Colmar Brunton poll

53 comments on “Colmar Brunton poll ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rudi Can't Fail 1

   2 June 2015 at 11:44 am

   I guess I would take 44% over 9%.
   When so much is placed on the leader how is 9% going to get the LP to the treasury benches? Answer – It is not. Andrew should be toast by xmas.
   • mickysavage 1.1

     2 June 2015 at 11:50 am

     Helen was at 3% just before the 1995 election. The only result that counts is the party vote. The right have attacked Andrew as they do. IMHO he has weathered things well while Key looks more and more wobbly. And we still have a couple of years to go.
     • Puckish Rogue 1.1.1

       2 June 2015 at 11:57 am

       You know you could substitute Phil, David and David (again) for Andrew in your paragraph and it would sound earily similar to whats been posted before
       • maui 1.1.1.1

         2 June 2015 at 12:16 pm

         3 different Labour leaders in 3 years doesn’t help raise preferred PM ratings much..
         • dukeofurl 1.1.1.1.1

           2 June 2015 at 1:42 pm

           It seems we are the only nation that use the ridiculous ‘preferred PM’ rating.

           That is you get one choice out of say 5 or 6.

           Every where else gets to have a up or down vote on EACH candidate.
         • whateva next? 1.1.1.1.2

           2 June 2015 at 6:22 pm

           3rd time lucky
     • Clean_power 1.1.2

       2 June 2015 at 11:59 am

       Your optimism is commendable, mickysavage. That’s the attitude!
     • Rudi Can't Fail 1.1.3

       2 June 2015 at 12:07 pm

       1995 was 20 years ago. Much has changed, the leader of the party is everything nowadays.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.3.1

         2 June 2015 at 1:46 pm

         Nothing has changed. Authoritarian followers could be led by the nose back then, and here you are.
     • Gosman 1.1.4

       2 June 2015 at 12:16 pm

       There was no election in 1995. i presume you mean 1996. Which might be a good comparison as Helen Clark didn’t become PM till 1999.
       • mickysavage 1.1.4.1

         2 June 2015 at 12:22 pm

         Right you are.
     • Old Mickey 1.1.5

       2 June 2015 at 1:23 pm

       You picked this one Greg – Key is wobbly with 48% & 44% results. Andy has been a disappointment, and I wonder how long his union masters will continue to allow this embarrassment to go on.
   • Labour_Voter 1.2

     2 June 2015 at 7:16 pm

     If you see the poll, National dropped one point and Labour is steady without dropping a point. Who is the winner then?
2. Michael 2

   2 June 2015 at 11:45 am

   Undecideds rose 4 points to 13%. Hmm.
   • weka 2.1

     2 June 2015 at 12:05 pm

     Undecideds are 9%, refused to say are 4%
   • Gosman 2.2

     2 June 2015 at 12:18 pm

     Why Hmmm? Undecideds have yet to be shown to have a massive influence on Election results in NZ over the last few elections.
     • Puckish Rogue 2.2.1

       2 June 2015 at 12:49 pm

       Because much like the missing million the undecideds are left wing voters who are just waiting for Labour to go far left they can once agian rise up and vote Labour

       Obviously
     • Puddleglum 2.2.2

       2 June 2015 at 12:57 pm

       Hi Gosman,

       “Undecideds have yet to be shown to have a massive influence on Election results in NZ over the last few elections“.

       Well, I don’t see how that could possibly be the case.

       Either they vote – in which case how they vote could have crucially decided the election – or they don’t vote – in which case their non-voting could have also crucially decided the election.

       Whatever they do or do not do, their actions are quite likely to have had a “massive influence on Election results” – or at least a deciding influence.

       For example, if they didn’t vote and that denied National of a clear majority that is significant or, if they did vote, they may have denied National a clear majority which, similarly, would have been significant.

       It’s possible that their votes would have split identically to those who did vote in party vote terms but evidence is lacking for that and it seems the group of non-voters, by definition, has a different view of politics and politicians than those who vote.

       This is from the Voter and Non-Voter Satisfaction Survey for 2011:

       “Non-voters

       64% of non-voters had considered voting in this Election.

       43% of non-voters decided on Election Day that they would not vote.

       41% of non-voters put just a little thought into whether or not to vote, and 29% didn’t think about it at all.

       The main overall reasons for not voting were that they had other commitments (14%) or work commitments (9%), could not be bothered voting (14%), couldn’t work out who to vote for (11%) and that their vote would not make a difference (8%).

       33% of all non-voters agreed ‘I don’t trust politicians’ was an important factor (4 or 5 out of 5) on their not voting. Other important factors were ‘it was obvious who would win so why bother’ (31%), and I’m just not interested in politics (29%). Since 2008 there has been an increase in the proportion of non-voters saying ‘it was obvious who would win so why bother’ (from 19% to 31%).“
       • Gosman 2.2.2.1

         2 June 2015 at 2:07 pm

         i’ll rephrase to clarify for you.

         The polls prior to the election have been broadly consistent with the election result. There is no indication that Undecideds are jumping one way or the other in any significant way different to the polls.

         I will grant you that potentially the 2011 election may have been different in this regard with a late surge to NZ First that was not identified in the pre-election polls. However I suspect this was less undecideds swapping and more soft National and Labour moving to Winston.

         Non-voters are different to Undecideds. Undecided’s are generally politically engaged and are intending to vote.
         • Puddleglum 2.2.2.1.1

           2 June 2015 at 6:24 pm

           “Non-voters are different to Undecideds. Undecided’s are generally politically engaged and are intending to vote.”

           That may be your ‘hunch’ but I don’t see any evidence for that. As quoted from the 2011 survey, “64% of non-voters had considered voting in this Election; 43% of non-voters decided on Election Day that they would not vote“.

           This suggests that ‘undecideds’ (people who are thinking of voting but can’t decide for whom) probably overlap considerably with those who don’t vote.

           Also, this is confirmed in the 2014 survey:

           “About seven in ten (70%) of people who did not vote in the 2014 election said that they considered doing so, a similar level to the 2011 level (64%). Low sample sizes means there are no significant differences by sub-groups between 2014 and 2011.

           Almost a third (30%) of people decided not to vote on Election Day itself, down significantly from 43% in 2011. Another fifth (22%) decided up to a week before, a similar level to 2011. In both 2014 and 2011 about a fifth of people decided not to vote more than one month before Election Day.

           About a third (32%) said they put a lot of thought into the decision about whether or not to vote, a third (31%) some thought, and a third (38%) no thought at all. This was the same pattern as in 2011.”

           Again, it seems reasonable to believe that a considerable proportion of the non-voters would have identified as ‘undecideds’ in the months leading up to the 2014 election.

           What neither you nor I know from these surveys – because it wasn’t asked, so far as reported in those links – is how the non-voters (a proportion of the undecideds) split in terms of who they were leaning towards.

           So, once again, I can’t see what the evidence there is that the undecideds’ voting or non-voting behaviour doesn’t influence the outcome.
3. Puckish Rogue 3

   2 June 2015 at 11:46 am

   Of course you will 🙂
4. Puckish Rogue 4

   2 June 2015 at 12:30 pm

   According to Kiwiblog:

   The last time the Opposition Leader dropped behind (or tied) a third party leader as Preferred PM was Bill English in 2003.

   Is this correct? Not that it means anything I’m sure.
   • Colonial Rawshark 4.1

     2 June 2015 at 12:34 pm

     Its just a once off. Give it a few more polls.
     • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1

       2 June 2015 at 12:42 pm

       How low do you think it will go?
       • Colonial Rawshark 4.1.1.1

         2 June 2015 at 12:57 pm

         My perspective re: Labour overall is that it is still in the midst of a long term electoral downdraft, the dynamics of “waiting for the tide to come in” are over due to a secular change in the electorate (even if some do not realise it yet), and if the party is not careful, 25% party vote will not be the floor.
         • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1.1.1

           2 June 2015 at 1:03 pm

           Better be careful, you might find yourself getting excommunicated for that kind of heresy
           • te reo putake 4.1.1.1.1.1

             2 June 2015 at 1:19 pm

             It’s far from heresy. It’s a reasonable assessment of the changes in the electoral population, though the comment about Labour does reflect its author’s usual pessimism. While CV might be a better fit in Social Credit, there’s room for the odd Muldoonist economic conservative within the broad church that is the NZ Labour Party, so excommunication isn’t on the cards.
             • Nessalt …

               2 June 2015 at 1:35 pm

               The odd one? look at our Caucus, it’s stacked with them. Tho they pretend to be left. maybe they can pretend to pretend to be left and voters may have a better perception of them.
5. Observer (Tokoroa) 5

   2 June 2015 at 12:38 pm

   The Labor Party cannot look to gaining numbers until jobs dry up in big numbers right across the nation.

   That, plus a plus a punishing rise in rental costs; and mortgages; and basic food items.

   The remarkably stupid debt that Bill English has put us into, will of course gradually choke both growth and confidence.

   Elections may often seem to be about the personality of particular politicians, but there is every likelihood that a dismal economy will cause a political change.

   The videos of John Key molesting the hair of little blonde girls without any compunction but with loads of creepy delectation, while the National Party apparently condones what he has done, may serve to spotlight the dirty Politics and the corrupt (in a democracy context) shift of money and resources to the ever fat few.
   • Clean_power 5.1

     2 June 2015 at 12:52 pm

     Observer (Tokoroa) says: The Labor Party (sic) cannot look to gaining numbers until jobs dry up in big numbers right across the nation. That, plus a plus a punishing rise in rental costs; and mortgages; and basic food items.

     You expect the economy to deteriorate and things get worse for Labour to gain numbers? is that your prediction or your desire? Shouldn’t we all want the best, not the worst, for New Zealand?
     • maui 5.1.1

       2 June 2015 at 1:02 pm

       And JK is doing the best for NZ long term?
   • Gosman 5.2

     2 June 2015 at 12:55 pm

     You are expecting inflation and job numbers to radically change direction to where they are now. Good luck with that as an election winning strategy.
     • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.1

       2 June 2015 at 2:12 pm

       If GFC 2 + dairy perfect storm does hit, National will be the political beneficiaries of it, not Labour.
6. David Farrar 6

   2 June 2015 at 12:55 pm

   Hi Anthony,

   No old comments have been deleted. But 250,000 or so of them have had to go into moderation as some very old comments had comment spam which breached Google Adsense policies.

   Trying to delete the spam comments one at a time proved impossible, so we moved all old comments into moderation, and as I get time I manually approve batches of 100 or so at a time, if they are compliant.

   So eventually all the non-spam old comments will be visible again.
   • r0b 6.1

     2 June 2015 at 1:22 pm

     Hi David – Thanks for the explanation. Very pleased that KB comments will be returning for the record. Big job you have on your hands there…
   • weka 6.2

     2 June 2015 at 1:41 pm

     “as some very old comments had comment spam which breached Google Adsense policies.”

     What does that mean?
     • dukeofurl 6.2.1

       2 June 2015 at 1:47 pm

       This is what that means:

       Adult content
       Content that advocates against an individual, group, or organization
       Copyrighted material
       Drug, alcohol, and tobacco-related content
       Hacking and cracking content
       Sites that offer compensation programs (“pay-to” sites)
       Sites that use Google Brand features
       Violent content
       Weapon-related content
       Other illegal content

       support.google.com/adsense/answer/1348688?hl=en

       Its basically a hidden nanny state for advertisers, but since its all about the dollar and its Google we have nothing to worry about.
     • Psycho Milt 6.2.2

       2 June 2015 at 2:09 pm

       I think he meant “some very old posts had comment spam.” If you don’t block commenting on old posts, the old posts build up an encrustation of comments from Indian chaps who just happened past and were very impressed with the quality of your blog, and by the way they have this excellent link you should follow. Google adsense then identifies your blog as hosting spam and you’re in breach of their policies until you tidy up.
       • weka 6.2.2.1

         2 June 2015 at 2:16 pm

         Thanks, I thought it was something like that but 250,000 comment seemed a lot to remove in one go, and I was wondering about the overlap with what felix and others are talking about below, esp Lanth’s comment about removing other comments too.
       • dukeofurl 6.2.2.2

         2 June 2015 at 3:56 pm

         Most blogs deal with that by closing comments say 10 or 20 days later.

         And hasnt the blog had a enrolled poster policy for some time, and new commenters go into moderation for a time.
         • lprent 6.2.2.2.1

           2 June 2015 at 7:45 pm

           The spammers aren’t the target of the adsense policies. I suspect that it is largely a residual crust of the misogynists, bigots and racists.

           https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/1348688?hl=en

           We allow 30 days here based on some of the marathon arguments that have gone on in old posts periodically.

           However we also use some magic to make sure that robots are completely disadvantaged and new commenters have to leave something that out human moderaters read. Of course we have always made make sure that our trolls, misogynists, bigots and racists are quite limited in how much they can say.

           Most of them now seem to live over at kiwiblog, and man I feel the hate of the banned whenever I comment there.
   • felix 6.3

     2 June 2015 at 1:58 pm

     I hope you’re not deleting any of the racism, homophobia, religious hate-speech, calls to violence and other assorted horribleness your site has attracted so much of over the years, David.
     • Lanthanide 6.3.1

       2 June 2015 at 2:05 pm

       Yes, I can easily imagine that since they’re being ‘forced’ to take this approach, they’ll got a bit further and censor out the worst of the abuse and pretend it never happened.
       • vto 6.3.1.1

         2 June 2015 at 2:09 pm

         Yep. Must remember who these people are – namely people who consider that ‘winning at all costs’ is the sole purpose in life, exemplified by their dear leader Key. Winners the lot of ’em…
         • felix 6.3.1.1.1

           2 June 2015 at 3:05 pm

           Yep and note that Odgers and the Slater child have both “cleansed” their sites lately.

           If Farrar is attempting the same thing – and he definitely is – then we’re witnessing the re-writing of the nastiest chapter of the NZ political story in a very long time.
     • TheContrarian 6.3.2

       2 June 2015 at 2:07 pm

       I got say – in agreement with Felix here, I tried contributing (commenting) to Kiwiblog in some sense like I do here however the racism and homophobia was to much to bear.

       Funnily enough I was at a hairdressers the other week while in wgtn for work (one I frequented for 7 years until moving to Auckland couple months ago) and you, David, were there in the chair next to me. As I understand this same hairdressers is your frequent also (I’m sure you’ll know which one I mean – in Thorndon).

       I came very close to saying hello and introducing myself and asking why is it that while you appear somewhat normal you allow commentators to spout some pretty ugly shit…..but then I said “fuck it”, had some of the fruitbursts that they always have on the counter, and did something more productive (productive = drinking).
       • Colonial Rawshark 6.3.2.1

         2 June 2015 at 2:16 pm

         good call
   • lprent 6.4

     2 June 2015 at 8:06 pm

     But 250,000 or so of them have had to go into moderation as some very old comments had comment spam which breached Google Adsense policies.

     Ouch. I’m not that surprised though – especially in the height of the anti-Hulun period. The adsense policies that would apply are pretty specific. They don’t target spam as such. But they do target content quite a lot.

     At kiwiblog, almost entirely these ones I’d suspect.

     Content that advocates against an individual, group, or organization

     What’s the policy?

     Google believes strongly in the freedom of expression, but also recognizes the need to protect the quality of the AdSense network for users, advertisers, and publishers.

     Google ads aren’t permitted on sites that contain harassing or bullying content, or on content that incites hatred or promotes violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity. Additionally, Google ads may not appear on content that incites or advocates for harm against an individual or group.

     However, websites containing educational, documentary, historical, scientific, or artistic content related to such subjects are permitted to participate in AdSense.

     Unacceptable

     • Sites with content that advocates/condones violence or makes threats of harm against an individual or group
     • Sites with harassing or bullying content
     • Sites with content that incites or promotes hatred against a group or individuals
     • Content that encourages others to believe that a group or individual is inhuman or inferior
     • Content that attacks a person or group on the basis sexual orientation or gender identity

     None of those have ever been acceptable here except by moderators (especially me) getting rid of those who think these are good ideas. Deliberately humiliating the ones who couldn’t behave was the only way of making damn sure that they felt unwelcome here. I think most of them went back to the sewer.

     Acceptable

     • Political advertising sites (and other political content) as long as they are not hate-related or advocating for harm against another party
     • Satire sites that do not advocate violence or target hateful content against an individual or group
     • Religious organization sites as long as they are not hate-related or advocating against another religious organization
     • Consumer awareness sites (e.g., review sites, both positive and negative)
     • Academic material or case studies about harassment in the workplace

     Generally we do a bit of all of these apart from the religious.

     But what will Whaleoil have to do? He also gets a lot of the other sections in the adsense prohibitions. Especially his regular penis enhancers weapons posts.

     I looked that these adsense prohibitions about 2010, decided that we didn’t have an issue with them with our policies. But it all became moot earlier this year when I’d dropped the site costs down far enough that voluntary unforced donations mostly covered the sites costs.

     Then we didn’t need advertising, even adsense, and I dropped it completely. Speed up the site quite a bit.
7. millsy 7

   2 June 2015 at 5:11 pm

   Should be good news for the left. Putting up benefits havent triggered a big exodus to ACT.
8. Observer (Tokoroa) 8

   2 June 2015 at 7:48 pm

   Hello Clean Power

   Thanks for pointing out that the political party in NZ is spelt Labour. The same as in the UK. Whereas it is spelt Labor in Australia.

   You appear to be delighted that your preferred government National, has given more pure wealth and more substantial public assets to the wealthy few than to the Common Man.

   Would you be even happier if all the wealth were given to say just two or three National stalwarts ?

   National constantly promise Heaven to New Zealanders. But so far they have given it only to the few very wealthy citizens and to wealthy foreigners.
9. OMBE 9

   2 June 2015 at 8:36 pm

   To gain power the left needs to hope that NZ suffers mass unemployment and inflation growth……why ? Easy to promise to fix it by taxing the wealthy and borrowing and spending like there is no tomorrow…..talk about dirty politics
10. Observer (Tokoroa) 10

    2 June 2015 at 11:20 pm

    Hi OMBE

    That’s right. Stick with National and shovel all the wealth to a few nice people like you.

    Greed is your only positive. What a nasty boy you are. Any chance you might grow up sometime?
11. Freekpower 11

    3 June 2015 at 8:22 pm

    Long time reader, rare poster and all that.

    Heres my take on the latest polling.

    https://freekpower.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/in-which-pollsters-poll-and-spinners-spin-and-sometimes-pollsters-spin/

    Granted it needs a lot of work and some real in depth analysis at the end in respect of the mix of voters and where they have been leaving from and going to (which I will look into and update when I get time) but I think I hit the nail on the head regarding the preferred PM stuff.

    I actually think polls are useful, the problem is that there is rarely any actual proper analysis of them in the MSM.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS