Comments on: Tauranga Poll Results

By: Rakaia George

Rakaia George — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:28:23 +0000

KiA, as you note a “seismic” issue might be required to overcome this deficite for Winston…I was just advancing the possibility that this corruption issue has already been a seismic negative in Tauranga (because of the fact that voters there know they are linked oin the rest of the country’s mind with Peters) and that it may not have had the same impact elsewhere.

In saying that though, I bloody hope it has (but chickens and eggs…).

By: baxter

baxter — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:25:08 +0000

Polemic……………I agree with you.

By: stephen

stephen — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:01:55 +0000

…(but maybe National too)

By: polemic

polemic — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:19:25 +0000

The Nats now need to cast him off completely HE IS DAMAGED GOODS,

Leave him to Helungrad, she would appreciate having him as albatross around her ugly neck in fact it may improve her looks!!

They need to start promoting the fact that :

“A VOTE FOR WINSTON FIRST IS A VOTE FOR LABOUR”

By: freethinker

freethinker — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:59:01 +0000

I think Peters has so pissed off the press and media that they will give him a rough & negative ride in the election campaign which will almost certainly sink the Witanic – permanently.

By: kiwi in america

kiwi in america — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:49:19 +0000

Rakaia George
A 500 sample size poll in a single electorate is like a national poll of 5,000 and therefore it has a smaller than normal MOE than most single electorate polls. A lead of this magnitude is extremely difficult to overcome. You need some seismic local or national issue to break Winston’s way for a lead like this to be reversed. Winston has played his race, immigration and senior citizens cards pretty much to the hilt and there is little significant political mileage left in these issues. Even if he were to barnstorm the country with some wild new scheme to suck in the silver tops, it might shift him a few percentage points. But any such attempt will be more than offset by the steady drip of bad publicity he will face over the next few months. He is already facing the Privileges Committee hearing, then there is the possibility of a SFO Inquiry as well as a likely Auditor-General’s inquiry and all of these will keep the Owen Glenn, Spencer Trust, Bob Jones donations stuff in the public domain all the way through to the election reminding us what a hypocritical prat he is. Do not underestimate Bob Jones – he helped bring down Rob Muldoon and he’s not a man to cross. He would happily use some of his fortune (even running the risk of an EFA prosecution) to bring down Winston.

I think if I were a betting man, my money would be all on there being no NZF MPs in the next Parliament.

By: PhilBest

PhilBest — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:46:58 +0000

Look, the Nats should WIPE WINNIE OUT this time around by flogging their “increase NZ Super” policy hard out and taking all the elderly supporters off him…….

By: Chuck Bird

Chuck Bird — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:06:01 +0000

Southern Raider, would you email me at chuckbird@hotmai.com please.

By: Rakaia George

Rakaia George — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:11:34 +0000

I think extrapolating the Tauranga result to a national percentage for Winston 1st is probably dangerous. Given how closely “the great survivor” is associated with that electorate, there’s probably an additional factor of people feeling like their own repuations have been sullied by his behaviour.

By: expat

expat — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:54:17 +0000

No wonder Key was not making any comment about possible hookups with Winnie post election.

No point even discussing it is there.

This must be a little troublesome for Hulun and Mikhael.

By: Sushi Goblin

Sushi Goblin — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:10:56 +0000

Matthew,

You haven’t followed my logic at all.

1. Please show me a single NZ Herald poll that shows the Kiwi Party likely to break through 5% in the PV, or winning Tauranga. You won’t find one, because there aren’t any.

2. United and Progressive both have the luxury of a long held seat. That gives them relevancy. Were there to be a poll that showed them potentially losing their respective seats, they’d be less relevant.

The Kiwi Party is a joke and will not be in the next parliament, or indeed, in any parliament. Larry Baldrick could be one vote short of being elected, and he’d still be a loser. And what’s more, if he wasn’t prepared to run a campaign for his election for regional councillor, why the hell should that inspire me to believe he could win a parliamentary seat. He only ever became an MP because he coasted in on the skills (dubious as they were) of Peter Dunne.

I suggest you give up your false idol worshipping in Tauranga, and prostrate yourself before the Mighty Bridges.

By: Hagues

Hagues — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:04:00 +0000

jafapete “DPF, You forgot to mention that the party vote for Labour is almost exactly the same as in 2005. Interesting that.”

Yes very interesting that NZ1′s support has collapsed and Labour has not managed to pick up any of it. They have seen something better and it aint coloured red.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:32:05 +0000

So Sushi, if we follow your logic that the Kiwi Party haven’t registered in any poll, then I can draw two conclusions:

1. The NZ Herald are an irrelevant newspaper when it comes to their polls because they mention the Kiwi Party. They must be some, soon-to-be fogotten daily rag that is “of no interest to anyone except the no-hopers who have climbed aboard that abortive enterprise”.
2. (Dis)United(what’s left of)Future and the Progressive’s are equally irrelevant given they register LESS than the Kiwi party in most recent polls.

By: voltaire

voltaire — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:16:11 +0000

Do not discont what big bruv (1281) has contributed , what is the betting that the Peters’ party campaigns upon and makes it a condition upon (if they are in the position of “kingmaker), “all the foolish investors get their capital back courtesy of the taxpayer?”

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:42:09 +0000

Vinick,

that’s a convenient “selection” of facts. Let’s see what you missed out on:

1. Larry was five votes short of being elected, with around 14,000 votes.
2. Larry ran NO campaign for the Regional elections: that means no billboards, no flyers, no public speeches, no ads in the newspapers or radio.

Electing a first term backbench junior National candidate with deliver nothing to Tauranga when compared to what a party leader can do from another party altogether. Bradford wasn’t even a party leader and look what she delivered…anarchy.

Bear in mind the Kiwi Party has given a guarantee that they will refuse to work with the Labour Party in any coalition negotiations after the General Election, so a vote for the Kiwi Party is a vote for a change in governement [to a National-led one]. National voters, regardless of how far in front they party is in the polls, need mor eviable coalition partners if they want to be more then just a one term Governement. While I don’t support the current set of corrupt thieves on the 9th floor, one thing they have been more successful at is having a variety of coalition choices. National has to have more than Act as a guaranteed partner if it is to achieve a longer term of Government.

By: Vinick

Vinick — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:23:29 +0000

Larry Baldock couldn’t even get himself elected to Regional Council last year, he came in about fifth.

There is no way he will be elected in Tauranga.

I’m picking he will be beaten into fifth by ACT’s Ron Scott, a popular local body politician in Tauranga.

By: Sushi Goblin

Sushi Goblin — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:03:51 +0000

Peterwn – why on earth would it matter? 6% is disastrous for NZF in Tauranga. They need double digits there if they want to break through 5% nationwide.

By: peterwn

peterwn — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:01:23 +0000

Pity that the NZ First party vote was not 1.1% less – ie 4.9%.

By: Michaels

Michaels — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:00:39 +0000

Sushi…. Baldrick did pull out of Tauranga last election basically handing it to Bob.
However, I met him in Hamilton a few months ago and I was impressed with him, in saying that, he wont be getting my vote either.

By: first time caller

first time caller — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:53:38 +0000

Sushi – I agree completely. Baldork does not even make it out of the blocks. He can put forward ideas about what he might like to happen in Govt, but chances that he would be anywhere near a position to make that happen would require divine intervention….