This entry was posted on Sunday, July 1st, 2012 at 12:23 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
David, do you know on what basis Roy Morgan decides who will hold their electorate seats in regards to this poll?
They have Act losing Epsom – which seems a bit odd as from the looks of their website people were asked “If a New Zealand Election were held today which party would receive your party vote?”, so I struggle to see how they decided who would win the Epsom electorate. I also note that despite someone at Roy Morgan deciding Act will lose Epsom (despite winning it every time they have set out to win it) they have Peter Dunne holding Ohariu, and Hone holding his.
[DPF: If a polling company makes assumptions on electorat seats and reports their seat projections, Curiablog uses their assumption. If the polling company does not provide a seat projection, Curiablog (ie me) uses the electoral commission calculator. Electorate seat assumptions are the status quo *unless* a public poll has shown a change. In the case of Epsom, a public poll in May 2012 showed Banks's vote had collapsed to 10%, hence the assumption]
iMP – they found a Mayan inscription that was an addendum to their last calendar saying that any sale of assets would confirm the cessation of civilisation this year. Or so Labour strategists still seem to think.
It is interesting, but not surprising, that asset sales have had no impact on National’s polling. Not surprising because:
1) National wisely went to the election stating their intention of asset sales, so what they are doing now isn’t a shock, people are expecting it (if not entirely agreeing with it), and
2) Labour are making outrageous statements along the lines that National are going to sell everything under the sun. It sounds desperate and I don’t think the public believes them.
Now compare that to the teacher staffing cuts and the class size increases debacle where national’s polling DID drop. National and Labour did the exact opposite to points 1) and 2) above.
National made NO mention of reducing teacher numbers and increasing class sizes before the election. In fact a promise was made that there would be no cuts to frontline staff, so a broken promise.
Labour didn’t need to exaggerate, the damage was bad enough. They wisely make statements that they condone it and let Parata did herself further into a hole.
So the moral of the story:
1) State your position before the election regarding your intentions after you win the election. And don’t do the opposite!
2) No surprises, especially something as drastic as increasing class sizes and cutting teaching programmes
And perhaps a suggestion that John Key keeps Parata well away from the media and public during election year! Or as he did with Tolley, move her on before the election.
So things are basically unchanged since the election.
The wildcard remains NZ First. It’s heartening to see them consistently under 5% in the major polls… but then, they were before the election as well. I’m disappointed in John Key for backpeddling on his stance on Winston. WP was untrustworthy then, he’s still untrustworthy now, nothing has changed.
Do you honestly think that, placed as kingmaker, an egotist like Winston would support a government without being personally given a ministerial position? If these polls held save for NZ First reaching 5%, John Key would have the choice of having Winston as a minister or 3 years in opposition.
Excerpts of a John Key interview with TVNZ Feb 2 2011:
And he said he was ruling out going into coalition with Winston Peters, as he did in 2008.
“If Winston Peters holds the balance of power, it will be a Phil Goff-led government,” Key said.
However Peters claims National is jumping the gun and running scared and that’s why it has ruled out working with him if he is re-elected.
The New Zealand First leader said it was usual to wait until people had voted to form a government, before making such decisions.
“We usually wait until the people have voted to form a government. Unlike money traders and junk bond dealers we do not make deals until the event has actually taken place.”
He said Key was “dead scared” New Zealand First would be around to stop him flogging off state owned assets or giving away the Foreshore and Seabed.
In the same interview John Key predicted that New Zealand would win the World Cup which of course happened.
The long and short of it is the Nat’s consider Winston and NZ First to be “toxic” and that any association with him would inevitably damage the Nat’s brand, therefore there won’t be a coalition with them in 2014.