Polls give parties whiff of a battle
Unlike some folk in the blogosphere who are confidently predicting a National victory on the basis of one poll, MP's and candidates from both major Parties in East Auckland are taking nothing for granted this election...
Todays H & P Times:
By KAINE HENDERSON
“POLLS are like perfume – they’re delicious to smell, dangerous to swallow”.
Manukau East Labour MP Ross Robertson’s comment follows National leading the polls with 40.1 per cent support this week.
“Only one poll counts and that is election day,” Mr Robertson said. “However there is a trend there and that is of concern. We will work hard and I’m confident we can pull it back.”
Mr Robertson said people are judging performance.
“I still believe Helen Clark is a more commanding leader than others on offer. She’s articulate, smart and savvy.”
Pakuranga National MP Maurice Williamson is excited by recent polls, but cautious.
“It is a slight lead [Labour on 36.2 per cent] and our biggest enemies are arrogance and complacency. We have to keep up the momentum and put our case to the public.”
He said it’s a vast improvement to three years ago when National plummeted to 21 per cent.
“Last time we weren’t even on the same paddock. We didn’t even know when the game was on.”
Colleague, Clevedon MP Judith Collins shared the same view.“Polls look good but you can’t get too cocky.”
Pakuranga Labour candidate Michael Wood suggested this year’s election will be close.
“This returns New Zealand to a more normal state of affairs after the historic weakness of National in recent years. It also reminds political parties that no voter should be taken for granted.”
In light of polls, Mr Wood said his campaign team is working harder.
“Our door knocking team has already covered as many houses as we reached during the entire 2002 campaign and we are escalating a programme of stalls, community group contact and cottage meetings.”
20 comments:
Whatever Michael - We can confidently predict that you won't make it. You need a massive swing to Labour - Momentum and sentiment are against you. Your leadership have betrayed your sterling efforts.
which is it spooksy? Honesty or too many lies :-P
i don't think Michael is under any illusions that he is heading to Wellington come September TR, really you take everything so seriously! chill out!
A "massive" swing?
Lets take the average results of the last five polls (TV1 TV3 SSTimes Fairfax
Digipoll - last NBR a month old, a bit long in the tooth)
Labour 39
Greens 5
Maori 2 (and I'll think they'll get a seat to get in, and they might get overhangs)
This adds to 46%, and the Progressives might get 1% or at the very least Anderton will get one overhang seat
On the other side
National 39
NZ First 10
Act 2 (misses threshold, a wasted vote)
This adds to an effective 49%
So 46-49 (out of the 97% of votes that count),with UF either choosing the biggest party or if it doesn't have the balance of power, probably swinging to where the majority already is.
How far are Labour, the Greens,the Progressive and the Maori away from stopping National, given the anticipated overhang seat or two or three? A distance somewhat shorter than the National manifesto is deep, and that's saying something....mind you, the sight of National being dependent on the Maori to enter government would be a site to behold....
...and who says Winston would carry National in?
Maurice of all people warning against complacency! Now that is a laugh....
Anon - you never read carefully. I said Mikey needs a massive swing - I stand by my post. He is wasting his time trying the greasy pole of national politics.
Not just one poll as of this morning Mikey...
the only thing you are proving spooksy is that you have no sense of humour ;-)
Statistics New Zealand's latest Household Economic Survey has shown a 5.3% increase in the incomes of the middle 60% of hosueholds after tax and inflation between 2001 and 2004.
In addition National Super has been secured for the future, tertiary fees kept steady and access to student allowances widened, doctor's fees widely lowered, etc, etc....and unions given a half decent chance to negotiate pay increases, pay increases rather more important than tax cuts of course
You should be pissed off too spanner in the works - being robbed blind.By a silent robber - Dr Cullen. I am with Spooks. Doesn't any of this make you wonder? One minute Dr Cullen is trumpeting surpluses as evidence of his great stewardship; then when people start saying the government is taking too much of my hard earned cash , the surpluses disappear and Dr Cullen becomes the best (and only) person to be entrusted with spending tax dollars. Finally, there is a clamour for tax cuts. "Tax cuts" get traction with all parties bar Cullen, who has said the cupboard is bare...; Cullen changes tack again and "finds" a $500Million windfall one month after delivering his budget. That is why the electorate wants change - they are sick of the dissembling, sophistry and mendaciousness of Dr Cullen and Steve Maharey.
Too Right is with spooks on tax cuts. What a surprise.
This sort of frustration often arises when somebody wants an election they think their side could win held tomorrow, and then realises the bloody thing is still about two and a half months away!
So much water still to flow.....
Spooks, you do realise that most OECD countries have a higher overall tax burden that NZ, and at a more basic level, higher rates of personal taxation???
Australia for instance has marginal rates of 42% and 49% (well above our 39%), and a host of other taxes such as stamp duty, medicare levy, and capital gains on top of that - none of which we have.
If you want to talk about honesty, actually put forward the facts on tax, not vague assertions.
Spooks, what would you think of a tax cut in the shape of having no tax payable on say, the first $3 000 of income?
It is of greatest help to low-income earners. It is Green, United and, according to the Herald this morning, Maori Party policy....
A couple of comments:
1) If people are leaving for overseas in a sustained way for a better standard of living (which I'm not convinced of, but anyway...), and we have established that places like Australia actually have higher tax, then what is providing that higher standard of living? Well in Australia it's more centralised wage bargaining, higher union membership, better statutory minimum conditions, and a system of family support more generous than working for families... good policies I agree.
2) If there was the fiscal room for tax cuts, and there were not dozens of pressing needs for investment in health, education, transport... then I agree with anon, the best place to have a tax cut would be on the first $X000 earned. It's obviously the best way to target assistance to the lower paid through tax cuts, albeit far less effective than a package like Working for Families which will give the average working family with kids around $100 a week more.
You're referring to provisions preventing 'free-loading' - where the improved wages and conditions negotiated by unions at their members' expense, improvements which would not have been made had the union not been around, are then passed by the employer on to non-union members. It is a tactic engaged in by employers to weaken the unions over the long term by making it look as if workers don't need unions to get improvements, when in fact they do. Unionised workforces on the whole are higher paid - and higher pay beats tax cuts any day.
It is fair. If a worker wants the improvements only the collective action of the unions could have brought them, they should pay for the upkeep of the union.
The evidence is irrefutable that unionised workforces are more highly paid than non-unionised workforces. That's a completely non-arrogant statement of fact.
No-one's been forced to join a union here - they just can't free-ride on the back of the union.
I didn't make any comment about good faith bargaining - though individual employees are more vulnerable to a lack of it, there's no doubt about that.
There is nothing stopping an individual negotiating a higher salary, etc... than the collective - it will just be highly unusual because workers on their own are weaker than workers united.
You obviously wouldn't mind two individuals negotiating different wages and conditions for themselves in the same firm - why do you mind such differences across collective and individual contracts? What's the difference? No-one's forced to join the union -they just can't free-ride off its work.
If you paid an employment lawyer or bargaining agent to use their expertise to negotiate a better deal for you and then found the employer gave a colleague the same deal without them having to so pay, how would you feel? They - the colleague - would be free-riding.
Yes, you do appear to be stumped, don't you......
Spooks:
a) non unionists must be paid less than unionists.
Bullshit. That's not an argument and not a fact. That's an ill-informed presumption, based on what is probably an outsider's view of a union.
b) unionists get their union fees reimbursed, and extra bonuses in the Public Service.
Bullshit again. I don't get my union fees reimbursed.
c) unionists get union leave time off work.
True. Sorry, this is bad? Ah, that's right. You don't actually know what the fuck they do when on 'union leave', do you? Provision of leadership skills, negotiating skills, bargaining skills, communication skills, the last of which comes in very handy when dealing with people not unlike yourself.
d) ~
I assume your point there is something to do with the advertising decisions of the CTU and other unions. Whoopee. I hear that Don Brash was(is?) to speak at a gathering of the EMA in Auckland recently(shortly). Oooh, those slimy capitalists. I always knew they were in with the National Party.
Wow, it seems to happen on both sides of the spectrum? I'd never have thought...
I put it to you spooks, that you comment on unions having never been a member of one. I also allege that you are prone to regurgitating the same old boring fantasies about unions, and that when presented with facts to the contrary, you try to deny that any of it is true.
Oh and, 'WE voters are onto you'?? You're as deluded as you are ignorant.
look nice interesting blog -
[url=http://trailfire.com/adipex] adipex cheapest price [/url]
http://trailfire.com/adipex
[url=http://trailfire.com/adipex] adipex cheap [/url]
Post a Comment