NBR poll
The National Business Review has a poll this morning. It has good news for National and the Greens, and bad news for Labour and Act. The results are as follows:
National: 39% (+1)
Labour: 35% (-2)
NZ First: 10% (-2)
Greens: 9% (+4)
United: 2.4% (+0.5)
Maori: 1.5% (-0.5)
Act: 1.3% (-1.3)
Assuming the Maori Party wins 5 electorate seats and Anderton and Dunne win their electorate seats, this gives us the f0llowing make-up of Parliament:
Conservative parties
National: 48
NZ First: 12
TOTAL: 60 seatsProgressive parties
Labour: 44
Greens: 11
Progressive: 1
TOTAL: 56 seatsSwingers
United: 3 seats
Maori Party: 5 seats
So, a National-NZ First-United government would have the numbers to govern according to this poll, with 63 seats in a 124-seat Parliament. Indeed, a very tight election awaits us, but certainly Labour is now behind National, and our progressive forces are behind Brash and Peters’ conservative double act.
A comeback is needed. There’s some hope in the poll’s finding that 54% believe New Zealand is on the right track, and 38% on the wrong track. This suggests that the support National has won from Labour in the last few months may well be soft and a concentration on the overall direction of the country, and Labour’s economic record, may bring the advantage back to the Government.
This poll is very good news for the Greens, however. I’ve looked back at the NBR’s poll results since August 1998. Today’s figure is the second-best result the Greens have recorded in this poll over that whole period. The only other result at 9% or over was 9.2% in December 2002.
All of which makes the National Business Review, rabidly anti-Green, very unhappy. Writes Nick Bryant:
Desperate times call for desperate measures, another example of which is the Greens’ ranting over Zimbabwe. I thought the party’s name meant it was the nation’s environmental conscience.
Clearly, given that peak oil is so not the new genetically modified, it figures there’s some runs to rack up as the nation’s moral conscience too.
Sport and politics is so damn tricky, and only a party with nothing to lose, like a minor party full of loudmouths, can afford to paint and issue as simpler than this.
I particularly enjoyed that last sentence. Loudmouth? Painting an issue as simpler than it is? I actually think that’s a pretty accurate description of the National Business Review’s editorial style. Loudmouth. Polarising. Rabid. Clearly, we’re in good company 
July 1st, 2005 at 12:09 pm
I disagree. This is nothing but BAD news for the greens. Yes, our numbers are increased, but at the expense of our chief ally, and our prospects of having any say in the next government are diminishing with every taxpayer who decides that the time has come to vote their pocketbook. Which is something I’d be inclined to do if I weren’t so concerned about my children’s children’s world.
In a way this is similar to having Nader claiming that his showing in the 2000 election in the USA was a great win for the Green party there. Some win that was… We got both the war in Iraq and drilling in ANWR ! Winning is REQUIRED if our views are to be part of what happens in NZ in the next term, and we aren’t winning unless our numbers plus labours are greater than the forces arrayed against us.
That isn’t looking so flash hot now… and that makes it bad news. It isn’t our “fault” , and there is little WE can do about it, but we have to cooperate as much as possible in the struggle for mindshare in NZ that we need to govern. Which means trying to make Labour look good. Which is damned difficult these days.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2005 at 12:39 pm
NRB has got it pretty much right. The Greens do not have any one big issue this time round. Peak oil scare mongering isn’t getting any traction. So know the Greens are trying to relive the ’80s over the cricket tour. The only problem is is that the situation is differnent in many ways. This issue is actually more complex than the Greens make out. Again the Greens are yelling at eveyone “agree with us or you’re all supporters of evil”.
Many people are unhappy with the tour and have genuine concern for what is happening in Zimbabwe but are not blindly convinced that making the cricketers’ life a misery is going to help matters. The Greens are cynically using the plight of other people to try and bolster their re-election prospects and at the same time undermine Labour. Just like last election.
July 1st, 2005 at 12:52 pm
chip correct .. your 9 per cent same use as ours 1%.
we knows we in trouble if it keeps up .. you need to figure in ACT Epsom, and whatever other nunber you think .. but if we taken out we leave NZ to you and bwash .. . yous be able to advertise no rivers left at allnext time
July 1st, 2005 at 1:12 pm
bj..how can 9% be bad…what rubs your back..? 5.5%..?
your thesis on green good=labour bad is also somewhat flawed…
if the greens were up for grabs a la united you would have a point..
but the greens (for better or worse) have made clear they will only coalesce with other progressive parties..so..your point..?
(btw comparing nader under fpp and greens under mmp is apples and oranges..eh..?..)
i fully expect some greeny labour people to give their party votes to us..because to do so is safe for them..
i also expect that when the penny drops for those current nz first supporters with deep labour roots that a vote for peters will be a vote for the trans-generationaly hated national, that his support will soften, and some of that will come to us..
(it is worthwhile remembering that when peters went with national last time that 70% of those who actually voted for him, did so with the expectation he would go with labour..we have to make sure he can’t pull that scam again..constant repetition of the progressive/conservative mantra should do it..)
we’ll also get some green nats when it becomes clearer nearer the election that their other choice is peters/henare/brash/mc cully/brownlee et al…
the prospect of that toxic mix (the peters factor esp..) running things will send some of them to us as well..
also, i don’t buy into the thesis that all national party supporters are environmental visigoths..)
i am pleased we are on 9% now, but i am not surprised…i expect that to grow…
(disclaimer: i do have a wager with a rightie on a rightwing blog (hello proph)..
if the greens crack 10% he will send his gulfstream v to collect me..and we shall each consume 5 containers of black beer in a suitably salubrious environment..so..go greens!..i say..)
all in all, it’s turning out to be a cracker of an election….eh?..certainly ain’t boring..
phil(whoar.co.nz
July 1st, 2005 at 1:19 pm
BJ: I entirely agree with you that the Greens doing well while Labour goes down the gurgler would not be a good thing. However, most pundits seem to be suggesting that Labour has been bleeding support to National (over tax) and NZ First (among old people) not to the Greens. My guess is that the Greens are picking up some support from undecideds and people who would usually not vote, though it’s impossible to tell. This is just one poll. The Greens wish Labour well in regaining the ascendancy over National and NZ First among those group of voters. Our ideal result in September is Labour and the Greens getting 50%+ support between our two parties.
Sock thief: The Greens are not yelling “agree with us or you’re supporters of evil”. Since April, we have been arguing forcefully that NZ should not have sporting ties with Zimbabwe. Labour and now National have come around to our point of view. Nor are we trying to make the cricketers’ lives a misery. In almost every press statement Rod makes about the cricketers, he emphasises that he understands they face a very difficult decision, and are between a rock and a hard place. This is all about getting the right outcome, not making sportspeople’s lives a misery. And, as for the complexity of the issue, I would invite you to read everything Rod has said on the issue and I have written on the issue and then point to another political party that has displayed a better understanding of the complexities of the issues involved. I don’t think you’ll find one. Also, the suggestion that the Greens need a single big issue like GE to do well at general elections is completely disproved by the histoircal record. In the 1990, the Greens were the third highest polling party, with about 7% of the vote nationally, and that was even before GE was thought of. We’ve never been a single-issue party, we have a broad range of issues we’re passionate about, no matter how much some in the media might like to convince you otherwise.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:27 pm
BJ, look at the change. Labour: -2, Greens: +4, being a net change of: +2. Nat and NZF on the other hand have a net of -1. Maybe the left is still the underdog, but the current change sounds good to me.
July 1st, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Phil - I didn’t mean to say labour was bad, just that they have to pull their thumb out and get their message out. It seems they’re on the back foot and if they lose we lose. I don’t understand your point about greens being up for grabs. Why would that be necessary? I suppose I don’t count, but I came here instead of going to labour… personal bias creeps in.
The gist of the Nader comparison was only to the extent that we can do better but STILL lose if labour does worse. The situations aren’t that similar, because a vote for Green or a vote for Labour here is still counted to get to the 50% that gives you government, the US doesn’t work that way and all Nader did with his good showing in Florida in 2000 was to pave the highway into Baghdad and the ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Reserve). It isn’t something I celebrate. He did better, but still lost.
Frog, I have to believe you, the people who are shifting to National and ACT are doing so for the reasons you point out. I would have to quibble however, that the ideal result would be far more than a mere 50% between our two parties
How do we get there?
Paul - I celebrate a trend when it puts me in positive territory, but you have a point. I wasn’t watching the trend numbers.
Greens aren’t single issue, but we’ve got problems in the mainstream perception of our positions. Labour has even worse problems at present. That “hip-hop” business is going to be remembered.
For instance - I read the “Eco-Tax” policy, and it’s nice enough but it is also a radical enough change as to require a LOT more fleshing out. The transition to the new tax regime, and detailed estimates of the numbers backing a credible and economically survivable transition to the new system. At present it is a castle in the air, it needs a foundation built under it and a road to the front gate.
I also have searched in vain for a defense policy. We have a peace policy, but nothing that speaks to the issues of self-defense. This is something that immediately drives a wedge between us and the mainstream. Polling above 10% will take a far more thorough effort to provide a design for responsible government.
Consider our Immigration policy? I wish I could.
Perhaps we could take the bits where we agree with Labour and link with them on this issue or that. I suspect that to some extent that is what we do internally when we think about it, which is why we have no stated policy for stuff where they’ve already done pretty much as we’d hope they would and/or we don’t have a “passionate” opinion at all.
Doesn’t work in the mainstream though. Government is for everyone.
respectfully
BJ
July 1st, 2005 at 7:03 pm
I’ve always maintained that the natural Green sympathetic constituency is about 15% nationwide, and that after the 20% [who don’t understand MMP] who vote electorate geen are discounted, the best to expect is 12%.
Take away the 50% of that group who waver whenever Labour attacks Green, and the core Green vote is really 6%. Currently, Labour isn’t publicly attacking Green, so the waverers hold steady to Green. However, we only need to remember the rabid look in the PM’s eye when cornered by Campbell in 2002, to realize that if Labour thinks it’ll go down the gurgler, it’ll happily take Green down with it by another rabid attack that shakes the waverers.
The key problem Green has is that its range of policies are seen as fantastic by 6%, and only plausible [if other things are fine] by another 6%, whilst the remaining 3% are wasted.
To climb out of the 6% and secure the other 6%, Greens have to move beyond the environment, social justice and transport issues. Inherent flaws in Green campaign thinking are an inability to offer sensible solutions to issues that affect everybody, not just the converted.
Tax reform, aged care, international trade, sports funding, community group funding, jobs, home mortgages, immigration, and retirement savings are some of the key issues which Greens ignore.
Why? Because Greens refuse to recognize the ‘baby boomer’ vote and refuse to understand that voters don’t wish to be lectured at or told what’s wrong with their attitudes and behavior all the time [Green press releases always say what’s wrong, or accentuate the negative or sound like a parent reprimanding a child] and voters pick up the sub-text that they’re ‘bad’, ‘not doing enough’ and, naturally, ignore the messenger [Green].
Baby boomer voters are ones who will go out to vote, and who have a memory of the Labour, National and NZ First legacy of lies, Progressive pomposity, Dunne before being saved by the worm, and have seen ACT’s come and go [remember Bob Jones?].
So Green has 11 weeks in which to release and communicate some sensible policies affecting baby boomers, change its overall attitude from the negative to the positive, avoid hectoring voters, and demonstrate its ability to become relevant to their daily lives.
Otherwise, look forward to a National-NZ First coalition, a rabid attack from a loony Labour out of left wing in the final week, and watch the 6% extra possible Green vote disappear like a puff of magic. Get it right though, and Greens are looking at 12%. Entirely possible if even the right leaning NBR poll has Green at 9% this close to the election.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Frog,
Perhaps the NBR is anti-Greens because the Greens are anti-Business??
July 2nd, 2005 at 10:01 am
Greens are more than a single issue group, but the issues we find important are issues that the average voter thinks are comfortably distant in the future. DR has it right. Where we have no policies we have our own loons who create the perception of policy.
Do we stand with labour on immigration? If so we should say so. Do we stand with labour on defense? If so we should say so. Reflect, copy and link to policies that we can accept as reasonable and that don’t affect our core issues.
Greens also have to rectify the “anti-business” perception of the mainstream AND of business itself. That may not be the reality, but it is most assuredly the perception.
Finally Greens have to recognize the middle-class Pakeha is just as essential to NZ as the Maori, and MAKE SURE THEY KNOW IT. The positioning of the party makes it really difficult for people like me to join without feeling a bit like we’re committing an elaborate form of suicide.
The treaty is a document that divides us by race even as it unites us under the Queen. That is a FUNDAMENTAL construction, and it causes us all manner of difficulty because it is also vague and impossible to interpret without an army of lawyers and linguists. It interferes with every blessed thing the government does even when everyone agrees. NZ needs a constitution that recognizes that issue and establishes a mechanism of government that implements the treaty directly… such that NO further need of the tribunals and lawyers should exist.
The Treaty as it stands now makes Maori and Pakeha adversaries in court, not citizens working together for the mutual benefit of all Kiwis. That has to change, and we Greens should be doing more than cheerleading for one side in the court battles.
respectfully
BJ
July 2nd, 2005 at 6:37 pm
Greetings from your Green friends in the Reform Party of Gibraltar (Europe). We’ve taken this unusual step of trying to contact NZ Greens via this log because our contacts to your main party HQ go unanswered.
We often view your website and feel there is much in common between our ‘world views’.
We’d like to hear from Greens in Aotoroa/NZ !
Yours,
RP(G) http://www.reformpartygib.com info@reformpartygib.com
July 3rd, 2005 at 7:06 pm
hello greens of gibralter..if they won’t talk to you (they are very picky..and whatever you do..don’t criticise/critique them..the poor luvvies are a bit sensitive/precious about anything like that..and tend to sulk..:)
but i’m a vegan/animal rights sorta greenie..of a decade or so experience in the nz greens..and i run a news-site (whoar.co.nz), that covers local and international green and other issues..and has a facility for chat..so, come on over..pull up a keyboard..pour yourself an organic/vegan black beer..and we’ll get down to it..:)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 4th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
If only it were that easy, bjchip, the Greens could be like Winston or Peter Dunhill and make policy on the fly because it is politically expedient. But one of the Green Party’s fundamental charter principles is appropriate decision-making. This means that all the membership of the Party has a right to be involved in policymaking. So the Greens cannot just leave it to Rod, Jeanette or whoever to make an immigration policy like Winston does.
And, as a Party of diversity, there are bound to be diverse views on immigration, that need to be reconciled into a policy that all Party members can live with. And, the even bigger question, is that of a population policy. With ecological sustainability as another of our charter principles, sustainable population levels and distribution must underpin Green policies on population and immigration.
So it is a very big question for the Greens, and one on which some in the Party have been working away at for some time. But to be true to Green priniples, while we can condemn some of the xenophobic and bigoted rantings of the likes of Winston, and promote tolerance and diversity, the Green Party cannot pull the rabbit of an immigration policy out of the hat just because an election is imminent.
July 4th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
greenfrogred -
If we don’t have a policy because we’re still trying to reconcile everyone’s views (and have been for the past how many years?), we’re going to get hammered for poor management skills. Justifiably so. We’ll deserve the beating we get.
You don’t get decent policy by waiting for everyone to write it. You assign SOMEONE to write something and get input to change it until it is acceptable, accurate and appropriate. Otherwise, the policy isn’t going to be cohesive and workable, even if everyone signs off on it. That’s the world as it works. It is the way humans design things.
Read the Eco-Tax policy, and then tell me how you get there from here? Seriously. NZ is a small country but it is still not possible to just jam such a different set of assumptions and tax practice into place without severe dislocation to the economy. So along with this “policy” there has to be a plan to implement it. Nobody outside the party can take it seriously. You can trust me on this, nobody does.
I am new here but I don’t expect the policy to be handed down from on-high. What you say about the Green decision process is a good thing because nobody is an expert on everything, and people who think they are generally wind up as one-man-shows like Winston… or other dictators.
I simply find it worrisome that when people try to understand our policies on the things they’ll find most interesting on the eve of this election there is no reasonable tax policy, no defence policy and no immigration policy. We have principles and those are good enough that I joined this lashup, but it is long past time we put some flesh on those bare bones.
Diverse views on immigration should not hamper us so much, as principles of sustainable population, population distribution and ecology aren’t diverse at all. One can go quite a long way on the basis of those principles… on immigration in particular I expected to see something useful.
Being perceived as constantly carping about other parties whilst never providing a positive answer to the question of what needs to be done, will cost us votes. It may be it has to now… The election IS near and there’s no time to go through the process, even as I envision it, to get a decent policy out to the public. You’ll find however, that I am not sympathetic about the failure. It appears to me that the lack of policy is as much a result of a lack of interest in some of these topics as a lack of time.
….after all..
.. we have a policy on “industrial hemp”. If there was enough time to think that out…..
respectfully
BJ