On polls and things

Written By: - Date published: 9:16 am, February 25th, 2014 - 106 comments
Categories: election 2014, greens, labour, Media, national, polls - Tags:

Danyl McLaughlan poll of polls

I sense a certain lethargy creeping into the continuing debates on opinion poll results. The polls bounce all around the place.  One minute there is the euphoria of a likely change of Government this year to the forces of light and goodness and then there is the agony of the prospect of a Key led Government being able to rule in its own right.  The never ending stream of results do not stop the bloggers (me included) from commenting every time a new one appears.  We go through bouts of depression and exhilaration depending on the latest poll result.

The latest TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll has provided a feeling of depression to some on the left.  The result, Labour steady on 34% is actually OK.  If Labour gets to 37% and the Greens hold steady on their normal results then a change in Government is on the cards.  The surprising result, that Greens lost 5% to go down to 8% indicates to me strongly that the result is something of a rogue.  Two trips to Dotcom mansion by Russel Norman is not justification for such a precipitous drop.  The theory offered very quickly by David Farrar after the results were released, that Labour had lost support to National but gained it from the Greens, does not make sense.  There has been no event to justify such a change.  There is also the interesting feature that undecided voters have increased from 11% to 13%.  But polls go up and down.  The feeling that I get on the ground is that the mood for change is much higher than the latest polls present although this is going to be a tough election.

Danyl McLaughlan’s tracking poll offers an interesting perspective.  His latest results are above in graphical form.  It adjusts various poll results for anticipated bias based on poll results from the last election and then averages the results.  (lprent: It is also adjusted by the average poll deviation from actual results in the 2011 election. Polls over many elections consistently overstate National vote and understate NZ First for instance).

It suggests that National’s true level of support is currently at about 44%, Labour is at about 32%, the Greens are on 10% and NZ First is on 7.2%.    With these figures anything can happen.  The graph is very interesting and shows individual poll results plotted against the trend over time. It suggests there is a consistent over reporting of National’s support and a consistent under reporting of NZ First’s support although I suspect that the last result was because of lefties tactically voting to make sure that NZ First made it over the line.

It is clear however that the trend is in the wrong direction for the left.  Right wing bloggers obviously think that the ferocity of their attack on Cunliffe, Norman and Turei is the reason.  I think the trend has much more to do with the upbeat feeling that summer and the buoyant economic outlook has brought about.

The accuracy of land line based polling systems has attracted comment from a number of Standard readers in the past.  News that the number of Telecom landline holders has reduced by 11% over the past two years will only add to concerns that the various polling systems are not properly sampling the population. Usage was estimated at 85% in 2013.  If the Telecom figure is extrapolated then we are looking at a landline in households proportion of about 80% which would match the figure in Australia.

The depressingly negative reporting by the media is of continuing concern.  For instance Labour’s stable polling in the Colmar Brunton poll was reported by the Dominion as “Labour Limping” and Key was then allowed to frame the debate and tell Labour what it is doing wrong.  The article was then bolstered by a headline Labour targeting wrong issues – Key which reads like it came out of the Prime Minister’s office rather than the Dominion Post.

And the Herald continues its re elect John Key campaign.  A recent article had a heading proclaiming that Labour was putting Auckland on the road to chaos by supporting Len Brown’s wish list of transport projects.  The only problem is that Labour has not.  The heading was especially naughty because Brian Rudman, the writer of the article was more nuanced in his comments. For the record Labour supports the inner city loop but does not support all of the roading projects.

IMHO what the left should do is not panic but keep talking about the issues and avoid all the distractions that the right are going to throw in its way today.  And it needs a principled and competent approach to campaigning sufficient to persuade non voters to vote and swinging voters to vote left and to persuade activists to work harder on the ground to ground campaigns which will be the difference between winning and losing.

It is going to be an interesting year …

106 comments on “On polls and things ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    25 February 2014 at 9:41 am

    I find the obssessive following and reporting of the polls frustrating and annoying. I’m not much of a poll watcher, and prefer to look at other aspects of politics.

    However, as you show, micky, the way the MSM and right wing bloggers eagerly watch, report on ans spin the polls IS the main problem, and makes it difficult to ignore them totally. They use them to frame their poltical spin.

    This adds up to a huge distraction form the key issues. I also think it is part of the whole “horse race” focus that turns off my potential voters than it eages. It’s part of what makes many members of the public cynical about politics.

    NeverthelEss, I think what engages the a lot of the public more, is stories about the trials and tribulations of their daily lives, and stories about “everyday” people. This is where the left should focus more than obssessive poll watching, in my view.

    • Monty 1.1
      25 February 2014 at 3:01 pm

      I remember one Helen E Clark was obsessed with polling. In particular I remember very well her shock at the massive increase in support for National (and corresponding slip in support for Labour) following on from the Don Brash Orewa speech. The polls allowed Labour to come back with a policy change (which also included the Labour over reaction to the Seabed and Foreshore.

      So polls are an important tool for the politician. Their ability to remain in power or get into power is based on polling and getting feedback on what works and what is a failure. I therefore do not think polling is a distraction but critical to success. Which leads me onto the next point.

      I do not think Labour are very good at reading and understanding the electorate. The left is ideologically entrenched with certain positions that really do not matter. The evidence of this is the current stuff poll about what is important. there are a number of selections such as economy health education asset sales and so on. Far and away the most import thing for the electorate is the Economy. Everything else pales into insignificance.

      On the economy National are essentially untouchable and in spite of what you read here the Nats are doing a great job in that space. So much so that David Parker has essentially been silenced. There is a reluctance by Labour MPs that the economy is performing well (es[ecially when you consider the basket case that the Nats inherited in 2008) But it is the other areas where the Left are focusing and not getting the traction. Polling shows traction is low.

      Sort of puts the left in a very difficult position going into the election. They know from polling what the issues are, but capturing the imagination of the electorate is another issue.

      • framu 1.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 3:15 pm

        “So polls are an important tool for the politician. ”

        true enough – but thats a different matter entirely to the MSM spending their entire time telling voters whos winning the race.

        note how your whole other point is entirely fueled by the media and their reporting of polls?

        you prove the damage of this kind of media approach in your own comment.

        note – thats not about having a different opinion – but that the opinions formed arent based on policy analysis, historical context or even fact – its all based on spin, perception and populism

        • karol 1.1.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 4:57 pm

          Exactly, framu. Partly, media organisations get their own polls done as a way of creating news – they then can claim an exclusive. Of course, they then need to make it sound dramatic each poll, so they beat up any changes, even if the changes are within the margin of error.

      • Concerned 1.1.2
        25 February 2014 at 3:43 pm

        We will catch the imagination of the public by announcing new taxes and spending. That will be a vote winner.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 3:49 pm

          What, as opposed to the current government’s taxing and borrowing and spending?

          All governments levy taxes. All governments spend money. Some reduce the country’s debt. Some reduce the country’s GINI.

      • KJT 1.1.3
        25 February 2014 at 4:06 pm

        “basket case that the Nats inherited in 2008”.

        Not according to Bill English.

        Fissure has been joined by another satirist.

        Or. Is Monty Fiziani astroturfing in disguise?

        [lprent: Nope. I know Monty of many bans past – all the way back to 2008 as I remember it. He knows the basic rules of the site, and I’m pretty sure he isn’t Fisiani. I haven’t needed to look at him this time around so far. ]

      • mickysavage 1.1.4
        25 February 2014 at 9:20 pm

        I do not think Labour are very good at reading and understanding the electorate.

        Monty if Labour matched National or were perhaps to the right of it you would think that they were properly reflecting the electorate’s views.

        You are also so wrong about the reality of the economy. Labour paid off the debt and left the country’s books in a state where Key has been able to have a big spend using the country’s credit card for the past five years. And say it as much as you want the country’s economy was in robust good health in 2008. I despair at your inability to realise or acknowledge this and your insistence that you are right.

    • lprent 1.2
      25 February 2014 at 3:51 pm

      I find the obssessive following and reporting of the polls frustrating and annoying. I’m not much of a poll watcher, and prefer to look at other aspects of politics.

      I mostly look at the Roy Morgan poll every other month to see if there are any sustained trends emerging. Just at present there is a post-xmas recovery for National. However it isn’t exactly a trend (especially just after xmas – you can see this happen in many years).

      The usual rapid shifts just after xmas are even more evident in RM’s GCR

      Basically we’re getting anticipation of the effects of the one off ChCh rebuild (finally) and continued high milk powder prices. But basically we’re far too dependent on this countries prosperity on a single product – milkpowder. I’m just waiting for the inevitable crash..

      The competition for international dairy sales is steadily mounting. For instance the US dairy industry has been having really fast export growth in the last 5 years. There is also a lot of milk powder capacity coming online. Plus the main new market in China is starting to slow a lot.

      Meanwhile outside of fixing ChCh and selling commodities, the industrial export sector is most notable for the lack of companies entering it since this government removed or reduced all effective help from R&D tax credits to offshore support from MFAT in 2009. Since they have done nothing to promote new export industries.

      That is why, despite National talking up the economy over the last couple of years, wages haven’t moved and the nett number of people out of work or underemployed has been still rising.

      • lurgee 1.2.1
        26 February 2014 at 7:02 am

        Unfortunately (? – given my wife works for Fonterra) I don’t think any crash is likely to come between now and the election. And while the boost from the Christchurch may be ‘one off’ it is never-the-less real enough for the people benefiting from it. The irony of a rightwing government being obliged to invest in a massive economic project has been remarked before – but that doesn’t really matter to the electorate. With asset sales ruled out, and a lot of shouting about increasing the minimum wage ‘responsibly,’ a lot of people will vote National on the assumption they’ve done well enough thus far.

        • lprent 1.2.1.1
          26 February 2014 at 8:48 am

          Curiously I just wrote a post about that. Not so much about the public perception. Just that in reality the economy is still quite stalled.

          However I suspect that the despite the amount of hyping, the sense that nothing much outside of ChCh is happening will show up.

  2. One Anonymous Bloke 2
    25 February 2014 at 9:53 am

    +1

    The mainstream media is not the only game in town.

    • JanM 2.1
      25 February 2014 at 10:02 am

      No, but sadly, it’s what ‘mainstream’ New Zealand mainly accesses

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 10:33 am

        Mainstream New Zealand also walks down the street, visits its local market, etc etc. Cunliffe makes it very clear in today’s RNZ interview that the doubling of party membership is going to translate directly into street presence etc.

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 11:08 am

          Does he mean automatically or is Labour actively increasing its use of non-MSM strategies?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 11:15 am

            It sounded more like increasing use of.

          • karol 2.1.1.1.2
            25 February 2014 at 11:19 am

            Cunliffe said they are working hard on a strategy behind the scenes. It involves organising volunteers on a street by street basis to be out there engaging with Kiwis in their local areas. He said it’s the sort of thing not reflected in the polls because the public, obviously at this stage, can’t see what they are doing.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.2.1
              25 February 2014 at 11:34 am

              That’s good to hear, because I’m banging my head on the desk over the superannuation policy this morning.

            • Granted 2.1.1.1.2.2
              25 February 2014 at 1:15 pm

              So how long before the behind the scenes work transfers to highly visible efforts that engages the public?

              I can’t imagine National would call an early election, however such a move although it would be highly politicised etc, could leave labour under prepared???

              • karol …
                25 February 2014 at 2:10 pm

                The on-the-street campaigning hasn’t started yet – it’s just in the organisational phase – as in the Cunliffe RNZ interview.

            • Skinny 2.1.1.1.2.3
              25 February 2014 at 4:14 pm

              As a result of the last Leadership husting meetings held around the country there was a rejuvenation of membership sign ups. If the Labour Party could send out a blanket letter encouraging members to get in behind the party and join in campaigning.

              We need to commit all hands to the pump. Merely joining up and paying your subs won’t be enough to get a victory later this year.

              It is vital to wining this years election that we draw people in to become actively involved. The battle will be waged in the suburbs and their streets, house by house, leave no property unanswered. First we enroll people, and then continue to ensure they turn-out to vote.

              We need to start thinking cross party unity, by opening up a joint campaign with our collation partners the Greens and Mana (who are very dedicated on the ground campaigners).

              We on the Left must do everything in our powers to get as many of the 800,000 non voters from the last election to vote. They are the ones who will make a real difference. If we can collectively target this bloc and successfully get hundreds of thousands to vote all polls will be turned on their head including the main poll the 2014 general election.

              This is what needs to happen so let’s hear this from the NZLP.

  3. Puckish Rogue 3
    25 February 2014 at 10:00 am

    I agree, its alot to do with the weather and its a rogue poll so don’t panic and change anything. Just keep doing what you’re doing and give Cunliffe a bit more time and Labour will win the next election (the election in 2017 of course)

    • fender 3.1
      25 February 2014 at 10:37 am

      You’re really popular here PR, so don’t do a fisiani , that would be a real shame…

      • Puckish Rogue 3.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 3:08 pm

        fisianis a good man

        [lprent: Also a exceedingly repetitive one who just made a very dumb and general set of assertions about others.

        I tend to get a hell of a lot harsher kicking off anyone doing mindless trolling coming up towards elections as a prophylactic measure. Otherwise the sites comments become far too boring for me to enjoy reading. I looked at the comment if banned him for and thought about seeing another six months of that kind of crap. ]

      • lurgee 3.1.2
        26 February 2014 at 7:04 am

        I thought that was a rather well turned joke. Are we all getting a bit grim and tight lipped on the left?

  4. shorts 4
    25 February 2014 at 10:10 am

    Polls are the sports results of current affairs for our media- ie something their talking heads understand, winners and losers… subtlety lost and bias confirmed

    I don’t think many people outside of those politically active give a shit – maybe closer to polling day but for now they’re just a distraction from the real news – what the celebs are up to and, well, sport

  5. xtasy 5
    25 February 2014 at 10:14 am

    Yes, it is wise to not pay too much attention to the polls, because they are the stuff the MSM love, and that are also used to drag people before the TV screens to pay attention. Polls are treated a bit like the “America’s Cup”, the “Melbourne Cup”, a leading international All Black game against the Aussies or Springboks, yes like racing and sports competitions, focusing on numbers and “results”, rather than efforts and details.

    The way polls are conducted have been and are questioned by many, as we know, and polls can also lead to self fulfilling tendencies and prophecies, as the MSM media reporters, moderators and “personalities” use them as “guidance” for their own “sensing” of situations and trends, only feeding back into people’s minds a sentiment, that will end up being poll driven, and is anything but policy focused. In the end we would have a repeat of the last election campaign, where the focus is lost, as too much concern is placed on polls at any given time.

    Trends are fluctuating and can change abruptly, be up and down for long or short periods, and this cannot serve as a good “guide” for running an election campaign. It can serve as an aspect to give serious consideration, but must always be seen alongside many other aspects to consider.

    Nevertheless, as Labour – and also some in the Greens – “stuffed up” a bit over recent weeks, or exposed themselves to media getting a chance to challenge and expose weaknesses or publicly unknown stuff, it is time to bloody LEARN out of all this, and I address this especially at caucus members in both parties, especially Labour though. Do you WANT to win and govern, or do you not??? Get off your backsides and start making that necessary difference. Get your staff to do research, use information smartly and well targeted, and bring new good policies that make a real difference to what we get from NatACT.

    I feel this morning David Cunliffe managed very well in an interview on Radio NZ National with Kathryn Ryan, and he is not taking the polls as something to drag him down, it seems. It is a challenge, which just as well comes this early in election year, to get the act together. Here is the audio of the RNZ interview with Cunliffe:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2586927/david-cunliffe-labour-party-leader

  6. Enough is Enough 6
    25 February 2014 at 10:21 am

    The question remains why do we poll?

    They don’t add anything to the democratic process.

    Simpletons are competitive and like to be seen on the ‘winning’ team. If people assessed the parties on their actual policies rather than the results of these corrupt polls, the election result would be a lot different.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.1
      25 February 2014 at 12:54 pm

      +1 Enough is Enough

    • karol 6.2
      25 February 2014 at 1:01 pm

      This obsessive polling is a neoliberal thing. It’s using practices taken from the business world to test on branding etc.

      It shouldn’t be the the corner pin of the operations of the left – conflicts with left wing concerns with people, communities and the lives lived therein.

    • lurgee 6.3
      26 February 2014 at 7:06 am

      Oh, come on, you can’t grumble about the purpose of polling just because they are going against us. If the poll had Labour on 40% and the Greens on 15%, people here-about would be demanding the poll be the lead story on the news for a week and for Key to call an immediate election.

  7. Ad 7
    25 February 2014 at 10:22 am

    Loved your last post to get more young people enrolled. Just sensible. Keep going Mickey.

  8. Notanymore 8
    25 February 2014 at 10:39 am

    I am confused. The polling for mid-last year shows an upwards trend for Labour and a downward trend on the blue line. Didn’t David Shearer stand to one side because of the bad poll results ?

    Now the trend lines are both moving in completely opposite directions, the red line has taken a distinct dive surely.
    If that is not the case then the blue line, and the associated dots, are all approaching the mid to high-forties again.

    While we keep hearing the only real poll is the one held on election day then what is the point of these numerous other efforts ? David Shearer, for one, must be wondering why he is sitting on the bench he is now. It seems he is not the only caucus member having thoughts.
    Do polls matter or not ?

    • fender 8.1
      25 February 2014 at 12:26 pm

      I for one feel confident that the more exposure Cunliffe receives when the election campaign kicks off proper we will see support for Labour increase. He hasn’t had much exposure of late except for some silly MSM trivialities that have confirmed they will do Labour no favours. Much will have been learned from the last couple of weeks hopefully and Cunliffe should realise it’s better to stay on message rather than be dragged down to the playground level of debate Key specialises in.

      Polls seem to matter mostly to those who wish to use the results as a tool to validate their bias. The lack of discussion around the undecided is quite telling, so don’t get too depressed by assuming Key will automatically get another 3 years of destructive divisiveness to play out.

      If Shearer is wondering why he is no longer leader all he needs to do is look back on the tapes of his stumbling bumbling efforts.

      The leaders debates will give Cunliffe the opportunity to show how much more he is PM material than Key the one-hit wonder rockstar wannabe who keeps playing his scratched record ad nauseam is.

      • Anne 8.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 1:39 pm

        Much will have been learned from the last couple of weeks hopefully and Cunliffe should realise it’s better to stay on message…

        And that is what he said this morning. Not afraid to admit he’s made mistakes.

        You know something? As we draw closer to the election and Joe and Mary Bloggs begin to recognise Cunliffe’s talent, what’s the bet there will be a subtle change in MSM reporting. And the reason would be because they’re hedging their bets. They like to be in the winners camp and if Labour’s fortunes improve enough, they will start a’courting them in case they win.

        That, I think, is what is worrying NAct and is why they are sinking to such dirty, low-down tactics (spying on opposition pollies looking for gen on them)) in their efforts to discredit their opponents.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 8.1.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 1:47 pm

          +1 Anne …and that recent raising of the minimum wage can be clearly seen as an acknowledgement by National that Labour’s message that ‘the economy is not sharing good fortune in good times with all of us’ is a strong one that they can’t counteract apart from a token raise-at-the-last-minute.

        • fender 8.1.1.2
          25 February 2014 at 2:49 pm

          Yep. I have faith in my judge of character, and it leads me to believe that the more people are exposed to the talents of Cunliffe the more they will see he’s a refreshing change from what Key can offer.

          I fail to accept voters are happy to have a flippant lager-lout as their PM.

          • Pasupial 8.1.1.2.1
            25 February 2014 at 4:21 pm

            The most interesting part of the OneNewsColmarBrunton (CB) poll for me was the Preferred PM question:

            “Now thinking about all current MPs of any party, which one would you personally prefer to be Prime Minister?” IF NONE: “Is there anyone who is not a current MP who you would prefer to be Prime Minister?”

            http://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/images/140214_ONE_News_Colmar_Brunton_Poll_report_15-19_Feb_2014_prelim.pdf

            The question as asked seems to come across as; “name a politician, any politician”. Not surprisingly the current PM came out on top (43% – approximately 430 out of the 1007 people interviewed), but this was closely followed by “don’t know” (30% or 300 people). Especially if we include “other” (2%), “none” (3%), or “refused” (1%), in the “Don’t know” category (36% or 360).

            Cunliffe came in at 10% (100 people), but look how his rise from 0.4% (4 people) in last year’s April poll is mirrored by Shearer’s fall from 15% (150) to 0.5% (5 people). As always, in third place is Peters at 4% (40 people).

            But this is where it gets most interesting; of the following 18 Preferred PM nominees, only 3 hail form National; English on 0.4% (4 people), Joyce & Collins both on 0.2% (2 people). Colin Craig devotees mustered 0.3%, as did Pita Sharples (3 people).

            On the broader left there is; Norman 1% (10 people), & Turei 0.2% (2 people), plus Harawira 0.1% , & Anderton 0.1% (1 person). All of the remaining 9 are Labour MPs (although the 4 people giving Helen Clark 0.4% are probably trapped in the same time-warp as Anderton’s supporter; so call it 8 current Labour MPs).

            What this suggests to me is that the left’s strength lies in being represented by a team of committed MPs. Cunliffe shouldn’t adopt the presidential style framing by going mano a mano against Key. If it’s a question of inclusion vs exclusion, then the Left will win every time.

            • mickysavage 8.1.1.2.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 9:29 pm

              Good call Parsupial. Why is it that the left do not care about who the leader is but care which party is in control?

      • thechangeling 8.1.2
        25 February 2014 at 4:07 pm

        I agree that the leaders debates (if Key actually bothers to front) will give Labour a significant boost as Cunliffe will focus much more on the nuts and bolts of policy whilst Key will just launch superficially based character attacks based on perceived past policy ‘failures’ and ‘facts’.
        I expect Key to get particularly nasty and vicious especially if the polls have narrowed more than they are now which I expect they will.
        As another poster said, the best thing that Cunliffe can do is ‘stay on track’ and keep talking about policy and it’s related detail and don’t lower himself to Key’s level which is the best way for Labour to win through in the end.

    • karol 8.2
      25 February 2014 at 2:11 pm

      Dear, stillconfused – read the post. It explains the correction applied to the raw poll results,

    • Stamper 8.3
      25 February 2014 at 4:53 pm

      They matter if you’re ahead; they are “just another one means nothing much / too early” etc etc if you’re behind.

  9. tricledrown 9
    25 February 2014 at 10:56 am

    Many of us on the left said this was going to be a difficult year with the economy growing and National crowing.
    It has Now been proven unfortunately true.
    The Only way we can combat it is to get numbers on the ground and get nonvoters out young by twitter facebook etc
    Maori and pacific Islanders we need volunteers on the ground.
    No more infighting complaining.
    A lot you thought wr had this election in the bag.
    I said this election was going to be hard work.
    Get with your left party and help on the ground negative blogging and giving hooton and srylands BM whatfor ain’t going to win this election.
    The only brightspot would be the resurgence of ACT who would put an end to Keys Hollow promise that the National party wil not be selling anymore assets.
    They will blame ACT for breaking that Hollow promise.

    • Skinny 9.1
      25 February 2014 at 12:01 pm

      Key has been let off the hook by MSM interviews. When the prick said there would be no more assets sales the media should have asked the broader question of contracting and consulting out what public/state sectors we have left. A third term National will go all out to carve up contracts to their mates. Which will mean further job cuts, mark my words.

      Just look at the prolific rise in costs associated to contractors and consultants under this regime.

  10. David 10
    25 February 2014 at 12:20 pm

    I think the Morgan Poll of 20 Feb has the biggest answers here: by its tracking of confidence levels in government, the Nats have been on a roll for 6 months. http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5437-new-zealand-voting-intention-february-20-2014-201402200349 I was waiting for this to track more strongly into the other polls, and my guess is that’s what’s happening now. So we face a challenge: here arent things tearing away at the underbelly of this government, as one might expect after 6 years. Disaffection is real and is crystallizing, but so is a basic ease on the part of a big chunk of the electorate with overall direction and progress. The biggest mistake Labour could make now would be to tear itself to pieces over this: Labour will get an excellent chance to present itself as an alternative government later this year; it has a strong and articulate leader who will do well head to head with anyone, and is articulating polices that will make a real difference to those who the Nats have undermined and eroded. I think we will look very attractive to a lot of people later this year, but we need to stay positive now.

    • Lanthanide 10.1
      25 February 2014 at 12:24 pm

      The thing is, that Morgan question isn’t anything to do with the government, by they report the result as if it is.

      The question is something like “Do you think things in NZ are generally going in the right direction, or wrong direction?”.

      If the question was actually “Do you have confidence in the government”, which is what they are touting it as, they would get different answers.

      When I was recently polled by Roy Morgan I deliberately answered “wrong direction”, even though I don’t believe that, because I know they report it as a government confidence rating, when I don’t have confidence in this government. Things are going in the right direction despite the government.

    • lprent 10.2
      25 February 2014 at 4:21 pm

      Agreed. What is rather irritating is that the confidence tends to be misplaced.

  11. McFlock 11
    25 February 2014 at 12:26 pm

    The thing about the economic good news stories (well, the ones that aren’t found to be bunk three months down the line, line surpluses and christmas trading levels) is that I don’t believe they are relevant to most people.

    I suspect that what we all can do (not “labour should…” or “the Greens need to…”) is keep asking how relevant some of these figures are to each of us as individuals. The one constant of this government is massive numbers of people looking for work or more work. They’re not looking for the hell of it – they’re struggling. That’s the reality. Too many of them, I think, feel that their circumstances are the exception rather than the norm. The believe the good news stories in the face of their own contrary experience.

    We need to remind folk that their experience counts, too. Remind them that they count, too.

  12. Bob 12
    25 February 2014 at 12:52 pm

    Who created this graph? How is it possible for there to be 5 results below National’s rolling median result and dozens above? Did you get this graph from the IPCC by chance?

    [lprent: The link is in the post. You just wasted my time in responding to a general question about a post on out site that you could have shifted your lazy arse and found out about if you’d read the post.

    Banned for 4 weeks. ]

    • Granted 12.1
      25 February 2014 at 1:03 pm

      HaHa!!! I was about to ask the same question.

      Stats stats and Lies or something isn’t it???

      [lprent: Same 4 weeks to you. Besides, your stats in 12.2 is complete crap. I’d suggest you go and read some texts. You obviously belong to the Whaleoil school of logic where 1 + 1 = “11” ]

    • Granted 12.2
      25 February 2014 at 1:11 pm

      Actually add the error margin to National and subtract from labour and it is 46% to 30.2%. Or the other way 41.8% vs 34%

      But graphs are graphs are graphs. To be fair I recall that NZF were hardly on the charts prior to last election and did pretty well – so the above graph certainly has some validity.

      I agree with last sentence completely – it will be an interesting year.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.3
      25 February 2014 at 1:17 pm

      It’s explained in the post: poll bias is calculated by the difference between said polls and election results (the big dot on the vertical line).

      So the polls that said National would get 56% of the vote before the 2011 election, for example, in doing so, exhibit a bias of +9%.

      Lots of reasons why this is so the largest of which is the decreasing percentage who have land lines.

      I’m sure you’ll prefer to deny this method of assessing the polls. Why don’t you make some ad hominem remarks about the author instead?

      • Bob 12.3.1
        25 February 2014 at 2:02 pm

        Okay, fair enough,

        ‘Why don’t you make some ad hominem remarks about the author instead?’ Okay, how do these two comments (admittedly by diffrent commentators) align:
        “Polls over many elections consistently overstate National vote and understate NZ First for instance” and yet “It suggests there is a consistent over reporting of National’s support and a consistent under reporting of NZ First’s support although I suspect that the last result was because of lefties tactically voting to make sure that NZ First made it over the line”, really? I take it Mickeysavage has never heard of Occam’s Razor!

        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.3.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 2:37 pm

          I don’t need tactical voting to explain the phenomenon. I’m sure Micky is quite capable of speaking for himself though. Why don’t you ask him?

          • Bob 12.3.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 3:04 pm

            Simply because you asked me to make ad hominem remarks about the author, so I obliged.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.3.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 3:15 pm

              Pointing out a flaw in someone’s argument is not ad hominem, but this is getting silly.

              The good thing about a model like Danyl’s is that (if applied consistently) it makes testable predictions, and can be retrospectively tested against existing info.

        • mickysavage 12.3.1.2
          25 February 2014 at 9:45 pm

          Because Bob it is possible that NZFirst’s result is always under reported but the result in the last election was so good because not only of the under reporting but also because lefties wanted to make sure that NZ First made it over the line.

          I am not sure that Occam’s razor has anything to do with it.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 12.3.1.2.1
            26 February 2014 at 9:02 am

            You don’t need tactical voting to explain it. It could be that the votes the polls said belonged to National went to NZ1st instead. Hence Occam’s razor.

  13. jepenseque 13
    25 February 2014 at 12:55 pm

    Hi everyone.

    Possible labour policies/actions that might get this righty thinking about voting for you:

    Make work pay – where at all possible reduce effective marginal taxes on labour. I.e increase other taxes if need be, think of more clever ways to help families than wff. What about a land tax to fund a strong tax free threshold?

    Be the party of small businesses. There was an excellent article on TDB the other day about the nzicas proposals for small business tax

    Make the cgt a higher % and reduce corporate and personal tax rates.

    Change your language towards business and success.

    Don’t expend energy helping people on min wage earn a higher min wage but rather how can we encourage continual upskilling and labour market movement. People shouldn’t be cleaners for life.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      25 February 2014 at 1:11 pm

      Can you please provide an example of the language towards business and success that needs changing?

      I’m only asking because although I see a lot of right wingers talking shit about what left wingers believe, I never actually see any evidence to support the right wing smears.

      So, to demonstrate the views you allege are ubiquitous on the left, quote a prominent left-wing politician (you need to show they have support for their beliefs) displaying the sort of language towards business and success that you don’t like.

      On the other hand you could withdraw and apologise.

      I expect you to fail miserably to provide a shred of evidence for your false statement, and switch to a different feeble smear, or attack me.

      • jepenseque 13.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 4:25 pm

        Hello Mr bloke, I don’t believe they are ubiquitous but they are there (just as on the right there is generic smears eg dole bludger etc). Will post some examples later. Cheers

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 4:37 pm

          So, you think some comments made by left wing people towards business and success need to change but you can’t say what any of them are from memory. Can you see how that might tend to undermine confidence in your sincerity and/or accuracy?

          My criticism of right wing policy is based on my observation that it tends to rely on prejudice.

          You’re making it worse.

          • jepenseque 13.1.1.1.1
            26 February 2014 at 6:35 am

            Hi again, sorry it was just that I was busy. In fact an example just popped up. http://thestandard.org.nz/guest-post-labour-candidate-deborah-russell/ “Bosses” “expendable labour” taking one minor anecdote and turning it into something much bigger.

            Cheers

            • felix 13.1.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2014 at 6:57 am

              Be specific please. What exactly does Deborah say that you find so offensive?

              You’ve put a couple of words in quotation marks, but devoid of any context there’s no way for readers to figure out why you find those particular words so awful.

              Of course that might not have been a particularly good example anyway. You could always just skip that one and move on to some of your other examples.

              • jepenseque …
                26 February 2014 at 7:55 am

                Hi there, the article describes a world of fear “looking over our shoulders” companies viewing workers as “cheap expendable labour”. These are the mentions the world of business gets. It is divorced from reality for MOST people. It points to a negative and us and them mentality. It plays well to some audiences but gives many in small medium and large businesses the idea that those on the left neither understand or like them very much. So thier support goes elsewhere. This is unrelated to policy even. Its just a style of rhetoric that is a turn off. My 2c. Cheers

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 February 2014 at 8:30 am

                  When you say “most people” you mean “me”. Just saying.

                  • felix …
                    26 February 2014 at 1:25 pm

                    It is divorced from reality for barristers, senior partners of chartered accountancy firms, dentists, and corporate executives.

                    You know, most people.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.1.2
              26 February 2014 at 7:15 am

              The word “bosses” does not appear once in Russell’s article.

              Jepenesque, you’re confused. Deborah Russell describes ways in which the National Party has undermined success by rendering people powerless and that means she hates success in your “mind”?

              I think in your “mind”, “change your language” means “shut up”.

              As in “Shut up about workers’ rights. Shut up about equality of opportunity.”

              Perhaps you’re being sincere (lol) however. Explain how to discuss workers rights and equality of opportunity in your brand new politically correct way.

              • jepenseque …
                26 February 2014 at 8:03 am

                Hi again, it should have read “boss” and it appears twice even! Its used as a bit of an epithet sometime. Speaks to an us and them viewpoint. She is free to use it but its an old school language and imagery that doesn’t tie in with most peoples experience of people they work with. Is there any reason why worker rights couldn’t be talked about in a more positive manner?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 February 2014 at 8:20 am

                  So you’re saying the Left should employ more politically correct language when talking about people who undermine success?

                  I thought you were against people who undermine success.

                  What synonym would you prefer for “capricious boss”? How about “trash”, or “bludger”?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 February 2014 at 8:28 am

                  PS: your comment is rife with assertions about other people’s workplace experiences. Pardon me for thinking you might not have the first clue beyond your own, experience that is. But please, if you can cite some research to support your notions of workplace attitudes, cite it by all means.

                  I Googled “workplace attitude survey nz”. The top articles are all about National Party thugs workplace bullying.

                  So much for your lovely politically correct utopia.

                • felix …
                  26 February 2014 at 1:13 pm

                  “it should have read “boss” and it appears twice even!”

                  And what? You don’t like the word “boss”? What other words would you like stricken from the language? Museli? Backgammon? Necklace?

                  Why don’t you say what you really mean instead of wasting time with these stupid fucking games?

                  • jepenseque …
                    26 February 2014 at 4:13 pm

                    You are being mischevious. I never said I don’t like the word boss or want to ban it. I said if you want to each a wider audience for your policy it helps not to use class warfare language.

                    All the best

  14. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 14
    25 February 2014 at 1:53 pm

    Hi Mickey Savage

    I like your advice re “ keep talking about the issues and avoid all the distractions that the right are going to throw in its way today.”

    Good and positive advice, not just for today, but for the whole year. We need to continually focus on the issues and the answers to those issues and not feed the distractions by buying into them; this way we continually bring the narrative around to what is really going to make this country a better place.

  15. Tracey 15
    25 February 2014 at 2:01 pm

    michael bartlett of aucklands chamber of commerce stated this morning that employers wont struggle with the govts raising of the minimum wage which rather begs the question:

    why wait for the govt to make it law why not raise it yourselves.?

    second point is about the economist the other days who didnt regard our economy as a rockstar, it has elicited this response
    “I am inclined to agree with the majority of economists that the outlook for this country looks considerably brighter than a few detractors would have us believe.

    Donald Blair is the Managing Partner of Paradigm Strategy Partners, a New Zealand-based corporate advisory firm. An American-born economist, he has over 28 years of experience in global markets across the public sector and in a diverse portfolio of private-sector firm”

    Did mr blair and the majority of economists predict the gfc? the crash of 1987? cos if they did must have whispered it.
    “

  16. Tracey 16
    25 February 2014 at 2:10 pm

    on my tablet no reply button shows” Two generations ago New Zealand had hardly any paid public relations people. There was of course a PR person working for the alcohol industry (and probably had been since about the time of Christ), and there were PR people for perhaps the Manufacturing Federation and one or two others. But in total it was a small handful.

    By one generation ago various private PR companies had appeared and PR staff were starting to be hired by politicians and all sorts of organisations. But today it has changed out of all recognition. The public space in which politics can occur is crowded with huge numbers of well paid PR and “communications” staff. The news media can sometimes do independent and even spectacular work, but most of the time, on nearly every issue, the PR people are better resourced and more numerous. Most news, and often the angle, timing and quotes, do not come from journalists’ observations or journalists’ questions, but from the calculated efforts of PR and marketing people, media advisors, professional speech writers, ad agencies and so on, with journalists racing to rewrite the materials pouring in hour after hour in time for deadline.

    I wrote a paper on this called “Imagining a world where the PR people had won”. In it I drew a comparison with water in New Zealand, which for generations we assumed would always be abundant and clean. When there are only one or a few dairy farms in a valley, the river systems can probably handle it. But we have seen that as one after another industrial farm arrives, the river beds quite suddenly turn slimy, the water becomes undrinkable and so much water is taken that some rivers run dry in summer. It is a good analogy for what’s happening in the democratic sphere.

    We live in an era where the public spaces are cluttered with paid spokespeople and commercial agendas: where lobbyists for foreign-owned banks are more likely to be heard commenting on economic news than community groups, where legions of other PR people vie to promote their clients’ interests and where the public spaces available for real democratic activity are shrinking. This is about the cumulative impact of an ever-growing, professionalised industry for political and media manipulation: more and more paid manufacturing of news, more and more paid voices in so-called public discussion, greater influence of corporate election donations, fake community groups, more scripting of politicians by unseen advisers and so on; all of it tending to crowd out ordinary people or citizen groups that don’t have a PR company and a large advertising budget. If we have more and more and more of this stuff pouring into the public spaces, at what point do we realise that the river is no longer fit to swim in or to drink?

    These profound changes to the way politics occurs have unfortunately coincided with the multiple crises occurring within the news media. Exactly when better journalism is needed to compensate for so much organised manipulation of news and politics, highly commercialised media organisations have (with notable exceptions) become more superficial, more susceptible to vested interests and less thoughtful about what counts as legitimate news and commentary. In recent years, for instance, two major news organisations have published regular political and election columns by David Farrar, without telling their readers that he earns his living as the chief pollster for the governing party, the National Party, including being the person who regularly briefs the prime minister on the poll results. He has also appeared regularly as a “political commentator” on Newstalk ZB and breakfast television. A good measure of media organisations is to look at the balance in their choice of political commentators. Most are not balanced.

    In my book The Hollow Men, when the ACT Party campaign manager Brian Nicolle was privately coordinating a leadership coup for Don Brash within the National Party, he identified private radio as especially sympathetic to the right. “We need to target key talkback hosts in [Newstalk] ZB and [Radio] Pacific,” he wrote to Brash, “there are plenty sympathetic.” The plan was to “produce some common lines that become the ‘mantra’ on your journey to become leader of National and the country” (p. 47).

    The more that these commercial media organisations cut resources to journalism the more they become susceptible to organised manipulation. An under-resourced, reactive news media naturally tends to give prominence to the ideas pushed by well resourced and vigorous interest groups. The result is that the conventional picture of politics we get through the news media is often distorted and inaccurate.” Nh Bruce jesson lecture

  17. captain hook 17
    25 February 2014 at 2:15 pm

    the polls are conducted by organisations with a vested interest in the status quo and they have been proved wrong on numerous occasions.
    what David Cunliffe has to do is to start talking about jobs and the economy.
    at the moment he is caught in the glare of the beltway and the dweebs and banal poltroons who want to tie him up in knots talking about abstract bullshit that only they understand.
    If he wants to be a man of the people then he must start talking to the people.

  18. Mark 18
    25 February 2014 at 2:42 pm

    The polls are a joke as they are currently run. . When you run a land line poll in a country that has not got 100% land line coverage the poll becomes a nonsense. Throw in an undecided group which numbers anything from 11% to as high as 18% and the polls are a snapshot of 70% of the population at best. They should be reported as such. When they are not you have to question the ethics and professional standards of both the editors and the journalists involved.

    • Bob 18.1
      25 February 2014 at 3:16 pm

      I agree, it is wrong to publish these polls without disclosing the undecided’s. Disclosing these would give a far more accurate picture as to how the poll’s actually sit and make them more worthwhile.

  19. Tracey 19
    25 February 2014 at 2:43 pm

    dc should congratulate key for seeing those at the bottom need help. sadly giving only 50 cents an hour more doesnt suggest mr key thinks its a rockstar, more like a one hit wonder. half of kiwis get less than 21 dollars an hour. mr key is insulting the foundation of nz.

    • Naki Man 19.1
      25 February 2014 at 3:53 pm

      “half of kiwis get less than 21 dollars an hour.”
      You are talking about people who work now so don’t just make shit up. The average hourly rate for people who work is $27.55 not less than $21

      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/09/beware_the_average_income_stat.html

      • mickysavage 19.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 4:04 pm

        Hey naki. You should read up on the difference between an average and a median. Go on, knock yourself out …

      • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.2
        25 February 2014 at 4:07 pm

        Yes, Nakiman, but since underemployment is at an all-time high, fewer than ever earning $27.50 ph make $55k pa.

        Beware Farrar’s analysis too. The real figure is somewhere in between.

      • Skinny 19.1.3
        25 February 2014 at 4:47 pm

        And while you were on here Naki Man your farm hand will be hard out hosing cow shit into the local waterway. I bet once you break down the hands earnings he would be like many others, lucky to get $10 per hour!

        • Naki Man 19.1.3.1
          25 February 2014 at 5:41 pm

          The days of cow shed shit going in the waterway are long gone. You really know f#@k all about farming.

          • Skinny 19.1.3.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 5:58 pm

            Ok a little harsh about the shed to the waterway, however I see cows grazing and crapping in and on the banks of waterways (unfenced) most weeks. Is there an 0800 COWDUMPINRIVER number Fonterra have?

            • Naki Man 19.1.3.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 6:14 pm

              I don’t know if there is a number for that, I think all farmers waterways should be fenced. Ring Fonterra and tell them. I am not a Farmer.

      • framu 19.1.4
        25 February 2014 at 4:52 pm

        “average” and “half” arent the same things wonder boy

        look up the word “median”

        from the same fricken KB post – “The average or mean is different from the median,”

        next

      • freedom 19.1.5
        26 February 2014 at 9:10 am

        The number that many politicians and most big businesses really fear being understood by the public is the mode average of the hourly rate of income in New Zealand.

        It will be a lot lower then $27.55 /hr

        The mean is the usual average:
        (13 + 18 + 13 + 14 + 13 + 16 + 14 + 21 + 13) ÷ 9 = 15
        (this means someone earning 5 million a year is put into the range on an equal footing with someone on 12k a year, which is patently ridiculous)

        The median is the middle value:
        13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 16, 18, 21
        There are nine numbers in the list, so the middle one will be the (9 + 1) ÷ 2 = 10 ÷ 2 = 5th number: So the median is 14.
        (slightly better for finding reality in wage figures, as it at least allows the number of people under the median to be identified, and it will be a much bigger number than those above the median)

        The mode is the number that is repeated more often than any other,
        13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 16, 18, 21
        so 13 is the mode.

        imho. All three should be reported when there is discussion on an average wage.

        The mode is far and away the only fair and honest number to use when representing what is inferred by reporting an “average” hourly rate for a nation, ie the rate paid to the most people.

        • Tracey 19.1.5.1
          26 February 2014 at 1:25 pm

          exactly, which is why I believe when it comes to wages the opposition needs to be talking about median so they can start phrases with half of kiwis…

      • Tracey 19.1.6
        26 February 2014 at 1:24 pm

        LOL @ dont make shit up while linking to kiwiblog…

  20. the pink postman 20
    25 February 2014 at 3:21 pm

    Editor .Would you please note my change of email address.
    from [deleted] to [deleted]

    [lprent: No problem. ]

  21. Danske 21
    25 February 2014 at 3:27 pm

    Polls are important as measure of (any) trend. NZ Labour should strengthten its position and put some distance from the Greens.

    We should act as its big uncle, not his equal cousin. It cannot react to some of Norman/Turei’s harebrained ideas.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1
      25 February 2014 at 3:59 pm

      Yeah, it’s happened already. I already pointed that out to you. Zombie arguments are such a tiresome waste of bandwidth.

  22. Tracey 22
    25 February 2014 at 3:33 pm

    “we”??????

    some of us are voting green. you rdepth of analysis is mind boggling.

  23. Tanz 23
    25 February 2014 at 5:47 pm

    why does the MSM think Key is so golden and perfect? They don’t ciritique him on anything.
    This is not good in an open democracy, forest for the trees. I don’t get why Key is so popular, I find him very transparent…

    do Labour need more foot soldiers.

  24. freedom 24
    25 February 2014 at 6:20 pm

    BTW, The Standard is included in the new Horizon Poll questions, but oddly enough the sewer, recent winner of NZ’s Best blog award, is notably absent. Bit of ninth floor pressure there maybe?
    http://imgur.com/TYbdXsP

  25. swordfish 25
    25 February 2014 at 11:06 pm

    For what it’s worth, here are the Party-Vote averages for polls taken during February in previous Election Years (with Election Result comparisons):

    2011

    Nat (Feb average) 53% / Election 47% (minus 6 points)
    Lab (Feb average) 33% / Election 27% (minus 6 points)
    Green (Feb average) 8% / Election 11% (plus 3 points)
    NZF (Feb average) 3% / Election 7% (plus 4 points)

    2008

    Nat (Feb average) 53% / Election 45% (minus 8 points)
    Lab (Feb average) 34% / Election 34% (Equal)
    Green (Feb average) 6% / Election 7% (plus 1 point)
    NZF (Feb average) 3% / Election 4% (plus 1 point)

    2005

    Nat (Feb average) 37% / Election 39% (plus 2 points)
    Lab (Feb average) 45% / Election 41% (minus 4 points)
    Green (Feb average) 5% / Election 5% (Equal)
    NZF (Feb average) 5% / Election 6% (plus 1 point)

Links to post