Posts by Pete George
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A pollster on cellphones in polling:
"The company that I work for has no policy on “…refusing to call cell phones.In fact, they do randomly dial cell phones for telephone surveys.""At present my view is that, in New Zealand, non-response is a far far bigger source of error than non-coverage."
It's worth reading the whole post.
http://grumpollie.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/rob-salmonds-post-on-cell-phone-polling/ -
Hard News: Polls: news you can own, in reply to bmk,
Roy Morgan include cellphones.
Yesterday's polls plus the last Roy Morgan poll for the four biggest parties:
National - RM 45.5, CB 47, RR 45.9
Labour - RM 31.5, CB 31, RR 31.2
Green Party - RM 14, CB 11, RR 11.3
NZ First - RM 3.5, CB 7, RR 4.9The polling periods are different, especially for Roy Morgan which was earlier, but it's Labour supporters complaining the most about polls (not coincidentally because they don't like their results) but there seems to be a lot of consistency for their lack of traction.
-
'Don't know' in the Colmar poll were not 18%, they were 13% (up 3). There was also 'Refused' at 5% (up 2). Both add up to 18 but they are not the same thing.
My guess is that uncertainty will be across the spectrum. There's good cause to pause before committing to either National or Labour in particular at the moment, they've both had difficult months.
-
Curran was quick to categorically rule herself out.
Horan says he has had no communication with Dotcom. He's not an electorate MP anyway and I don't see him being any use to the IP.
Harawira is probably the only one, and he seems to have backed off, or been backed off by some of his party.
-
There's no doubt that dairy is big in New Zealand business, exports and politics. And connections with dairying that are seen to be too close could be damaging to some politicians and potentially parties.
But suggesting we cut back on dairying for environmental reasons or stirring up the export business to China in particular for political reasons are not without major political risks either.
-
Dotcom also tweeted:
If #InternetParty won't poll 5+% before ballot papers are printed we'll self destruct & put our weight behind a party adopting our policies.
Statements like that can in politics are often self-fulfilling.
-
Speaker: Naked Inside the Off-Ramp, in reply to Richard Love,
And the main problem with the 2003 version was that we subsequently found that the GCSB was secretly ignoring its legislation.
That's a disputed opinion. It's also claimed that there were two ambiguious clauses, one saying the GCSB couldn't spy on New Zealanders, and one saying they could spy on behalf of other agencies (SIS and police). The Kitteridge report highlighted this, as a result the Goverment put a halt to any "on behalf of" spying until it had been clarified in law, hence this bill.
A major remaining criticism of the new legislation is that it isn't clear in critical areas, requiring three separate clauses to rule out mass surveillance.
The most likely outcome is for either a National or Labour led government to allow the legally required inquiry into the GCSB and SIS in 2015 to proceed and use that to clarify the intent much as Key has belatedly tried to explain.
This could have been avoided if Key hadn't been arrogant and Shearer hadn't been politically naive (or weak).
-
Speaker: Naked Inside the Off-Ramp, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Your snideness despite Russell's request, and your accusations like "Or just hard cash from some US-backed ‘trust’?" (presumably totally without foundation) suggests that genuine engagement is not really your intention.
It's not for me to justify what Dunne did, that's up to him. He's tried to do that.
In my opinion it simply reflects political reality, it's far more complex inside Parliament than many realise. Dunne initiated a number of worthwhile amendments to the bill, more than anyone else managed, but one person versus 59 can only do so much.
Dunne's decision to back the bill was no more politically motivated than Shearer's actions, or Winston's actions.
-
Speaker: Naked Inside the Off-Ramp, in reply to Jon J.,
I imagine that Labour and the Greens promising a review of our intelligence services...will offer an appealing contrast and choice for many voters.
A contrast? A review of our intelligence services is already promised in the new legislation. Plus subsequent reviews every 5-7 years.
Greens have been clear about their opposition to the GCSB. Shearer was prepared to support the bill that's just been passed with a sunset clause. While it's unclear what Labour actually want other than an inquiry if what they put in place and supported under Clark is anything to go by they will want something quite different to the Greens.
-
Speaker: Naked Inside the Off-Ramp, in reply to Russell Brown,
I would be astonished if the inquiry recommended the abolition of the GCSB and SIS. That's not the way Shearer has framed it at all, and the chances of it happening are less than zero.
I agree. Shearer even proposed supporting the bill with a sunset clause. But Greens, Mana and Maori don't like the GCSB or SIS and are unlikely to vote for the likley outcome of any inquiry that isn't stacked in their favour (and that shouldn't happen).
So Labour will need National's support. Back to where they should have been, co-operating on it two months ago. And if that works I doubt we will have anything much different to what we had or we now have, incuding a very irate left.