Written By: - Date published: 6:31 pm, November 28th, 2007 - 67 comments
Categories: polls -
Tags: polls
The Herald reports that:
National has hit its highest rating – 51.3 per cent – in a Herald-DigiPoll survey.
Translated to votes, that would mean the party could govern alone.
Labour has slipped to 13.2 points behind National, increasing last month’s 12.4-point gap…
Helen Clark is still well ahead of Mr Key as preferred prime minister, favoured by 48.7 per cent (down 2.1) to Mr Key’s 36.7 per cent (down 0.6).
Translated to seats, and assuming party leaders with seats retain them, the poll results would give National 65 seats in a 121-seat Parliament, Labour 49, the Maori Party 4 and Jim Anderton’s Progressives, Rodney Hide’s Act and Peter Dunne’s United Future would have one each.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Squirm all you like, boys. If this one poll was showing something majorly different to all of the others, you might have a point. But they don’t. Labour is consistently a long way behind National.
Be my guest and ignore this simple fact and blame the Herald or the pollsters.
Poll Watch: Herald-DigiPoll, May 18-26
Party Vote:
National 50.9 (up 7)
Labour 33.6 (down 7)
Greens [only other party above 5% threshold]
Destiny NZ 1.5
Preferred PM:
John Key 45.5 (up 9.3)
Helen Clark 42.1 (down 5.6)
Winston Peters 5.4
May of this year, ohhhh what a big change there, can anyone tell me what has changed? See Billy, I can present the same stats to make this latest poll look bad for National, Key is now well behind Clark and Labour has gained 4.5% compared to National’s 0.4%. Hmmm really big change ah Billy and note, same source.
Is it really great news for National based on this?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00469.htm
Is the source plus still on Herald site too
At the risk of sounding churlish I agree will Billy – even though polls are only indicative they do seem to be indicating a strong National lead. But if it gives Labour supporters any comfort I would suggest that this is soft support and will flow away from National once a few quick PR hits are landed on them in election year (I’d suggest that these will be due to Nat policy announcements or lack thereof). Having high levels of soft support is always a dangerous place to be in as it only takes one hit and a subsequent 10% drop to create the image of rapidly collapsing support. That generally leads to even more soft support leaving. If National are going to survive a campaign year with the support they have now they’re going to have to find a way to firm it up. Usually this means producing concrete policy and presenting a coherent vision. I’m not sure the Tories can do that.
In the end they may have to face the fact that PR driven campaigning is like currency speculation – it’s not about investment and all that capital that flowing into your account today can disappear just as fast tomorrow.
Come on, Tane and Matthew. Do I have to point out the frigging obvious?
Tom Semmens said: “The challenge for Labour is to come up with some sort of counter to a paper that clearly sees itself now as a right wing change agent.”
So I merely suggest that the Government change the Herald’s tax status. Oops, sorry. The Government’s already threatened the Herald with that. So the Government will have to dig deeper. How about making the campaign the Herald is running against the Government illegal? Whoops: the EFB makes that illegal already. Have to try harder. Hell, why not just shoot them?
Face it, you can’t write this off as a rogue poll. Tom Semmens conveniently claims the Herald is the “second” most anti-Labour poll. Of what, four polls? Crikey.
You folk at the Standard have had a depressing time of late. All the polls going against you, protests from the Left at your conference, protests from everybody else at the self-serving Electoral Finance Bill, the Press Gallery refusing to buckle to the PM’s bullying, and Australia showing the way to change a government that’s run out of steam. It’s no wonder the Standard chaps are so angry.
indicating a strong National lead
possible but look to my above poll and compare
Go for it, Lampie. Delude youself all you want. It actually quite suits me.
The last poll the Standard posted on was bad for Labour. All the commenters were pretty unanimous that it was because that one was a “rogue” poll.
This time, the poll is “rogue” again, but it is also flawed.
Yup. Those are the only possible explanations. Because everyone thinks exactly like all of you.
Prick, I haven’t written this off as a rogue poll, and if you have another look at our post we reported it as a straight news story.
Having said that, I can see some major issues with the Herald’s stats – Greens on 0.9% in Auckland is simply not credible.
Your understanding of the Electoral Finance Bill is pretty dire. If I were you I’d check it again before saying the Herald will be banned from running articles criticising the government in election year.
The rest of your post is nonsense and I’m not going to address it point by point. But if there’s an anger problem here Prick, it’s certainly coming from your corner.
Brilliant, Lampie. You are so much in denial about the poll results that you reject polling methodolody entirely.
There’s a sliiiight problem with your claim. Poll results do generally very closely resemble election results. Poll averages across multiple polls even more closely resemble election results.
If polling information wasn’t a useful tool, then why do you think the Labour Party spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year commissioning polling research?
Yes, there are occasionally rogue polls. I note that every time a poll comes out that the Standard doesn’t like, they claim it is rogue. By definition and structure, it is statistically virtually impossible for all but two of the polls published by the main polling companies this year, to be “rogue”. The two that the Standard were crowing about showed a slight rise in support for Labour, and a slight dip for National–albeit National was still leading Labour by six points.
Face it, Lampie. The poll results consistently show that New Zealanders are sick and tired of this shoddy government, and want a change.
I note that every time a poll comes out that the Standard doesn’t like, they claim it is rogue.
Prick, why do you insist on making stuff up? Don’t you want to have at least some credibility on this site?
Come on, Tane. Give even your left-wing readers some credit for not being absolutely stupid. You attempted to undermine the poll by saying there are major flaws with it. You somehow claim that the Greens’ support level in Auckland is a “major issue” with the poll. That’s nonsense. Nobody judges a poll based a result of a minor party in a region.
That isn’t a major issue at all. Small party results are volatile in polls. The big picture stuff–where National is versus Labour, and where the centre-left is versus the centre-right, have been absolutely consistent throughout most of the polls. The recent Herald poll is totally in line with all of the previous polls.
I love it how the Standard cheers a poll, just a month ago, which shows a slight dip for National: the Standard heralds it as a sign Labour’s winning the arguments. Then every subsequent poll that shows National extending its lead on Labour, the Standard tries to undermine. That’s just pure comedy, that is.
And clearly, Tane, you haven’t actually read the Electoral Finance Bill. Under clause 5(2)(c) of the Electoral Finance Bill, newspaper content is exempted from the definition of an election advertisement only if it is “solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers”. If the Standard’s stock claims that the Herald is anti-government and is campaigning to change it are true, then that would fall outside of merely “informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers”.
Brilliant, Lampie. You are so much in denial about the poll results that you reject polling methodolody entirely.
??? really??? Where did I say that?
Go for it, Lampie. Delude youself all you want. It actually quite suits me.
I am? hmmm strange, I’m haven’t even argued that the poll is completely wrong and Labour should be in front???? Sorry Billy but you just making assumptions.
You righties need to learn how to argue the point not the player
Also Prick, Poll results do generally very closely resemble election results.
Digi poll claim to have 3 close to results, 1996, 2002 and 2005 which they are very proud of.
If polling information wasn’t a useful tool, then why do you think the Labour Party spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year commissioning polling research?
I would assume all parties do and present them to show whatever picture they want, stats can be manipulated to suit one’s purpose. All parties would do.
The poll results consistently show that New Zealanders are sick and tired of this shoddy government, and want a change.
That is a possible conclusion.
Also answer me this, with credible evidence not opinion, who would be a suitable replacement for the current Govt.?
Have evidence to support your argument as you two (Billy and Prick) sound like branded individuals.
No, Lampie. Political parties do not generally release polling data they commission. Labour and National certainly don’t release it. They don’t use the information to manipulate perceptions about how popular they are. They use the data to give themselves a clear view of what issues are of concern to voters, and what voters think about the respective performances of the parties.
Poll results generally do very closely resemble election results: the averages of a group of polls are even more accurate. The Herald digi-poll is largely consistent with all but two of the polls in the last year. They show a consistent trend of National far ahead of Labour, and growing in support. Despite this, the Standard tries to undermine every poll result since the two that they celebrated, by inferring that the anti-Labour polls are “rogue”. Tane even had the gall to claim that the result of a very small party in Auckland was out of whack, so must somehow make the rest of the poll dodgy.
Lampie, a suitable replacement for the current government is whomever the voters decide. That is how democracy works, despite the attempts of the Labour Party to stifle democracy by severely restricting opposition debate, while spending a hundred million dollars of taxpayers’ money telling voters how good they are. At the moment, based on the evidence of a year of polls that show National is far and away ahead of Labour, it appears that voters believe National is the suitable replacement for the Government.
Well, for starters, Lampie, let’s not misprepresent my argument.
My argument is simply: you people need to make room for the possibility that the polls presently show that a significant majority of New Zealander favour the National Party over the Labour Party.
My evidence is the poll results.
My experience with polls (this was certainly the case last cycle) indicates that small parties drop off when it’s not near election time, so support for both major parties will be reduced by election time.
The results are also usually far closer than polls a year out indicate, which bodes ill for National, and the inability of the right to consolidate enough votes to secure a majority in the house.
IP, this type of comment “Face it, Lampie. The poll results consistently show that New Zealanders are sick and tired of this shoddy government, and want a change.” may mean the world to you, but I heard the same empty hetoric before the last election.
It’s true that some New Zealanders percieve the government as having too much influence in their lives, and that is driving the poll results we are seeing.
As a supporter of the left, and perhaps an optimist (although I base this upon previous National campaigns and their recent performance) I can’t help but feel that National support will dry up closer to an election. People may want a change but will hesitate to vote for one when they realise what that will entail under National. And if National don’t release enough policy, there will be plenty of others clamouring about to let people know – I don’t think they will be able to hide their agenda as well as last time.
IP your claim about the Herald is clearly laughable and I can’t see why you post such nonsense. I mean most of the time people don’t even bother to respond to large portions of your posts bacause of this; it really is strange.
If the Standard’s stock claims that the Herald is anti-government and is campaigning to change it are true, then that would fall outside of merely “informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers”.
Really?! Do you actually believe anyone on earth would read that and think, “hmm, that IP, he’s right you know. what a bright cookie.” How would one prove that the Herald is ‘campaigning’ in a legal sense, and disprove that the purpose is not for the purpose of informing? Information about any policy would clearly to be to inform and therefore not an election advertisement. And from this laughable platform you claim Labour is trying to censor the media. Ho, Ho, Ho, I’m bleedin’ Santa!
Even though people may claim that The Herald is running an anti-government campaign, I think you’re reading into it a bit too far in a legal sense, though it is charming of you to take what The Standard posts to heart. So don’t forget – Two Ticks Labour, there’s a good lad.
P.S. IP does it annoy you that I use my full name on this site? I’ve noticed your childish tendancies to post, threaten to post, or imply personal knowledge about other commentators, I find it a very petty behaviour. Care to explain why? I can’t see why you would fail to respect people’s wish to use pseudonyms on an online forum, especially given your use of one.
Matt – IP is a bully. That’s why he likes to make out he knows about peole’s backgrounds (just like he likes to make out he knows other stuff he can’t provide proof for). But like all bullies he’s also a coward. I’ve noticed his habit of “outing” too and it pisses me off. If anyone has any tips about who he might be please feel free to mail them to mickyporton[at]hotmail.com
Prick – You know I’ll find out who you are. Whether I post your deets or not will be up to you. Any comment, boy?
No, Lampie. Political parties do not generally release polling data they commission. Labour and National certainly don’t release it. They don’t use the information to manipulate perceptions about how popular they are. They use the data to give themselves a clear view of what issues are of concern to voters, and what voters think about the respective performances of the parties.
Correct. Now the point with that May digipoll and this latest one is that a)Leads more towards an argument that Labour has made some traction b)May poll DOES include undecided voters in it, this one doesn’t c)EFB row and other such things may not really affected this latest poll in a positive or negative depending what side of the fence your on.
Billy, I haven’t stated against or for your argument and this is just my opinion, National may be looking at a wider scope with these polls plus their own and may thought that Labour has made some ground, we are still ahead but standing still a bit too much hence lets do some promotion say John Key’s tour, possible that their polls suggest need to do this eariler than this latest one, remember this is speculation, just my thoughts.
Poll results generally do very closely resemble election results: the averages of a group of polls are even more accurate
Hmmm know what my wife would say to that!! More as in what the other polls say, sorry, National is front, no one doubts that.
Lampie, a suitable replacement for the current government is whomever the voters decide.
I’m talking YOU, your argument who should be Govt.
Robinsod, don’t play that game. If Prick wants to act like a jerk then let him, there’s no need to sink to his level.
Tane – we all know you can’t sink lower than Robinsod.
Prick – come on boy, what you got to say?
I hate to interject, but this altercation over poll credibility reminds me of the piece in Gulliver’s Travels where two countries went to war over a disagreement over which end of a soft-boiled egg should be broken, the pointy end or the rounded end.
Happily, I have a solution for you all. Chill out, wait 11 months, and then you’ll find out who was right and who was wrong.
Sorry, didn’t mean to sound condescending or anything, but the hostility in this thread was getting a bit overwhelming.
Gruela, I’ve been absent since your comment on my posting. Meanwhile Insolent has made the relevant points and I agree with him, you’ve been very decent about the argument. I would just like to add that if anyone should be sacked, its the people who drafted the antiterror legislation that the solicitor general said was unworkable.
It is only very rarely that most of us would agree that the media SHOULD publish “inadmissable” evidence, and this time, they’ve done us a massive service. It was utterly unjust that the cops take the blame for this debacle.
Gruela,
You are right, of course. To me, the poll is of limited interest, given how far away the election is. I suspect that this is largely a vote against Labour and National may struggle to maintain that when it has to satisfy what I expect is a very diverse range of discontented.
What I find much more interesting is the left’s reaction to it. They just cannot understand why people would not be satisfied with a government which, in their eyes, has delivered so much. So they think it must be a mistake. A terrible mistake or a conspiracy.
Andrew,
Thanks for educating these poor souls in confidence intervals, etandard errors etc. It certainly saved me a lot of typing!
But, you forgot to add the demographic profiling aspect to it as well.
I know that in the case of the major research houses (AC Nielsen etc) they dont just take raw poll results and publish them with a /- 3% caveat.
What happens is a complicated and, quite frankly, boring mathematical computation, to ensure that the demographic profile of the polled responses broadly matches with demographic profile of the nation as a whole (taken from the last census).
There are also demograpic targets that the pollsters have to reach, so that you dont end up in a situation where one response represents, say, 10% of the total population weight.
All of this, by the way, is international standard practice.
MAtthew
You are correct that there is a perception that major party support drops away in favour of third parties at election time, it is not true as demonstrated by the last election. Noine months out Labour were well ahead but there was a shift from Labour to Nats and the minors stayed within the margin of error on election night or decreased their support.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=185&objectid=8501131
http://2005.electionresults.govt.nz/e9/html/e9_part1.html
I know that in the case of the major research houses (AC Nielsen etc) they dont just take raw poll results and publish them with a /- 3% caveat.
your not talking about the margin of error???
For people’s information,the only media who seem to release a decent summary of their poll results, or who feel the urge to even mention don’t knows etc, is TV.
for eg
Insider – good point re. small parties, I’m trying to remember the same with previous MMP elections but can’t off teh top of my head.
The other pint, though, is very well illustrated by that poll/election – the gap between the big parties closes remarkably. Not always (thinking the English landlide defeat) but there you have a 50%-30% poll, with a 20% gap. Come election time…
That’s what I would imagine this time around if the public reacts negatively to National policy. Who knows, they may not!!
thanks lyndon, great stuff
Phil
You are of course right – alongside polls results should be published the demographic characteristics of the participants with, ideally, the corresponding percentages of voting the population. If this information was available, we would then be informed about how representative of the population the sample really was.
Personally I cannot see why such the full polling reports cannot be posted on commissioning organisation’s websites, so that they can be fully scrutinised. I am particularly interested in the [1] the methods and [2] the size of the undecided vote. Differences in methods ie what times people are being polled, whether landlines and mobiles are being called, etc (increasing amongst younger people, Maori and Pacific groups only mobiles are being used) probably contribute to different results. It would also be fascinating to see what questions were actually asked.
By the way, could someone fix the website so that plus or minus shows up as symbols rather than the somewhat incomprehensible /-.
andrew,
I’m sure they do, but to get access to it would requires some kind of paid subscription
Tane, Robinsond, and Gruela, you hounds of the left thrill me with your incisive and intelligent commentary. I could swear you’re the result of fine red unionist homes.
Lets work together to socialise beautiful New Zealand and empoverish its population. Labour to rule unopposed (with a little help of the EFB) until 2056!