What now after another poll shock?

With the way polls have swung over the past six weeks, they only certainty this election is uncertainty. There is no way polls (or poll of polls) can be used to opredict the election outcome.

Two recent Colmar Brunton polls put Labour in the lead and National appeared to be sliding, after a dramatic virtual doubling of Labour support over the previous month.

Yesterdays Reid Research poll turn things upside down again giving National a 10 percent lead (47-37) over Labour. If that’s a reasonable snapshot of support it couldn’t have come at a better time for National, just as advance polls open.

But there is no way of knowing if voters have decided to swing in behind the government they know, or if further swings could happen over the next ten days.

What now for the parties?

National – Bill English has looked and sounded ok campaigning and debating, and is best to keep going steady and punting on voters preferring what they know, despite Steven Joyce (who should be kept out of sight).

Labour – Jacinda Ardern has little option but to keep going as she is, wowing the adoring crowds and hoping the uncertainty over possible taxes doesn’t drag her support down.

NZ First – Winston Peters will keep looking for opportunities to grab the media limelight but he is running out of time. He has a hard job campaigning in Northland as well as nationally, and NZF have slipped a lot in polls. After peaking at 13-15% in July the latest poll has them on 6%.

Greens – James Shaw has had a very hard 6 weeks after the Metiria crash and is looking worn out, but he will have to keep fighting for Green survival, hovering dangerously in the 4-6% zone. Their main hope in achieving a disappointing result (rather than disaster) is to get people to switch back to them to save them.

Maori Party – they have mostly stayed in the 1-2% range. They look like they may get two electorate MPs, but need to get around or just over 2% to save Marama Fox.

ACT Party – David Seymour has been doing everything he can to attract voter attention and has to keep banging away but seems stuck in the 0-1% single MP zone. They need 1.2-1.3% to get a second.

United Future – Damian Light got a brief amount of attention after last Friday’s debate on TV1, but now Dunne is going UF are goners.

TOP – once again a big budget campaign looks like failing for a new party. Gareth Morgan has been great campaigning and he has been awful at times trying to attract attention. Might manage 2-3% but with our ridiculously high threshold that’s far to short.

Mana – Hone Harawira is battling away to try and win Te Tai Tokerau back but isn’t trying to get any party vote.

Conservatives – without Colin Craig’s money and media magnetism they have no hope.

No other parties look like getting anything other than crumbs.

Leave a comment

56 Comments

  1. There is a Roy Morgan poll due out any day, but that may confuse more than clarify as their polling will have been done over two weeks up until last Sunday 10 September, while the Reid research poll was done from 6-11 September.

    Reply
  2. David

     /  September 13, 2017

    English has been a better campaigner than I thought he was going to be. While Vernon Small, Bernard Hickey and other sympathtic journalists lashed Joyce if you look at the actual evidence (confirmed by most economists except BERL) Labour have no contigency for years 2 and 3 of any extra spending outside of health and education which is simply unbelievable and perhaps thinking voters are dumb the maths is pretty straightforward.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  September 13, 2017

      if in fact the maths is ‘pretty straightforward’,one would hope a competent Minister of Finance could calculate it…accurately.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  September 13, 2017

        He still stands by his comments.. and the latest poll agrees. How do you calculate possibilities? You can’t and the voters know that. What we can confirm is god help us if there is an economic downturn during Labours first few years in office.

        Reply
        • Trevors_elbow

           /  September 13, 2017

          It is likely as the rest of the world isn’t growing much…. and a China debt crises can’t be far off

          Reply
    • Mefrostate

       /  September 13, 2017

      Speaking of dumb voters, I find it preposterous that you’ve hooked up on Joyce’s bait so willingly.

      There simply is no $11.7bn hole. No economist agrees with it. Yet Joyce led with this aggressive figure, knowing some voters would lap it up.

      Labour account for every dollar of new spending they promise, and it’s not just health and education (another lie being spread around). In 2018/19 this is $1.2bn into social security & welfare, $846m into health, $887m into education, $40m into police, $30m into IRD, $230m into economics and industrial services, $105m into housing and community development, and $1bn into NZ Super.

      Sure, Labour’s remaining operating allowance is tight in 18/19 and 19/20, but that’s only because they allocate most of the new spending they need. Any remaining budgetary tightness is much, much smaller than the scary figure Joyce threw out.

      But those facts are irrelevant now, gullibles like you have already gobbled up Joyce’s dogwhistling.

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  September 13, 2017

        Have you seen the heroic gdp growth figures underpinning Labour’s spending? Easy to increase spending when you plug in 4.7% growth to fund it.

        Reply
        • Mefrostate

           /  September 13, 2017

          Nominal GDP growth of 4.7% comes from Treasury’s PREFU, but nice try.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  September 14, 2017

            From Prefu:
            Growth in the 2017/18 year is forecast to pick up to 3.2%
            Economic growth accelerates to 3.7% in 2018/19
            Private consumption growth slows over 2019/20 and 2020/21 as rising interest rates and slower employment growth lead to slower growth in disposable income.
            No growth even touching 4% anywhere there.
            From Labour’s figures:
            memo item: nominal GDP 2018: 282,626 2019: 296,548 (up 4.925%) 2020: 310,543 (4.71%) 2021: 323,240 (4.09%) 2022: 337,085 (4.28%).

            It looks to me like Labour are using non-inflation adjusted GDP to justify “increased” expenditure that does not include the same inflation.adjustment.

            Reply
            • Mefrostate

               /  September 14, 2017

              No, you’re still wrong.

              Those GDP figures come from p52 of PREFU:

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 14, 2017

              No – i’m still right. Nominal GDP is not normalised for inflation. Labour is using non-inflation adjusted data and not adjusting it’s spending accordingly. This was my original point.

            • PDB

               /  September 14, 2017

              From page 16 of Labour’s fiscal plan – Tax intake increases from 78 billion (2017/18) to 91 billion (2020/21) – about a 14.5% increase. Now they have ruled out substantial tax increases how will they do this?

            • Mefrostate

               /  September 14, 2017

              No, your initial point was that Labour had plugged in 4.7% GDP growth – wrong, that is Treasury’s figure.

              Your next point was that PREFU had no growth even touching 4% – wrong, they do

              Then you suggested those figures were Labour’s – wrong, they come from PREFU

              Finally you suggested that Labour’s spending was exaggerated because they’re using nominal spend figures instead of real ones – this is correct, all figures in Labour’s fiscal plan are nominal

              This last point is also extremely normal, every political party always announces their planned spending in nominal values. National’s $10bn of roads is also nominal.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 14, 2017

              PDB, they have consistently said they have not accounted for $1 of extra revenue from new taxes in their costings…and yet as you say they magic up an extra $14B tax revenue in a year!
              Mefro may not see an issue, but Labour have spent every available dollar based on high growth figures with no operating allowance in place and insist it is a feasible plan.

            • Mefrostate

               /  September 14, 2017

              Ok well now we’ve cleared up your errors, refer back to my first comment.

          • PDB

             /  September 14, 2017

            Its adding up – virtually zero budgets for the 2nd and 3rd year of their term if in power, relying on a tax intake increase of $14billion to make the books balance but have ruled out major tax increases and have major policy funding holes like 5-6 billion missing (and no idea where it’s coming from) in their Auckland trams investment.

            Reply
            • PDB

               /  September 14, 2017

              ‘zero budget’ for any govt dept outside of health and education.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  September 14, 2017

        I’ll concede the numbers “add up” on paper. But the reality is they will not be close to being able to work in reality. They have no flexibility and price in multi-billion dollar increases in revenue with no justification to do so and contain no flexibility on spending as (more or less) all funds are allocated. You can argue the point over $11.7B, but the fact is it is out by many billions of dollars in a real world context so you are arguing where to draw the line rather than being able to say it is a robust financial plan.

        If you wish to take that as a victory, please feel free to be smug. Personally I think the coverage has been abysmal on this and Joyce was rather unfairly maligned, notwithstanding his original accusation was very poorly presented..

        Reply
        • Mefrostate

           /  September 14, 2017

          “price in multi-billion dollar increases in revenue”

          Their revenue forecast comes entirely from PREFU plus a) cancelling National’s tax cuts $1.9bn, b) multinational taxation $200m, c) visitor levy $75m and d) bright line $30m.

          “contain no flexibility on spending as (more or less) all funds are allocated”

          This is fair, but it’s a lack of flexibility on top of both PREFU forecast spending and the extra $3.5bn additional spending described above.

          “You can argue the point over $11.7B”

          No, you can’t. That number is a complete fiction. Its calculation relies on an incorrect interpretation of Labour’s fiscal plan.

          “the fact is it is out by many billions of dollars in a real world context”

          Those billions of dollars are entirely hypothetical.

          “Personally I think the coverage has been abysmal on this and Joyce was rather unfairly maligned, notwithstanding his original accusation was very poorly presented..”

          Personally, I find it gravely concerning that Joyce has managed to mislead you so successfully with his attack. If someone as well-informed as you can be led so far astray, then imagine how well it will have worked on the average voter who just follows headlines. Indeed, the recent poll suggests it has served its purpose extremely well. Doesn’t that concern you?

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  September 14, 2017

            I’m loathe to quote them but:

            “The Taxpayers’ Union says Labour can’t have it all ways, pointing out that Labour’s manifesto is costed at $23 billion over the next Parliamentary term, second only to New Zealand First.

            “Labour have done the right thing in committing to put any capital gains or land tax to the vote,” says Jordan Williams, the group’s Executive Director.

            “But without new revenue, and having promised new spending of $13,287 per New Zealand household, Labour need to explain what spending they’ll cut in order for Grant Robertson to keep to the Party’s debt targets.”

            “Two plus two doesn’t equal five. Labour can’t credibly promise to hike spending, keep to their debt limits, but also say they won’t hike taxes. It just doesn’t add up.”

            If they had any buffers in the budget they would be able to absorb some of this, but they don’t.

            Reply
            • Mefrostate

               /  September 14, 2017

              Plenty of inaccuracies, spin & misrepresentation in that Taxpayers Union press release, but given that they’re an anti-tax lobby group it’s hardly surprising that they’d be even less credible than Stephen Joyce.

              But these attacks seem to stick in the minds of both informed voters on the right as well as the general public, so I guess there’s a high chance we’ll get three more years of National.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 14, 2017

              I dont see anything on the Right that is any more indefensible than Labour’s “National has implemented 18 new taxes” line.
              Labour have opened themselves up to issues by their very lack of transparency as they go around smiling and talking about it. Saying “transparency” over and over is not a substitute for providing policy.
              I still see big issues with Labours budget – as did Tony Alexander (who used the word “heroic” himself in describing Labour’s assumptions), Patrick Smellie – who saw a hole of “at least $5-$6b”, your favourites at the Taxpaers Union and others.
              Joyce was a dick – but that is him to a tee. It doesn’t make Labour’s plan any more believable.

          • PDB

             /  September 14, 2017

            “Those billions of dollars are entirely hypothetical.”

            PREFU and budget plans are all ‘hypothetical’ – if you want to believe Labour would be able to run the economy the same, if not better than National with the policies they are wanting to implement then good luck with that.

            Reply
            • Mefrostate

               /  September 14, 2017

              So you were happy to explore the actual numbers in PREFU and Labour’s fiscal plan before, but now that your critiques have been proven misguided, you’d rather ignore the “hypothetical” projections and instead trust your vibes?

              As it lies, I don’t think there’s any historic evidence that Labour are poor economic managers, and don’t think their policies as expressed pose any threat to the economic performance of the country.

            • PDB

               /  September 14, 2017

              “but now that your critiques have been proven misguided”

              Where? Why have you avoided mentioning the $5-6 billion hole in Auckland tram funding Labour have now admitted to?

              Herald: “Twyford said Labour would change the mix and priorities of projects in the city’s 10-year transport plan and spend an extra $2.1b. The overall plan would cost $15b, including the light rail projects to the airport and West Auckland, and had a $6b funding gap, he said.”

              Is this like Labour’s $20million plan to kick off high speed trains between Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga? Pipe dreams.

            • Mefrostate

               /  September 14, 2017

              “Labour has promised to fund its Auckland Transport package by a combination of increased expenditure, cancelling or scaling back existing transport projects like the $1.8b east-west road through the city’s industrial belt and giving Auckland Council the ability to set a regional petrol tax.”

              Not to mention that there’s $10bn of RONS money which could be redirected to projects that don’t have a value-destroying benefit-cost ratio. And that this is a 10-year project, compared to the 3-year term covered by the fiscal plan.

              Plus, don’t you think it’s great to see Twyford being up-front about how much is needed, where bits of it will come from, and how they’ll work the plan through with Auckland Council? Much better than just using spin. It’s also very similar to the language used by Key when he was negotiating the funding of the CRL.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 14, 2017

              And on the Auckland Transport plan you sem to give a lot of credit to people who say they have no idea how funding gaps will be met and who fudge over where the money will come from.
              What Twyford is implying is that Aucklanders will get socked with a 10c a litre fuel tax and then have whopping rates increases lumped on top to fund a $6b shortfall on a tram set that will serve a small portion of the community.

            • Blazer

               /  September 14, 2017

              mefrostate has absolutely juiced you and HFD here.Admit defeat instead of constantly trying to twist and turn.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 14, 2017

              Thanks for popping by with your illiterate ramblings blaze.
              Mefro is always good for a discussion. Unlike you he backs up his assertions with some intelligent thought and research.
              We disagree obviously but he puts up good arguments.

  3. artcroft

     /  September 13, 2017

    Interesting that with Meteria gone the Greens have moved into full environmental mode, but their polls keep dropping. I guess their supporters don’t give a s**t about the environment and just wanted the free stuff.

    Reply
  4. David

     /  September 13, 2017

    Shaw is not a very good person to be Greens leader and I guess it answers my question as why Meteria was co leader for the last few years, he is quite weak.

    Reply
    • Yeah, a nice, intelligent, capable MP but like most of them, not really a leader.

      Reply
    • Patzcuaro

       /  September 13, 2017

      The next Colmar Brunton poll will be interesting if it diverges from the last Reid Research.

      Reply
      • PDB

         /  September 13, 2017

        Tomorrow apparently? Would be surprised if at the very least National has a slight lead in that one as well. Impressions I get is that many voters were waiting for more clarity from Labour on tax before committing themselves fully to their cause and it hasn’t happened. I think the second debate (the third one wasn’t seen by so many people) where English clearly had Ardern on the ropes over tax and housing construction worker numbers may have helped Nationals cause as well.

        Reply
        • Ray

           /  September 13, 2017

          Good point and it also explains why all Labour candidates voted early with plenty of hullabaloo so as to encourage the simple minded before all the facts of their various taxes hit home.

          Reply
  5. Tipene

     /  September 13, 2017

    “Conservatives – without Colin Craig’s money and media magnetism they have no hope”

    Yes agee, which just shows up the lack of political backbone, will, commitment, and fickleness of the average “Christian Conservative” voter who pretends to care about conservative ideals, whilst voting for self-interest.

    Cowardly brittle-backs.

    Reply
  6. Metiria seems to be resigned to her self inflicted fate:

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  September 13, 2017

      No shame from the person responsible for the dire position the Greens find themselves in.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  September 13, 2017

        Metiria responds by promoting LOVE rather than blame and bitterness and PDB criticises her for not expressing shame.
        Shame.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  September 13, 2017

          Charles Manson publically promoted love as well……..you’re hitting rock bottom there Robert.

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  September 13, 2017

            So did Jesus. Your comment, PDB, is surely the most idiotic I’ve ever read. Cheers for that!

            Reply
            • PDB

               /  September 13, 2017

              Obviously you don’t bother to read anything you write? Don’t blame you personally…..

    • Patzcuaro

       /  September 13, 2017

      The artists are part of a company called Blue Man Group which was purchased recently by Cirq de Soliel. They have a number of productions playing around the world.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Man_Group

      Quite catchy.

      Reply
  7. Why the greens couldnt move faster on it and nominate JAG to replace Metiria is beyond me, she would do better than shaw in the televised debates etc.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  September 13, 2017

      She’s not Maori, old chap.

      Reply
    • PDB

       /  September 13, 2017

      They should have simply disowned Turei once she quit (rather than have further information regarding her offending/living situation in the 1990s hitting the press) but instead they decided to double-down and die in a ditch for her.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  September 13, 2017

        “They should have simply disowned Turei…” instead they died in a ditch for her.
        Yeah! Stupid loyal friends!

        Reply
  8. Gezza

     /  September 13, 2017

    National – Bill English. Should do ok. Good solid citizen, farmer, former finance minister & bureaucrat. Steady performer. Not flashy.

    Labour – Jacinda Ardern. Gloss is wesring off fast. Can’t hide the vacuums in necessary details for voters. Support will probably drop or level out while National’s increases.

    NZ First – Winston Peters. Still expected to take the RSAs & Rest Homes by storm, as always. Needs to make sure the Home Van drivers pick them all up & get them to the booths, and to put a little note in their cut lunches it’s NZF & Winnie for both votes – needs to be kept simple. The balance of their voters will be made up of rednecks, malcontents, dodgy characters & sundry ne’er-do-wells, as always – including The Joneser.

    Greens – James Shaw. Buggered. All gonna end in tears.

    Maori Party – ” … need to get around or just over 2% to save Marama Fox.” SAVE THE FOX! ☘👍🏾

    ACT Party – David Seymour. Proof the private education system in Epsom is a total failure. Probably survive another term, acting the fool.

    United Future – Damian Light. Lights out. No talking.

    TOP – Gareth Morgan. Not just cats who hate him now. Reckon he’s possibly made more enemies than friends. All the charm of an executioner.

    Mana – Hone Harawira. Marsupial’s hero perhaps, to uncompromising & unsophisticated but doing his bit in his own way for his people, so I’m advised. Will do it tuff. Probably get nowhere.

    Conservatives – Yeah. Right. That riotous lot have no show!

    Reply
    • Patu

       /  September 13, 2017

      I suggest visiting a dairy to buy your smokes before voting G, to remind you why the Maori party don’t deserve your vote 😉

      Reply
    • Conspiratoor

       /  September 14, 2017

      “The balance of their voters will be made up of rednecks, malcontents, dodgy characters & sundry ne’er-do-wells”

      …and kiwi battlers whose lot in life is to keep the less fortunate idle in beer and baccy.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  September 14, 2017

        Bonsoir, mon ami! 🍾

        Avez vous un wine glass?

        One should not simply assume these kiwi battlers can not already be quite comfortably accommodated within the demographic categories already identified, m’sieu.

        N’est ce pas? 😎

        Reply

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