Opinion Polls Show Confusing Picture
Two opinion polls released by ONE News and TV3 tonight give a rather confused picture of the public’s political preferences.
The ONE news Colmar Brunton poll has National gaining 4 points, taking them to 54-percent, while Labour remain stable on 35-percent. In the small party stakes, support for the Greens halves to 3.7-percent, with the Maori Party, NZ First and Act sitting on 3.2-percent, 1.5-percent, and 1.1-percent respectively.
In the preferred Prime Minister stakes, both John Key and Helen Clark register a drop in their support, taking them to 35-percent and 29-percent respectively.
In contrast, the TV3 poll presents a completely different picture. In their poll, National drops 3 points, while Labour picks up 3 points, taking them to 48-percent and 38-percent respectively. This 10-point gap is significantly smaller than the 19-point deficit shown in the ONE News poll.
Of the smaller parties, the Greens drop slightly to 5.8-percent, and both NZ First and the Maori Party increase slightly to 3.4-percent and 2.9-percent respectively. ACT and United Future barely register.
In the preferred PM stakes, Clark regains the position as New Zealand’s preferred PM for the first time in a year, picking up 4 points to 32-percent, while Key drops a massive 6 points to 29-percent. However, the poll has more good news for Helen Clark, with 62-percent of those polled thinking she is performing better than she has in two years. Meanwhile, Key registers a drop in those who think he is performing well to 52-percent, and a 4 point increase in those who think he is performing poorly.
The polls certainly do send mixed messages about the public mood at the moment. Although, it would appear the ONE News poll is out of step with other recent polls which have shown a mood shift toward Labour. The ONE News poll also tends to over-represent National Party support, and the TV3 poll was the most reliable leading up to the 2005 general election.
Powered by Qumana
Seeking Corporate Loyalty
If there is one thing that has been clearly demonstrated by Fisher & Paykel’s decision to close its Dunedin dishwasher plant, it is the complete lack of loyalty that corporations have to their employees and their communities. It is certainly sad that someone can spend a lifetime working for a company and helping to build it into a success, yet, in an instant that company can close its doors and move overseas simply to put more money in the pockets of its shareholders. But what is perhaps most disappointing in all of this has been the completely disingenuous way that Fisher & Paykel have tried to explain away their decision. Chief executive John Bongrad said the company’s decision was in part due to:
“Free trade agreements with low cost labour countries like China and Thailand have created a playing field we are unable to compete in.”
That statement simply defies belief. Firstly, the FTA with China was signed just weeks ago, has yet to be ratified, and it is simply impossible for Fisher & Paykel to be feeling any effects of this so soon. And secondly, Fisher & Paykel have also announced they will close plants in California and Brisbane, yet neither Australia nor America have FTAs with China. The reality is that Fisher & Paykel have chosen to exploit low wage economies to increase their profits, and in doing so have put money ahead of their workers and their country.
New Zealanders pride themselves on their fair mindedness and commitment to human rights. New Zealanders support their communities and help each other out. A New Zealander would never walk away because the going gets tough, and a Kiwi would certainly never put their own wealth ahead of the basic needs of their fellow citizens. It is sad that such principles don’t extend to New Zealand businesses. Fisher & Paykel’s website states: “Our people and their ideas are the key to our success. Our people are the key to its success.” That is one principle that Fisher & Paykel has definitely lost sight of.
Powered by Qumana
National’s Support Continues To Crumble
The latest Roy Morgan poll shows support for National continues to erode, in line with other recent polls. The poll, conducted between 24th March – 6th April, shows support for National dropped by 4-percent, to 47-percent. While National’s drop was quite large, the increase in support for Labour was relatively marginal at only 0.5-percent, to 34.5-percent.
The Greens picked up 2.5-percent in the latest poll, taking them to 9-percent. Of the other small parties, both NZ First and the Maori Party picked up 1-percent, taking them to 4-percent and 3-percent respectively. Act remained unchanged on 1.5-percent, while United Future and the Progressives barely registered, with only 0.5-percent support each.
The poll clearly indicates that National has failed to regain the momentum it lost during March after the numerous gaffs and cock-ups by John Key, and now that it has lost the political agenda altogether they will have to fight to win the public back. It is surprising that Labour didn’t pick up more than 0.5-percent, however the poll doesn’t take into account the FTA with China or the government’s veto of the sale of Auckland Airport to the Canadian Pension Plan. One expects that both of these issues have gone down well with the general public, and this will likely be seen in future polls.
Powered by Qumana
National Using EFA To Restrict Free Speech
The Weekend Herald is this morning reporting that National is taking the Electoral Commission and the EPMU to court to challenge the Commission’s decision to allow the union to register as a third party under the Electoral Finance Act.
It is certainly ironic that the one political group who campaigned so vigorously against the Act, claiming it restricted free speech, are also the first people to try and use the Act’s provisions to do just that.
Powered by Qumana
Airport Decision A Good Move
The government’s decision this afternoon to block the sale of 40-percent of shares in Auckland Airport to the Canadian Pension Plan has drawn clear battle lines for this year’s election, while at the same time forcing National into a very difficult position. Of course, the decision came as no surprise. All indications over the past month or so have been that the government would veto the proposal, and there is probably a lot of truth to the argument that the move was largely political. Indeed, the average New Zealander is very sensitive about New Zealand assets being controlled by foreign investors, and Labour has obviously picked up on that.
While National is busily decrying today’s actions as sending a clear sign to foreign investors that their money is not welcome here, I think most New Zealanders will probably see this as a good move. The perception, whether well founded or not, that a major New Zealand asset could pass to foreign owners is simply unpalatable for many New Zealanders, especially those with not so fond memories of the privatisations of the 80s and 90s. And although the Canadians would not have acquired a controlling interest in the airport, they would have had the largest number of shares held by one investor, and thus quite an influence.
I’m sure that National will continue to flog this issue for a few weeks yet, but I don’t think the majority of New Zealanders are listening. As far as they’re concerned, the government has just moved to keep a New Zealand asset in New Zealand hands, and that’s exactly what the government should be doing. National, on the other hand, appear to be lamenting that fact that Auckland Airport won’t be owned by Canadians, and that’s not something that will go down well with the electorate.
Powered by Qumana
Labour In Good Spirits
Labour Party President Mike Williams has admitted feeling “miserable” about Labour’s position at the start of the year. With opinion polls showing them trailing National and a number of issues dogging the government, anyone could be forgiven for thinking things were turning to custard. However, four months on and Williams says Labour is in very good spirits, and for good reason too. Labour has continued to roll out progressive policies that actually make a difference to New Zealanders and, perhaps more importantly for the looming election, John Key has finally come under the sort of scrutiny that was so lacking when he began his tenure as Leader of the Opposition.
In an article by Audrey Young in the Weekend Herald, Williams states:
“In 1990 we knew we were going to get thrashed. There was all that ‘change the leader, change the policy’ kind of stuff. There is certainly not that sense. I think there is a sense out in the party that we are in with a chance.”
If the recent criticism of Key’s leadership abilities and the improvement in Labour’s fortunes in recent opinion polls is anything to go by, then it would appear that they are in with more than a “chance”. And all indications are that Labour will be a formidable opponent come November.
Michael Cullen has also stated that 2007 was probably a year Labour would rather forget, and although things may have got off to a bad start, he too says Labour’s is in high spirits at the moment, citing three main reasons for this:
The first is general satisfaction within the caucus and wider party that the Government is sticking to its core principles. “There is a feeling we have been doing good things for New Zealand, which is consistent with our traditions and our philosophy.”
The second is stable leadership. “There is no leadership issue. It is absolutely obvious to anybody that Helen is absolutely secure in her position. That issue is not even discussed in the Labour caucus. It is not a matter for any speculation.”
Reason No. 3 is that the party has regained policy momentum. “After some problems last year, I think we feel that we are re-establishing slowly that image of competence, of getting on with the business of Government and, indeed, to a significant extent we’ve captured the policy agenda so far this year – we have been leading on policy, which is a happier place to be in than feeling as though you are being entirely reactive.”
Labour certainly has been leading on the policy front, in contrast to National which has yet to reveal any substantial policy to the electorate, and will no doubt continue to do this leading up to this year’s election. If there is one thing that Labour needs to win the election, it is a strong morale within their ranks and a belief in the policies they have been rolling out. And they have this by the bucket load.
Powered by Qumana
Key Feeling The Heat
John Armstrong has a good piece in the Weekend Herald on the recent quietness that has decended over National in the past week. With the party grabbing few, if any, headlines and Key not asking a single question in the House, Armstrong concludes that National has gone into a state of “suspended animation”.
Of course, this has only increased Labour’s drive to put pressure on Key, and it appears to be paying off, with Key chosing to release National’s $50 victim compensation scheme in Auckland rather than Wellington. On this, Armstrong says:
“Labour was not alone in seeing the decision to release the policy in Auckland as a sign of Key’s gun shyness in the face of the Wellington political media following his widely publicised slip-up over National’s Treaty policy and the fuzziness which surrounded National’s stance on the sale of shares in Auckland Airport to foreign interests.”
It certainly seems as though the pressure finally being applied by the media has taken Key by surprise, and his strategy now is to avoid them altogether. Of course, National has been under the somewhat arrogant illusion that they could simply coast along during the election and gain the Treasury benches without letting the public know what eaxctly it intended to do once there. However, recent weeks have delivered a wake-up call to the party, and they appear to have lost the political agenda altogether. As Armstrong says:
“The Labour fightback has seen National lose control of the political agenda which it was setting at the start of the year.
Labour is largely dictating things, partly by using the advantage of Government incumbency and partly through a steady stream of fresh, politically seductive policy initiatives, many of which have the secondary purpose of trying to force Key to say whether they would survive under a National-led Government.”
And since National has moved toward the left and flip-flopped on a number of Labour initiatives, Labour’s strategy has been to continue releasing attractive policies that National can’t commit to and thus make it increasingly difficult for Key to keep National centrist. On this Armstrong states:
“Labour, meanwhile, is playing an extremely clever game. Key may have moved National to the centre to take votes off Labour. Labour is now trying to crowd him out by putting up centrist policies and challenging him to back them.
If he does, National’s brand distinction fades and its flexibility to spend money is further constrained. If he doesn’t, he is painted as extreme and out of touch with middle NZ.
Likewise, Cullen’s admission his tax cuts will be smaller than National’s may have been a similar ploy.
If Cullen can make his cuts as large as possible, that puts the onus on National to deliver even bigger ones.
If National doesn’t do so, it again loses vital brand distinction.
If National is a lot more generous, it becomes easier for Cullen to brand his opponents as fiscally irresponsible.”
This is a very clever strategy indeed, and one suspects that in the coming weeks and months things will certainly become a lot more difficult for Key than they have been in the past. Far from coasting along to victory, National will be forced to prove to New Zealand what it is they have to offer and actually work to win the public’s vote. It appears this has come as quite a shock to many within the party’s “inner circle”.
Hutchison On NZ Fast Forward
National appears intent on continuing with its ridiculous opposition to the “New Zealand Fast Forward” in what can only be described as an obsessive determination to show Labour as cynical and insincere. An article by National MP Paul Hutchison in Rural News states:
“National does not think the fund as described is the optimal vehicle. We support funding models that encourage partnership between government and industry, but we are not convinced the fund is the best model for achieving this collaboration.”
It is certainly ironic that, given National’s fervent opposition to so-called “nanny statisim”, they are happy to thumb their noses at the large numbers of industry groups which have got behind the fund, and instead take a “National knows best” approach. At times, Hutchison’s article borders on the absurd, at one point stating:
“It is important to remember Labour’s track record. A former Labour Prime Minister stated ‘agriculture is a sunset industry’.”
It certainly shows Hutchison and National are grasping at straws when they have to reach back into history to provide some kind of justification for their stance on this issue.
Powered by Qumana
A Slow Day At The Office Perhaps?
National MP Anne Tolley certainly appears to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with her latest media release. In what one assumes to be an effort to show she is not an entirely hopeless and ineffectual education spokesperson (and sadly failing on both counts), Tolley has taken issue with Oteha Valley School banning children from bringing birthday cakes to school to share with the class. Tolley says:
“This ludicrous decision is a direct result of the paranoia that has been generated by Labour’s national healthy eating guidelines, which are due to come into force in June.”
One of the Shore’s “desperate housewives” has obviously forwarded a copy of the school’s latest newsletter, which outlines the reason for this decision as being that the new National Administrative Guidelines (NAG) for healthy eating require schools to:
“Promote healthy food and nutrition for all students, and where food and beverages are sold on school premises, only healthy options can be made available.”
It would appear that the school’s decision to stop parents sending whole birthday cakes to school with their children goes above and beyond what is required by the NAG, and how exactly this is the government’s fault is difficult to discern. Firstly, schools are only required to “promote” healthy food, and secondly, the only obligation on the part of the school regarding banning foods or beverages is when they are being sold on school premises. If the school implements policy beyond that, then that is a matter entirely for the school and its Board of Trustees.
Tolley finishes her release with the following:
“It’s not the occasional piece of cake. Labour’s wishy washy food rules have created a climate of fear in schools where even celebrating birthdays has become a no-no.”
Although she scores a D for her capabilities as an MP, Tolley must certainly receive credit for her ability to turn what would otherwise be a very boring issue, into a poignant little story full of hyperbole and emotive language. Well done Anne; gold stars all round!
Powered by Qumana
The Not So “Sensible” Sentencing Trust
Garth McVicar and the so-called “Sensible” Sentencing Trust have today chastised Children’s Commissioner Dr Cidy Kiro, and in the process have shown a disgusting level of callousness and cold-heartedness to all victims of violent crime in New Zealand. In reference to comments made by Kiro saying that tagging and graffiti were seen as a legitimate art form for some people, McVicar said:
“Her comments are hugely provocative at a time when a decent hard-working citizen is facing a murder charge because of his frustration over this issue.”
It is absolutely abhorrent that a person in McVicar’s position would seek to defend the actions of someone accused of murdering a young teenager by labelling him as a “decent” citizen, and it is certainly difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this with McVicar’s status as a so-called “champion” for victims rights. What kind of human-being regards such acts as being appropriate for “decent” citizens? Furthermore, it sends a clear message that the “Sensible” Sentencing Trust assesses victims of murder on some kind of scale, where some victims are deserving of their fate and others are not.
What exactly is wrong with Dr Kiro’s statements is beyond me. It is true that some people regard tagging as an art form. In fact, there are places where one can legally tag. There have been exhibitions of tagging, and some people even make a living from selling their tagging as pieces of art. Of course, some people may not class this as art, but some would say the same about a Jackson Pollock painting. Dr Kiro was simply stating what is already well known, and the mere fact McVicar takes issue with this demonstrates just how much of a moron he is.
McVicar’s statements are offensive to all victims of crime and demonstrate that victim’s rights have taken a back seat to his desire for headlines and publicity. As such, his position on the “Sensible” Sentencing Trust has become untenable, and he should take his own advice and resign. It is a sad reflection on society when even those who claim to champion the rights of victims attempt to justify the taking of such a young life.
Powered by Qumana
The Pro-Smacking Lobby
NZ Pundit: Thanks to SO for the use of her comic!
Speaking Of “Media Beatups”….
Kiwiblog certainly seems to have got itself all worked up over an item that featured on One News last night, labeling it a “puerile and almost offensive” media “beat-up”. The item focused on apparent denials of climate change made by Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith to public audiences in recent times, which appear to put the two offside with National Party policy as well as John Key. Judging by his strong language, this is an issue which Kiwiblog obviously holds dear, but although he attempts to enlighten us on the political realities of decision making, he conveniently overlooks the somewhat unsubtIe distinction between “private” opinion and public statement.
It is obvious that there will never be an absolute consensus on an issue within a large group, and political parties are certainly no exception to this. The nature of political decision making often requires compromise, concessions, and the sacrifice of personal opinion and beliefs in order to promote the wider collective interests of the party. Indeed, it is often the case that MPs simply tow the party line and put their own views aside, and I doubt this fact is lost on the New Zealand public. Thus, given the range of opinions within a political party, it would be most unhelpful if the media were to go around each MP seeking their “personal” opinion once a party had decided, collectively, to take a particular course of action, as Kiwiblog correctly points out.
However, things change when opinions, which are privately held and have supposedly been set aside in the interests of the party, are expressed publicly by an MP acting in the capacity of a party spokesperson, especially if those statements seem to contradict their party’s policies. In such a situation, there is likely to be both confusion and apprehension within the electorate as to how such opinions will ultimately influence a party’s policies, and it is thus right for the media to seek clarification on behalf of the public. Such clarification is particularly important in an election year when the public is entitled to know how genuine a party is being when they release policy on a particular issue.
It is certainly curious when an MP claims they are committed to party policy, while at the same time dismissing the very foundations on which that policy has been formed. In the case of Williamson, his remarks were allegedly made during a presentation to an Automobile Association meeting. These statements were not made by Maurice Williamson the private citizen, but rather Maurice Williamson the National Party spokesperson for transport, and as such they are open to scrutiny by both the media and the public. To suggest otherwise, as Kiwiblog appears to, is nothing short of idiocy, and it is surprising that Kiwiblog’s rather enthusiastic advocacy of freedom of speech does not quite extend to freedom of the press. Or at least not when the National Party is shown in a negative light.
Powered by Qumana
April 1 – A Day To Celebrate
Today sees the start of a number of flagship policies announced by Labour in recent times. The minimum wage officially rises to $12, the company tax rate drops from 33 percent to 30 percent, benefits and allowances increase, and employer contributions to KiwiSaver start at 1 percent.
There is certainly something for everyone in these policies, and it is good to see Labour continuing to roll out progressive and substantive policy. I suspect people all around the country will be celebrating today.
Powered by Qumana
