Every so often, headlines from the past come back to haunt us because of some striking element of relevance. This story from the Dominion Post last year, is perhaps exceptionally pertinent, as John Key’s popularity is now in free-fall. It appears that those who dis-trusted the ‘Teflon Don‘ had good reason to be suspicious,
An associated poll – whilst not scientifically reliable – supported the claims made by Danya Levy and Paloma Migone that more people trusted Phil Goff to be truthful than John Key,
As National continues to spring surprises on the electorate; as John Key continues to have to defend unpopular policies; and as the economy fails to improve – his teflon coating has peeled away and he is under greater critical scrutiny than ever.
The “smile & wave” approach doesn’t work anymore.
National has had three and a half years in office and almost every social and economic indicator is worse than it was in 2008.
People are holding National to account. And according to polls, they are not liking what they are seeing,
” Prime Minister John Key who has been overseas for a fortnight, has dropped in the preferred Prime Minister stakes by 3.7 to 40.5%. Labour leader David Shearer is up by 1.9 to 12.3%…”
With Key’s evasiveness when it comes to fronting up to the public, people’s distrust in him is growing.
Ironically, Key’s high rating for “best grasp on economic issues” may be his un-doing. Part of his electability was his knowledge (so- called) of international finance and other economic-related matters. But even with his high rating against Goff (62% vs 16%) he has been spectacularly unsuccessful in meaningful achievement, including,
- Job creation to cut unemployment
- Skills training programmes
- Motivating young New Zealanders to stay in the country instead of jumping the ditch
- Growing the economy in any meaningful way
Instead, the public have seen only a pathetic attempt to grow the economy, lacking any real imagination or boldness,
- Partial asset sales
- Beneficiary bashing
- Ongoing cuts to the state sector
… and that’s it.
No wonder that the business sector, last year, voiced their frustrations at any apparent lack of planning by National,
” Businesses have echoed Labour’s criticism that the Government lacks a blueprint to develop the economy.
Party leaders and their finance spokesmen yesterday fronted up to lobby group Business NZ’s election conference to outline their economic vision.
Business NZ also released the results of its election survey of more than 1300 small to large businesses. While almost all believed it was important for the government to have a co-ordinated plan of action that raised economic performance, little more than a third thought John Key’s Government had one.
Deloitte chief executive Murray Jack said the finding was “disturbing” and the plan Mr Key had earlier in the day confidently spoken to the conference about “was obviously news to most people in this room”. “
New Zealanders had high expectations from a John Key-led government. In large part, those expectations were raised unfeasibly high by Key himself. Whether it was promises to raise wages to parity with Australia or grow the economy – Key raised expectations to the heights of Mt Everest,
” When Sir Ed climbed Mt Everest back in 1953, he wasn’t the only New Zealander on top of the world. We all were. We were among the five wealthiest countries on earth. Not any more.
Fifty-five years on, we are no longer an Everest nation. We are among the foothill nations at the base of the OECD wealth mountain. Number 22 for income per person, and falling.
But what does a wealth ranking matter, you might ask? Why does it matter if we’re number 22 or number four?
It matters because at number 22 your income is lower, you have to work harder, and you can save less. You face more uncertainty when things go wrong, when you or your family get sick or lose a job. No New Zealand sports team would be happy to be number 22. Why is the Government?
This is a great country. But it could be so much greater. It has been so much greater.
So the question I’m asking Kiwi voters is this: Do you really believe this is as good as it gets for New Zealand? Or are you prepared to back yourselves and this country to be greater still? National certainly is.
Under Helen Clark and Labour, our country has become a story of lost opportunities.
Despite inheriting the tail wind of a strong global economy, Helen Clark has failed to use that momentum to make significant improvement in areas of real importance to New Zealanders. She has squandered your economic inheritance by failing to build stronger foundations for the future.
Tomorrow, Helen Clark will tell us what she thinks about the state of our nation. In all likelihood, she’ll remind us how good she thinks we’ve got it, how grateful she thinks we should be to Labour, and why we need her for another three years.
Well, I’ve got a challenge for the Prime Minister. Before she asks for another three years, why doesn’t she answer the questions Kiwis are really asking, like:
- Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world?
- Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger?
- Why, under Labour, do we only get a tax cut in election year, when we really needed it years ago?
- Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?
- Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?
- Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills?
- Why, when Labour claim they aspire to be carbon-neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate?
- Why hasn’t the health system improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it?
- Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?
Those are the questions on which this election will be fought…
The National Party has an economic plan that will build the foundations for a better future.
- We will focus on lifting medium-term economic performance and managing taxpayers’ money effectively.
- We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.
- We will cut taxes, not just in election year, but in a regular programme of ongoing tax cuts.
- We will invest in the infrastructure this country needs for productivity growth.
- We will be more careful with how we spend the cash in the public purse, monitoring not just the quantity but also the quality of government spending.
- We will concentrate on equipping young New Zealanders with the education they need for a 21st century global economy.
- We will reduce the burden of compliance and bureaucracy, and we will say goodbye to the blind ideology that locks the private sector out of too many parts of our economy.
- And we will do all of this while improving the public services that Kiwis have a right to expect. “
Very few of those expectations have been met.
In fact, the only ones who appear to have benefitted the most are… the 1%.
Perhaps, at this point, someone close to John Key should remind him of this old maxim, by a great man,
” You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. ” – Abraham Lincoln
= fs =
The election may have ended at 7pm last Saturday – but political “aftershocks” may yet change the Parliamentary landscape,
As the Dominion Post story states, “National could theoretically lose up to two seats on special votes and its majority could be affected“.
After the 2008 general election, Cam Calder (number 58 on the National Party List), became an MP based on election night provisional results.
However, a subsequent seat re-allocation due to counting of special votes reduced National’s entitlement (by one seat) in the final count, preventing Calder from entering Parliament.
Instead, the counting of specal votes gave the Greens an extra seat, and Kennedy Graham became an MP.
Fast-forward to the 2011 general election: If Te Ururoa Flavell’s coup succeeds, and the Maori Party chooses not to give Supply and Confidence to the National-Dunne-ACT coalition – then matters could get very interesting, very quickly.
It would be bleak irony if National lost it’s election night wafer-thin majority; the Maori Party chose not to support a second John Key administration; and a Labour-led coalition became a new reality. In which case, Phil Goff’s resignation was somewhat “premature”.
Irony indeed if, having stepped down, one of the two Davids became the new Prime Minister – on the back of Phil Goff’s hard work and victory.
Politics – reality TV at it’s finest.
As a Labour party member, the sadness I feel today is tinged with a sense of resignation. John Key is the coolest, untouchable kid in the unforgiving social strata of high school. Anyone who remembers such cliques will understand feeling hopeless and powerless to change playground politics, let alone our country’s politics at a time when brand Key is pervasively popular. In the interest of gracious defeat, let me congratulate Key and National on their conquest.
Last night wasn’t entirely gloomy. New Zealand First’s gallop to 6.8% was like the class nerd scoring with the hottest girl in school. That Winston Peters and his crew triumphed in spite of concerted media efforts by Duncan Garner, Guyon Espiner, John Campbell, Paul Holmes et al to sideline them makes the victory stunning and sweet.
Another highlight of last night was seeing the New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) interpreter working at the Green party’s celebration. It is progressive and heartening to see a political party actively promoting the validity and importance of NZSL, an official language of this country.
Phil Goff – I implore you not to resign, yet I sense the inevitability of you doing so.
In a hostile, biased media environment, populated by media personnel who are reduced to slobbering stupidity in Key’s presence, you never stood a chance. You knew this, so you presumably thought, “What the hell” and you campaigned hard. You’re not a firebrand. What you are is steady, methodical and quietly determined. You have integrity.
Even while your treacherous colleagues sharpened their knives, you persisted.
While the media fawned over Key’s confident, solo fronting of National’s campaign, yet double standardly cast you in the desolate role of man alone, you trundled along.
Last night, your concession speech was gracious and moving. The journalists who lambasted you with cruel, needling questions as soon as you were off the stage should be ashamed. They wouldn’t let you have even a few minutes of dignity. Someone’s concession speech, like yours this time, Helen Clark’s in 2008, or Bill English’s back in 2002, is not a moment for gloating. It is a time to put political allegiances aside and to respect a fellow human’s intrinsic humanity and dignity, to recognise how hard it is to admit that efforts, based on someone’s strongest convictions, have simply not been enough.
Shame on our hectoring, salivating, unseemly media. Shame on your grasping, backstabbing colleagues.
If you resign, I fear that the Labour will scrabble around for another three years with a new leader who the media will maltreat in the same way that they have abused you, out of dribbling sycophancy to Key. No one else could withstand this abuse. That you have come this far speaks volumes about your durability and tenacity. If you leave, Labour will try to reconfigure but will end up in a confused, unpopular scramble of egos and treachery.
Please stay. You did experience a victory of sorts last night, despite being defeated – you came into your own and shook off the ghosts of the past.
If you resign, I will resign my membership of Labour. Suddenly, New Zealand First is looking good.
Phil Goff – Man of The Hour
I must admit… When Phil Goff took Labour into the 2011 General Election, I didn’t really give him much credence as a credible alternative to John Key. Due perhaps in part to Key’s popularity with the Masses, and the Key/Media love affair, Phil Goff was simply left in the background, kicking at the sand, waiting for attention.
He seemed… ok. Nothing special in terms of political leadership. Average.
What can I say? I was totally wrong.
Phil Goff led Labour into a battle-royale against one of the most popular governments since David Lange’s administration in the mid/late 1980s. He scored significant debating points against John Key in two out of three Leadership Debates, and toward the end he trounched the National Party leader in the final debate.
John Key wanted to get away from the “Teapot Tapes” saga and focus on issues? Goff agreed, and threw issue after issue at Key. With the odd exception, Key was left smiling vacantly; looking bored; or unable to even make eye-contact with Goff as the Labour leader fired issues at the Smile & Wave Kid.
Goff had risen to the challenge, and in my view he did bloody well.
And at his greatest moment; when he made an almost Kennedy-like speech; Goff gave a concession-announcement that I thought was passionate; stirring; and came straight from the man’s soul. Phil Goff loved New Zealand and you could tell from the raw, naked emotion he revealed. He held nothing back.
This man, I thought, had become a worthy challenger to a National Party Prime Minister who is more about photo-ops than addressing issues; bending the truth when it suits him (or when he’s caught out); and is a fine illustration of how our society values form over substance. Oh yes, we deserve John Key 100%.
In time, we will get over Key’s “smile and wave” persona. Like the children that we are, we will get bored with his vacant optimism and endless promises for a brighter future that is always just around the corner. And we will yearn for something more mature and more meaningful.
I hope Phil Goff is around when that moment comes, because by the gods, we don’t deserve him. Not when Goff gave us a viable alternative to National’s much-disliked policies – and we failed to grasp what was offered.
I hope Phil Goff stays on as Leader of the Labour Party. He shouldn’t have to resign simply because, collectively, we were too thick to connect the populist leader with unpopular policies.
I, for one, will join the Labour Party as a card-carrying member, and will work my butt off to secure a centre-left victory in 2014 – if Phil Goff stays as Leader.
C’mon, Phil. Wadaya say, boss?
Election Eleven – Tuesday
Now this is just downright creepy: right wing blogger, David Farrar, is now investigating private individuals who have appeared as part of TV3’s audience for their Leader’s Debate last night? A screenshot from his Blog,
I have blanked out the names that Farrar has published and I have not linked back to his article. I have no wish to aid his witch hunt against three individuals.
But I think it is the height of hypocrisy that Farrar and his right-wing colleagues criticised Labour non-stop for “Nanny State” policy – and now he is identifying private individuals for their (supposed) political activities.
Is this to be the new standard set by right wing blogs?
It now appears that if a New Zealand citizen is even remotely politically active, that they may be subjected to what is essentially an online, public, “name & shame” campaign. This can only be viewed as a none-too-subtle form of intimidation. Another term is cyber-bullying.
Does this have any place in New Zealand society? Is this the direction of future politics in this country? And what will it do to getting people more involved in politics?
This isn’t “Nanny Statism”. Nope, not at all.
It’s Big Brother – and Big Brother (aka David Farrer, et al) is Watching You!
I’ll say it now: there is no place in politics – or any other part of our society – for behaviour like this,
Whilst I disagree with Ms Barry’s politics – she has a democratic right to go about her business without being abused like this. I sincerely hope that anyone knowing who this man is, take him aside, and tell him that such behaviour is utterly repugnant and unacceptable.
Ms Barry is an intelligent, articulate woman who has achieved much in her life. Disagree with her if you will – but respect her for her accomplisments; her willingness to participate in the democratic process; and for simply being a human being.
Politics is a contest of ideas – not a spitting game that juveniles might indulge in.
Taken by an observant reader, and sent to me ten minutes ago,
Hmmmm, I’m guessing that for the Nats to state that “Your vote is crucial this sat”, that they are starting to panic? Something has definitely spooked the back-room National strategy boys…
… and yet more fear mongering from John Key, about Winston Peters? I now believe that National’s internal polling is showing that they are bleeding voter support and that they are probably somewhere around 46-48% – if not lower.
Otherwise, why would Key be wasting his time with the leader of a near-non-existent party that isn’t even represented in Parliament?!
National is right to be worried.
There are National supporters who view John Key’s scheme to sell state assets with considerable unease – if not downright hostility. Such voters are loathe to vote for a left-wing alternative such as Labour or Greens. But NZ First is a “soft Tory” alternative.
Expect Peters to return.
Expect a new Labour led coalition.
Oh dear. It seems that National is making election promises regarding matters that are already law,
Someone in the National camp really should check their facts. Promising to implement policy that has been a law for well over a decade seems pointless. Mind you, it is rather a cheap way to make election promises.
They won’t cost anything.
They’ve already been implemented,
Fraud Investigation teams nationwide work to preserve the integrity of the income support system by preventing and detecting benefit fraud.
Fraud Investigation teams work closely with the National Data Match Centre. The Centre shares data with other government agencies including:
- Inland Revenue
- Housing New Zealand
- Accident Compensation Corporation
- Internal Affairs. “
And being already implemented – National can take credit for it!
What a cunning plan!
Whoopsie! Isn’t it a bugger when a photo-op comes back to bite you?
“Lots of young people decide to go for an OE – I don’t know how long she’ll last. I’m not in a position to go into too much; hope she comes back.” Source
Ummm, John… She’s sixteen. She’s hardly likely to be going on her OE, and probably leaving with her family. Probably long-term migration.
She and her family are joining 84,400 who have also left New Zealand in the last year.
Election Eleven – Monday
The last four days, and the election campaign is into the ‘last stretch’. Expect things to get interesting… dramatic… and desperate…
John Key and the growing “Cult of Personality”? So we really should start addressing him as “Dear Leader”?
Hmmmm, I didn’t realise that John Key won the Rugby World Cup? I’ve been mis-led – someone said it was the All Blacks!
Radio NZ invited both Phil Goff and John Key to debate on Morning Report. As per his M.O., Key refused. So much for his criticism of the media last week for focusing on the “Teapot Tapes” saga, rather than addressing the “ishoos”.
Phil Goff fronted on RNZ to be interviewed,
So while Phil Goff was addressing issues on Radio NZ – where was John Key? Missing in Action? Kidnapped by Grey aliens? Nope, here he is,
Is this what Key calls “discussing issues”?
Some people just don’t seem to “get it”…
I’m not sure if “Daniela” is a low-information voter who has totally mis-understand the aim of Labour’s letter – or is a National/ACT supporter deliberately ‘stirring the pot’.
By what stretch of imagination does “Daniela” think that the letter is “threatening”? Does she really think that Labour activists, aliens, or Moonies are going to break into her home; kidnap her; and transport her to a secret underground volcano lair???
But this bit really “takes the cake” and suggests to me that “Daniela” is happily fomenting mischief with this,
“Daniela also forwarded the flyer to the blogger Whale Oil, saying she was upset because she felt like the letter made it sound criminal to head back to work after having a baby.” Source
So let me get this straight; “Daniela” thinks that Labour is trying to “criminalise” her for heading back to work after having a baby?!
Does “Daniela” not realise that National actually does have a policy which attempts to force mothers of 1 year old children back to work? As the article states,
“National’s welfare policy would see sole parents asked to seek full-time work when their child turned 14, part-time when they turn five, and the work-testing of all sickness and invalid beneficiaries. If women have a subsequent child while already claiming a benefit they will have to look for work when that child is one year old. “
“Daniela” seems hopelessly confused by all this. She doesn’t seem to undersytand that Labour’s mail-out is actually making a factual statement. This excerpt is from TVNZ’s Q+A,
“GUYON Because this will, in some cases, mean that mum has to work full-time when the first child hits one, won’t they? Because it’s about returning to work obligations. So if you’ve got a 14-year-old, say, and you have another child when you’re on the DPB, you’ll have to work full-time when that child is one year old.
PAULA So your other children are 14. So you’ve got other children that are 14 years and older, you’re on welfare, and then you have another baby, so there’s not many. So last year, there were about 70 of them, and yes, they will have to look for full-time work.
GUYON So who’s gonna care for the kid?
PAULA Well, it’s within respect, as well, that it does need to fit in, so we’re not gonna make them work all night, for example, and then look after children all day. The job kind of needs to fit with them. But there is going to be childcare options. And, actually, people do it now.
GUYON Let me take you back to when you first came into parliament. You made a speech in 2005. I’ll quote from it. You say, ‘As we are pushed to increase women’s participation in the workforce, we need to ask the question of who will be raising the next generation, and a lot of women are saying that they would like to – that staying at home and raising their children is an option they would like not only to have, but one they would like to be actively encouraged to do.’
PAULA Yeah.” Source
So it is National’s policy to make mothers of 1 year olds to seek work outside the home.
And it would be likely that, given such a new “Nanny Statish” law forcing new mothers to practically abandon their baby, they may well end up missing their child’s first birthday.
I hope someone brings all this to “Daniela’s” attention. Because so far, she either doesn’t get it – or she’s playing to someone elses agenda.
Which is it, “Daniela”?
The latest Horizon Poll has been released today (20 November) with some expected – and unexpected – results. Questions canvassed included the following,
- How parties leaders make people feel
- The latest poll, covering qualified voters who are “definitely” going to cast a party vote
- Whether or not National leader John Key and Act candidate John Banks should authorise the public release of a conversation between them recorded by a member of the media.
How parties leaders make people feel
Firstly, how did the two main leaders make people feel?
The poll indicates that the preceding week has made people feel angry, nervous and afraid about John Key.
Conversely though, Key makes people feel comfortable, excited, proud.
The results seem contradictory in one sense – but perfectly understandable in another. Key’s “honeymoon” with the media has ended – and that with the public is waning. He is now more of a political figure, rather than apolitical as some perceived him, and therefore is beginning to polarise voters.
It is when negative feelings toward a leader becomes more entrenched that support for a government will drop away – as happened with the Clark-led Labour government in 2008.
These changes are already becoming apparent,
It’s interesting to note that Goff elicits a growing hope (+8.6%) and pride (+7.4%) whereas people appear less hopeful with Key (-6.7%) and less proud (-4.5%). This would appear to tie in with recent polls, which also indicate a decline in consumer confidence.
Also of interest is that Key is making people feel more angry (+9.7%), afraid (+8.8%), and nervous (+5.6%) than respondants feel for Goff (+3.8%, +5.2%, +3.1%). Issues such as asset sales, cost-of-living increases, high unemployment, and a stubbornly stagnant economy probably play a significant part in such results.
Also, with Key’s brittleness over the “Teapot Tapes”, the public have have their first glance under the “ordinary bloke” facade that Key and his advisors have so carefully cultivated. The man is nowhere as laid back as he makes out. He can get rattled and when things aren’t going his way, he has no hesitation in removing himself from the scene – as evidenced by his recent media conference walkout.
Again, this is reflected by the fact that +1.6 appear more comfortable with Goff – and significantly, people’s comfort level with Key has decreased by -0.5%. Is Key’s “ordinary bloke” facade developing cracks?
The following poll, though shows a clear difference in how Key and Goff are perecived by the public,
Key is see as more inspiring, knowledgeable, and stronger.
But Goff’s qualities are that he is seen as more moral, trustworthy, and honest. The latter was backed up by a stuff.co.nz poll that also reflected popular opinion that Goff was more honest/trustworthy than Key,
Key’s past career in speculative trading in the commercial sector may be a factor in this. With the collapse of dozens of finance companies in New Zealand, owing billions to “mum & dad” investors, and with the global banking crisis sparked by dubious activities on Wall Street, those who are engaged in speculative commerce, finance, stocks, etc, are now viewed with suspicion and often downright hostility.
An underlying subtext to how people view ‘Brand Key’ is that while people certainly consider him to be more knowledgeable than Goff (and the Christchurch “Press” debate may reinforce that impression) – that Key is less trustworthy for reasons outlined above.
Conversely, Goff is seen as more trustworthy, honest, and moral – perhaps because unlike Key, Phil Goff has not be ‘tainted’ by the smell of Wall St excesses. Goff may be seen as wanting to do the “right thing”, whereas Key is seen as a product of hard-nosed business.
Goff has also been candid in admitting that Labour made serious mistakes over selling state assets in the late 1980s. He has apologised for those grievous errors of judgement – no mean feat for a politician. This underscores his trustworthiness compared to John Key’s, right or wrong, in the eyes of the public.
The Horizon Polling for political parties has yielded the following,
Noteworthy is the growth of support for NZ First and the fledgling Conservative Party. If accurate, the Conservative Party are within a hair of crossing the 5% thresh-hold.
The Horizon analysis sez this about seat numbers and coalition permutations, based on the above results,
“The results indicate a National-Conservative-Act-Maori Party- United Future grouping would have 59 seats in a 122 seat Parliament. This assumes Act and United Future win Epsom and Ohariu, the Maori party has 4 electorate seats and Mana one.
A Labour-Green group would have 47, and 50 if joined by Mana.
New Zealand First would have 13 seats and the balance of power in the new Parliament.
A National-led coalition would muster 73 votes with New Zealand First support.
A Labour-led coalition would muster 63 votes if supported by New Zealand First and Mana.”
The Horizon Poll also took into account public feelings about the “Teapot Tapes” Affair,
“The country is highly polarised over the unauthorised recording of a meeting between the Prime Minister, John Key, and the Act party’s Epsom candidate, John Banks.
53% say that neither Mr Key nor Mr Banks, as parties to the conversation, should authorise the public release of the recording.
46.9% think they should authorise its release, according to a major nationwide HorizonPoll, covering 2,874 adult New Zealanders, conducted between 9 am Wednesday and 5.39am Friday (November 16-18). Weighted by age, gender, ethnicity, personal income, education qualification and party vote 2008, the poll has a maximum margin of error of +/- 1.8%.
54.9% also believe the November 11 recording of the eight minute-long conversation, on a microphone left on a table at a Newmarket café by a member of the media, was deliberate. 15.9% say it was inadvertent while 29.2% are not sure.
Asked if the Herald on Sunday, which had the recording last weekend but decided not to publish, or other news media should publish it now, 49.4% say no, 39.5% yes while 11% are not sure.
The issue was damaging the Prime Minister’s credibility this week.
41.9% think the issue has made him less credible, 6.2% more credible while 47.4% say it makes no difference to his credibility. 39% think it has made Mr Banks less credible, 3.2% more credible.
Among those who voted for National in 2008, 17.7% think the issue has made Mr Key less credible, 12.3% more credible – a net credibility loss of 5.4% among his supporters at the last election.
The issue is also impacting New Zealanders’ views on the credibility of the Herald on Sunday (43.1% think it is less credible, 11.8% more credible); all news media (38.6% less credible, 9.8% more credible) and the police who are investigating a complaint of authorised interception of the private conversation (12.6% less credible, 8.5% more credible).”
The Horizon Poll there backs up other public feedback where a majority believed John Key’s assertion that the conversation between himself and Banks was a private matter and that there was no requirement for eithrer of the men to release the tapes publicly. Despite this feeling, 41.9% of respondants believed that the affair left Key looking less credible.
An interesting mix of views, though it coyuld be argued that Key did indeed manage to correctly gauge public opinion on this issue.
However, as point out in my piece Tea, tapes, & tantrums – the overal effect is that Key’s teflon veneer has been significantly scratched by this incident.
It will be interesting to note if Horizon Polling has been an accurate assessment of public opinion. As people correctly state, the only Poll that counts is the one on Election Day. Horizon will be measured against that final outcome.