sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Second 1 News Colmar Brunton Poll in a row delivers good news for National, despite Simon Bridges lagging in the preferred prime minister ranks

Second 1 News Colmar Brunton Poll in a row delivers good news for National, despite Simon Bridges lagging in the preferred prime minister ranks
Image sourced from Labour Party's website

Support for the Labour Party has fallen to its lowest level since December 2017, according to the latest 1 News Colmar Brunton Poll

Meanwhile Jacinda Ardern received her lowest result as preferred prime minister, since becoming prime minister, at 36% (-2%-points). Support for National Party leader Simon Bridges crept up to 10% (+1%-point).

Thirty-nine percent of those surveyed between November 23 and 27 said they would vote for Labour - a 1%-point decrease from the last survey done between October 5 and 9. 

The National Party's popularity also fell by 1% point, but at 46%, it was comfortably ahead of Labour. 

Coupled with ACT, which received a 1%-point boost to 2%, the "right" could get 61 seats in Parliament - enough to form a government. 

Receiving 4% support - no change from the previous poll - New Zealand First wouldn't meet the 5% threshold to get a seat. 

Support for the Green Party was stable at 7%.

Importantly, 17% of respondents didn't know or refused to say which party they would support. 

Here are the results in full:

Preferred party:

  • Labour: 39% (-1%-point)
  • National: 46% (-1%-point)
  • Greens: 7% (no change)
  • NZ First: 4% (no change)
  • ACT: 2% (+1%-point)
  • TOP: 1% (no change)
  • Maori Party: 1% (no change)
  • New Conservative: 1% (+1%-point)
  • Don't know or refused to answer: 17%

Preferred Prime Minister:

  • Jacinda Ardern: 36% (-2%-points)
  • Simon Bridges: 10% (+1%-point)
  • Judith Collins: 4% (-1%-point)
  • Winston Peters: 3% (-1%-point)
  • Christopher Luxon: 1%
  • John Key: 1%


The poll results indicate New Zealanders want a National-led government, with Ardern as their prime minister. 

The high portion of respondents who don't know what they want is concerning. 

Altogether, public opinion didn't move much between early October and late November. 

It appears National's efforts to market itself as being tough on crime - a tried and tested strategy for the party - is helping 'Brand Bridges'. 

He dominated headlines when the party released its social services discussion document, highlighting a more heavy-handed approach it would take to beneficiaries. It hogged the news for another week with its justice paper, targeting gangs. 

While the commentariat of central Wellington might not have appreciated the rhetoric, the sound bites attracted attention and created discussion.  

Labour's fall in popularity may mark it returning to its natural position, more than it spiralling down in the polls.

The party's popularity surged after the 2017 election as people were gripped by Jacindamania. Ardern's handling of the March 15 mosque attacks gave the party a further lift. 

Yet as the realities of governing set in, and the Government struggles to be "transformational" around housing, transport, tax reform and social welfare, the fence-sitters Labour might have picked up, have dropped off.

The party needs to reassure people there's more to it than its strong leader. 

The donations scandal around the New Zealand First Foundation didn't affect New Zealand First's popularity. 

It will need to work harder in the run up to the 2020 election, than it did in the 2017 election, to enjoy its characteristic election time pick-up. 

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.



Christmas is early this year...

Can only go up from here ?

Could be a very close election.
They will both be bringing plenty of lollies to the lollie scramble.
The Nats will offer tax cuts, who knows what Labour will offer.

Labour promised no new taxes in their first term, and also were going to balance a CGT against tax cuts. Now that the CGT has been ruled out, I'm expecting they'll introduce a new top tax rate, probably 39-40% starting from $120k or possibly higher at $140k.

They'll use that tax revenue for tax cuts for the middle and bottom instead.

I've got no problem with that, in principle.
I doubt very much they have the guts to do that, though.

What you’re suggesting would be nothing short of political suicide for Labour. How many times has the party campaigned on this policy and the CGT only to have the electorate at large and even Labour voters throw it back in their face?

I’d wager Labour is more likely to offer a tax cut than a tax increase.

Maybe you need to read my comment again. Jacinda has ruled out a CGT. In the absence of one, they'll introduce a new top tax threshold, so high that very few people actually pay it. This is already Green Party policy and with CGT off the radar its the obvious move.

NZ is unusual in having both a very low top tax rate of 33% and having it kick in at a very low threshold of $70k.

The point is to aim tax cuts at the middle and bottom and a tax increase for the very best off.

How would a top marginal tax rate increase at $140k raise enough tax revenue to ensure tax breaks for the middle earners?
You are talking about capturing ~2.5% of total earners, at that threshold.
It shows you haven't really thought this trough..

They should increase it from circa 100k.
Math = politics, and at that level it will garner them many more vote gains than vote losses.

Now you are just throwing arbitrary numbers around, too.
We don't need another tax band. What they should do is lengthen the tranches and increase the top marginal rate from $70k to $100k to adjust for the 10 years of bracket creep they have, and continue to benefit from. That is the way to get votes - not by arbitrarily penalising those who earn (not by world standards) high(er) incomes.

In fact, even better, lower all tax rates substantially and offset this with a Land Tax.
However, that will not get you any votes.

.. I'd vote for an annual land tax ... if they offset the money collected against income tax at the lower thresholds ...

If central government taxed (rated) land then it would need to compensate local/regional government by allowing local authorities to collect another form of tax. Say a few cents in the dollar in PAYE or GST. I would be ok with that, but Wellington politicians would need to be dragged kicking and screaming into passing effective legislation that reformed land use and local government in NZ.

. .. no .. the land tax is an extra .. based on the unimproved value of the land only ... councils still enforce their rates as they always have ...

If households and commercial property owners are paying two property taxes. A land tax to central government and a land and capital improvement tax (rates) to local government then that must reduce local governments taxation base. So either that means a reduction in the size of local government. In which case central government will need to be more responsible for local public services or central government increases local governments taxation base in another area.

... the land tax is offset against PAYE taxes ..

The ultimate " losers " in a land tax system are the very rich , and offshore owners ...

... it shifts the tax balance from productive enterprise , work and business ; to unearned capital growth , rising land values ..

I don't disagree that land tax would be beneficial in the way you describe. But what's you view on how it affects local govt finances?

.. if introduced by small degrees , a land tax should not affect local govt finances ...

How can you increase the tax rate at $100k when someone can get a tax rebate under Working for Famlies when they earn $120K with 4 children

the 120k is family income right? so usually 70k + 50k or similar, well below a 100k threshold. I propose a 100% tax rate and leave Labour to dole out the money without our pesky interference.

The top 10% of incomes pay 90% of all tax, but this is not enough it needs to be 100%, tax the rich pricks. We need more money for free education and social welfare payments.

and social welfare payments.

Those pesky pensioners, taking 50% of the social welfare benefits regardless of need...

We need a UBI so everyone is guaranteed an income regardless of need.

yay free stuff for everyone - just like on Oprah!

I read your comment and have to agree with others, that it's more likely they'll go for a tax-cut than tax-increase. The fact is that many people earning $120K+ are still not making particularly great economic headway, such is the cost of living in this fair country. Not helped in part by tax - no, sorry - levy increases, since Labour got in. But anyway - putting that aside, one of the characteristics of the "working class"who Labour seem to have adopted as their core voter base are the constant money-go-round of robbing Peter to pay Paul and keep on top of rising costs of living. Having worked with many "working class" individuals and couples earning between $100-200$K in government jobs, I can confirm many do not see themselves as being wealthy, nary have so much as a bean left after their expenses, particularly food and childcare so as both parents can work fulltime and put a roof over their heads. I think a top tax-rate would have to apply to those on $200K+


.. this is the year of delivery , indeed ... the electorate is reacting to the coalition's constant stream of failures , backflips , and incompetencies by withdrawing support ...

Boot the silly bozos up the bum ? ... let's do this !

Over 1 in 6 voters can't align themselves to anything on offer at the moment. That's pretty sad.


Have you seen whats on offer? The selection looks a bit like whats left on the buffet table at the end of the night after the drunk footy fans have gone home.

ha ha nice one


Why is that sad? I simply don't understand how so many can blindly follow any one party. I have never been able to believe that any party has all the answers, so i have switched my vote numerous times and will no doubt do so again.

I think it's sad because I agree with what Pragmatist says. And I think we're heading to an even worse election than the one that gave us the current government.


CGT ditched by Labour NOW Labour to be ditched by Voters.

JA will be one term prime minister

JA could be a 2 term PM if ... and this is a fairly big " if " ... if she changes sides ... joins the Gnats ... and if they agree to make her their leader ...

... wonder what odds the TAB would give you on that ?

Hallelujah to that, I'd almost stopped believing in Santa Claus.

At this rate with JA on the slide and SB on the climb he will be leading in the polls one day in the near future. Not far behind Simon


I do not know exactly what to make of people who think Simon Beijing Bridges is actually PM material. He is truly, truly awful, and that is putting it mildly

Its tongue in cheek PA. Simon will not be catching up anytime soon

And as well look at the old & recent history. Firstly under MMP no single party has ever carried the election, gained power on its own. Secondly John Key almost did, his second term, right at his popular peak, but he didn’t. This current National lot and, their leadership, are a mere shadow of National as it presented back then. And finally the real spoiler is, given all of that, National does not have a viable coalition partner presently or potentially.


I suspect a fair chunk of the fence sitters are brassed off at the continuing high immigration....they would never vote for Simon though.

You might have nailed it there, because that is my sticking point as well. We will always be on a hiding to nothing with housing as long as we are allowing immigration to continue at the rate or anywhere near, that it is.

so you stick with the guys (Labour/Winston) who told you what you wanted to hear on housing (little change in affordability), immigration (unchanged), CGT (out for Jacindas time), kiwibuild (<1k), poverty (growing), fiscal control (hello deficits) when they had no capability or idea of what to do or how to make it work.
Old saying: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.........its your vote.

The problem is a lack of viable alternative. Simon is not viable.

People voting for reduced immigration or affordable housing will only get a worse result from voting for National.

so you stick with the guys (Labour/Winston) who told you what you wanted to hear on housing (little change in affordability), immigration (unchanged), CGT (out for Jacindas time), kiwibuild (<1k), poverty (growing), fiscal control (hello deficits) when they had no capability or idea of what to do or how to make it work.
Old saying: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.........its your vote.

So what then? Vote for the guys who are saying the things you don't want and hope they do a u-turn also?

We have already been fooled plenty by both sides..


And that's one big reason why Winston will be back in the driver's seat, again...


It may be hard to know what Labour seeks to achieve. (Although their social and environmental inheritance is work enough to address.) But what is it that National offers? Commodities to China? More prisons? Immigration to prop up property prices and bail out the education system? Chinese 'investment' throughout our infrastructure? For sale signs on more of our assets? Wrecked freshwater systems? Further expansion and intensification of dairying on wholly unsuitable lands? More interest and earnings to be sent overseas? Increased foreign political influence? What exactly? Is there any new idea on the table?

Labour may be the lesser of two evils!!!!

They always have been.

National throws less of our money onto an open bonfire. That’s what they offer, and it looks mighty attractive with this government’s woeful lolly scramble.

Yes, because cutting taxes during the worst recession in living memory and running up a record national debt is being fiscally responsible.

I shudder to think what the debt would look like had Clark’s wild spend up been allowed to continue.

You can attack that National government on many things, but not fiscal responsibility. But you’ve proven you’re out of touch by calling for a tax hike yourself. Labour has better advisers I presume.

By what metric are you talking about? Government debt history shows John Key racked up the most of any government ever. At the same time as selling off the last sell-able (profitable) government asset - power stations.

I know you have a lot of excuses about why history shows contrary to your viewpoint - GFC, Helen's legacy, Christchurch earthquake etc, etc. But to suggest right wing parties' financial management is beyond reproach is laughable.

Raising taxes during a recession is the key to a prosperous society, struggling business and staff will all benefit from an increase in taxation as will the retail sector benefit from the decreased amount of money people have to spend, after they have paid their increased taxes.

On the contrary, Trumpian running up of debt during the good times to give one's mates tax breaks is the key to a prosperous society.

Everything Drumpf does is bad, he hasn't kept any of his election promises because all his ideas are so ridiculous and stupid, unlike Jacinda who has faced resistance from National party bureaucrats trying to stop all the great things she wants to do.

Keynesian theory calls for exactly that ... increased govt spending during recessions to kickstart the economy ... Wild Bill did that by tax cuts ... and the economy did chug out of the GFC mire ...

A good summary Workingman.

A moaners summary

And they will likely try to close the loophole Labour found to give them some ability to bar foreign buyers. My advice is if anything you mentioned above is of concern to you, then you really must consider who is most likely to do anything at all, about these things. If you vote National because Labour has not fully addressed these concerns, then you will be cutting your nose off to spite your face, possibly forever.

Good point

NZF > 0% makes a great case for ending the universal franchise. As a rule we imprison scammers who target mentally impaired geriatrics, but Winston gets a free pass.

As a geriatric surounded by other geriatrics I object - no way 4% of us are that deluded. Winston's support is from the dumb and nothing is as dumb as a dumb youngster.

I disagree - a Stubborn Boomer is pretty dumb

Are " boomers " Winston's support base ... I'd have thought is was the over 75's ... the so called " silent generation " ...

Winston will continue to get support because he's a genuine populist. I'm not a fan, but there's a real demographic out there who don't like the rich pricks and big business, but also don't like the PC gone mad and the sharia law in unisex bathrooms. They're the tattered remnants of the old working class. I'm unlikely to ever vote for NZ First, but I do appreciate their determination to *do concrete things* even if imperfectly executed (eg. RGF), something Labour is incapable of (see Kiwibuild, changes around immigration). Labour don't seem to have any faith in their own policies... and National don't seem to have any policies yet except a couple of scraps a cleaner found at the bottom of Ruth Richardson's filing cabinet.

If Labour are to win, they really need to pick up more votes in 'the middle'.
There's a few ways they could do that.
As Lanthanide states, they could raise income tax on higher income, and lower it for low and middle incomes.
They could also pull their fingers out of their ##@!%6 and start building some affordable housing.
But given their incompetence of actually building / delivering real world things, they've probably got a better chance of success in changing tax settings.

In other words they still have no idea what they are doing!!!

We are so far behind with housing the only way we can reset it is to stop importing people. They are putting far more effort in than National even thought of doing, but allowing foreigners to skew the value of houses has left us between a rock and a hard place. It will take mass state housing I'm afraid, as too many people have been condemned to never own, and they should not be stock for people farmers (landlords)

Is that why they’ve reversed several of National’s policies to restrict immigration?

I don't bloody know, but what I do know is that it will be full steam ahead and then some under National. Labour, sent the right message are more likely to do something about it than National, and you know that yourself. And they have restricted it somewhat, which is more than what the Nats did.

Needs more hugging

It's going to be a tough ask for Labour having had to furiously backpedal on flagship policies like KiwiBuild and tax reform (CGT.) Without any major policy achievements I think they're just going to have to swing for the middle of the spectrum and hope for a new wave of Jacindamania.

National never had any major policy achievements either in their last term.

They didn't have too. They had got the Economy in a stable condition and were ready too continue going forward but for a twist of fate called Winstone

Cycleways around the countryside ... I was racking my tiny pea brain for one achievement , one piece of positivity from Tugger Key's 8 years ...
... cycleways !

he could go down as the first PM that did not leave a legacy to be remembered for once his flag change failed
Muldoon- think big
lange- nuclear free
boldger MMP
clark Working for families (which I dislike with a passion)
Shipley lowering the drinking age
not to mention those than never made PM
Cullen kiwisaver and the kiwifund
Anderton kiwibank
douglas GST
Richardson mother of all budgets
Winston gold card

I thought the idea of getting in power was to do something and leave something behind you could be remembered for even better if its good for the country
he did NOTHING in 9 years
and to be fair JA is heading the same way

Key has his legacy all right, his failed flag referendum.

An election outcome like this would be fantastic. Followed shortly thereafter by an announcement that TOP is de-registering.

David Seymour must be deliriously happy . . a 100 % increase in ACT's support since the last poll ...

.. and well deserved . .. lately he has been like a stream of bat's piss ... shining out like a shaft of gold , when all around is dark ... Good man !

I was thinking the same. Until I went on the ACT website and read their policies. Bugger.

but if he gets an offsider in parliament , there might be a leadership coop

NZF on just 4 % ... Winnie and Jonesy are goneburger ... guess there's just so much of their belligerence and B.S. that the voting public can take...

It is not like they are unfamiliar with that position, but look where they are.
PS I would rather see them, Tracy Martin excepted, out as they do need to draw their line in the sand


I am no fan of NZF, but I suspect they will scrape over the 5% line. If not, then yes, Simon almost certainly will be PM, though I am not deliriously happy about that either.

... yes , but they have dropped below 4 % once before ... and spent 3 years as the wilderpeople .... wondering how us ungrateful SOBs could've dared to abandon them ... (2008-2011) ...

NZF will be back for one last hooray then when WP dies in office and gets his state funeral they will disband and disappear never to be heard of again


Looks like JA is gonna have to deliver on two issues- housing and immigration. No delivery, no votes. Its that simple.

Better bet than the Nats on those two counts. Nose/face if you re-elect Nats to do this

I agree, and I wonder how many in the Labour caucus think the same. Those two policy areas are the reason for Labour's surprise victory in the last election. If they can't persuade voters that tangible progress on those two things is imminent, they will lose.


Sorry Labour, you promised to slash immigration, you promised kiwi build and you promised to implement the tax working group recommendations.

Taking our votes for granted was a dumb thing to do. Get woke go broke.

Don't expect National to do it.

She " Didn't do this".....

Dumb kiwi voters, always cutting off their nose to spite their face. Vote in a national government and prove once and for all NZ has the stupidist voting base in the world. Keep wasting democracy like that and you deserve totalitarian rule instead...which is pretty much what Simple Simon and his privatising, military styled task farce raptor and his gang of beneficiary bashers will turn out to be...

4th estate. Will you hold the voters with the same contempt if they vote chloe swarbrick?

Chloe Swarbrick is the future


If Swarbrick is the future, we should all do our best to emigrate.

OK boomer ! .... oh dear ... she's world famous for being snarky and dismissive .... ... and shortsighted , cos the guy she snapped at is actually a Gen Xr ..

If snarky, dismissive, short sighted, self interested is the future of politics, Swarbrick isn't really a change from the status quo.

... agreed ... she dropped a few points in my eyes after that jibe ... regardless that one of the Gnats was being a disrespectful plonker at the time ...

Bye, bye because she is. There are new people coming through with their own ideas in this damaged world. I will happily step aside for them, as the future is theirs, not mine.

Great attitude mate.

Bullish on sickles and hammers

.. I'm bullish on the Kiwi tradition : sickies & hamsandwiches ...

Here, you might be happier with this youth representative

Ah yes, far better to be lead around by the short and curlies while the costs of living rise and people scream at you about how everything is becoming "fairer", despite no promises being delivered on whatsoever. If Labour had achieved half the things they prattled on about in opposition then this would be the greatest country on earth. As it was, there was no plan and no chance of it happening, and now we're being told off for questioning whether the empress is actually wearing any clothes at all.

as opposed to the financial facists who had three terms of no plans and doing nothing as well. Its precisely what I mean about NZ voters being careless with their democracy they settle for incompetent leadership of the country term after term regardless of what the actual composition of the Govt of the day is. Might as well have a dictator and save the costs of running parliament! We're no better off performance wise.

... I've noticed more attacks on free speech since this government formed... with various people being denied visas to enter the country ... or having their venue pulled ... even Don Brash was banned from speaking at Massey ... the bastion of freedom of expression , our universities , banning a mild mannered elderly gentleman ...

The Labour Party staffer scandal has no doubt tarnished them.

Has it? Seems pretty easy to avoid this sort of problem when you can just announce a QC investigation that will take four weeks to complete 12 weeks ago. Then everyone stops asking about it and no one follows it up.

Your first bit of analysis is completely wrong: "The poll results indicate New Zealanders want a National-led government, with Ardern as their prime minister."

Assuming that NZF voters are aware a vote for NZF is a vote for the current coalition, that gives 50% for the current lot, and 48% for Nat/Act.

The only reason the Nats win this poll is because NZF drops below 5%. If you take 1% from either the greens or Labour, and give to the NZF, the current lot win again.

Either you don't really understand MMP, or you are letting your bias show. Pick one.

FYI I am not a coalition supporter, I just care about accurate reporting when it comes to our political structure.

... but ... the poll shows NZF on just 4 % ... the analysis is based on what would happen if this was the result at the time of the general election ... there is no gifting an extra 1 % from Labour or from the Greens . .

If this polls pans out , ACT get 2 seats , the Gnats 59 : Soyman Bridges is the new PM ... and NZF is completely out of parliament, as they were once before...

You are both correct, of course the polls show what you are suggesting, and of course in the real world we don't magically shift percentage points around. Except when parties insturct their follwers to vote strategically, which happens all the time.

The point is that voters for coalition parties based on the poll will put their parties out of power, but the exact same number of voters, if voting strategically, would ensure they remain in power. ie the total number of votes for 'left' and 'right' don't actually change.

Hence my point that claiming 'New Zealanders want' is crap logic, if you can have the exact reverse result, while not shifting a single vote one politcal bloc to another (Labour convincing 1% of Labour voters to vote NZF because it makes sense strategically is not a crazy thing to suggest, I would think).

.. given the erratic behaviour of Shane Jones ... and the bellicose nature of Winston Peters , I'd expect JA to hope to only have to coalesce with the Greens after election 2020 ... dont expect her to offer NZF anything prior to the poll . ..

If the polls look like this in the lead up to the election, where the only way the left gets back in is with NZF, she will give him whatever she wants.

Labour has already shown they will bend over backwards to NZF to get in power. Do you really think they would hand the reins back to the Nats simply out of principle?

... that's harsh ... in all fairness , Labour did not expect to get into power after 2017 election ... hence , they set up 100 working groups , cos they had few policies ready ... Winston caught them flat footed ... and they've been floundering with the burden of power ever since ...

Yea it's almost like that's exactly how MMP works and you can't just arbitrarily shift votes between parties to suddenly get them over the electoral threshold, especially if you're then going to complain about 'inaccurate' reporting.

You are both correct, of course the polls show what you are suggesting, and of course in the real world we don't magically shift percentage points around. Except when parties insturct their follwers to vote strategically, which happens all the time.

The point is that voters for coalition parties based on the poll will put their parties out of power, but the exact same number of voters, if voting strategically, would ensure they remain in power. ie the total number of votes for 'left' and 'right' don't actually change.

Hence my point that claiming 'New Zealanders want' is crap logic, if you can have the exact reverse result, while not shifting a single vote one politcal bloc to another (Labour convincing 1% of Labour voters to vote NZF because it makes sense strategically is not a crazy thing to suggest, I would think).

This transformational has been successful in that it has transformed NZ from being going along great under National to a country that has more people struggling and policies that have totally failed.
Can anyone actually say there standard of living has improved under this incompetent lot?

More people struggling = more people on welfare = more Labour voters.

Labour are about equality meaning everyone is equally poor!

Yes, but I work in Healthcare. I was also doing fine under National, but I don't vote based on who would make me better off. I have a comfortable life, my priority is people who are struggling and environmental issues.

And good on you ............. voting on issues and principles is always good , its a pity Labour has scored zero on making anyone's life better .

My naive daughter who is also in Healthcare , and who thought Jacinda was just marvellous, has had a massive reality check about election promises and misleading statements .........or downright dishonesty by politicians

Her costs of getting to work at Middlemore have now got out of whack , with her petrol spend up a huge %

She has moved 3 times in 2 years as her 2 Asian landlords ( and a landlady ) have decided to sell up , and the net effect is her rents have gone up 20 % as she has moved from the first house , not to mention the costs and hassle to move .. The 3 girls now pay $840 a week for a North Shore rental house .............. the only one they could find at the time

That sounds tough. When I was renting I twice had to move because the house was being sold, very annoying. I've now bought in Christchurch, which was straight forward thanks to our nice stable house prices, and bike to work easily thanks to our new network of cycle lanes. These things together make it easy to save a chunk of each paycheck. Maybe your daughter could consider a move down South?

Well they've stopped getting worse. Under National my rent was rising every bloody week

... under Labour your rent will rise only once a year .. in one horrendous dirty great dollop ...

Ah ... that's an improvement !

"Going along great'? Really, THE MAN 2? While productivity per capita stagnates and population explodes? While value-based businesses are undercut by the unscrupulous import of uneducated exploitable labour? While increasing numbers lose the chance of secure housing let alone ownership? While vast and unaccountable foreign funds floods into property? While thousands of low-skilled immigrants fulfill ever cheaper, more shoddy and less principled employment? While more and more families depend on hand-outs to make ends meet? While food-banks are overwhelmed? While numbers of the absolutely homeless swell? While our common environment is trashed for short-term gain? Sure, Labour isn't taking many wickets. (And I'm not a Labour fan.) But they follow an administration under a PM without, in my opinion, a principled bone in his body. And I see the same ignorance and idiocy in the current opposition.

This coalition is doing absolutely
Nothing that has helped to put more
Money in the poorer
Peoples pockets!
They are just full of BS and have no idea on anything productive for NZ.
What has happened to KiwiFlop and reducing
Child poverty reduced? Yeah right!

The National Party must be at the bottom of the barrel if Simon Bridges is leader but I guess it’s no surprise
when you look at the female talent which should be leader but was found wanting in the ethics category
Gee wasn’t she also a lawyer ?
They did used to cover ethics as I recall at University but I digress.
Labour has sat on their immigration hands
Juggled the deck chairs on housing initiatives
Passed with flying colors cleaning up after dealing with mass murders
Still I hear people want to go to NZ from this side of the planet so tourism must be booming
All said & done you don’t have Trump or Boris & no water shortages like Aus so NZs “sweet”
Just watch the Australian 60 Minutes expose on the spy who defected
NZ has been infiltrated too & it’s politics just like AUS & the Pacific islands

.. lest we forget , Helen Clark as leader of the Labour Party sank to 2 % in the polls in the 1990's . . on his Radio Pathetic morning talk show John Banks used to deride her as " Mrs 2 % " ...

He shut up after 1999 ....

Jacinda is no Helen Clark ..........

True ... Jacinda is a bit of a hotty ...

.. but we were discussing the poor polling of Soyman Bridges as preferred PM .. Herr Clark , in opposition , polled alot worse than Bridges currently is

Jacinda is piss-poor at herding cats , and that's what she has tried and failed to do with this coalition of disparate losers ............

And she was not honest with us in the last election , and that for me is a total no-no

Many more young people/first time voters will vote Labour or Greens in 2020. Winnie and NZ First polled under 5% in the final poll before the 2017 election but still got in. If Labour continue to push with the "9 years of neglect" line and borrow billions to invest (this is what the Reserve Bank wants) into infrastructure at 1.3% interest rate that will boost the economy. Better to do that than allow National back in and and the rampant migration and foreign based offshore house buyers that would be end result - that was the only answer National had to prop up the economy last time. Suspect that during 2020 Nationals own donations scandal will be high profile once again and that Jami-Lee Ross may have some more dirt to dish up. Perhaps it was just the Christopher Luxon profile in the media that gave the Nats a boost for this poll?

Will be very interesting to see the leaders debates next year - Jacinda will likely have Simon stumbling. Wonder who will be the host of the debates - surely it won't be Hosking - that guy is so far right and totally biased. Maybe Jack Tame - any other suggestions? Finally will the election be late September again or pushed out to November?