants. And I want more infrastructure. Everyone else can go live in a country town – we have plenty of them.

    The current government is building motorways through the blue fields of the Waikato and Bay of Plenty, because this is what they know. But they’re unable or unwilling to accommodate the needs and desires of a transformed Auckland, which does not share these worldviews. (Money is supposedly a universal language, but when John Key speaks all I hear is chainsaws, mooing, and the voice of an auctioneer.)

    Comment by George — May 27, 2014 @ 10:37 am

  32. I’m not inclined to listen to Cunliffe with his multimillion dollar house with his friends also pouring money into houses bang on about immigrants just because he’s down in the polls.

    I’m not sure why you think you’ve identified some sort of hypocrisy on Cunliffe’s part.

    (1) Cunliffe’s “multimillion dollar house” has that value because of capital gains through a buoyant residential property market (particularly in Auckland). He now says he wants measures to cool that off and stop such increases (including slowing migration into NZ, which mostly goes into Auckland, as well as things like a CG Tax and building more homes). That means he’s arguing contrary to his own financial interests, doesn’t it? Because what exactly is the link between “Cunliffe has a nice house that the market values in the millions” and “Cunliffe isn’t allowed to talk about the fact that houses cost too much”?

    (2) The purchase of a very expensive holiday home in Omaha Beach by an overseas Kiwi is not the sort of thing driving up the price of residential property in Auckland and other major metropolitan centers. It’s not as if Perry Keenan’s buying the place for $4 million stopped Joe the Plumber, his wife and two kids with his 2-employee business in Papakura from doing so. Now, if Cunliffe had helped Keenan amass a collection of inner-city rental properties as an investment hedge, you would have a point. But the “problem” of very rich expats buying very expensive holiday homes in select areas of the country is not what is driving our housing market.

    But, carry on, regardless. You always do.

    Comment by Flashing Light — May 27, 2014 @ 11:15 am

  33. Listening to the authentic voice of liberalism rail against even daring to discuss immigration is a timely reminder as to why UKIP and the FN have done so well in the recent European elections. The impact of immigration on the poor and precariat is seen as something a bit more important than just a more varied range of ethnic cuisine. The poor and the precariat can’t afford to eat out – they just see more competition for jobs.

    If the corporate media along with the liberal left and the neo-liberal right want to try and control the boundaries of the conversation and to present an implacable establishment fait accompli on issues like immigration then all that will happen is the “missing million” voters will eventually turn to something altogether less pleasant than Winston or David Cunliffe. I note that the British Labour party is “split” on how respond to the rise and rise of the far right – the left needs to develop a view on immigration and it’s impact on the poor and the precariat that is a bit more nuanced than simply regurgitating the sort of sneering and dismissive language of the British elites that has done so much to propel UKIP to the forefront of political debate in the UK.

    Be part of a proper debate, or lose control of it.

    Comment by Sanctuary — May 27, 2014 @ 11:19 am

  34. $4m on a holiday home in Omaha is more than just bad taste though. That sort of money going into coastal property around Auckland has a flow on effect through the region and the broader argument is of of over -investment in the property market in general.

    Cunliffe facilitated that investment. If he wants to introduce laws stopping that and of stopping internal migration than he might be less of a hypocrit.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 11:25 am

  35. Sanc, Auckland has seen a dramatic change over the past 20 years from immigration and there just hasn’t been the populist backlash that has driven UKIP. It only becomes an issue in election year.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 11:33 am

  36. I’d prefer it if political parties didn’t choose election year to talk about immigration in a negative manner.

    I thought Labour were talking about immigration in a positive manner, or are you saying that by limiting the number of migrants it must be bad?

    Comment by Ross — May 27, 2014 @ 11:41 am

  37. $4m on a holiday home in Omaha is more than just bad taste though.

    You mean the buyer paid too much? I hope you convey your feelings towards him.

    Comment by Ross — May 27, 2014 @ 11:46 am

  38. That sort of money going into coastal property around Auckland has a flow on effect through the region

    In what way?

    Comment by Ross — May 27, 2014 @ 11:47 am

  39. NeilM – spinning like a top since 2K8

    Comment by Rob — May 27, 2014 @ 11:57 am

  40. Ross: “In what way?”

    If the seller goes on to splurge his $4M in paying inflated prices for low price housing within the city.

    It’s a variation on trickle-down, and probably likewise a delusion.

    Comment by RJL — May 27, 2014 @ 11:58 am

  41. If someone wants to pay $4m for something in the nouveau riche ghost town Omaha then anything more interesting will go up in value.

    But seriously, like Grey Lynn prices have a broader effect outside of GL.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 12:04 pm

  42. But seriously, like Grey Lynn prices have a broader effect outside of GL.

    GL prices have an on-flow effect for “houses that are like GL houses (i.e primary residential) in other Auckland suburbs”. Top-end holiday houses in Omaha have an on-flow effect for the price of other holiday homes in other sea-side enclaves in Northland. But could you show the mechanism by which the price paid for a top-end Omaha holiday home impacts on residential housing prices in Auckland (while at the same time showing why the price paid for top-ed residential holiday homes in Queenstown don’t appear to affect the residential housing prices of, say, Dunedin).

    Cunliffe facilitated that investment. If he wants to introduce laws stopping that and of stopping internal migration than he might be less of a hypocrit.

    He does.

    Labour will address this problem by restricting foreign speculators’ ability to buy residential property in New Zealand. Under Labour, non-residents will no longer be able to buy existing houses, flats, or apartments in New Zealand.

    Finally – lots about Cunliffe being a hypocrite. How do we feel about a multi-millionaire living in a Parnell house with swimming pool and tennis court, part of a property portfolio including a “Parnell mansion, Omaha beach house and electorate office in Huapai … worth $13.3 million” who declares that there is no housing crisis in New Zealand? Just askin’.

    Comment by Flashing Light — May 27, 2014 @ 12:33 pm

  43. If the seller goes on to splurge his $4M in paying inflated prices for low price housing within the city.

    Firstly, the seller is surely entitled to do with his money what he wishes. Second, if a local buyer paid $4M for a beach property, the situation would be exactly the same – the seller could buy a property in town.

    You seem to be advocating for the non-sale of beach properties. That’s pretty harsh, especially if they were born and bred in NZ.

    Comment by Ross — May 27, 2014 @ 12:36 pm

  44. @43 I was addressing my comments to Neil.

    Comment by Ross — May 27, 2014 @ 12:40 pm

  45. He does

    Where? You haven’t shown anything about stopping non-resident kiwis investing in property or stopping internal migration.

    Yes, Key has property investments aswell but he isn’t trying to advicate the policy that Cunliffe is.

    On the other hand Cunliffe no doubt compares favorably with Brash.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 1:40 pm

  46. You haven’t shown anything about stopping non-resident kiwis investing in property or stopping internal migration.

    So, the only way to meet your “not a hypocrite” test is to propose policies that would require the Government to give you permission to move from one bit of NZ to another, or which would force a Kiwi moving overseas to sell all real property he or she owns? Well, in that case, I guess everyone is a hypocrite, and this conversation has reached a point of no continuance.

    But one last thing – you say Key is “better” than Cunliffe because Key doesn’t support policies designed to lower (or, at least, slow the increase of) the value of the property he himself owns, and in fact denies that there really is much of a problem connected with property values at all? That’s an odd basis on which to judge people. One might almost suspect your ideological blinkers are fitted too tight.

    Comment by Flashing Light — May 27, 2014 @ 2:02 pm

  47. Key isn’t claiming immigration is too high. Cunliffe is – without having anything to back that up. it’s just populist hand waving. He isn’t prepared to say what exactly the “just right” figure for immigration should be – it’s an issue that deserves better than his Golilocks act.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 2:24 pm

  48. Wel, Goldilocks. I generally ruin my own jokes.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 2:25 pm

  49. The impact of immigration on the poor and precariat is seen as something a bit more important than just a more varied range of ethnic cuisine. The poor and the precariat can’t afford to eat out – they just see more competition for jobs.

    True enough, though the proliferation of mostly Cambodian-operated bakeries-cum-lunch bars catering to the cash-strapped are probably a bit downmarket for a champion\ of the underclass.on a Super City salary.

    Comment by Joe W — May 27, 2014 @ 3:14 pm

  50. @NeilM,

    You are, of course, changing tack once again. You started by calling Cunliffe a “hypocrite” for owning an expensive house and helping a friend buy a holiday house, yet talking about wanting to bring down primary residential house prices in Auckland (like the one he owns). Yet Key, who owns an even more expensive house, apparently is not to be criticised for not being particularly concerned about housing prices and thinking there’s no real “crisis” requiring action. Instead Cunliffe is now a “hypocrite” for talking about migration as an issue without (apparently) having an exact ideal number … because apparently before you can talk about a problem, you have to have a predetermined solution to apply to it.

    This has ceased to be boring. It’s post-boring.

    Comment by Flashing Light — May 27, 2014 @ 3:33 pm

  51. It’s post-boring.

    The end of boring. NeilM as Fukuyama?

    Comment by Gregor W — May 27, 2014 @ 4:11 pm

  52. According to Cunliffe there’s some problem of some sort and there’s some solution of some sort neither of which he can outline on any factual basis and yet he’s sure it involves foreigners.

    Who needs exact numbers, who needs evidence?

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 4:29 pm

  53. According to Cunliffe there’s some problem of some sort and there’s some solution of some sort neither of which he can outline on any factual basis and yet he’s sure it involves foreigners.

    Replace ‘Cunliffe’ with ‘Key’ and this could be the government’s policy response to the GCSB shenanigans.

    I’m struggling to see your point NeilM.

    Comment by Gregor W — May 27, 2014 @ 5:09 pm

  54. I think my point is pretty clear – before launching into allegations that too many immigrants are causing us NZers harm it might pay to have a) some figures to back this up and b) some precise idea of your solution. Otherwise, it bring an election year and Labour being down in the polls, it might look a little too like opportunism.

    I think the last prospective PM to make these claims was Brash.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 6:10 pm

  55. Will Cunnliffe’s $2.5 million do up be exempt from Labour’s proposed capital gains tax as it is the personal home? Asking for a friend. Thanks.

    Comment by Simon — May 27, 2014 @ 6:12 pm

  56. But it’s all gone topsey turvey, Hone left the MP because they were compromised by National only to now hook up with KDC. I expect NZF and the Greens to enter into negotiations any day.

    Comment by NeilM — May 27, 2014 @ 6:16 pm

  57. ” The poor and the precariat can’t afford to eat out – they just see more competition for jobs.”

    You’ve heard of the lump of labour fallacy right Sanc?

    Comment by Swan — May 27, 2014 @ 9:07 pm

  58. Otherwise, it bring an election year and Labour being down in the polls, it might look a little too like opportunism.

    Of course it’s opportunism. It’s politics!

    It’s more your apparent inability to hold all politicians to the same standard that is makes me struggle to see your point. It’s a state of nature rather than some imagined hypocrisy.

    Similar to your perpetual trolling refrain that seems to boil down to, “I’ve seriously consider the idea of voting for the Green Party, if only the’d make sincere efforts not to be be the Green Party.”

    Comment by Gregor W — May 27, 2014 @ 11:46 pm

  59. It’s more your apparent inability to hold all politicians to the same standard

    There’s a bit if that I agree. But it’s more I have what could be considered conservative views on some issues, defense and security, and liberal on others eg immigration.

    So I’m not critical of Key when it come to issues like drones etc just asi wasn’t criticsl of Clark’s friendliness with Bush.

    And sometimes I get it wrong such as supporting the Foreshore and Seabed act at the time.

    I’m not as critical of National overall basically because on the whole I think they’ve managed the economy well. Theres things they’ve done that I disagree with such such charter schools and changes to the employments laws but not enough to go around claiming Key Hates The Children.

    And at present I believe the centre left, not just in NZ, is somewhat lost and directionless. A bit stuck in the 80s a there’s a lot of sloganeering which just doesn’t resonate anymore.

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2014 @ 8:37 am

  60. Why do you think of David Shearer? Doesn’t your graph show Labour trending up under Shearer and trending down under David Cunliffe?

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — May 28, 2014 @ 9:40 am

  61. Hey Neil, when Brash ranted about the ways in which people resent immigrants, did you, a) Call him out, or b) Call the left hypocrites for attacking him because they went with Winston?

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — May 28, 2014 @ 9:42 am

  62. @Pascal’s bookie, I was a labour voter at the time.

    Another questions?

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2014 @ 9:54 am

  63. NeilM – can I ask why you think Labour and The Greens are ‘stuck in the 80s’? Because as someone involved in policy, the opposite seems to be the case: in New Zealand it’s the ‘left’ who are up with the play on recent developments in most fields and talk about things like multi-factor productivity, high-performance workplaces, human capability, sustainable economic practices, skill leadership, health impact assessment and determinants of health, ‘evaluation’ over ‘audit’, responsive policy development, climate change, building civic engagement, multiple political identities (not just ‘class’) etc. Conversely, in policy terms the 80s was dominated – somewhat paradoxically – by twin rejections of state action/regulation as intrinsically negative, and the viewpoints of professions and communities as simply vested interests. Those views – expressed in things like 90-day probation, tax cuts, the (partial) sell-off of assets, National Standards and Charter Schools, attempts to water down the RMA etc. – seem to be much more the provenance of the Right at the moment. I’d be genuinely interested in some specific examples of what you see as the “80s-ness” of left wing parties these days.

    Comment by NBH — May 28, 2014 @ 9:59 am

  64. @NBH

    I’ll have to have think and get back with a more considered response but in brief my impression is of resting on the laurels of past won battles and not dealing well with a situation where there is a less well defined division between the centre left and centre right.

    British and Autralian Labour, the French SP – they all look a bit lost.

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2014 @ 10:28 am

  65. I think my point is pretty clear – before launching into allegations that too many immigrants are causing us NZers harm it might pay to have a) some figures to back this up and b) some precise idea of your solution.

    But Labour have a clear policy, so why persist with a straw man? Labour has said it will introduce a capital gains tax, it’s also said it will not allow foreigners to buy residential property and farm land in excess of five hectares. It’s also committed to building more homes.

    Why bang on about immigration when Labour’s policy is a lot more than that?

    Comment by Ross — May 28, 2014 @ 12:30 pm

  66. But you didn;t answer that that question Neil. Do you comment at KB by the way? Back then?

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — May 28, 2014 @ 1:41 pm

  67. @NBH

    The centre left achieved quite a lot especially in the broad area identity politics which subsequent centre right govts haven’t been inclined to roll back and with parental leave sometimes have pushed modestly forward.

    But I get the impression that the rhetoric doesn’t reflect this.

    I was mainly thinking of the centre left rather than “the Left” but looking at Hone, John, Annette and now Laila those are all people whose politics was formed on the 80s. They still go on as if the Spingbok Tour, the anti nuclear movement, abortion rights etc and are still Issues that resonate and National had no interst in redressing colonial wrongs.

    That’s a somewhat confused argument admittedly and it may be that it’s overthinking and it’s all just the changing tide of politics which doesn’t fit any theory,

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2014 @ 4:38 pm

  68. That really speaks more to your perception of these individuals than any sort of reality.

    Do you have any examples of how “Hone, John, Annette and now Laila” are still going on about the Springbok Tour?

    Are you also saying that our nuclear free policy is no longer important or relevant and that there are no unresolved issues with regards to access to abortion in New Zealand?

    Comment by Rob — May 28, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

  69. NeilM #67 & Rob #68: And by the same token, those on the other side of the House think the calendar is frozen on September 1987.

    Comment by DeepRed (@DeepRed6502) — May 29, 2014 @ 12:28 am

  70. Oops, link was munted.

    NeilM #67 & Rob #68: And by the same token, those on the other side of the House think the calendar is frozen on September 1987.

    Comment by DeepRed (@DeepRed6502) — May 29, 2014 @ 2:27 am

  71. Thanks @NeilM – I think that’s quite interesting, because it aligns with my read that a lot of ‘tired old Labour’ meme in the media isn’t actually about the substance of what they’re saying – which often is actually fairly new, innovative, and in line with the most recent developments in the particular policy area they’re talking about – or even how they say it, but a perception amongst some people that “The Left” as a label is intrinsically old-fashioned. I mean, John Key is just a handful of years younger than Hone and older than Laila, but there’s little reference to his “politics being formed in the 80s” – despite the fact that he’s said that he always wanted to be PM and so presumably was having his political beliefs forged in the same environment.

    Comment by NBH — May 29, 2014 @ 5:06 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: