I read that article closer to when he wrote it and it makes some sense. Australia snagged me when I lived there for a couple of years and signed up to a power company. I've been a dual citizen most of my life, so they forced me to vote. I tried my best to understand the issues, I read about and ranked every one of the 35 candidates for the municipality which was the rectangle of residential houses in Melbourne where I spent 8 hours each night... but it felt really stupid and meaningless because I knew I didn't understand the issues and also I didn't feel especially connected to them. I shifted back to NZ a couple of weeks before a federal election, and removing myself from the Australian electoral roll was my first action after waking up on my first morning back.
But re Danyl's article, I'm still unclear on whether the recent-immigrants and expats explanation fully explains the large number of young people who've not even enrolled. Are these recent immigrants and expats all young people?
I'm not meaning to suggest there's likely to be any sort of youth-quake. Everything about elections always seems to be much much harder than politicians and enthusiastic supporters like to pretend or expect. Getting a party started. Getting people to notice you when they're more interested in their own lives. Getting people to take you seriously. Getting people to agree with you. Getting people to turn out and vote. Expecting that if people bothered to vote, that they'd actually want to vote for you!
All this stuff is really really hard, and often what shows up rapidly also falls over easily. Assuming TOP doesn't reach parliament, I'll be interested if it sticks around and continues to work on building a solid reputation, or if it goes the way of the Internet Party.
Are these recent immigrants and expats all young people?
Nah, though both groups will skew younger than the average; the important thing is they outnumber the unregistered youth, which we need to bear in mind when considering who's not voting. Danyl’s argument specifically about age was that youth participation is generally lower everywhere, and NZ’s youth voting rate is already at the level Corbyn encouraged in the UK.
Policy proposal for next election (any party welcome to adopt it):
"We will make tertiary education completely free, but only if 90% of under-30s enrol."
I mean, 68%, come on, put down your Walkman (check this reference - Ed) and get cracking.
*shakes zimmer frame at passing young person*
I'd not been aware that advance voting stations doubled as enrolment stations. Is it meant to be all of them?
The article is also quite vague on detail and lacking conviction about how serious it is or isn't considered to be, but Labour seems to be saying that some unenrolled voters are being turned away from advance voting booths.
They're certainly not being turned away from ours, we've been steadily enrolling people. And yes, you can enrol at any advance booth, before Saturday.
I have to say, I’m not that convinced by elements of Danyl’s analysis there. I don’t think it’s actually the case that NZ and UK Labour’s tertiary fees policies are “very similar.” Corbyn offered current students the concrete material benefit of not paying any fees for the coming academic year, with a total abolition kicking in from October 2018. NZ Labour’s policy won’t actually bed in fully until 2024, meaning its first full beneficiaries are currently about 11. And even then, it will only pay 3 years of tertiary education. I can’t really see the logic of charging fees for graduate and postgraduate degrees (which is often where the really significant “value added” of tertiary education starts to accrue), or the final years of conjoint degrees, or the clinical or practice years of longer courses like medicine or law. Just get rid of the failed fees regime altogether. There’s no rationale for keeping it under any circumstances.
So I can understand why NZ students’ response to the policy might be more lukewarm than those of students in the U.K. They’re not being offered anything like the same benefits.
Similarly, I don’t think NZ First and UKIP are equivalents. It’s still unclear what UKIP is, or was, exactly. A racist revanchist party? Grubby opportunists? A cult of personality built around the media image of one man? A pure protest vote? All of the above? NZ First, at least, has seen power and we know pretty much what it is: a cult of personality, yes, but also a kind of reheated Muldoonism. Not really much like UKIP at all.
Looks like the latest Colmar Brunton poll has confirmed the prior Reid Research poll: a lead reversal back to National by a large margin and partial deflation of the Ardern effect bubble. My take is that publicising the Labour `make it up as you go along' tax policy has worked for the Nats big time. Labour has not offered any excuse to the public to explain why nine years of opposition isn't ample time to design a credible economic policy - they just keep dodging the question. The Nats just needed to point this out to floating voters to deflate the bubble.
Undecideds are back up to 14% apparently, so the volatility factor is predominant now. Greens back up to 8%. NZ First down to 5% is a surprise - tempting to see it as a rejection of Winston's refusal to signal his coalition preference to voters. The final poll comes out tonight (newshub).
My take is that publicising the Labour `make it up as you go along' tax policy has worked for the Nats big time. Labour has not offered any excuse to the public to explain why nine years of opposition isn't ample time to design a credible economic policy - they just keep dodging the question. The Nats just needed to point this out to floating voters to deflate the bubble.
And this is why they lie. If that is your "take" after all the evidence, then lying works, and next time they will lie some more.
Undecideds are back up to 14% apparently
Is this possibly just an effect of polling companies only polling people who haven't already voted? ie. There might be the same number of undecideds as there were before, but decided voters have been puling out of the sample population whereas undecideds probably haven't. (After election day, I guess undecideds become 100%.) Or do polling companies weight their results for this?
I’m not sure why neither National or Labour aren’t looking at an enquiry into the building industry.
It’s all very well to make promises about building more houses and blame foreign students and speculators – the easily targeted faceless enemy – but the reality is of a building industry that has serious problems.
Only 15% of problem buildings have so far been identified – there’s a lot more wealth and security yet to be destroyed.
And the reasons for this have not been addressed which means this will be with us for quite sometime and will cause havoc in any plans for affordable housing.
And this is why they lie.
There were at least three blatant lies (all repeated when challenged) in last night's leaders debate: Labour raising income tax (they aren't, and under Bill's logic if the Nats need Winston in government the Nats will be raising income taxes too), Labour's $11.7B fiscal hole, and Bill's absolute constitutional right as the incumbent to get to try to form a government first (even a minority government?). You can bet Bill knows better on all three questions.
Before he became PM Bill had a reputation for integrity but he appears to have cast that aside this year (starting with his duplicity over the Todd Barclay saga I think).
I've been wondering along a variant of the same lines as Izogi. With a massive amount of early voting (voters who then, as I understand it, can't legally be polled) wouldn't that have the potential to massively skew the opinion polls if this early voting was inclined disproportionately to one party?
For example, if (as we're told) Labour voters are particularly fired up now, then isn't it possible that their keeness means they're voting early in higher numbers than supporters of other parties. Because these early Labour voters would then be excluded from opinion polls, then the polls would record this as a *drop* in Labour support (since the remaining pool of voters available for polling would be skewed disproportionately away from Labour) --
even though the opposite is true?
All hypothetical of course, but I wonder what pollsters do to account for such an obvious (though not necessarily likely) possibility that would make a nonsense of their polling?
Bill had a reputation for integrity
In a double-Dipton “within the letter of the law we rewrote to make it legal” kind of way. And relative to other National ministers, which sets a low bar for comparison.
I would have liked Jacinda to put him on the spot, to counter-attack from left field (sic).
e.g. on the inevitable which-way-Winston questions, she could say:
"As Prime Minister, I want to bring people together, not drive them apart. So I can tell you now: there will be no referendum on the Maori seats. I would rather be in opposition than preside over a destructive, divisive conflict that will hurt us all and achieve nothing. How about you, Bill?"
In fact, I think she would be telling the truth. She has time on her side and could lead a Winston-less government next time, if not this time. But even if she was insincere, she'd be making English look waffle-weak ("Er ... won't negotiate in the media") or he'd have to commit one way or t'other, both bad options for National's base.
I know, I'm armchair strategising, which is easy,but still: it has been frustrating to watch. Defending against lies is incredibly difficult, counter-attacking to change the discussion is a better option. She hasn't been great at that.
early Labour voters would then be excluded from opinion polls, then the polls would record this as a *drop* in Labour support (since the remaining pool of voters available for polling would be skewed disproportionately away from Labour)
Both of you are onto something with this. I bet the polling companies aren't adjusting their methodology to compensate for the skewing effect of early voting - due to the relative novelty of the option. Mainstream media ought to be pointing out the likelihood of the skewing effect, to put pressure on polling companies to redesign their polling technique. If the actual vote tally contradicts the current big National margin over Labour, your critique will seem robust.
If I were writing the initial screening question, it would be something like
“Do you intend voting in the New Zealand general election on Sept 23?”
which excludes at one stroke those who have already voted, and those who won’t be voting at all.
Can anybody who has been polled confirm whether some such screen is being applied?
Or even, are you enrolled to vote this year?
That might also be asked, but doesn't exclude the advance voters.
“Do you intend voting in the New Zealand general election on Sept 23?”
I was polled by curia last night, and they didn't ask anything of the sort.
And it being Curia - polling privately, I assume, for National's strategists/Stephen Joyce - I lied my face off. 5 or 6 minutes of my time were NOT going to be freely gifted to help inform National.
I was polite and friendly, and so was the caller. It felt odd to be amicably lying heartily, but remorse? - not a scrap :)
For example, if (as we're told) Labour voters are particularly fired up now, then isn't it possible that their keeness means they're voting early in higher numbers than supporters of other parties. Because these early Labour voters would then be excluded from opinion polls, then the polls would record this as a *drop* in Labour support
Will the final results be divided into early vote counts versus election day vote counts? It could be a very interesting comparison if it's legal.
TV3 Reid Research poll *6pm tonight* might show a new late swing**- stay tuned
Do we know if CB changed their "modelling"? I know they've said they didn't change their "sampling" before their last poll. But if they kept to the same electorate model then there really has been a big shift since the tax bullshit hit the fan, and Reid picked it up sooner than CB.
If TV3 Reid Research Poll sampling is correct
What we are seeing is a new late swing to the minor parties -Greens up 2.2% and NZF up 1.1%
decline for National since last week poll -1.1% , slighter decline for Labour – 0.5%
Greens and NZF are getting some votes back from the major parties.
1.4% difference between National and Labour and Green.
Differences of less than the margin of error should not be called a swing.
Basically, we won’t know the result until after Saturday (and that’s all that poll says). Time to stop speculating and start voting if you haven’t already done so.
Politik say they have seen National's internal polling which indicate a 1% lead to the left bloc and softening of the National vote.
My bones tell me the National scare campaign worked right up until Bill English jumped the shark on the whole slaughter the dairy herd thing and the media started calling National's advertisments straight out lies.
I am going to make my call - A Labour-Green 62 seat win on the back of a late swing to Labour.