Hard News: Metiria's Problem
333 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
linger, in reply to
It also seems perverse to think of punishing the Greens for something Winston First may do.
-
Matthew Hooton knows who green voters are!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11906519
-
Meanwhile, what I would take from the poll result is that the Greens have wasted much of the media recognition they had built up. Metiria was a recognizable public face for the party. The other one (James Shaw?) is not yet as instantly recognizable a media presence. Even if the Greens cannot officially choose a new co-leader yet, they desperately need to have at least one more regular, recognizable, competent spokesperson to fill the media void (and Chloe would seem the most likely choice for that role).
-
warren mac, in reply to
Not to mention that if the Greens do get 5%, and Labour are in a position to form a government with NZF, then I can fully see them being dumped at the instigation of Peters and then pliantly giving that government a free ride on confidence and supply.
I think that's entirely possible. Even the Greens abstaining would get Labour/NZ First across the line. I doubt the Greens would vote against a change of government even though it would be painful to them to sit on the sidelines again.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
I had words to that effect last night with an offsider, though I’m yet to be convinced that Chlöe has the reach that they need right now.
Whether in opposition or otherwise the coherent ethics that The Greens have brought to Parliament would be a huge loss for our country, another notch in neoliberalism’s belt.
Running partners are du jour, the Greens co-leader thing helped promote this in NZ.
.
-
being dumped at the instigation of Peters and then pliantly giving that government a free ride on confidence and supply
Yes, it's possible; after all, it's happened before.
But, what else would you have the Greens do?Peters doesn’t actually have to choose sides at all, of course. in some ways, sitting outside as an independently vocal opposition to a minority government, without any of the concomitant responsibilities of government, might be the best outcome for Peters at this stage in his career.
-
izogi, in reply to
Where do all those NZF supporters go once Winston Peters is eventually gone, anyway? Could the party even survive without him?
-
And this is why polls should be banned.
They are increasingly wrong, both inaccurate, that is they fail to predict the actual result, and imprecise, that is they are so variable that anyone with any statistical experience dismisses them as nonsense.
But they influence voters. So something utterly wrong changes people's votes and that should be banned.
-
linger, in reply to
The second question is much easier: NZF will vanish without Winston, as nobody else on their list has much media exposure or experience in office or even basic competence.
Don't know where NZF supporters would turn next (though I would guess probably slightly more to National than to the Left). -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Even the Greens abstaining would get Labour/NZ First across the line. I doubt the Greens would vote against a change of government even though it would be painful to them to sit on the sidelines again.
And so what? Let's write the reality check, Winston can stomp his little cloven hoof all he likes, but he's not the only game in town. I know there probably isn't enough political spine going spare these days, but Ardern and English could co-ordinate clear signals that if Winston wants to pout his way into a constitutional crisis that's his call. But he doesn't get to unilaterally dictate the shape of New Zealand's government from the back seat.
If he doesn't take the hint, I'm sure voters would richly reward him for triggering a fresh election, or landing us with a minority government nobody's shown much stomach for before.
Again, I know the punditocracy has gone all in on the "Winston King/Queenmaker" storyline. Doesn't mean anyone else has to play along.
. -
mark taslov, in reply to
that time the environment was crashing and burning while you were dancing on the grave of the green party
-
In a truly bizarre overreaction, I/S argues that the Greens should be aggressively pursuing electorate as well as party votes. That would only make any sense if there were at least one electorate that the Greens could hope to gain a plurality in; and it would only make sense within some such electorate(s). Otherwise it's a waste of their resources: if they can't win one electorate as a backup plan, then they absolutely need all the party vote share they can get.
-
warren mac, in reply to
Realpoltik. I'm not a NZ First fan by any stretch In fairness Last time Winston was in (or outside) of Government, he largely behaved himself before shooting himself in the foot. He likes the baubles too much. Plus there was that shafting National gave them in 08, and i'm not sure he wants to prop up a final term government again.
-
linger, in reply to
Exactly. Whatever side of the house the Greens end up sitting on, our Parliament would be a much poorer place without those voices being heard at all. We need them to be there, and that may well mean voting for them.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
-
I do not want either the "let-us-keep-doing-what-we're-doing-and-if-it's-not-working-for-you-well-it-sucks-to-be-you" party or the "you'll-have-to-ask-Winston" party in government.
The Greens' core policies are the only sane ones for the future.
The Greens also have the most impressive top 10 list candidates of any party.
It's kind of an easy choice. -
andin, in reply to
+1
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Realpoltik.
Ah, the fancy way of saying "there is no alternative" when you want to dodge responsibility for the alternative you've already chosen. YMMV, but I think we've got five weeks to not let Ardern and English slide on that one.
-
simon g, in reply to
And this is why polls should be banned.
They are increasingly wrong, both inaccurate, that is they fail to predict the actual result, and imprecise, that is they are so variable that anyone with any statistical experience dismisses them as nonsense.
I can't agree with banning, though I wouldn't mind compulsory courses in Stats 101 for all politics journos. Right on cue, here's breaking news: the Greens' support has doubled!!!111!! In just 24 hours!
Obviously it hasn't. But Roy Morgan now has them at 9%. Except, it's late on a Friday night, and not on telly. So it doesn't count.
-
Is it true pollsters are still using land lines only? I haven't had a one for over 10 years and it wouldn't surprise me at all if land line users were now a minority of voters with a heavy demographic skew.
-
Sacha, in reply to
If you are correct then the actual election result will be significantly different than the polls before it. Let's see.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
This poll which claims to include both landline and mobile has the Greens at 9% which is a whole lot different than 4%.
That said I dislike news reporting of polls - herd mentality and all that.
-
Alfie, in reply to
This poll which claims to include both landline and mobile has the Greens at 9% which is a whole lot different than 4%.
Where are those headlines proclaiming, "Greens more than double their vote"?
-
The polling period matters. I'm not sure (I've seen contradictory information) but I think the Roy Morgan poll includes earlier sampling than the Colmar Brunton poll does. Which might mean the trend is down not up. I'm hoping the CB poll is an outlier, but the next polls will be interesting.
-
andin, in reply to
Postponed. The pale stale males are still beating up on Metiria, including a very silly column by Garner. What do Tuku Morgans underpants have to do with anything anymore. Christ on a stick, get down from that high horse would ya!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.