Why can't Labour get traction in the polls?

9/08/2012 9:25:44 a.m.

David wrote:

Look at the time of your posts Mike and look at how many you make per day in favour of National. You dont work during the day.. unless of course you consider the fact that you are the PR rep. By the way... stop making up your information, labour lost 29 billion to Bernard Madoff is your copy and paste post. And all of it a bunch of lies lol Come on TV3... you should check Mikes post for honesty... he would actually never get any through. Oh and Mike... its widely been acknowledged that labour are way behind when it comes to using PR firms on the internet. Its really something that only National does.

9/08/2012 8:02:48 a.m.

Mike wrote:

@@Mike resorts to more name calling vs policy ... They wouldn't be a Labour PR representative would they?

Instead of generally accusations, how about examples? And with those examples, how about policy from Labour that would work better? Or take the Labour representatives that filled their pockets in finders fees from Labour directing ACC/Kiwisaver to invest in thieves like Maddoff - now there is an example of some crooks and filling pockets, and it only cost NZ $29 billion pre election 2008! Thats an example, lets hear some examples of National filling its pockets if you have any!

Even bad press can be turned around if its handled reasonbly. Eg the donations was so easy for Labour to have come out much better, all they had to do was come out and ask for law changes to be more open and accoutnable to stop a repeat.

To be honest, National was slow on this as they were not going to do anything till the police investigation had completed, ie their hands were tied in this as government till then. But Labour knew the law would find Banks not guilty, and were not constrained by that timeframe, so could have come out swinging for a law change and more openess before the police finished their investigation. If Labour had done this, it would have been more positive than their typical name calling vs policy. ie Labour had all the opportunities to do much better, and still failed to do this when it was handed to them on a plate. And then for Labour to harp on about banks being guilty afterwards, when they knew going in the police couldn't find him guilty? Even there, they should have come out supporting calls to change the law for more accountability and openess instead of this name calling with no policy.

8/08/2012 1:20:11 p.m.

@Mike wrote:

"Look at how National is addressing things. They address policy not attack people." Or to be more accurate, they fill their pockets not help people.

8/08/2012 12:59:25 p.m.

Richard wrote:

The simple answer is that Labour has no workable policies that appeal to the public, especially during a global recession. Not being nasty, just stating the obvious. The only time Shearer is on the TV is to be critical of the government, without offering better alternative ideas. The public are tired of this sniping. 9 Years with Helen and people are a little wiser now.

8/08/2012 12:00:31 p.m.

M wrote:

After Labour being in power for 9 years it was time for a change, it's as simple as that. It's a shame though that National got in as their ideals (and NZ asset sales) are not liked by a lot of kiwi's.

8/08/2012 11:03:55 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Labour needs to address policy vs personal attacks.

It would also help for Labour to address the past where it has stuffed up. If Labour would admit where it made mistakes, and show an effort to stop them happening again, this would tend to go down better with the public.

Eg take the Bank donations. Keys will change the law to require more accountability and more openess in the future. Instead of making continual personal attacks as Labour has for what wasn't illegal, they could have addressed the issue and looked for a law change as that would be moving forward.

Labour has stated it did nothing wrong with its finance team directing ACC/Kiwisaver investment which lost $29 billion pre election 2008. Now here Labour should come clean, admit they were duped by likes of Madoff into investing NZ money, and come up with a policy to stop a repeat of it happening. When Labour wont even admit they got anything wrong, a repeat of that loss to thieves like Madoff will happen again under Labour!

Sanlu was another disater. Labour chose to do nothing while babies died. Instead of taking responsibility for it, apologising, and coming up with policy to stop any repeat disaster - Labour have blamed Fonterra for profiteering when it was Fonterra who was trying to get the Labour government to act, and when governemnt failed to act, Fonterra release to the world costing NZ farmers over $300 million dollars. Hardly a case of Fonterra profiteering, but the exact opposite of what Labour claimed.

Look at how National is addressing things. They address policy not attack people. And when they stuff up, they look to improve so it wont happen again, eg the promise of law changes to donations. This is one reason why Labour is polling so badly.

8/08/2012 10:14:57 a.m.

Iman Olive wrote:

And suddenly the usually vocal lefties fall silent again. Says it all really.

8/08/2012 10:03:17 a.m.

tom wrote:

Ever since the Lange Government Labour have been close to National with very little difference in policy. They need to get back to their roots, and this applies to the selection of candidates, too many intellectuals and not enough grass roots candidates. Labour have that many extreme liberal members that they would be better off calling themselves the Greens 2.

8/08/2012 10:02:03 a.m.

Carlos wrote:

Because everyone still remembers the dark bad days of clark & cullen, and 'their' foot soldiers are still there....with the same crap ideas, now egged on by the dummy greens, mana and the NZ1st charlatan.

8/08/2012 9:10:12 a.m.

aiden wrote:

he's just not a leader. He's walked over in the house and walked over by the media. Labour have no one who can really lead them, they need to look outside of parliament for fresh blood.