Labour leaks targeting Bridges

There have been a series of leaks of internal information obviously designed to damage Simon Bridges and National.

This began with the odd expenses leak just a few days before the information was due for public release, followed by the onslaught from Jami-Lee Ross as the now ex-National MP self destructed. There have been further anonymous leaks of historical information that look suspiciously like a continuation of that attack.

There has also been what looks like a Labour campaign to discredit Bridges and destabilise National heading into the holiday period.

Leaked UMR polling information has progressed from whispers to journalists to drip feeing of poll graphics. I posted on this one yesterday –UMR polling history – which notably was monthly polling with the last result from October, so without the latest poll. One could presume someone is only able to get old data, or the November poll didn’t fit the hit.

There is also a word cloud floating around – Stuff reported on it here How public view Simon Bridges – that was purportedly ‘sent to corporate clients in late November’ and has just popped up. This also indicates it is October data – from the time of the Jami-lee Ross saga, so an out of date targeted hit on Bridges.

Ex Labour staffer Neale Jones, now working for a ‘public affairs company, specialising in Government Relations, Strategic Communications and Campaigns’, keeps tweeting a stream of criticisms of Bridges and National. Whether that is personal or part of Strategic Communications and Campaigns is not clear.

And The Standard has a steady diet of anti-Bridges/National posts. Over the past week:

Mostly this is preaching to the converted, and several authors are involved, but it looks like they have more interested in damaging the Opposition than promoting the Government.

Over the same period there are three posts on Labour/Government bills.

Will all of this have any overall effect? It’s hard to say, but even though there has been a string of media ‘opinions’ from political journalists dumping on Bridges the consensus is that a leadership challenge would be unlikely with National polling higher than Labour (apart from the leaks of cherry picked UMR polls.

In the meantime Jacinda Ardern and Labour keep polling reasonably well – but news of Government progress has not been prominent. Perhaps that’s why there is more focus on attacking National.

102 Comments

  1. David

     /  December 11, 2018

    Strikes me as remarkably similar to Dirty Politics.
    I cant help but get the feeling that Bridges may be getting some cut through and Labour are genuinely worried about National,s polling as its leaving them no room whatsoever to implement any of their less popular agenda, they cant afford to take the hit.
    The employment legislation has been watered down to a point where the business lobby is happy with it which points to a different set of polling numbers than the highlighted UMR ones.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  December 11, 2018

      Which channel are you watching, the only cut through Bridges is getting is from all the knives in his back. Of course it is similar to Dirty Politics it is comnig out of the National Party having lost power they have become disorientated and are now self gaming.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  December 11, 2018

        Self harming rather than self gaming but they are deluded.

      • David

         /  December 11, 2018

        Havent watched TV news in years, its always hours too late and not very informative. I found it depressing and a bit pointless when I found myself getting frustrated and angry at the sheer dumbness of your average TV journalist.
        Prefer to maintain my usual very sunny and positive disposition.

        • Patzcuaro

           /  December 11, 2018

          You seem to have a sunny disposition (rose tinted) when posting about National but storm clouds come over when posting on Labour.

  2. Strong For Life

     /  December 11, 2018

    How does this Labour ploy fit with the PM’s pledge for “kindness” in politics? Isn’t this also a form of bullying by Labour. How does this fit with Speaker Mallard’s bullying in Parliament inquiry?

    • Gezza

       /  December 11, 2018

      The tactic I think is to have Jacinda consistently be the saint and have others be the devils.

      • Gezza

         /  December 11, 2018

        Well, it’s not just the tactic, it’s the strategy.

        • Gezza

           /  December 11, 2018

          I dunno why downtick(s). There’s nothing new about blatant hypocrisy being the approach by our political parties. I take it as a given and am never surprised to see it.

    • Blazer

       /  December 11, 2018

      You have to be ‘cruel’ to be…’kind’.

  3. Trevors_elbow

     /  December 11, 2018

    Labour is incompetent. They prove it every day with botched policy and botched implementation..

    So recruiting left leaning media types and providing them ammo is there best approach to protect themselves..

    If National reach 47 to 48 percent in a years time Labour have big problems if the Nats are clever in certain areas….

  4. PDB

     /  December 11, 2018

    Labour show how inept they are by trying to get rid of Bridges who is the guy keeping them in the game.

    • Duker

       /  December 11, 2018

      It wasnt leaked by labour . The story says it came via UMR corporate client, who get the political polling numbers. Labour already knows that national wont put up with Bridges for much longer as his personal brand is in the dumps, What a shame, Bridges has run so many happy families via the Womens mags over the last few years , using his own kids shamelessly and his wifes PR skills to get ‘cover stories’… all for dust now

      • Gezza

         /  December 11, 2018

        Have you got it in for Simon or something?

      • PDB

         /  December 11, 2018

        Please – ‘UMR corporate client’ sounds very convenient if Labour want to release something through a third party. Would be very unlikely Labour would not have the final say in releasing any of their own paid-for data as Farrar covers here: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/12/now_this_is_dirty_politics.html

        Duker: “What a shame, Bridges has run so many happy families via the Womens mags over the last few years , using his own kids shamelessly and his wifes PR skills to get ‘cover stories’”

        Ha! Glad we have a Labour leader/PM who doesn’t do the same then…

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  December 11, 2018

          I don’t read those mags, but see the covers at the checkout and can’t believe that I’d have failed to notice him on them.

  5. robertguyton

     /  December 11, 2018

    “I totally believe the foot needs to be kept firmly on the throat of the National Party. They need to be kept in the dungeon for as long as possible because as you say they will eventually come up with an acceptable leader and the base vote of selfish NZ will fall in behind. Another period of division, zero government, and cutbacks will then follow. Communities will be broken and isolated. Those with power will have that power further entrenched. And services will be difficult to access.”
    https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-10-12-2018/#comment-1560807

  6. robertguyton

     /  December 11, 2018

    UMR’s David Talbot

    It shows that Bridges’ net favourability – the difference between those who have a positive impression and a negative one – was negative 31 per cent, the lowest of any leader since Jenny Shipley, around the time that National was removed from office in 1999 …

    … “That’s just borne out by those [favourability] numbers. We’ve never had, I don’t think, an Opposition leader in such a net negative space,” Talbot said, adding that a string of unsuccessful Labour leaders had not seen such low numbers.

    “We never saw that for [Phil] Goff, we never saw that for [David] Cunliffe, we never saw that for [Andrew] Little.

    “You get a lot of ‘unsures’ and ‘don’t knows’, but not that almost vitriolic stuff that you’ve got there.

    “I’m not having a crack at the guy [Bridges], Talbot said. “I’ve never met him and I don’t know him, but clearly, people are having a sort of quite deep negative emotional reaction to him.””

    https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-10-12-2018/#comment-1560802

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 11, 2018

      There is nothing “almost vitriolic” about the Left. They are pure, simple vitriol. We don’t need a pollster to tell us that.

      • Blazer

         /  December 11, 2018

        we have you telling us ad nauseum.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 11, 2018

          For some people I have to point out the obvious.

          • Duker

             /  December 11, 2018

            The poll is taken of ordinary NZers. National must have been getting the same results as Bridges suddenly didnt want to talk about things anymore. For a politician to not want to get their daily talking points out thats a big surrender

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              “The poll is taken of ordinary NZers.”

              We would hope so but have no way of knowing. The fact they have released a month old poll & word cloud based on that same poll (that was taken at the height of the Jami-Lee saga) suggests National may have actually made ground since then (in spite of Bridges being leader). The only recent official poll has been the Colmar Brunton one and Bridges did discuss that.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              “We would hope so but have no way of knowing. ”
              Don’t trust the methodologies, eh, PDB!
              How about Curia’s methodologies – trust those, do you, or do you say, “We would hope so but have no way of knowing. “?

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              When was the last time Curia had their poll in official form (not through word of a ‘leaker’) released to the public? Why would I care about the Curia polls when the public doesn’t have access to them? Maybe a bit foreign for you Robert but think man! – think!

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              You regard Farrar as a leaker ?

    • PDB

       /  December 11, 2018

      Just a reminder that UMR also had Andrew Little neck & neck with John Key in net favourability. They have zero creditability – much like the coalition govt.

      • Duker

         /  December 11, 2018

        Rubbish . They all said Little was well behind Key – as you would expect.
        The closest I could find that any favourable for Little was Reid Research
        https://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/little-rivals-clark-in-favourable-poll-results-2015020116
        even they have Key miles ahead and compare Little with Clark.

        • PDB

           /  December 11, 2018

          No, you didn’t look hard enough…

          Kiwiblog: They (UMR) have John Key with net favourability of +6% and Andrew Little with net favourability of +16%. You have to judge this against every public poll than has Little massively behind Key as Preferred Prime Minister and even behind Winston.

          https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/09/desperate_little_releases_labours_internal_polling.html

          • robertguyton

             /  December 11, 2018

            +6% and +16% = “neck and neck??
            Not a powerful argument, PDB.

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              Not sure what you’re arguing Robert? That particular result was even WORSE than ‘neck & neck’ as it unbelievably showed Little well ahead of Key in net favourability. Only you, your second cousin and the Standard would have believed that nonsense at the time.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              PDB said:
              “Just a reminder that UMR also had Andrew Little neck & neck with John Key in net favourability.”
              No, they didn’t.

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              Now you’re being silly Robert – so you’re ticking me off for actually underestimating UMR’s ineptness? Keep in mind this was only one of their polls & was provided as proof that Duker was wrong in saying “Rubbish . They all said Little was well behind Key – as you would expect.”.

              So be it, to reflect this slight change my conclusion also needs amending: “They have LESS THAN zero creditability – much like the coalition govt.”.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              “Underestimating”, PDB?
              You made a false claim. You gave figures as if they were real, but they weren’t. Your credibility has … suffered.

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              The point was that UMR are inept, the fact they are more inept in some of their net favourability polls doesn’t alter that fact. Nice derailment of the thread though Robert.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              This thread? The one that claims, “There has also been what looks like a Labour campaign to discredit Bridges and destabilise National heading into the holiday period.”.
              Pete ‘s imaginings only. You’re a great one for demanding PROOF, PDB – have you demanded Pete presents PROOF that Labour have a such a campaign?
              Thought not.

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              PG has posted some thoughts, provided some supporting evidence & come to a conclusion and you’re free to post your thoughts as to why you agree/ disagree with him. Can you not grasp that fact Robert?

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              So no proof at all! You’ll be incensed PDB!

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              “you’re free to post your thoughts as to why you agree/ disagree with him (Pete). Can you not grasp that fact Robert?”
              Why,thanks, PDB, for that kind invitation; it’s one I’ll happily take up! An invitation to post my thoughts, from PDB, no less!
              Exciting!

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              Considering you tend to just cut and paste the thoughts of nutters from The Standard on here I thought you needed reminding. You’re welcome!

  7. robertguyton

     /  December 11, 2018

    “1.2.1.1
    10 December 2018 at 9:48 pm
    I can tell you that Labour is relishing doing no dirty politics and watching National burn itself to the ground!”
    https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-10-12-2018/#comment-1560783

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 11, 2018

      Lefty fantasist meets Colmar Brunton poll result.

      • Duker

         /  December 11, 2018

        Fanatsy ? a leaker inside nationals caucus – yes theres another- showed their own polls were worse than Colmar Brunton ( who seem to be always ‘high’ for the nats

        • PDB

           /  December 11, 2018

          I don’t remember seeing any proof of National’s internal polling being lower – have you?

          • Duker

             /  December 11, 2018

            Wake up . It was all over the media last week , leaked from inside the caucus
            https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/377531/leaker-claiming-to-be-national-mp-sends-another-text

            41% was lower than Colmar Brunton.
            Bridges couldnt deny it so he just said ‘cant discuss’
            ‘Simon Bridges yesterday said the leak did not come from within his caucus, and would not discuss the polling numbers which were not as flattering as a recent public poll.’

            • Gezza

               /  December 11, 2018

              It says “leaker claiming to be a National MP?”
              I think that’s a bit suss when you look at what’s being leaked. Why would any party MP want to go to these lengths to damage their party riding highest in the polls when everybody including them knows that just leaving him to stagnate or drop in the polls is going to see a leader change anyway?

              They’re not like the Labour party. They don’t waste time picking new leaders every five minutes who simply accelerate the existing decline of the party vote until they finally give up and in desperation elect someone whose only claim to fame until then was crashing a tractor & who can talk the arse off a donkey but so far not much else?

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              You are beginning to sound like Griff – no one from National as far as I’m aware has confirmed what the leaker said about internal poll results was true. All hearsay.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              No National MP would dare to confirm it, would they, PDB! Except, of course, the Nat MP who’s leaking…

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              So you agree we have no ‘proof’, just a so-called ‘leaker’ with no support at this stage to back their claims. Going back to the top then Duker has no proof, just a 41% figure based on MSM claims from the unsupported leaker.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              Duker knows as well as you and I, that the internal figure was 41%.
              That leaker, btw, provided incontrovertible proof that they were party to National’s caucus discussions – fine details of the behind-door discussions; own it, PDB; your team’s boat’s scuttled.

            • PDB

               /  December 11, 2018

              “Duker knows as well as you and I, that the internal figure was 41%.”

              Proof? Unsupported, unnamed ‘leaker’ is not proof of anything. Unless National and/or Curia come out saying it’s true, or something in written form with proper identification is provided we have no proof.

      • Gezza

         /  December 11, 2018

        I might come back and read that. I have wildlife rangering duties to attend to.

  8. robertguyton

     /  December 11, 2018

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 11, 2018

      Thanks for proving my point, Robert.

      • Duker

         /  December 11, 2018

        Whats your point ? That we should be kissing Bridges boots like you !

        • Gezza

           /  December 11, 2018

          They can’t count. That’s not one word.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 11, 2018

          @Duker, you didn’t need to reinforce my point but thanks anyway.

          • Duker

             /  December 11, 2018

            What is your point again ? have you never heard of a word cloud? Look at all the nice things buried in there….. somewhere ,… hardly mentioned by anybody but the biggest word ‘ unstrustworthy’ is huge – mentioned , say 20 times more often than ‘honest’

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              Here’s another one.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              The “untrustworthy” lable came. I suspect, as a result of Bridges’ untrustworthy behaviour during the election of the Speaker – Mr Clever-Clogs burned his own bridge right there!

    • Trevors_elbow

       /  December 11, 2018

      You are a pointless, bordering on witless, tribal troll. For a Green your penchant for polluting threads is astounding. You add nothing. In fact you make blazer look a font of reasoned discourse… heed Cromwells advice Robert…..

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  December 11, 2018

        He’s on the wrong side of that border, Trev. We’ve tried to shepherd him across but his beard got stuck in the matagouri.

  9. Duker

     /  December 11, 2018

    “There has also been what looks like a Labour campaign to discredit Bridges and destabilise National heading into the holiday period.
    Leaked UMR polling information has progressed from whispers to journalists to drip feeing of poll graphics. ….

    UMR has corporate clients who it shares its political polls with – clearly Labour doenst have a exclusive deal with UMR like national has with Curia.
    The story identifies a ‘corporate client’ ( anonymous) as the source of the data. Just like this corporate source back in 2017
    “Leaked poll puts Labour at just 23 per cent
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11897254

    Clearly labour wasnt going to be giving out its own polling abysmal numbers at that time. So who was ?
    “UMR emailed the poll out last week to its clients and it was leaked to Fairfax.
    It follows an earlier UMR poll leak the week before which had Labour on 26 per cent.”

    labour was too skint to afford polling data every week , like national did through Curia, so the numbers go to the corporate clients who can afford it.

    As too who would be a heavy weight corporate who wants more political polling numbers than you get from watching the TV sunday nights ?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/9874380/Fonterra-appoints-new-media-man
    Used to work for UMR !

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 11, 2018

      Fonterra – a Labour bastard monopoly offspring. The perfect partner.

      • Duker

         /  December 11, 2018

        Fonterra is owned by dairy farmers, not a child of labour by any stretch – but then you are totally fantasist anyway.
        The merger was organised before labour won the 1999 election and was announced just after the election results ( Dec 1999)
        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0012/S00156/dairy-merger-fact-sheet.htm

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 11, 2018

          For a non-fantasist you seem to have trouble with dates, Duker. Your linked announcement is 13 months after Labour became the Government. Must try harder.

        • PDB

           /  December 11, 2018

          From what I’ve read there were talks around doing something like Fonterra from the late 1990’s (which Cunliffe dubiously claimed he was involved with as a consultant) but key discussions regarding forming what actually became Fonterra occurred in 2000.

  10. PDB

     /  December 11, 2018

    “Clearly labour wasnt going to be giving out its own polling abysmal numbers at that time. So who was?”

    You don’t think people inside Labour wouldn’t leak a terrible poll in order to help oust Andrew Little as leader? Do you think people like Mallard who faced being out of a job on such poll numbers wouldn’t want to save their own necks?

    • Duker

       /  December 11, 2018

      The public polls were much the same abysmal numbers . There was no ‘news’ in leaking UMR results, which then like now are going to big corporates , who pay for details as well- that was the point I was referring to.

      • PDB

         /  December 11, 2018

        Dukar: “There was no ‘news’ in leaking UMR results”

        I disagree – up until that point leaked UMR polls showed Labour doing better than all the MSM were finding for instance: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2016/09/labour-releases-polling-to-defend-little.html

        The leak in 2017 was important as it actually showed Labour’s internal polling (which has always overstated Labours vote) finally in step, if not worse, than MSM polling.

        • Duker

           /  December 11, 2018

          The ‘news’ was labours numbers for national wasnt as good as other polls but still not far from margin of error stuff.
          Where can you find labours internal polls- from that era- much much better than public polls ? Always been a big spread
          There is a big spread from lowest to highest poll in any case…. see last polls before election day . Lowest for nats was 40 % highest was almost 46%. Colmar Brunton went in 2 weeks from 46% to 40% for the nats
          CB had labour at 44% 2 weeks out , then 37%. Thats huge jump .
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_New_Zealand_general_election
          The idea that polls from one company are consistent over time just isnt true

      • Hi Duker
        Welcome to the strange world of YourNZ, a blog populated by…well, you’ve already met some of them. Given your rational, well considered comments so far, I predict you’ll not stay here long 🙂

        • Gezza

           /  December 11, 2018

          Hi Duker
          If you don’t like getting your ass handed to you here if you post drivel, you perhaps might want to go to the strange world of robert where you might find this sort of idea more to your liking?:

          This post is intended to be a place for discussion of the way forward.

          The idea comes from an exchange on Open Mike a few weeks ago. TS regular Robert Guyton suggested we have a dedicated thread where “the way forward can be discussed, within parameters such as doable suggestions, successful examples, contributions from readers who support the concept of the thread, new takes on the future etc.”

          So, an Open Mike for ideas, solutions and the discussion of the possible. The Big Picture, rather than a snapshot of the day’s goings on. Topics rather than topical.

          Grafton Gully 2.1
          9 December 2018 at 11:30 am
          Cannibalism is a possible solution to the dilemma [of feeding the world’s growing population]. How much high grade protein goes up in smoke ? You could do the maths. Or if eating other people is not acceptable, why not convert them to fertiliser and food for farmed animals and pets. Organ and blood donation are already commonplace. There are precedents in Pacific cultures, abolished by colonisation, and in societies that practice sky burial. Post mortem processing of human fat and hair for soap and felt was undertaken on a small scale in WW2 Europe. Why not amend the relevant legislation to allow the recycling of human corpses ?

        • PDB

           /  December 11, 2018

          Robert: “I predict you’ll not stay here long”

          I don’t know Robert? For instance you provide this blog with very little insight & meaningful discussion points and you’re still around?

        • Duker

           /  December 11, 2018

          Robert, I just know that on blogs maybe 50 people read something while only one might comment on it. Fools and horses dont bother me at all.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 11, 2018

          Anyone who thinks Robert’s notions of rational and well-considered are not a bad joke hasn’t been here long.

  11. Zedd

     /  December 11, 2018

    dont worry about erroneous leaks.. simon will bring himself down in 5-10 years.. if he cuts all the bluff/bluster & gets around to it.. “Lets do this” 😀

  12. Gezza

     /  December 11, 2018

    RESULTS OF RANDOM POLL PREFERRED PM
    Conducted in Local Pharmacy while collecting ma’s meds.

    Respondents (in dispensary and serving at counter) were asked to say who they would vote for if an election were held tomorrow from the following candidates:

    2 – Jacinda Ardern – (Female, 50s, South African Immigrant, 2 kids, husband – “I just like her”, and one young NZ male too young to vote “because she is paying my university tuition”, also something about student discounts on the trains being down to her?)

    0 – Simon Bridges – all respondents

    0 – Winston Peters – All respondents

    2 – “Crusher” (As described, when asked if none of the above, then who – 1 Female, married, 50’s 2 kids, husband, and 1 male, 40’s married, 3 kids, wife)

    0 – James Shaw (Name only mentioned once [by me] when I listed the choices, young man didn’t know him)

  13. PDB

     /  December 11, 2018

    Interesting listen on Larry Williams Drive. Josie Pagani says rumour has it that the ‘word clouds’ were actually taken using a group of Labour supporters whilst Hooton said the word clouds were not part of the monthly UMR polling but instead came from an unrelated UMR/Labour party session (hence tying in with Pagani’s rumour) therefore had to have been leaked by one of those two entities and not by another corporate customer as speculated by some on here.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 11, 2018

      As I pointed out, these just illustrate the hate-filledand vitriolic minds of the Left. Come in again Robert and Duker.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 11, 2018

      The fact they are so blatantly biased for Jacinda and against Simon points to them being partisan results. No leader is ever that popular or that despised.
      The fact the UMR guy spoke on them was probably indicative of how reliant they are on the Labour patronage these days.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  December 11, 2018

        Yep. In one stroke they demonstrate the Left’s vitriol, deceit and gullibility.

  14. duperez

     /  December 11, 2018

    Saw the headline ‘Labour leaks…” and read through the article. So is the NZ Labour Party leaking stuf targeting Bridges? Or people with affiliations to or are supporters of the NZ Labour Party?

    Is it fair to say “National Party leaks targeting Bridges” as leaks come from their caucus?

    What I’m getting at is the seeming David Farrar type headline, implication laden but not being necessarily backed by substance.

    • PDB

       /  December 11, 2018

      Well Labour are hardly clearing things up. Stuff: “Labour has distanced itself from the document and refused to say whether it approved or influenced what UMR released.”

    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 11, 2018

      “The reality is that research data doesn’t belong to the polling company. It belongs to the client. The client is the only entity that can approve something being released. Only if the polling company is its own’s client, do they get to decide.”

    • robertguyton

       /  December 11, 2018

      Let’s ask Pete about that, duperez. He’ll know if his headline is misleading (or untrue).

      • What would be worse, Labour leaking selected out of date internal polls trying to discredit Bridges, or someone in UMR leaking selected out of date internal polls Labour’s internal polls?

        What other alternatives could there be for selected out of date internal party polls being drip fed to discredit Bridges?

        • PDB

           /  December 11, 2018

          What many have failed to mention is that the last poll by UMR was the 2nd one done during October that happened to coincide with the peak of the Jami-Lee-Ross saga – prior to that all their polls were strictly done on a monthly basis.

          Why do the extra poll unless you were trying to game the system/ manipulate the results? Hardly seems like ethical polling to me.

        • robertguyton

           /  December 11, 2018

          So, Pete, you’re standing by your claim that the leaked information came from the Labour Party? You haven’t offered any proof, instead you’ve made the claim, because … you reckon…

          • It has been presented as Labour Party internal polling. Where else would it come from? If UMR circulated it without Labour party approval it would be a huge breach of professional trust. That haasn’t been raised as a a concern to anyone.

            I haven’t seen any concern expressed by Labour that results of their private polling is being circulated in public. I think that would be odd unless they intended for it to become public.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 11, 2018

              So, it’s a “Pete reckons”.
              All good.

            • Gezza

               /  December 11, 2018

              Seems fair enuf. It’s an opinion supported by logic.

              Are you in agreement with that awful individual who suggested human cannibalism or using dead people’s bodies as fertiliser as a way forward on your thread, robert? I had another look at that disgusting idea earlier today and you’d posted some excited waffly rant below it but nothing was there indicating you or anybody else had any issues with it.

            • Gezza – to answer your question, no, I was not in agreement with the poster who left that comment on the thread I was involved in initiating. You’ve done your best to link me with the comment, with the tenuous claim that because I made no comment about it, I must therefore support it. That is nothing more than attempt by you to smear me and is, in my opinion, very low behaviour from you. The equivalent action would be for me to say that I’ve seen the same comment posted here twice and neither time has Pete George condemned the comment, therefore he must support cannibalism. I hope you can see how unpleasant your tactic is and how outraged you would be if someone played the same charge/played the same game with Pete. But I’m not convinced you will se that, as you’ve shown a concerning lack of judgement thus far.

            • Gezza

               /  December 12, 2018

              You’ve done your best to link me with the comment, with the tenuous claim that because I made no comment about it, I must therefore support it. That is nothing more than attempt by you to smear me and is, in my opinion, very low behaviour from you.

              I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen you do this to PG. Do you understand now why I am showing you what you do?

            • Gezza

               /  December 12, 2018

              Do you also understand that this was done by the Nazis in their extermination camps? And that there is nothing that has been done by the moderators about that post?

            • robertguyton

               /  December 12, 2018

              The issue is not cannabilism, it’s your attempts to connect me to some random comment from a poster I don’t know anything about. I was not a moderator on the thread. There were no moderators assigned, as per our hope that such a thread, designed to attract positive, proactive suggestions for practical ways to improve the lot of all living beings, would not attract stupid comments. I am not the “owner” of the thread, merely one of the several who agreed to fly it and try to maintain direction and order through accentuating the positive, rather than attacking such comments as you have latched onto and are now using as a tool for bullying. The thread attracted some 260 comments, which is pretty remarkable, Imo, but you chose to focus on one and bring it over here to propagate it, for some childish reason. Do you hold Pete responsible for every comment made here? Pull your head in, Gezza. Not funny, not clever.

            • Gezza

               /  December 12, 2018

            • Gezza

               /  December 12, 2018

              I’ll be happy enuf if you can just work on your hypocrisy a bit more – well, a lot more – and we can leave it that, robert, if you like?

  1. Labour leaks targeting Bridges — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition