Quite right Pete George. I thought polls have never, ever, actually showed Act winning Epsom. I think it would be reasonable for any polling projections to show Act retaining it – even if it was just a mention on how Act retaining it would affect the make up of parliament (i.e. would another party lose a party list spot, would it be overhang etc?)
Stuff the Conservative party. Conservatives need to swing in behind United Future. The only minor party proven to have a track record in Parliament and a huge swing vote to UF would kick WP to the curb. Then we’d have a government capable of future proofing NZ.
Monique – you’re right, one of the best ways to minimise the Winston Peters effect is to promote a better alternative, and United Future is a viable option already in place.
But it does depend on how UF build through this term. The party should be a prime consideration for anyone who’s politically ambitious, with a liberal democrat inclination, and wants to fast track their way into a pivotal political position during the current term.
I’ve proven how this can be done and now have a fascinating involvement with potential to have influence in what’s happening now, while retaining a degree of independence. UF needs a new generation wanting to drive new ambitions who recognise a ready made party vehicle. If anyone’s interested I’d be happy to help you get up to speed and influential quickly. All you need is an open political mind and are determined to make a difference. I can’t guarantee success, obviously, but I can guarantee the best political opportunity going.
There is room for a moral conservative party which could even take votes away from Labour. It is much more soundly based than the Act party which has no point to it. If Act had been a morals conservative party it would be in good shape today.
You fail to mention that the poll shows “others” on 2%. A figure higher than that obtained by act, united, mana and maori.
Could it be that the Conservatives remain NZ’s 5th largest party as they were in the 2011 election?
We won’t know until roy morgan tells us who the 2% others are.
Those who want the WP effect to go away (I presume) have thumbed their nose at those economists who claim (for example):
In a country with a relatively low national savings rate, rapid population growth will put sustained upward pressure on real interest rates and, in turn, the real exchange rate, making it harder to achieve the per capita income gains that people (and the government) aspire to,” the report states.
Group member Andrew Coleman, an economics lecturer and consultant, said despite obvious sensitivities the issue warranted attention amid what is shaping up to be a national debate on how to deal with New Zealand’s mounting foreign debt.
“We’re not anti-immigration but we are saying it’s something we need to look at,” Colemand said. “If we are concerned about disruptive change caused by debt levels in response to natural outcomes of migration, then we want to make sure it is occurring at a rate that isn’t getting us into trouble,” he said.
In its report , the SWG theorises that if net immigration flows were held at 1980- levels, the country’s net foreign liabilities could be 20% lower than its current rate of 85% debt to GDP.
“This is a critical difference in terms of vulnerability and growth and arises because new residents require new capital stock immediately, which must be paid for…increasing the need for foreign borrowing.”
80% of our population growth in the last couple of decades has been the net inflow of non NZ citizens .
“Among policy and analytical circles in New Zealand there is a pretty high degree of enthusiasm for high levels of immigration. Some of that stems from the insights of literature on increasing returns to scale. Whatever the general global story, the actual productivity track record here in the wake of very strong inward migration is poor. In an Australian context, the Productivity Commission – hardly a hot-bed of xenophobia or populism – concluded that any benefits from migration to Australia were captured by migrants and there were few or no discernible economic benefits to Australians. And that was in a country already rich and successful and with materially higher national saving and domestic investment rates than those in NZ.”* http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/mi-jarrett-comm.pdf
*NZ Productivity Commission was directed to look at certain specific issues which didn’t include immigration. Perhaps they knew the answer?
I think presuming ACT would not win Epsom is mischevious. No poll has ever given ACT the seat yet every election it does. Idon’t believe the people of Epsom are so stupid as to not vote ACT when it brings in an extra seat.
Commentators continuelly try to write offf ACT but they are always wrong, history tells us that. What was the latest poll in Ohuria I wonder. Oh that is right they don’t do polls there, just in Epsom. I wonder why they did a poll in Epsom, did they do every electorate no of course they didn’t.
What happened to ACT is a classic example of the pollsters influencing politics. There is no excuse for the dismal performance of these pollsters, they need to look at what the question is or how they poll or something because they have no credibility when it comes to ACT and Epsom.