Wood wins huge

An emphatic victory to Michael Wood in the Mt Roskill by-election with 11,170 votes for him and 4,652 for Parmjeet Parmar.

Wood got a massive 66% of the vote which is basically a landslide. The outcome of the by-election was never in doubt, but the margin is very impressive.

Michael I am sure will be an effective and diligent MP for Mt Roskill. He has worked hard over many years to build up profile, and the hard work paid off.

Of the five advance voting places Wood won three and Parmar two. Amusingly one of those two was the prison vote!

Of the 22 polling places on the day, Wood won 21 of them and Parmar just the one in Epsom. Again a decisive result.

Goff’s proposed visitor levy would not go on tourism infrastructure

The Herald reports:

A visitor levy on hotels and other accommodation will be discussed by Prime Minister John Key and Auckland Mayor Phil Goff tomorrow.

On Monday, Goff proposed a visitor levy costing a few dollars a night at a backpackers to $20 or more at the city’s top hotels.

The levy would apply to Kiwi and overseas visitors and could raise between $20 million and $30 million a year. It would replace ratepayer spending to attract visitors and funding for major events. …

The new mayor also dismissed calls by some in the hotel and tourism industry not to use the visitor levy on marketing and major events, but for funding infrastructure facilities.

Goff said the levy would pay for marketing and major events and free up $20 million to $30 million of ratepayer money to leverage spending on things like easing congestion and providing housing for tourism workers.

This is a naked tax grab. There might be a case for it to fund tourism infrastructure. But Goff wants this to fund stuff already being funded.

Basically under Goff’s proposal, if ATEED did fund a boxing match, then business travellers like me to Auckland would pay for it. Naff off.

A safety over-reach

Stuff reports:

A mother has been left fuming after her son was disqualified from a Lower Hutt athletics tournament for running in bare feet.

Organisers say it was to protect the 10-year-old’s toes from spiked shoes, and to maintain an equal playing field. But the decision has attracted criticism from some of our Olympic running greats. …

Lower Hutt School Sports Association spokesman Neil Sargisson said the rule was there to help protect kids’ feet from spiked shoes because young runners sometimes struggled to stick to their lanes.

So can the LHSA tell us how many kids were getting injured from running in bare feet before their ban? Scores? Dozens? Even one? Or was this a solution looking for a problem?

Sir John Walker, 64, who won gold in the 1500m at the Olympic Games in 1976, said the situation was “political correctness all gone wrong”.

“I ran in bare feet until I was 17 along with hundreds of other kids. Soon the kids of today will be unable to do anything due to the new health and safety rules. I am not a fan of these restrictions.”

Hear hear.

Garner on Labour losing the way

Duncan Garner is brutally honest in a column looking at Labour and Little:

It has been a dreadful end to the year for Andrew Little. …

The latest Roy Morgan political poll has Labour at just 23 per cent, which would give the party just 28 MPs in Parliament. 

This is the second lowest poll result for Labour in the history of the Roy Morgan survey.

And because Labour already holds 27 electorate seats, high-profile MPs such as Jacinda Ardern and David Parker would be looking for new jobs.

If Labour dropped one more per cent, Labour would not even get Andrew Little into Parliament. 

That’s the ultimate embarrassment: when your leader doesn’t make it to Parliament.

Labour’s response seems to be that there is no need to worry as they are actually in the high 20s instead of the mid 20s. Little came to power saying he wanted Labour to be at 40%.

The ‘everyman’ has been ditched in favour of this current mob. This is a narrower Labour Party, the so-called broad church has been given its marching orders.

Shane Jones is gone and desperately seeking Winston Peters and NZ First.

Phil Goff flew one-way to Auckland for another job. Clayton Cosgrove is looking for a new job and some sanity. Former Labour member Nick Leggett is poised to stand for National against his old party.

It seems to me that Labour doesn’t want the ‘everyman’ yet it wants his votes. I think Labour has lost the working bloke to NZ First and National.

They no longer identify with Little and his lightweight mob.

Labour has become a party of identity politics and urban liberals. This is why they have lost power in almost every provincial city in NZ.

I asked a press gallery journalist this week what was wrong with Little. 

She said Little can’t explain anything, he has no charisma, he’s angry and, finally, he’s not John Key. I would add that Little fumbles and bumbles his way through interviews. 

He lacks clarity and throws a few tired slogans at the public, who are likely to have tuned out a long time ago. 

He is utterly uninspiring to most New Zealanders and the polls clearly show that. Who is he? What does he do in his quiet times? What makes him tick? Is he really as unfriendly and remote as the television suggests. 

Ouch. I know one broadcaster who said their favourite guest was Andrew Little as almost without fail he would get angry on air.

It’s clear Ardern and Grant Robertson are holding back and waiting for Little to be done like a dinner at next year’s election before they make their move. 

The question is who will be at the top of the ticket and who will be deputy? And if polls don’t improve will Ardern even make it back?

This year Labour has seriously weakened its brand. And jumping into the quicksand with the Greens was a disaster. 

A whole bunch of Nelson Labour members walked away this week over reports of an electorate deal that would see Labour stand aside for the Greens. Labour has denied any such deal.

Labour’s poor polling is just further confirmation that the party and its MPs are simply failing to reflect public attitudes and sentiments.

A year out from the 2014 election Labour was polling 34 per cent and National 44.5 per cent.

Right now Labour is at 23 and National is on 49.5.

The gap is massive and Key’s reach after eight years is as wide and as strong as ever.

But it seems unconscionable that a clearly proud and historically strong party can be so devoid of invigorating ideas and broad public appeal. 

Their main idea is to adopt the former Alliance’s policy on tertiary education and turn the clock back to the 1970s.

After almost 3000 days in opposition, Labour looks more clueless now than it did at the beginning of that process. That leaves me to ponder this – are they finished as a major political party?

I don’t think so. People said the same of National in 2002. But Garner may be right as Labour is in the 20s in their third term in opposition, not their first. And National had Brash and Key as leaders to act as circuit breakers.

Why Leggett left Labour

Nick Leggett writes in the Dom Post:

I grew up with Labour burned deep into my DNA. Both sides of the family were supporters. Mum worked on Margaret Shields’ campaigns in my infancy, and my parents and grandparents kept their loyalty through the tumultuous eighties. 

Back then, I saw Labour – and only Labour – as the party of reform, hope and progress. 

Sadly for tens of thousands of once loyal supporters, that is not the case today.

The activists, staffers and MPs who control today’s Labour, many ex-Alliance, have become distant from – and, worse, disdainful towards – much of its loyal voting base. They take their heartland for granted and sadly fail to understand the ambitions and challenges of working New Zealanders.

More and more of their caucus have almost no life experience outside politics and unionism.

Earlier this year, Andrew Little stunned a Porirua business person who was one of about a dozen people who turned up to hear his ideas on local economic development, by asking what had been happening in Porirua since the closure of Mitsubishi Motors. Given the plant closed no fewer than 18 years ago, the message was unmistakable: Labour hasn’t a clue what’s going on in communities like ours.  

I’m surprised as many as 12 people turned up!

Like any tribal loyalist, I used to think National Party people had no heart, and didn’t care about the aspirations of communities found in Porirua. But, as mayor for six years, I have seen first hand that National is sincere in its desire to improve the ability of all New Zealanders to get a fair go, earn a good wage and be able to choose how they make their way in life. The party has also delivered on critical infrastructure like Transmission Gully and the Kapiti Expressway against Labour’s vocal, and baffling, opposition.  

A useful reminder that Labour has joined the Greens in opposing almost every new road.

As a social liberal I’d always taken it for granted that Labour was the only party for people like me on issues like marriage equality and abortion rights. But – shock horror – it turns out that National, under John Key, actively welcomes and promotes people with the same views. It simply does a better at job at balancing internal differences and accommodating a broad range of opinions and ideas. 

This is the key. Both social liberals and social conservatives can feel at home in National. Social conservatives in Labour are seen as reprehrensible by most of their peers. And likewise on the economic side you have people at home whose views range from Maurice Williamson to Nick Smith. But in Labour anyone who isn’t a denouncer of neoliberalism is now treated with suspicion.

As New Zealand continues to evolve as an open, multicultural society – while placing at its core respect for the social, cultural and economic contribution of tangata whenua – it is National, not Labour, that has the policies and values that best reflect my own. 

My wife, Emily, who is proud of her Maori, Samoan and Pakeha heritage, is a National Party supporter. As we had our first baby a few months ago, we have talked more and more about the kind of country we want for our son. We want Tane to grow up in a proud, diverse  and confident New Zealand. Diversity – of cultures, beliefs and ideas. Open to the world, trading with our neighbours, and offering more and better opportunities for successive generations. 

Sounds a great future to fight for.

Did they kill 14 because of a Christmas Party

The Herald reports:

The last picture of Syed Farook shows him posing at his office Christmas party with colleagues before he killed 14 of them in San Bernardino.

US ABC News’ investigative team discovered emails between Farook and his Pakistani wife, Tashfeen Malik, which indicate she was upset her Muslim husband was being forced to attend a Christmas gathering.

Not long after Farook was pictured in front of this Christmas tree, he killed 14 colleagues and injured 22 others.

“[Malik] had essentially made the statement in an online account that she didn’t think that a Muslim should have to participate in a non-Muslim holiday or event,” San Bernardino police chief Jarrod Burguan told ABC News.

“That really is one over the very, very few pieces of potential evidence that we have that we can truly point to and say, ‘That probably is a motive in this case’.”

How truly pathetic if that was the motive or even a factor.

Sadly the response of some will be to ban Christmas parties in case anyone else is offended!

Retirements and challenges

The Herald reports:

Wannabe National candidates also had another seat opened for them by MP Chester Borrows’ announcement he will leave politics in 2017.

Chester is one of the loveliest people in politics and is a genuinely good guy. I’ve known him for around 20 years and will be sad to see him go.

There are also challenges mounting in other electorates – the Otago Daily Timeshas reported Simon Flood – a 52-year-old former Merrill Lynch investment fund manager plans to challenge incumbent Todd Barclay.

It is understood Flood was widely expected to get the selection in 2014 but pulled out at the last minute for family reasons.

Barclay’s first term has been blemished by resignations of long-standing staff and reports of disputes. He said he had full support from his party electorate. “There’s obviously a disaffected aspect of former staff members who aren’t too comfortable with change. But I’ve worked hard over the last two years or so and we’ve got a lot to show for it.”

Bill English, Barclay’s predecessor in the seat, refused to endorse either, saying it was up to the party to select a candidate.

However, other colleagues expressed support on Twitter – including Police Minister Judith Collins who tweeted she was “looking forward to supporting @ToddBarclayMP … in Dipton on Friday 4 Xmas” and Maggie Barry who tweeted she had spent time in the “Deep South” and “found him to be a very engaged, diligent and popular local MP”.

It is very unusual for a first term MP to be challenged. I can’t recall this having occurred before. But the National Party has a selection process in the control of local members, not the hierarchy, and anyone can challenge if they get enough support.

While a first term challenge is very rare, a number of MPs entered Parliament through challenging incumbents – such as John Key, John Carter, Judith Collins and Stuart Smith. Also MPs such as Nikki Kaye got in by defeating an incumbent List MP for the candidacy. So this is not unusual in National – except for occurring after one term.

The Guardian on the failure of the centre left

The Guardian writes:

Across the western democracies, the centre of political gravity shifts erratically but inexorably to the right. Britain’s Brexit vote caused a tilt to the right in Theresa May’s cabinet and has been followed by the election of Donald Trump and a Republican Congress in America. This weekend, Austrians may elect a far-right president, while the centre-left Italian government could fall after this Sunday’s constitutional referendum. In France, meanwhile, the centre-right Republican party has now selected the more conservative contender François Fillon as its presidential candidate in the 2017 contest that could end as a head-to-head with the far-right Front National’s Marine Le Pen.

So why is this?

The ability of the centre-right to respond to and shape the world as it is evolving in 2016 contrasts with the inability of the centre-left to make matching responses. This failure is also simultaneously particular to individual countries and shared across borders. France’s left politics provide a textbook example. With occasional exceptions, like Canada and Portugal, the centre-left has struggled to win recent elections on both sides of the Atlantic. France’s left suffers from being part of that more general international difficulty to articulate an alternative that catches the popular mood and from being a particularly acute local example of that failure.

The left seem to offer the same solutions, no matter the situation. Labour’s answer to the future of work in NZ is to turn the clock back 30 years and return to “free” tertiary education.

Big Brother watching in UK

Stuff reports:

In Britain, Big Brother just got bigger.

After months of wrangling, Parliament has passed a contentious new snooping law that gives authorities – from police and spies to food regulators, fire officials and tax inspectors – powers to look at the internet browsing records of everyone in the country.

The law requires telecoms companies to keep records of all users’ web activity for a year, creating databases of personal information that the firms worry could be vulnerable to leaks and hackers.

As I understand it there is no requirement in NZ law for a minimum period. Each ISP will retain records based on their own needs. Those records can be sought by government authorities of course.

Dom Post on three strikes

The Dom Post editorial:

A man who groped a prison guard’s bottom has been sentenced to seven years in prison.

This absurd situation has come about because of a harsh and misguided piece of legislation – the “three-strikes” law passed in 2010.

The law says that anyone who commits three crimes from a long list of 40 must be sentenced to the maximum possible penalty for the final offence.

Raven Casey Campbell is the first person to reach a third strike. His offence was plainly an indecent assault – and one that caused distress and humiliation to his victim. Yet equally plainly, it was far less serious than many crimes that bear the same name, and entirely undeserving of a seven-year jail term.

Three strikes is deliberately about the consequences of repeated offending, not about just the third strike in isolation to the previous two.

Against this, the law’s supporters argue that its escalating warnings deter criminals. In fact, this is hotly disputed. The Court of Appeal calls the evidence for such deterrence “equivocal at best”.

Well a 62% reduction in strike reoffending rates is pretty impressive. That’s hundreds of fewer victims of violent and sexual offending.

A final warning certainly did not deter Campbell from his offensive, brief and highly consequential act.

No but the consequences may deter others and overall the level of second and third strikes is massively below what was the case before the passing of the law.

A great speech from an 11 year old

A very well delivered and reasoned speech by 11 year old Florence Akauola at Mt Hobson Middle School. She spoke on gender stereotypes and some of her points were:

  • “What does it mean to be a girl? Am I defined by the colour pink, a tube of lipgloss and a pair of high heels? Should I pull out a sewing kit, bake some cupcakes and do the washing?”
  • She “loved to play sports, have sword fights and race around the playground”, and dress up as Spiderman and Batman.
  • People tell girls “what a pretty little princess we are”, she said: “You don’t hear people saying, ‘wow, you’re such a strong, smart girl’.”
  • “Does it really matter if little girls play with cars and trucks? Maybe one day she’ll grow up to be an awesome mechanic.
  • “Or what about little boys playing with dolls? At least we know he’ll be a loving and kind dad when he’s older.”
  • “Girl, boy, or other gender, you should be who you want, believe what you want, and love who you want, without being judged criticised or hurtful.”
  • “As for me I know my potential, I know my worth. This little princess will slay the dragon, rescue herself from the tower and definitely go down in history.”

Hollande at 4% approval rating

Le Express reports:

According to a survey conducted among 17 000 people for Le Monde, the head of state reached a new level of unpopularity, recorded since the creation of this investigation.

Between François Hollande and the French distrust is total. Only 4% of respondents declared themselves “satisfied” the action of the President of the Republic, according to a survey published Tuesday by Le Monde. In detail, 3% of respondents said they were “somewhat satisfied” and 1% showed “very satisfied” in this election survey of 17,047 people. 

This makes Donald Trump look wildly popular.

Hollande may be the first ever President of France not to seek a second term.

UPDATE: He has just announced he won’t. He will go down as arguably the worst President in recent history.

Smalley on Labour’s left lurch

Rachel Smalley writes:

Labour and National have increasingly nudged to the Left, and that’s largely the result of Labour’s deal with the Greens. I thought, some time ago, it was a good move – but it’s pulled Labour further to the left, instead of dragging the Greens further towards the centre. And Leggett has echoed the mutterings of many long-term Labour supporters, accusing the party of losing touch with working kiwis.

I suspect National’s centrist position and popularity is now very appealing to Leggett.

And look at the policies that National has effectively snatched out from under the nose of Labour. National will build more affordable homes but crucially, more social housing too. The party’s essentially introduced a capital gains tax — of sorts — on residential properties bought and sold within two years. And in terms of social welfare, last year National upped benefits for families by $25 a week. It’s easy to see why Leggett felt he could transition into a National party that’s positioned itself very much in the centre.

He’ll seek selection in the Porirua seat of Mana, for National. It’s a Labour stronghold but Leggett would have some support there after his time as mayor, but it’s still a bold move. At the moment Kris Faafoi holds the seat for Labour, with a big majority – 8000 or so.

But the greatest loss, I think, is that in losing Leggett the Left lose a potential leader. And they can ill-afford to do that. They lost Shane Jones too, remember. It’s likely he’ll re-emerge flying the flag for New Zealand First.

And Labour needs strong leadership, and to be developing a team of leaders. The party needs depth.

Labour has paid a high price for its agreement with the Greens. It’s allowed itself to move too far to the Left, and in doing so has greatly enhanced National’s appeal. And as we’ve seen with Leggett’s exit to the right, that’s a very high price to pay.

The major impact of the MOU seems to be Labour taking votes off the Greens and National and NZ First taking votes off Labour.

I’ll take a bet with him

Stuff reports:

He’s been called a doomsdayer and worse for good reason: He’s the guy who says all humans will be dead in 10 years. 

And since his arrival in New Zealand for a Hamilton talk about the end of the human species, climate change specialist Guy McPherson has seen hate mail pour into his inbox.

Climate change is real and significantly influenced by human activity, but this guy is a nutter who should be ignored. It is the charlatans like McPherson which lead to so many people thinking there is no issue at all.

The University of Arizona emeritus professor says in 10 years, humans will cease to exist. Abrupt rises in temperature have us on course for the sixth mass extinction – similar to one that happened about 252 million years ago that culminated in the “great dying”.

That event was the worst of the mass extinction events in our planet’s history and saw all complex life cease, leaving microbes and fungi to rule the planet.

“I think we are heading for something like that this time around, too,” McPherson said.

I have a proposition for him. I’ll give him say $1,000 now and if the world is not ended in ten years he (or his estate) has to give me $10,000 in return.

 

A UK poll on religious freedom and association

This UK poll gave respondents eight scenarios and asked for each of them whether they should be considered grounds for taking someone to court. In all of them only a small minority thought someone should be forced to act against their beliefs – even if t means denying someone goods or services.

In order of support for taking them to court, the scenarios are:

  1. A bakery run by Christians that won’t bake a gay marriage cake 16%
  2. A printing company run by Catholics that won’t produce pro-abortion adverts 15%
  3. A t-shirt company run by lesbians that won’t print anti gay marriage t-shirts 13%
  4. A bakery run by Christians which won’t make a Satanic cake 11%
  5. A Muslim printer who refuses to print cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed 11%
  6. An atheist web designer who won’t design a creationist website 10%
  7. An environmentalist marketing consultant who won’t work for a fracking company 9%
  8. A Muslim film company than won’t make a pornographic film 7%

Labour members quit over “dirty” deal in Nelson

TVNZ report:

Eight Labour members have quit the party in protest over a proposed electorate deal with the Greens in Nelson.

It includes one supporter who held membership for 30 years and the campaign’s coordinator is also understood to have walked away.

One of those who quit said the members had emailed in their resignations – and the reasons – to the party.

“They were eight core people and they’ve walked away. They expected us to help the Greens… we’re not going to work for the Greens, bugger that.”
 
The ex-member said supporters were unhappy about how they learned about the proposed deal.

“It leaked out at the [annual] conference. One of the candidates was told by Andrew Little… people here are really angry.

“It doesn’t make any sense, the numbers don’t stack up. NZ First will just suck up all our numbers.”

National learnt in 1999 that local members really don’t like it if you don’t stand a candidate. They can tolerate a campaign focused on the party vote only, but they really feel aggrieved if there is no candidate at all to support.

If Labour does stand aside in Nelson, I expect they’ll get more resignations.

Is Key the bulwark against a Trump effect?

Geoffrey Miller and Mark Blackham write:

Our research in April this year into the working experiences of our Parliament revealed that the political class is increasingly estranged from ordinary voters.

We commented presciently at the time that the success of Donald Trump owed a lot to voter dissatisfaction with the staid politics of professional politics. We predicted that his brand of rabble-rousing and pomposity-pricking would find healthy support.

It looks to us that the New Zealand political environment holds the same conditions that had led to Trump’s success. The only difference is John Key.

Mr Key is the exception that proves the rule. New Zealand’s political environment is now largely a professionalised machine. A whole generation of MPs can no longer truly emphasise with many New Zealanders.

A third of New Zealand’s MPs have only ever worked inside the government system. Another third built no real career before they tried to get into Parliament.

The common path for many is student politics, backbench MP staffer, ministerial staffer, a spell in a union and then become an MP!

When Mr Key leaves, the inadequacies in Parliament will become clearer to voters. His common touch and relative frankness have been a buffer between Parliament and the public.

Mr Key is our own populist politician. Like Trump, he is wealthy and not a career politician.

Mr Key’s inherent anti-political nature frequently motivates him to behave in ways which we would not previously have expected from a prime minister. Examples of this include mincing down the catwalk in a Rugby World Cup uniform, dancing along to Gangnam Style and last year’s unsavoury ponytail incident.

In some cases, such as in the ponytail affair, MrKey has gone too far and ended up apologising for his actions. But generally, his non-conventional style and willingness to make fun of himself have helped him to stay astonishingly popular – despite being eight years into the top job.

Moreover, Mr Key appears to enjoy a particularly enduring appeal with New Zealand’s “Waitakere man” working-class voters. These voters feel Mr Key is one of them.

When Mr Key leaves, his populist touch will go with him, exposing the public to a parliament awash with careerist politicians who play it safe, deal in slogans and spin and have no way to forge a genuine bond with voters as Key has done.

Maybe Key should go for a 5th term after all then!

Greens don’t really get property rights

This exchange is very telling. The Greens seem to think that a tenant should have greater rights to a property than the owner and his or her family.

For the avoidance of doubt yes a tenant does have less rights to a house than the person who actually owns it. That is why it is called ownership!!!

No young people are not abandoning democracy in droves

This graphic has been going around and generating a lot of angst. A typical story is here at Stuff.

I was interested enough in this to download the raw data into SPSS and look at it. Lots of fascinating results which I might come back to. But two interesting things on this graph which the reports do not highlight.

The stories just report how many saying it is is essential to live in a democracy. But what were the other options? Is it a binary question of essential and not essential?

In fact it was a 10 scale question where people pick a number from 1 (not at all important) and 10 (absolutely important). So those not saying 10 may still be saying 8 or 9 which is still saying very important. What happens if you group those saying 8, 9 or 10 together?

  • 1930s – 94%
  • 1940s – 95%
  • 1950s – 87%
  • 1960s – 79%
  • 1970s – 75%
  • 1980s – 64%

So still a decline but not as dramatic as the graph shows.

The more important figure may be how many are saying 1 to 4 – that democracy is not important?

  • 1930s – 0%
  • 1940s – 2%
  • 1950s – 3%
  • 1960s – 4%
  • 1970s – 5%
  • 1980s – 6%

And the other thing to remember is the age breakdowns have a high margin of error. There were 89 respondents born in the 1980s. That is a 10.4% margin of error (for a result of 50%).

So yes younger people are less likely to say democracy is essential, but I don’t think the represents some massive disillusionment that has infected younger generations. I think it just reflects that few younger people vote until they get older, settle down, have a family etc.

UPDATE: I’ve now gone back and looked through their 1998 data from an older survey (the latest data is from 2011). This shows much the same pattern – that young people then were less positive on democracy. So this is not a trend, just an established pattern I’d say. The question in 1998 was a four point scale that having a democratic political system was very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very bad.  Those saying very good were:

  • 1930s 64%
  • 1940s 56%
  • 1950s 55%
  • 1960s 56%
  • 1970s 34%

Those born 1970s were roughly in their 20s in 1998 so comparable to those born in the 1980s in 2011. Again there is possibly some change from 1998 to 2011 but it looks to be minor at best.

In the 2011 survey 30% of those aged in their 20s said democracy was essential on a 10 point scale, choosing 10/10. In the 1998 survey 34% of those in their 20s said democracy was very good on a four point scale. Not much change.

Little on brink of losing his own seat

I’ve blogged the latest Roy Morgan poll at Curia.

It has Labour at 23% which would see them get just 28 MPs in a House of 120. As they hold 27 electorates it means on that poll they would get just one List MP – their leader Andrew Little. If they drop just 1% more, then Little loses his seat. Alternatively if they pick up one more electorate seat then again Little loses his seat.

Other List MPs such as Jacinda Ardern and David Parker are toast on this result.

It is always useful to compare polls to the same time period in the previous election cycle. So how are National and Labour placed in November 2013 and November 2016?

  • November 2013 – National 44.5% and Labour 34.0% for a 10.5% lead
  • November 2016 – National 49.5% and Labour 23.0% for a 26.5% lead

A huge difference. This is the second lowest poll result ever for Labour in the history of the Roy Morgan poll.