That poll out last night should be a shock to no one.
That’s what happens if you ignore voters and just keep pushing through stuff we don’t want, like Three Waters or farmer’s climate tax.
They deserve to be on 32 percent. I’d put that as the high-water mark frankly.
And yesterday’s announcement is not going to help. It’s supposed to help; it’s supposed to make us like them a whole lot more again.
But I don’t think it’s going to work.
And I think this is part of the reason Labour is polling so low.
Because they keep making the same mistake over and over again, which is that they think throwing money around solves the problem. They can buy our votes, but then they don’t think about what happens next.
Which is that it inevitably causes a problem downstream which makes a greater number of people grumpy.
It works like this: they’ve spent $190 million on giving parents more money to help them pay for early childhood education. Which is great, but it only helps the parents of 10,000 kids.
There are 194,000 enrolled in licensed early childhood providers, so they’ve helped the parents of only 5 percent of the kids.
Which means 95% of kids don’t get helped, so those parents might have good reason to feel a bit grouchy because why don’t they get help? Their cost of living has gone up too just the like the parents who did get help.
Then there’s what happens next. It’s predicted early childhood centres are just going to put prices up now. They’re just hanging in there, they’ve held off because they know parents can’t afford to pay any more.
But they know that those parents doing it the hardest can afford a bit more, so the prices go up.
Which means 95 percent who didn’t get any help are now paying more too.
Which means more grumpiness.
Throwing cash like this fixes things for about 5 minutes then the pain returns.
It’s not a solution, but thinking it is a solution is why Labour is on 32 percent.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show.
5 comments:
Was the poll taken before the public were genreally awre of the National candidate choice for Hamilton West?
I am deeply disturbed and saddened by the grossly irrational National choice of candidate. Many traditional National supporters will be incensed. Another masterful move by organised maoridom. For the next election the party has effectively thrown away their greatest potential vote catching advantage. With such close association with maori business and so with the other maori involved in that, the new candidate cannot be a vanilla maori. As not such his true motivation is unlikely to be the betterment of all NZers, but the betterment of the chosen race. The choice signals that the Nats are committed to continued recognition of the latest partnership reinterpretation of the Treaty, continued promotion of the follies of Key and Finlayson, continued support for te reo, of endless (paid) obstructive time wasting consultation, and of insidious co governance everywhere. Labour can continue to push blatant maori control without fear of a fiercely opposed vote winning counter policy emerging from the Nats, or of a Nat/Act combined statement before the election.
If I were a Hamilton voter I would plump for Sharma. Whatever his policies are, if he dislikes bullying he would naturally oppose policies pushed by maori.
And if next year the Nats decide that after all they wish to win by a landslide, and so drop their pro maori stance accordingly, will the new candidate do a Sharma? Or will he stay on as 5th columnist and spy for maori, not that they want for inside information as is.
Well Robert, if I were a voter there I'd vote for ACT. It would send a very strong message to National that they've misread public sentiment and need to change their direction, while hopefully instilling a credible voice that can gain some additional leverage in the house.
And you're right Heather, this sort of short-sighted nonsense doesn't work. Like the accommodation supplement, all it did was leverage rents up across the board making landlords rich.
Hi Anonymous 8.39. As Winston demonstrated, coalitions are not effective on topics where not united. For many decades I refrained from voting. My last vote was for a particular party only to thwart another. I will vote Act but with a slumbering National may acheive little.
I would love to have had a hand in formulating the questions for the selection committee. I suspect the outcome would have been different.
if Act do not win the by election hopefully they will split the vote sufficent to keep the pro maori Nat candidate out and give a clear message to the Nats. Possibly they could then re select someone with undivided loyaltyfor the final.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.