Thanks Grant for more interesting insights. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how Luxon performs against Hipkins in the election debates - going on recent media interviews, I'd put my money on Hipkins coming out best. Good to recap on the 2005 election situation - interesting facts on the pre-election polls not matching the ultimate election result - this election will be close!
I like your comment re the 'heroic' promise from National to fight inflation by changing one phrase - classic! It never ceases to amaze me how much some voters seem to believe Nationals rhetoric on them being the better economic managers. They keep repeating these lines, as it gives them mileage. I wish the media would dig deeper on this. Also on Nationals comments that NZ's current woes (economy, inflation, universities, housing etc) are solely due to Labour. Maybe the media should compare NZ's performance vs other countries - to give some context to National's claims. Interesting to see similar headlines in the Australian media (ABC etc) - 'cost of living crises', 'housing crisis', university crisis in Queensland etc.
Thanks for your comments, Aaron. Whenever National boasts about being the best economic managers, we could tell them that neoliberal doctrine insists that governments should not try to manage an economy, and instead they should let markets do their thing! Sounds like another column. Cheers, Grant
Thanks, Interesting analysis. I would add to it that fact that Luxon's personal beliefs when it comes to social issues like abortion, birth control, etc, will not do him much good when it comes to the votes of women and young people, especially when you add to that his wavering on Climate Change, and recent apparent conclusion that it is, indeed, real, and that we need to do something about it NOW!
Thank you for amplifying that, Vicki. The Roy Morgan polls give a breakdown by gender that supports your point. National got 31.5% overall in their May survey, but that was 27.5% from women, compared with 35.5% from men. And only 19.5 % from women aged 18-49. Back in 2005 National knew they were trailing behind with women voters, and that was, I'm sure, one important reason why they lost.
Thanks Grant for more interesting insights. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how Luxon performs against Hipkins in the election debates - going on recent media interviews, I'd put my money on Hipkins coming out best. Good to recap on the 2005 election situation - interesting facts on the pre-election polls not matching the ultimate election result - this election will be close!
I like your comment re the 'heroic' promise from National to fight inflation by changing one phrase - classic! It never ceases to amaze me how much some voters seem to believe Nationals rhetoric on them being the better economic managers. They keep repeating these lines, as it gives them mileage. I wish the media would dig deeper on this. Also on Nationals comments that NZ's current woes (economy, inflation, universities, housing etc) are solely due to Labour. Maybe the media should compare NZ's performance vs other countries - to give some context to National's claims. Interesting to see similar headlines in the Australian media (ABC etc) - 'cost of living crises', 'housing crisis', university crisis in Queensland etc.
Thanks for your comments, Aaron. Whenever National boasts about being the best economic managers, we could tell them that neoliberal doctrine insists that governments should not try to manage an economy, and instead they should let markets do their thing! Sounds like another column. Cheers, Grant
Thanks, Interesting analysis. I would add to it that fact that Luxon's personal beliefs when it comes to social issues like abortion, birth control, etc, will not do him much good when it comes to the votes of women and young people, especially when you add to that his wavering on Climate Change, and recent apparent conclusion that it is, indeed, real, and that we need to do something about it NOW!
Thank you for amplifying that, Vicki. The Roy Morgan polls give a breakdown by gender that supports your point. National got 31.5% overall in their May survey, but that was 27.5% from women, compared with 35.5% from men. And only 19.5 % from women aged 18-49. Back in 2005 National knew they were trailing behind with women voters, and that was, I'm sure, one important reason why they lost.
I enjoyed the adverse comparison to Machiavelli!
I enjoyed throwing it in there!