National loses support to Labour and ACT in latest 1 NEWS-Columar Brunton Poll; NZ First struggling

National loses support to Labour and ACT in latest 1 NEWS-Columar Brunton Poll; NZ First struggling
Cartoon by Ross Payne.

Labour is charging ahead in the latest 1 NEWS-Colmar Brunton Poll, securing enough seats to govern on its own. 

Support for the party was up three percentage points from when the last poll was done between June 20 and 24, to 53%.

Support for National was down six percentage points to 32%.

However Judith Collins got 20% in the preferred prime minister ranks - a major improvement from when Todd Muller and Simon Bridges were National leader. Her approval rating was 27. Muller's was 10 and Bridges' -40.

National also polled much better than in the Newshub-Reid Research Poll, released on Sunday, which had the party at only 25%. 

The difference can in part be put down to timing. Newshub's was conducted between July 16 and 24, as Nikki Kaye, Amy Adams and Andrew Falloon announced their retirements, and it came to light Falloon sent pornographic images to young women. 

Meanwhile the 1 NEWS poll was conducted between July 25 and 29 - a relatively less turbulent period for National.

The poll also showed National losing support to ACT, which received a whopping 5%. 

NZ First and Winston Peters continued to poll poorly, calling into question the party's ability to pull off a characteristic bump in support come election time. 

The Green Party remains under pressure to secure at least 5% of the vote.

Here are the results in full:

Preferred party:

  • Labour: 53% (+3% points)
  • National: 32% (-6% points)
  • Greens: 5% (-1% point)
  • ACT: 5% (+2% points)
  • NZ First: 2% (no change)
  • Maori Party: 1% (no change)
  • New Conservatives: 1% (no change) 

Preferred prime minister:

  • Jacinda Ardern: 54% (no change)
  • Judith Collins: 20% (+18% points)
  • Winston Peters: 1% (-1% point) 
  • David Seymour: 1%

Seats

  • Labour: 67
  • Greens: 6
  • National: 41
  • ACT: 6

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.

206 Comments

Can labour make it to the election without a covid spread? If so there’s only going to be one winner. If not it’s still unlikely National could win.

Even National cannot reply on this. If there is something but the response quickly stops it. It wont change the election much.

They may still include partners, as it’s a better look.
Just as JK included the Maori Party though not needed for votes.

While I was never a fan of Key I think that one example shows just where National are now going wrong. Can you imagine this lot optionally forming a coalition like that? Key’s National were so good at sitting in the centre.

I have a friend who has recently left the National Party (in a very public way) because of their increasingly conservative views and abandoning of basic liberal principles. Big government is fine provided it is strong-arming your flavour of morality on everyone, apparently. It makes me sad as he is the kind of person they should be falling over themselves to attract as a voter and he doesn't even want to be a member anymore. He won't be the only one.

National has always been a Conservative party - if you want socially liberal but conservative economically then you go to Act. If you want socially liberal, & big Govt then Labour.

This isn't remotely correct, but sure, guess the Key years never happened, Nikki Kaye was not literally just the deputy leader a few weeks ago, a huge chunk of the party didn't vote to change the definition of marriage... Guess there's no liberal wing to the National Party at all.

You can pretend like the party should be made up of conservative dinosaurs like Simeon Brown and Harete Hipango but the reality is they are yesterday's news and the vast majority of the centre doesn't want a bar of a party where the majority of senior MPs are religious conservatives. Keep ignoring the fact you're bleeding votes to the centre and to the right tho, I'm sure there's definitely a path to power if we double-down on the fake news about things like abortion law reform.

The Key years were an aberration, that's the point.

There's a reason he's been the most popular National party leader and National PM ever.

GV that's a bit of a strong reaction and IMO, obfuscation. MortgageBelt is quite right. National has and should continue to be advocating for self responsibility and determination, that's always been a core ethos of theirs. Kaye left because she got the pip and ran off in a huff, Adams was enticed back with the promise of higher ranking, she shouldn't have come back. For both of them to leave merely underscores their "what's in it for me" attitude. Collins was going to move them down the rankings, they knew their jobs were in jeopardy so they jumped. So much for working for the country's best interests.

This article makes it clear that really Amy Adams was acting as defacto leader, using Muller as a figurehead: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122163895/better-the-devil-you...

She wanted to be effective 'minister of everything' and the real power behind the throne, had they won the election. Collins wasn't interested in that, so Amy left.

Exactly my point Lanthanide, good riddance to both her and Kaye in my book.

Social conservatism is not a path to government in NZ. Even Bill English appreciated this. It's possible to be for things like self-responsibility and determination without barely disguised evangelicalism. If the Key years are to be considered an 'aberration' instead a long-overdue alignment with pragmatism then frankly National deserve no better than the high 30s, if that. I sure as hell wouldn't join them as a party, let alone stand for them in their current state.

When was the last time they offered up genuine conservative policy aimed at conserving and passing on a better society to generations of NZers? A la Burke.

Or did Key have a cunning long term strategy. Tie the Maori close to National while they were in such a dominant position, then by association destroy the Maori party's voter base. If so it worked, and all with a smile on his face.

@Chris-M ; Keep your friends close...and your enemies closer?

I hope they don’t partner with the Greens, whose election slogan reeks of incompetence: ‘Think ahead, Act now’ for gods sake? David Seymour must be delighted with that subliminal, unintended message. No wonder he’s got 5%.

Think Later, ACT Now?

It’s all an Act?

54% doesn't seam like much after Jacinada's stellar performance.... Slightly better than average.......

Winston to put the boot in for the next few weeks to make sure he is the Queen maker.

10
up

Flailing around, noise for the sake of noise. Swings and misses. NZF has ended up in no man’s land.

Thinking everyone knows he won't do a full term and retire leaving Shane Jones....

Where do you get your jokes? Funny but wrong, Peter's same age as Mr T(rump) and younger than Biden

I imagine he had a knighthood and ambassador position lined up with Cindy. NZF are finished. Good riddance.

Perhaps people are more perceptive than you give them credit for. Getting things done has been a problem for the government.
JA has communicated empathetically and impressively, and marketed the government well, but sometimes people do look for more than words and hugs. At election time, some potential supporters look at the big unfulfilled promises - Kiwibuild, child poverty, light rail (phew), climate change, transformation et al. and don't see what they wanted to see.
Winston is goneburger, and hopefully the Greens too. I could live with another Labour term if that happened.

Saw a Nat poster the other day but didn't take much notice. It was of Shane Reti vs Chris Hopkins. Pointing out one was and actual doctor, "havard educated". I'm guessing he writes like a doctor so the creater couldn't read. Also isn't Harvard in that country that's struggling with numerous health issues including but not limited to a pandemic?

And just like that, woosh! Harvard education became worthless

Seymour deserves some colleagues.But I think any improvement for National will be at their expense. I think he is actually getting the better of Winston , in their exchanges. But I would put NZ First losses down to Shane Jones, and their provincial growth projects not really appealing to their base. Plus no recent immigrants for them to xenophobe over.
The Greens(who I will vote for), have had bad press in regard to their achievements. They have done alright , given they are the 3rd party of the coalition.In some ways they have taken the hard left role for Labour, allowing Labour to sit comfortably in the middle.They may have a wild card in Marama taking Tāmaki Makaurau, though traditionally they have not had a high Maori vote. It would need to be a 3 way split of the vote though.

The gun nuts have also deserted NZ First and moved to Act.

18
up

Gun nuts. You mean the 99.99% of people that own firearms that are extremely law abiding but you label them as nuts.
They are the salt of the earth, people that actually get stuff done and produce in this country and pay tax rather than being loosers sitting there waiting for handouts.
We should look at the people who are extreme bludgers who will never get off a Govt handout that shape the political landscape as they vote Labour enabling more Govt handouts breeding more bludgers. Then there is young Green voters just out of their nappies and want to save the world but havent figured out that the Greens are useless yet.

This country could and would do a hell of a lot better without the bludgers taking handouts but if we removed the 'gun nuts' as you label them this country would suffer considerably.
You seriously need to get out of your office and take a look at the real world out there.

Gun nuts. You mean the 99.99% of people that own firearms that are extremely law abiding but you label them as nuts

No, I mean the gun nuts who own guns, which are not 99.99% of firearm owners.

Not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp.

I am a "gun owner" That does not stop me recognising the breed of "gun nuts" Some very odd views there, indeed some - just a few - dangerous people.

Glad someone gets it. Kezza sure doesn't.

Nobody needs assault rifles or handguns, Kezza. The vast majority of firearms are still legal. Keep it in proportion.

Check your ignorance Pietro, the only people in NZ who have 'assault rifles' work for the Government*. To follow your NIMBY self involved logic, nobody in New Zealand needs cars, internet or golf clubs along with a million other things that people choose because they enjoy the activity or collect for history's sake. I don't 'need' a gun at all but my collecting hobby and sport would not exist if I could not have the choice to have them (or not)
*Army (in case you are even sillier than your post suggests)

Must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like that.

Presumably the bludgers you’re refer to are folks on national super - that’s the group that cost the most on welfare now.

14
up

I want to add to Kezzas rant. The people I know who own guns get shit done. Generally physically fit people. The sort that when something breaks they know how to fix it. The sort that if the chips were down you would want them on your side. My daughter is a keen hunter. Has her license. She would run rings around most men. Got herself a 200lb boar once. Even got the thing home by herself. Nutty Lanthanide? Nope. Just a gutsy Otago girl, living the dream in rural New Zealand. Something the politicians dont understand at all about rural nz.

Serious question as I am not a gun owner,what is the issue with the new gun laws?
To the 'non gun person' it seems you can still own a gun,just not a military style semi automatic,which to us townies would seem a reasonable compromise.

I've got no issues with the new laws that I know of.
I have no need for a military style firearm.
What was mentioned above was everyone is a gun nut, which is so far from the truth it isn't funny.

Fair enough,serious question again,what is the attraction of ACT to gun 'enthusiasts' ?

Not 100% just guessing.
It is rough to put a blanket rule on all firearm owners when one person that should not have had a licence because the police screwed up and didn't do their interviews and background checks. The police screwed up but the firearms owners get the stick for it??? Hardly fair.
Maybe it's a infringement on rights thing and best to fight against it before Labour wins the next election and maybe tries to take all firearms away and wrap us in cotton wool for our own safety.
I do know that people I know that would typically vote for NZF will walk from him. Winston pulled a portion of his votes stateing that 1080 usage will be put on hold and looked at, after the election zip, silence. Maybe ACT has a stance against 1080 as well.

Ok,thanks Kezza

What we need to take into account is that NZ firearms laws have worked extremely well. There are studies out there that show the tighter the gun control the more gun crime.
That has always been the sticking point in changing the laws up untill now.
Then one person from another country who should not have had a firearms licence did a mass murder. It should be the police getting harassed not gun owners.

"There are studies out there that show the tighter the gun control the more gun crime."

Link me to one please. I will call bulls**t until I've seen solid evidence proving otherwise.

Australia, for one, has plenty of gun crime for a country with very strict laws

That is not a study, or even a statistic. Just your off the cuff thoughts.

A very quick search online shows me Australia has about 0.11 homicides by gun per 100,000 population per year. Same rate as NZ. The USA has 4.46.

That would suggest the opposite to what you suppose.

Get ye to the internet Crispy. Look for the cities in the USA that have the tightest gun laws. Now cross reference it with which cities have the worst gun crime. Sorted.

Yes, like the tough gun laws in the US that have caused all of those mass shootings. So Kezza, you seem to in favor of AK47s and the like being legal?

As I understand it a lot of hunting guns became illegal. Most people agreed the military guns should go. But Jacindas law meant the 10 shot 22 should go as well. Which is rather practical for shooting all those rabbits out there. My brother would come and stay, knock back a beer in the evening, head out for 20 minutes. Get 10 rabbits. Repeat and rinse all evening. We are surrounded by native, they kept coming out of doc lands. So thats one issue. The favorite old 22 was suddenly an illegal firearm. We have pest problems that require a decent gun.
Then there were the shotguns. Many passed down over the years. Duckshooting family heirloom. Or recently bought and cherished. Now an illegal firearm. Under lock and key for most of the year.
Other treasured old rifles, given to sons mostly from dads and grandads. Genuine loved items.
So initially most people were on board. Then to our horror we found actually they wanted a lot more than just military style weapons.
The fact it was a foreigner that had acquired a license to buy these firearms by sloppy police work is high up there on the list of 'really' moments.
We move to 1080. Each and every election brings out the parties/politicians that they are your representative to get rid of the shit. Yet zip happens after election day. Whatever the townies suck up and believe about 1080 it terrorises rural communities. Right now that crap is all around my boundary. Everywhere I go on my farm with my dogs I am in constant fear my dogs will die a shockingly slow painful death. This will go on for the next six to nine months. The people who put it there go home to their beds each night knowing their dogs are safe and sound. It creates a gnawing anger towards the whole debate. Towards a society that gets angry if a dog is smacked in the street, but thousands of animals dying slow painful deaths hidden in the bush is ok. And we are mocked because we are anti 1080. Made fun of in the media. Made to look crazy. Right now if I killed a wild pig on my farm I darent eat it.
Currently there is a governmental war on Thar. Despite the fact they are an income for many rural folk in the south island. They make the country a lot of money. They provide meat for families.
To imply gun owners are nutty is to denigrate the whole rural community. We have our reasons to be fed up with our representation in parliament and our treatment by the media.

Belle,this statement is a little concerning to say the least...
"My brother would come and stay, knock back a beer in the evening, head out for 20 minutes. Get 10 rabbits. Repeat and rinse all evening. We are surrounded by native, they kept coming out of doc lands....
Drinking & firearms doesn't sound like a good combination.

Lol it used to concern me too Vman. I reckon his kill rate got better the more he drank though. In his defense it was very cheap beer with a lo alcohol % and he was in his mid 50s not a teenager. Arh the family stories I could tell....
I just got to thinking the only thing you picked out was the beer and the rabbit shooting. No one gives a rats about the mass slaughter in a really nasty manner of our wild animals. Love them or hate them do they not have a right to die a quicker death than 1080 affords? That kind of sits poorly next to a crack shot beer drinker who kills quick n clean.

Belle, I'm not sure why you think that favourite old 10 shot .22 of yours is now illegal - this from the Police website;

Prohibited firearms are: All semi-automatic firearms (including semi-automatic shotguns), but: excluding rimfire rifles . 22 calibre or less as long as they have a magazine (whether detachable or not) that holds 10 rounds or less;

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-services/firearms-and-safety/2019-fire...

Belle might have been talking about quite an old .22, but you're right. Nowadays most .22s are 15 shot. Her point was that the new law made criminals of many law abiding people who were using their firearms for a legitimate "community good" purpose - pest control. Incidentally I doubt many farmers handed over the noncompliant weapons. I know I certainly didn't.

Failure to comply with the law makes you not a "fit and proper person".

Who cares? Seeing as they don't know I've got the weapon (only the licence) they can't deem me unfit or otherwise.

The exception a lot of people took with the .22 calibre firearms concerned were magazine capacity of more than 10 were prohibited. So a lot of old .22 lever action or bolt action firearms with tube magazines were banned, whereas the typical 10 shot semi auto like the Ruger 10/22 with detachable magazines were kept. From a risk point of view the Ruger is able to be reloaded with replacement magazines and fired a lot faster than grandads old bolt/lever action, so the legislation on that part was contradictory.

@ vman. One of ACT's candidates represents the gun lobby.

What was mentioned above was everyone is a gun nut

No, that is not what I said. You have extremely poor reading comprehension.

which is so far from the truth it isn't funny.

Agreed.

You are an anti gun nut fed on BS PR spin.
The police screwed up. Point your anger at them, they are more reasonable than any firearms licence holder.

You are an anti gun nut

Everyone should be anti gun nuts. Just like everyone should be anti anti-vaccers, anti flat-earthers and anti anti-fluoride nutters.

MSAs (mainly the AR 15) are the weapon of choice for larger pests (wallabys, goats) especially when shooting out of a helo. A long rifle is cumbersome and doesn't have a good magazine capacity (usually 5-7 rounds vs 20) The laws now mean only professional cullers can own MSAs with the associated bureaucratic bungling and time wasting (read expense) to be registered. It was a knee jerk poorly drafted piece of legislation. The idea was laudable but the execution sucked

Good on her getting a 200lber, not that many out there have.
Easy for the city people to think a certain way about rural NZ. What they don't realise is a good portion of their incomes is generated in rural NZ. We only need to look at the NZ top exports to see that.

I never called her a gun nut.

Saying gun nut implies all gun owners.
One person who was not a Kiwi, who would not have had a firearms licence as the police screwed up their job and then he killed some people. Now everyday Kiwis are gun nuts because they disagree with the fighting of laws that had been working well for decades untill the police screwed it up.
Come on we all know that Jacinda wantsbto wrap us in cotton wool to protect us from ourselves. It is the future laws that she will pass that is the concern.
Congratulations you just made it my mission to go and check ACT out.

Saying gun nut implies all gun owners.

Being a gun owner myself, it literally doesn't.

All gun nuts are gun owners (unless they've been legally prohibited from owning a gun, and are going against their nature and actually following the law).

Not all gun owners are gun nuts.

Now everyday Kiwis are gun nuts

You are the only person here saying that.

If you are a gun owner, why would you use inflammatory language when the firearm/hunting community is gradually being marginalised by anti-gun groups and politicians? Seems self defeating

Because I'm not a gun nut?

In your opinion, what constitutes a gun nut?

At a minimum, people who believe the US constitution applies to New Zealand, people who are deliberately keeping guns they know to be in violation of the law thus proving they aren't "fit and proper persons" and therefore invalidating the conditions of their firearms license.

As well as who else?? What percentage of the licensed firearms community do you think constitutes those two groups described in your comment? Enough to change the polling figures between NZ First and ACT?

I never said it was *only* gun nuts leaving NZFirst and going to Act, did I?

No but you inferred it was enough to make a difference, hence why I asked the other questions you haven't answered yet.

Right, I've read all this to and fro on "gun nuts". I'm pretty confident in my English comprehension skills.
I think the record needs some setting straight.
So far I've read comments to the effect of:
"Lanthanide said all gun owners are gun nuts". No, he didn't.
"Lanthanide inferred enough gun nuts are leaving NZ First for Act to make a difference". No, he didn't.
"Saying gun nut implies all gun owners." No, it doesn't.

For context: I don't own a gun, but I used to. It killed a lot of pests. I was bought up around guns. Guns are a useful tool. I am not a gun nut, or an anti-gun nut. But I am definitely anti gun-nuts. Not all, or even most, gun owners are gun nuts. But there definitely are gun nuts, and a high proportion of them own guns. Using the term "gun nut" doesn't mean you are anti guns. It seems so simple.

Agree with your sentiments grum. I understand what Lanthanide was saying regards how he has described gun-nuts, though he hasn't allowed himself to give us his full opinion on who that includes.
To make a comment that, what I would assume, a very small portion of the firearms community would be noticeable in the polling numbers was why I asked the questions I did.
The reaction that is being garnered on this subject is borne out of the way the firearms community has been treated by pollies/bureaucrats/media since March last year. A lot of people that use the term gun-nut aim it at anyone that owns a firearm and is used in a derisive manner. The reaction, in my view, was justified until a proper explanation was proffered. No harm, no foul.

@ Lanthanide are you talking about the gun nuts that support labour, the ones that wear a leather jacket with a patch on the back who said they wouldn't be handing their guns in as they needed them for protection ?

Well all the anti-gun crowd think you are because they see every owner as one. By using their language, you are doing a disservice to not only yourself but also to the shooting community.

I take it you are voting for Act this year then?

Don’t think you need an AR-15 to be that hardworking person.

I can handle Cindy in power as long as Winston is gone, ACT gets 5% or more, Dope is defeated and Rick Strauss stays around long enough for me to say I told you so.

Labour with 67-70 seats running the show alone, maybe throwing the Greens (if they get back in) a bone every now and then? Why would ACT having 5% of the vote (6-7seats) matter if they are seating on the cross benches while labour rules like we were still back in the FPP days?

Labour alone would certainly be more stable and palatable than Labour having to rely on the Greens, whilst at the same time, keeping the extreme left of that party at bay. That being the case it sure makes MMP both irrelevant and ineffectual as the ideal political system in NZ, you would have to conclude.

Yep, thats my preffered (realistic) outcome. Still prefer to see the MMP threshold dropped to ~2%.

Yup if the PM is smart she will keep the greens at arms length. Maybe throw them the odd bone. NZ politics is all Bout holding the centre

Hopefully, she wont have to put up with Winston the Wanabe.

The eternal wannabe

ACT is a one man band right now. More MPs gives them something to build on in 2023. Playing the long game. I hope the Greens scare the crap out of middle NZ and take Labour’s supporters with them. National needs to move Right. Labour needs to dwell in the fetid debt swamp they have created. I’m going to enjoy myself.

11
up

I doubt it, the next three years I think you'll enjoy about as much as you have the last three.

It has been crap to see the COL in power as they have been worse than useless but they haven’t been able to affect me personally. In the last three years, I have put enough aside to fund house deposits for the kids and next year, the youngest is off to fee free uni so that’s a win. I expect the Left to target higher taxes for people in my situation, but I have a strategy for that.

They will go after over 65’s still working with income in excess of say $75K. A means test disguised in a so-called new tax bracket. Each 31 March tax return they will claw back a ratio of the super an that has been paid to each individual as/where relative. So if you are a 65yr old say lawyer, high earning partner, say goodbye to your pension until you actually retire.

And really, so it should be

Of course you have a strategy for that. Another greedy boomer who will raise children who never had to work for a thing, but will have been convinced that it's nothing but their hard work and determination that got them to where they are.

Right on. He can’t actually explain “worse than useless” for the govt but they aren’t “his lot” so they must be opposed.

Can’t wait till the boomers are gone and stop sponging all the welfare and stop making spastic decisions that suit them and them alone.

On those poll results we'll see some ditching Labour for Green, they run it together and that will be their final term. Lets face it they won't to be able to handle what is coming.

Based on what happened after the Great Depression I'd be surprised if any party working in the aftermath of the depression continues to hold power for multiple terms following the worst effects. Nature of the beast, whoever is in. But...guess anything's possible.

Yes clearly the Boris and Donnie group have so many more better ideas.

Only if they can keep the gun nuts and anti-1080 lunatics at bay.

The problem with shackling yourself to extremist people like that is that you have to actually advance their cause when you're able to. If you fail to do that, they'll desert you.

1080 got their own party.

Extremist is a very subjective description

Ooooh Lanthanide. Does that mean I am an extremist and a lunatic? Or do you just have to vote the wrong way to be one? Do you think people with differing opinions to yourself can be quite normal. That they just see another side to the story.

Yes it does. We need to censor you and "re-educate" you immediately.

Bit rich coming from the chief censor:

by youngdumbandbroke | 31st Jul 20, 1:06pm
Well all the anti-gun crowd think you are because they see every owner as one. By using their language, you are doing a disservice to not only yourself but also to the shooting community.

I don't know, are you a gun nut, think man didn't land on the moon, that fluoride is dangerous, vaccines cause autism and that 1080 is more harmful than helpful for our native birds?

If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then probably you are.

The Kea arent finding it helpful in the south. Or the morepork here. Or the bush falcon. Our Kaka numbers in Pureora just took a hit with the last lot. We had flocks of them flying over before the drop. Now its only a couple. But surprisingly my little tomtits are still here there and everywhere. We did manage to bully them into staying 170m off the boundary though. Yeah I havnt heard morepork since the drop :-(
So where do you live Lanthanide?

Just to add Lanthanide I have had 3 dogs killed by 1080. I watched them go crazy. Froth at the mouth. Shit uncontrollably. Ironically run here and there like lunatics. First they turn to you for help. Then they dont recognise you any longer. Till they are quivering shitting frothing to death. Do you really think its much better for the pest animal?

Ok, so you think your anecdotal evidence Trumps scientific data that finds 1080 is overall more helpful than harmful for our native wildlife.

So what is the scientific evidence you speak of? Where did you say you live? I walk out my door and everywhere I look is Pureora Forest Park. For 30 years. It is not ok to kill our native parrots and raptors. It is not ok to kill any animals in a trap. So why is it ok to torture them to death?

So what is the scientific evidence you speak of?

The various reports and inquiries carried out by the government over time that have in all cases shown that 1080 is the most cost effective method of controlling introduced pest species in our country, in many places the only practicable method, and that while some birds unfortunately end up dead from the 1080 this is less than the number that are able to survive thanks to the pests being killed.

Where did you say you live?

Christchurch.

It is not ok to kill our native parrots and raptors.

I agree, we should take appropriate measures to ensure native parrots and raptors aren't killed by introduced pest species that they never evolved to deal with and for which there aren't existing native predators of those pest species to keep them in check.

It is not ok to kill any animals in a trap

Right, it is ok to let introduced species kill our native animals, found nowhere else in the world.

So why is it ok to torture them to death?

If more humane cost-effective methods were available I would advocate for them. For example gene drives seem like a very sensible technology to investigate. Until such time as more humane and cost-effective methods are available, we should use the most cost-effective method we have, because the alternative is the loss of more of our native species, which won't be dying pleasant deaths in the teeth and claws of introduced pest species either.

How do you think a ban on 1080 would affect the incidence of bovine TB, Belle?

This justification being from Fed Farmers and F&B;

http://www.1080facts.co.nz/bovine-tb.html

Middle NZ has moved on, many in Middle NZ do actually care now about Climate Change and intergenerational wealth and inequality issues.

If you think middle NZ are right leaning like they might have been a decade ago, think again.

Are you talking about Middle aged or Middle income. The Middle NZrs I know (in both camps) are actually more worried about their immediate futures and issues. They actually aren't that particularly interested in intergenerational wealth (other than what they can pass on to their kids) or inequality. They're more worried about trying to make headway in their lives. Those that seem to spend large amounts of time "speaking for them" probably need to get off the beltway and out into said Middle NZ. They might be surprised at what they find

By moving further right, what sort of policies do you hope for? E.g.

Removing the universal social welfare benefit regardless of need for folk over 65, removing Working for Families and the Accommodation Supplement? Means-test such welfare?

Change matters to reduce central government / bank support for asset inflation?

Greatly reduce zoning to allow people to do much more what they like with the land they already own, reducing control by others who do not own it but are nearby?

Or just socialist wealth transfers to better animals on the farm?

Rick Strauss for PM then ?

Labour in unfettered power will mean hate speech laws which mean freezing freedom of speech. I find this so scary I'd consider voting Winston to keep that law out. He's all that stopped it this term.

Hate speech is already illegal. Are you scared?

Haha, told me what, Left-Pat?

I'm in favour of policy that works, and works for multiple generations of NZers. I would favour more ACT in there because they bring good policy to the table.

If you need large direction changes to be done there's probably a better chance of Labour doing something than National (based on NZ's history, including Labour liberalising the economy). Whether they do it well or badly in the end will be another matter.

At some point, I do hope National turns a page and brings to the electorate policy that will be beneficial to current AND ongoing generations of NZers. Would be good to see them having something to offer again. Maybe they should have a read of this and consider what they have to offer younger generations of NZers: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/tim-montgomerie-future-conse...

And do you prefer your kids to be dependent on you for success, or to have greater opportunity under their own steam?

ACT might get 4.9995% they will get two less vote this time round!

I would like to see the Electoral Commission's recommendations of a 3% threshold and an STV implemented. No major party politicians seem keen to reduce their own power though.

Would be great to see politicians cooperate like sane adults too, but eh...

How did TOP do :) Any better than the New Zealand Outdoors Party? Who knows.

More of a wasted vote than ever.

It'll be a long time before they shake off the Gareth Morgan association.

Wouldn't hold my breath given that they will be deregistering (again) soon.

Gaza was a net benefit in terms of votes - at least he got them some media attention and plenty of money. Now they are borderline insolvent without charismatic leadership. What they need to do is shake off their repulsive policy ideas - they believe Maori own NZ's fresh water and want to create a nation of tenants by charging people rent for their own property. They have also lost their far left niche - they poached the Greens' environmental policies and now the Greens have poached TOP's economic policies.

Their 1080 and other poison dreams are mental.
Can't see them lasting much longer. Goff Sims dreamer nut bar.

Gah accidentally reported, sorry :(

Aye therein lies the potential trap. First tax you for owning your own land and once that is seated in, start taxing you for whatever other possessions that you own. The Greens have prematurely signalled this intent and direction of course.

Yes, when the State starts charging people rent for their assets I really think we're in the realms of communism. Only a few months ago TOP was proposing an annual tax on ALL major assets very similar to the Greens' current proposal. TOP pulled it back to land only when they realised that the people of NZ find this abhorrent. They don't realise that the vast majority find land tax totally unpalatable.

13
up

The question is: Who will be best addressing where we are headed (which is never going to resemble the past).

And the answer is: The more caring (of others including future others, and of other species), the more appropriate they will be.

Inverted: The more self-centred, the more narrow the person or Party, the less appropriate they will be.

The paradigm is shifting, and many - often the swaggerers of recent times - are going to be a little bewildered, and will find they have no useful skill-sets.

The question is: who looks best on t.v

Combined weight of the National front two probably close to 200 kegs. Heavy hitters don’t look great on TV

Neither do tweakers

Or twerkers

Hope your eyebrow’s raised! I was happy that Brownlee threw his weight behind her. Added ballast, sorry, I mean balance?? Seriously, JC doesn’t look good or sound good. And she’s offside with the media, now. A lot of wannabes will be after her. Her only media mates are Mike and Mark.

NZ seems to change the Governing Parties once in 9 years. A safe way more to go for Jacinda. She is growing in her job, while the Opposition and Allies are disintegrating. Seymour is a threat though and with 6 MPs he can force a few law changes. Will be interesting but not entertaining without Winston. So let one NZ MP be elected, okay ?

There is potentially an odds on even chance that NZF will get an elected MP - and I don't mean in Northland.

Hoping for that, it will be good for them and NZ.

Where is that Casual?

I’ve never voted Labour before, I’m generally to the left of them. But I’m tempted to this time, in the hope they get an outright majority. Having to deal with Greens / NZF has been a convenient way of avoiding implementing policies that are more difficult/ unpopular/ divisive within the party. If they have three unencumbered years in power and fail to pull off any big moves in housing etc, a lot of us will be able to ignore them for a generation.

I have been planning to vote Green, but yes Labour could be more strategic.
But I usually go by policy, and for me Greens come out top.

You've been witness to their failure at every initiative the promised in the last 2.5 years and still believe them capable of delivering anything?

Is that a Labour issue,or the reality of a 3 way coalition with parties from both sides of the centre divide...substitute Labour for National with the same proportionality,would they 'Get stuff done" ?
Menage a trois rarely end well in realtionships or politics ;-)

Well they certainly struggled with their 'RMA reform', perhaps to a significant extent attributable to their coalition with the Maori Party.

TBH I can't see the Greens being any easier or pragmatic about RMA reform than the Maori Party were.

13
up

We sure know what the Key years delivered. I've included a precis between the following brackets:

( )

Hay hay. They did generate record bank profits.

You forgot bringing back knighthoods so they could all get one, and almost changing the flag (oops there goes $26M)

$800k just on the website for anyone criticizing Labour for building a playground on the parliamentary lawn.

you wish . There only big failure was light rail . They've actually achieved a lot. A lot of it for women , i would admit , which tends to piss grumpy old men off.

I would also consider kiwibuild a failure

10
up

This has to be a joke, right? How about the fuel tax that takes more from Auckland than it pays out for Auckland projects? Or the benefit sanctions that were still in place until literally last week? Still only enacted 4 or so of the 30+ recommendations from their working groups on that one! Or the appointment of Cullen to the TWG Chair, dooming it to failure? Or repeatedly allowing NZ First to sway regulations in favour of their donor base? Or the explosion in emergency housing waiting lists? Or the promise to end homelessness by...was it June 2018? Or the complete balls up that was Auckland light rail, leaving two massive parts of the city with a huge future housing burdern mired in congestion with no actual plan for dealing with it? What about the broadcasting reforms? Bet all the people laid off at TVNZ over the last few months feel they nailed that one!

They have implemented one single flagship policy - the foreign buyer ban. And even then, they still had to exempt key countries, despite campaigning on renegotiating our trade agreements so they wouldn't have to. To claim they've only dropped the ball on Light Rail is beyond historical revisionism, it's willingly divorcing yourself from any credible, objective interpretation of reality to the point where this can only be astro-turfing or some sort of cry for help.

And the billion trees? Where did they go?

Considering it's 1 billion trees over a 10 year period, the policy rollout is not yet complete.

Btw, the normal expected planting over 10 years is 500 million trees. Doubling this to 1 billion trees, which is what the policy actually is, doesn't seem like some unreasonable impossible goal like people such as yourself seem to think that it is.

The main problem with Mr Jones idea is that the extra 500ml trees need to be in the right place, which unfortunately no-one actually did much research in to. Putting them on productive farmland is unreasonable but putting them on underutilised scrubland is a good idea. Putting them on erodible land is arguable, if the land can't hold the weight of a mature tree and they then wind up in the valleys (ala Tolaga Bay etc) then obviously more thought is needed. The problem with the Billion Trees programme is it's mostly skewed to pine. It should have been more skewed to native, slower growing but ultimately a far better result long term

Have you tried searching or do you just assume that things aren't happening because you haven't been spoon fed updates by the media every 5 minutes?

Currently at almost 150 million planted.

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/forestry/one-billion-tree...

Coalition claimed they (govt) would plant a billion extra trees over 10 years. They then backtracked and tried to spin that it includes normal private sector replantings of about 50million a year. ~50% reduction right there. Hunting around it seems they've only planted about 25million a year in first two years, 25% of their initial billion trees promise, and only half of their fudged private sector replanting inclusive target. Failing to deliver as ever.

They're going in the ground, where you usually plant trees.

And another failure to deliver: 1800 extra police:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/policenews-560x349...
Late last year Coalition now lying and trying to rewrite history and pretend that it was only 1800 graduates, not 1800 additional police over and above attrition as initially promised: https://www.labour.org.nz/largest_police_workforce_in_nz_history

Better than cutting Police funding, no matter how accurate you are on the spin. 9 years of Police funding freezes was utter incompetence.

You're the one spinning here. National's approach to government is not a credible defence for Labour failing to meet their own policy targets and trying to revise history to escape accountability. Anything to avoid actual scrutiny, huh.

Thank for this Labour Party press release from 2011. Oh I have seen the error of my ways, it's definitely not hypocritical at all to attack a National Govt from opposition for inaction, use it as a basis to justify your own unworkable policies as 'urgently needed', only to get into power and just flounder for three years. This definitely should shield Labour from any form of criticism whatsoever. Please accept my humblest apple-logies for the inconwenience.

Just relax dude, so easily baited. Between yourself, Kezza and Foyle we have a basket case of partisan fanboys frothing at the mouth over what in the grand scheme of things are minor failings. Taking bets on who's going to have a hernia first.

"All flagship policies" = minor. I'm not partisan, I just hate bullshit and people who blindly defend it.

You sound awfully partisan, but anyway. Did they promise 1800 new Police above the attrition rate? Yes. Have they achieved that? No. We can agree on that. But at least they're making steps towards 1800 new police. There's a big difference between doing something half assed and doing the opposite of what you promise to do (bait and switch).

As for Light Rail, that's a mammoth failure. They're taxing Aucklanders to pay for something that has gone backwards. I'd compare this to John Key's blatant lie about GST.

Kiwiblog is hardly an unbiased source to use.

Learn to read. The sources are Police News (a monthly for NZ Police) and a Labour party website. It's so awkward when you can't use ad homs to dismiss data that doesn't match your predjudices.

You have a very odd definition of "ad hominem"...

If you want to look at failure look at the National Party's efforts in Christchurch. Announced massive anchor projects in 2012, when they left office in 2017 hardly any of them were completed, most hadn't even been started. Convention Centre, stadium, Metro Sports and others are still either not started or not yet finished.

So much for the party of getting stuff done.

And lets not forget their billion dollar eqc botch up

morphyoss,that can't be correct.They had Gerry Brownlee in charge,using all his woodwork teacher skills to rebuild a better CHC,people from the right say Chistchurch people think he should be knighted for his efforts,apparently it is a 'Gerry built' town now...

So what's the argument here, Labour's brand of ' years of neglect' is better than National's? Nice whatabboutism though.

10
up

Brisket.
They have a lot bigger issues than houseing to deal with and Jacinda and GR can't cover that many basses by themselves. They simply do not have people that can do anything productively but stick with the beat sex and race diversity for the job tops the best person for the job.
There is no way Labour will handle the economy fall out this term and win again.

To be fair it was Key and a couple of others really,Joyce from accounts(minister for everything as he was called) and gentleman Bill English.
The Nats new housing spokesperson made a very poor showing on the AM show recently,showing she had no idea,getting pulled up for saying that the Nats built 30,000 odd state houses when last in power.It's fair to say in most parties,the well isn't very deep.
Labour seem to have successfully dealt with mycoplasma bovis,David Parker had previous business experience in the agri-tech sector including Blis technologies and was part of the formative years of A2 milk,NZ's 2nd largest company,so I think they have a credible crew and will be all the better for 'having had a run'...

Those figures on mbovis are massaged. Let me explain. MPI totally control the number of currently infected properties. Which stands at 4. Usually its between 20 to 30.
So what happens is this:
You buy in some stock. Months later you get a call to say your stock have come from a suspect property. Now you sit and wait. You can forward sell stock. ( which of course moves contacts to other farms)
You wait until MPI decides it wants to test your stock. Currently there are about 170 farms waiting to be tested, and 54 surveillance properties or vice versa. Look up mpi bovis site for the numbers. So literally there are well over 200 farms sitting waiting for testing or in the middle of tests. My cousin got called about some suspect cows he bought last year. He was told it was months before he would be tested. He was crook and went begging that the stress of waiting was too much for him and his family. They wouldnt test. So he killed them. He told MPI they had been run separately to the main herd (wink wink) He runs a 1000 cow farm. Imagine waiting months to sort that. With calves to sell for the season.
We also bought some stock that were suspect. I know personally that animals from that same farm went to many other farms that were not phoned and shutdown. Never tested. As my friend was one.
Mycoplasma bovis has not been successfully dealt with on farm. It has been successfully dealt with in the media battle.

Belle, how did Bovis get into the country? And whom is paying for the cattle slaughtered ( over 1k per head) back to the farmers who seem to be not in any way affected, but rather free to carry on BAU. A lot of townies are paying that's who.

The powers that be dont know. Or are not telling. I understand there are many theories. One strong one is it came in with frozen cattle semen from one of the major companies. Another theory is it was always here. But that seems a little suss. I think you will find us cattle farmers pay enough tax to cover it. As well as the extra we are paying in our kill charges. The meat is not dumped so there is some value to be gained from the slaughter of these animals. If you are beef farming you can retain your animals till they are fat. So there are no losses there now.

I'm surprised you're not aware that the "smoking gun" was the family friend of the van Leuwns that imported straws from a known MB hotspot (Holland) illegally and didn't declare them. Said "friend" refused to cooperate with the Southland vet that raised the alarm, sold up to the van Leuwns and left the country.

Yes I am aware of that gossip. But I would not repeat it.

I'm not too sure it's gossip Belle. There were multiple articles in FW and Rural News documenting quite convincingly the smoke trail.

I have since read in those same papers the alternate stories. I dont think it matters. We will probably have further incursions Hook.

Belle,Your post inadvertently underlined the core problem with the MB response. It was farmers lazy and lackadaisical reporting via NAIT that caused most of the delays, if not all of them. There are far too many farmers STILL that think "she'll be right". It's pretty infuriating to find animals still registered to my NAIT # that I sold 7 years ago purely because some slackbladder farmer didn't complete their end of the movement transaction. The sooner some in the farming community get with the programme the better for all concerned.

I would agree there have been farmers that have been hapless. Ok worse than hapless. But my argument is that MPI have had holes in their cunning plan a helluva lot bigger than a weasel. And their cunning plan is to fudge the current detail so the pollies and their kin the bureaucrats are off the hook during this election. You can say look here, in the meantime ignoring whats over there Hook. But I am not falling for it.

It is true MPI have had several failings in the MB response. In my view the biggest one was not alerting farmers via NAIT which farms were under surveillance. At least then other farmers would have known which properties to refuse animals from. Using NAIT would have kept the info reasonably restricted to only potentially affected people i.e. other stakeholders

(wink wink)

Why not just say: (a lie)

Does (wink wink) somehow make it morally acceptable?

What I was trying to explain Kate is the huge holes in the system. By fair or foul means. And for MPI and the government to claim it is under control is more than likely rubbish. There has been more than ample opportunity for it to be all over New Zealand from Kaitaia to Bluff.

But if it was a National govt hole it would be ok cos they are “on your side” but an identical hole under Labour is evidence of a grand conspiracy against the “stewards of the land”.

Belle wasn't saying anything of the sort. MPIs response was pretty average initially and has staggered subsequently. Your comment is an insult to her and to farmers elsewhere.

Capital gains tax probably back on the table and voted thru. Oh the horror...

At this point I will take a rational, non-partisan CGT (with logical provisions for business disposals after the age of 65 and that capture the family home but at a nominal rate instead of the top marginal rate) over the Green's fantastical on-going wealth transfer from the productive parts of the country to Wellington.

Last 5 polls labour over 50%
Clearly about 10-13% of National support has gone over to Labour since February.
Given that there is only one issue in the world acc to media, and Jacinda achieved what she said she would on that, everything else national tries to hit will fail.
Even economic competence they are behind.
So, game over.
Only question is whether Act and Greens will cree over 5% barrier.
Winston nasty tactics failing, as are Collins'

AND whether the government can keep up their elimination of COVID until the election.

Nice to see all the national supporters on here bleating....

Bleating because the party is garbage, not hiding behind excuses like 'landlines!' or whatever other lazy trash we endured when Labour was pulling these kind of numbers.

I think the last poll will be as good as it gets for the Nats,Collins gave them a little blip initially after Muller due to her name recognition,but people are now remembering why no one liked her in the past,including her own party.
I was interested to see how she would go,all the 'crusher' hype,but in reality she has come across tired and lacking in energy and the campaign has hardly started.To me she comes across as the epitome of a 'Karen'.
You heard it here first....Karen Collins

We'll see. National had a shambolic month, but average voter has very short memories, and the election campaigns have still to kick into high gear. Coalition face an impossible task in defending their failures on everything they've said they would do, and some of that will hit home with voters as election nears. I expect Labour/Greens will win, but will be a lot closer than recent polling suggests, and always possibility of an upset.

All of the traditional justifications for hope - and that's all they are!

National policy: keep wealth as it is, in existing or worse split.
Plus keep on facilitating system that allows top 20% to maintain power and wealth at expense of rest.
Under-invest for 9 years and then whinge when Labour tries to make up for that.
Say we need to spend $31 billion on transport and then say we need to cut spending by $10b over next decade, without increasing tax. Voodoo garbage.
Bash the poor and blame the victim, claim moral high ground whilst wallowing in the sewer
Say government spending is a problem and debt should be 20% of GDP, then wonder why things do not work and society going to pot
Claim you built 30,000 state houses when it was 10% of that and you sold off jus as many
Let in 500,000 people and don't prepare enough infrastructure for them to detriment of those already resident.

Agreed. Nats are just a vote for the status ponzi quo. High bank profits, endless immigration, and sale of NZ sovereign assets to overseas owners. Until they change stance on foreign sales and immigration they are destined to be noise from the opposition benches.

How's all that reform we were promised in the last three years working for you?

Great summary!

A vote for ACT is a vote for National. Even with Act 5 or so MPs will have minimal influence on the Nats. The Nats will still flood the place with immigrants given the chance. The reduction in immigrants has only been due to the Covids. Prior to Covids there was some reduction but not nearly enough. Both Winston First and Labour campaigned for the previous gen election on what I believed to be a sizeable reduction. Little happened.
BE and no housing problem. Big mistake. Even if the media exaggerated it as a crisis it was serious. The Nats together with Akl Council encouraging 200m2+ stand alone houses to be built with one or two smaller in a given new development. Nats would open up to foreign purchases again. Labour and proposed new RMA. Check the introduction of the report. Be very wary and very worried. I was a swing voter in the past election and voted Winston first. Not this time. Other than the referendums, will probably give this election for a party vote a bye, first time in 20 years. Local Nat constituent vote should be a shoo in so won't need my vote.

ACT is just a lap dog party for the extreme right, far gone from the days of Richard Prebble. They will get two less votes this time round.

And lets not ever forget,they are only there because the Nats stand aside and do a deal in Epsom every election,they certainly haven't got where they are the hard way.

I don't think David Seymour has much sympathy for the far right, does he? I.e. fascism?

I think ACT have more to bring to the table than National at present. National needs a good clean out both personally and philosophically. Followed by a time of bringing some policy for all NZers to the table.

Re ACT, it does concern me that they don't walk their talk re libertarian values when it comes to land in Epsom, and more broadly that they are not proposing to wean NZ companies and property investors off social welfare subsidies. There's not a lot Right about that. But they have some other good ideas that are worth having in the discussion.

Act has a strong chance of being over 5% this time. Right wing voters who would otherwise not want to risk chance of a wasted vote in the event of the loss of Epsom will be more willing to let their true preferences be known if they see a National defeat as near certain.

even with the massive media support national are struggling, made me laugh yesterday when jono and ben replaced mike hoskings car with a red labour car for him to drive around in.
heard another person talk to m lush last night as he is national but thinking of voting ACT and hates the green too leftie. when marcus said so you don't want the greens in government , he said no way , ML said well it that case you need to vote labour to govern on there own as its the lessor of two evils and national act are not going to be there, he went right off.
common sense does not come into voting for some, it tribalism, not policies, or what is best outcome for the country
this time I will be voting for the lessor of evils no point wasting my vote, its a case of hold the nose

"Massive media support" that'd be the same media who has managed to hold the government to almost no real scrutiny on delivering policy, but has breathlessly reported on Town Hall speeches and 'Year of Delivery' relaunches, as well as regurgitated the line about going 'hard and early' on Covid19 with almost no actual analysis? Or do you mean the one that spent more time grilling the opposition leader about a hat over a two week period then they have the PM about her missed marks on poverty and housing reform over the entire term? That media?

its bad for both sides we don't have impartial media anymore, we have media with agenda and they are now very open in their support. ie katy Bradford always wearing a green or red jacket, duncan and mark in blue.
I feel for the smaller parties they have no hope of exposure.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/1-news-political-reporter-ka...
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/the-am-show.html

Ardern can't handle hard questions from non-sycophants. Fluff pieces only.
"Ardern is generally considered by media to be the least accessible PM of the last couple of decades - if you’re not an overseas publication, your chances of a serious one on one sit down interview approach zero"
https://twitter.com/BenThomasNZ/status/1288553607256670208

Did you ask Ben how his old mate Matthew is? When will you be starting to put the party authorisation statement on your posts?

Your access to our unique content is free - always has been. But ad revenues are under pressure so we need your direct support.

Become a supporter

Thanks, I'm already a supporter.