ON/CB Poll: September 2005 #4

The latest One News/Colmar Brunton poll was out tonight, showing a lead for National in the final days before the election. The numbers, with last Sunday's result in brackets

Lab 38% (39)
Nat 44% (41)
Grn 5.1% (6)
NZF 5.5% (6)
ACT 1.9% (3)
UF 2.5% (2)
MP 1.7% (1)

The Preferred PM numbers are as follows:

Clark - 40% (42)
Brash - 30% (30)
Peters - 6% (7)

Interesting once again!

Comments

[Graham watson]

Great news, steady as she goes.

[Craig Ranapia]

I'm sure you'll post the Three/TNS numbers in due course, but that's the one that would really depress me if I was a Labour strategist. I thought Brethren-Gate was meant to open a lead not close it. ;P

[Jordan]

Two out of three ain't bad - we're likely to be ahead in the Herald tomorrow too.

[SPC]

This morning's Herald editorial does Labour no favours.

Do they think referring to the need to think about the Greens, as coalition partners in any continuing Labour government, when making no mention of National's coalition options, is even handed?

A
Labour/Progressive/United government backed by Greens or NZ First or the Maori Party on confidence and supply, is an option. Are they not aware of this?

Labour has been said to have a wider range of coalition options than National, yet here in this editorial, they suggest otherwise.

They could have mentioned, our 8% of GDP current account deficit and how tax cuts increase consumer spending and would worsen this. Or about how Labour's $1000 incentive for workplace savings, is an incentive to encourage a positive development.

They could have mentioned how interest free tertiary debt, was of an attempt to create an incentive to keep skilled workers here, in a world where there is a domestic and global shortage.

They chose not to.

As to the TV 3 debate last night.

Why cannot Mr Brash simply admit what his real policy is, on nuke ship visits or anything else?

Only one party has a record of implementing it's policies, once elected - Labour has done this 1999-2005.

So much of National policy is not in the first term - does this mean they are moderating their real policies for one term only - that their real policy is delayed until 2008 (asset sales, logging native forests, full market rents - delayed 3 years for existing state house tenants), they even have their company tax cut by 2008 (when it's usually something they do by lunch-time).

Why is it that Cullen had a fully costed line by line programme for Labour in 1999 and National has nothing like this in 2005? Nothing about their plans for cutting spending by $3.5 billion is indicated.

What sort of government option is that? It's the programme of a party trying to impress the public, but not the profile of a group ready to come into government in 2005.

What is wrong about Don Brash, is his attempt to bring an Americanism into our politics - this whereby people are either with us, or on the other side. He attempted to appropriate the meaning of the word mainstream to those who supported a Don Brash led government.

In identifying those not mainstream as Maori, those on welfare and those who supported Labour's PC (including feminism?) -
Donald Brash the Reserve Bank Governor, now Don Brash the politician, effectively says mainstream means, someone who supports him being PM (not someone who supports Labour's leader instead -puting the meaning in a sharp old mainstream or modern broadstream distinction).

It fits in with the language of American and UnAmerican and the good German and the others. It's effectively of an attempt to marginalise opposition.

This orewa your vote ashore majoritarianism - assimilate or die has a vaguely dalek aspect to it. It is very old mainstream politics. It's like he wants near half the country to disappaear because he does not know how to be a leader for all New Zealand.

Don Brash, in the debate, tried to say how Australians living standards increased more in recent years than here - he ignores factors such as their paying their super and health care cover out of their wages - whereas we fund some of future Super via surpluses. Also our success in paying down debt in this period. This increases our future wealth.

Besides, is he saying their union success in delivering wages, is part of our problem in this matter - then why does he not support the 5% wage increase campaign?

Also Oz house prices have been through a correction reducing wealth, whereas here we are at a house value peak - something threatened by a tax cutting government causing an interest rate rise.

As per - nuclear ship visits, he gives the clear impression of someone who has no intention of holding a referendum until the Americans ask - then there will be one by lunch-time. As soon as the USA links free trade talks to nuclear powered ship visits by their naval vessels, there will be one. So the ball is in their court, over whether one occurs. He could have kicked this for touch like he does asset sales and native forest logging - not in the first term. Why not say this on nuclear ship visits - because it's a decision that will be made in DC, not in Wellington?

Maharey accurately reflects what National says it's policy is with

‘a future where people make their own decisions about their own money’.

The point of difference between the two parties - is that Labour wants to provide some security, for all New Zealanders, through public services. It seeks to do so, while maintaining the best environment in the world for people to do business (as we are rated now in 2005).
Labour does this, while maintaining a budget surplus and a long term plan to afford our future Super by savings (Super Fund) and to reduce debt.

Whereas National is returning some of the surplus via an across the board tax cut and intends to cut public service spending ($3.5 billion over 3 years) and increase borrowing by $3.5 billion (over the 3 years).

Sure this puts more money in some people's pockets, but at what cost? No one is quite sure, because their programme is not costed line by line as Labour's was in 1999.

Labour target's the tax relief to families - and otherwise to encourage saving - the $1000 in Kiwi Saver accounts (for those who save some of their pay). And otherwise Home savings deposit help. Encouraging saving (households have higher debts and lower savings than other nations and this imbalance needs to be addresed to improve our economic performance) and helping people into homes and getting them out of tertiary debt (encouraging people to stay and work here) is the right thing to do.

We have a large current account deficit (our trade deficit is now 8% of GDP). Thus dispersing surpluses to consumers (who may spend up more on imports), at this time, is not a wise course.

“Our policies in this election are based on personal responsibility and encouraging New Zealanders to work hard and get ahead through their own efforts,” says Ms Collins.

But there are some things, which require a collective effort. It takes resources to achieve them.

Neglecting public services, or help to students, or encouragement to save, or maintaining a sound fiscal course now and onto the future to diminish government capability for shallow ideological reasons is unwise for any nation.

Reducing a society down to individual units politically managed by tax cut motives and economically managed as consumer's of privately provided user pays services is socially and morally barren.

This is why I am backing a Labour led government coalition with my vote - despite any encouragement from the herald otherwise.

I may even vote Green. See todays Scoop for what they would add to a Labour government.

[Aj]

SPC,

Very good summary.