web analytics
The Standard

TV1 Poll

Written By: - Date published: 9:40 am, April 2nd, 2012 - 40 comments
Categories: greens, labour, national, polls - Tags:

A TV1 poll came out yesterday, showing no change in the major parties (Labour National and Greens all up 1%, all margin of error stuff). The good news is that Key is down 4% as preferred PM, and Shearer has debuted well at 11%.

Many would have expected a drop in National’s polling giving the awful couple of week’s they’ve had, but shifts in polling opinion always lag behind events. Bear in mind also that TV1 polls have a poor record in practice, and the Nats were down 3% in the most recent TV3 poll. (You can catch Frank Macskasy’s take on the TV1 poll here.) In other polling related news, iPredict has Labour at 52% probability of leading the next government.

They say that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them. National is working pretty hard at that just lately, and their fall will be reflected in polling over the course of the year. Even so, Labour can’t afford to sit about and wait for the next election to drop into their lap. Get the organisational review done, get the policy review done, and then let’s see Labour on the campaign trail as soon as possible…

40 comments on “TV1 Poll”

  1. bad12 1

    The way we see 2011 is that it was a 2% victory for the Tory,s, what makes this National Government look secure is the Maori party support it has managed to cling on to,

    Both Turia and Sharples have indicated that neither will contest another election and we doubt there is another burning issue within Maoridom which will not see both those seats return to Labour and after the ”interesting” little spat between Sharples and Flavell just after 2011 we are not sure that Flavell will be returning to the Parliament after 2014,

    Labour if it continues to cling to the failed ”Rogernomics” of its past are going to bleed more support to the Greens and if it is to form the Government after 2014 it will either have to look left for its economic vision or be forced to do so simply by dint of the % of vote going Green,

    We await with anticipation and some trepidation the ”vision” of Labours ”new” Parliamentary Leader who has so far failed to inspire either us or the mandarins at TV1,tho we will add that as leadership goes Labour Deputy Grant Robertson has shown a positive image via the TV news with His able backing of His MP,s over the Nick Smith fiasco…

  2. Dr Terry 2

    I am politically naive. Will somebody explain to me what “centre-right” actually means or implies? When I see this applied to the Labour Party, I can only feel trepidation. Does it imply “sitting on the fence”, or “having it both ways”, or “well, at least we are not FAR to the Right – we are not like Hitler’s Nazis, are we?” Not yet, I hope!! Moving to the Right seems to be leaving all the options open. What ever happened to the Left? Leaving it to the Greens? Shearer is not showing well.

    • Most policies of most parties are closer to the centre than to the extreme left or right.

      Centre just means moderate with room to move a bit left or right on specific issues as common sense dictates.

      Even the asset sales programme is fairly centre-ish, with a bob each way on privitisation and public ownership.

    • McFlock 2.2

      I’m not familiar with any party that calls itself “extreme left” or “extreme right” – it’s all a bit relativistic. Most people tend to identify themselves as reasonable and middle-of-the-road. But then that has changed dramatically over the last 30 years.

      “Centre right” is what parties call themselves when they want the unemployed to starve in the streets, “centre left” is what parties call themselves when they want to eat the rich. 

      But then we have what one party might call another party. If a member of the People’s Socialist Party of Aotearoa calls someone “right wing”, then maybe in the great scheme of things the person is actually pretty moderate. If a member of pre-brash ACT calls someone “right wing”, they’re probably pretty diabolical.
      Where it gets REALLY complicated is that “right wing” can refer to extreme economic liberalism (asset sales, no minimum wage, minimal flat tax, private prisons, no social welfare) and/or extreme social conservatism (drugs, abortion, homosexuality, hoodies are all illegal).
      Basically, unless their social conservatism becomes over-bearing, I try to regard “centre” on purely economic policy,  picking as an arbitrary “middle” somewhere around 1985, i.e. a perceptual midpoint between the highly interventionist Muldoon and the sociopathically non-interventionist Douglas/Richardson. But then I’m reasonably left wing, so take my perspective accordingly. 😉

  3. Enough is Enough 3

    I would have expected bigger better things for Labour in this poll with the shambles that has been Key and his thriving mob so far this year.

    People say shifts in polls are a gradual thing but I am not sure that is always correct. Natioanl was lagging in the 20’s and low 30’s for most of English’s reign. Then in the course of one speech to a group of rich white men at the Orewa Rotary club in 2004, Don Brash catapulted National into a position where they never really looked back. That jolt in the polls was instant and they have been above 40 ever since. It didn’t win them the 2005 election but has given them a core of support that they have held for 8 years now.

    The media will always report the polls with a FPP mindset. We have to accept that and therfore need to get Labour back into the 40’s.

    Someone at some stage must stand up and make a speech that appeals to the masses and to win our core support back.

    The issues are there, SOE sales, land sales, and industrial relations. Time to make a stand before the media begins writing off Shearer as they did Goff.

  4. ghostwhowalksnz 4

    Lets hope the Nationals are enjoying the polls 51% a lot more than the voters 47.3%.

    • If I were a National backroom strategist, Ghost, I’d be sh*tt*ng my pants about now. Whilst TVNZ may report that National has “risen” in the polls -that;s for public consumption only. The reality is the opposite – they are dropping, even by Colmar’s own figures.

      As I’ve written on my blog, barring full employment and abandonment of their asset sales programme, National is on it’s way out. Labour is a government in waiting.

      The next polls should be interesting…

      • Gosman 4.1.1

        Oh if only the Labour party was filled with ‘Useful idiots’ like you Frank in policy formation positions. The National party stategists would have a ball with your ideas. Painting Shearer as the Mugabe of the South Pacific would be so so cool. They could even throw in some pics of him in his time with the UN in places in Africa and suggest he obviously went a bit loony in the hot African sun.

        • Frank Macskasy

          Oh dear, Gosman, I seem to have got to you? 😀

          Never mind. Ad hominem insults simply prove my previous points about your ‘style’ of debate.

          Now, let’s see you address the POINTS I raised. Can you do that?

          • Wonker

            Frank – you’re such a munt “– they are dropping, even by Colmar’s own figures.”

            The last Colmar Brunton poll had National at 50.3%. The latest at 51%. Hence you are factually wrong.


            Moreover your analysis of poll results v. election day results is also bogus:


            Do some friggin’ research.

            [lprent: I’m sure someone will point this out, but you haven’t looked at the error rates. Relying on a movement that is well within the probable statistical error between two data points is stupidity. If you don’t understand why, then it suggests that you aren’t capable of arguing here. If you do understand it, then it suggests to me that you are merely trolling rather than arguing.

            Either way means that you have attracted my moderating attention which is somewhat dangerous. I suggest you read the policy as your research.

            Otherwise you may get a humour quirk as I globally change a vowel in your pseudonym. ]

            • Te Reo Putake

              51 is less than 54. Frank is right, you are wrong.

              • Wonker

                It’s also higher than 48% which National has polled. Shall we pick a time when they polled 55%? How about 21%?

                51% is higher than the last, most recent, point estimate. Deal with it.

            • Gosman

              “Relying on a movement that is well within the probable statistical error between two data points is stupidity”

              Genuine question here for you lprent.

              Isn’t Frank doing virtually the same thing your are accusing Wonker of doing?

              [lprent: If you are thinking about the numbers I think you are, then the measurement would be from about 54% or 55% down to about 50% across the period he is talking about (the poll taken prior to the last election). I don’t know about those particular polls, but the confidence limits on most of the TVNZ and TV3 polls are usually +/- 3 or 3.5% unless they have dropped their sample sizes recently. You should read it as being significant.

              In practice there are much larger sampling errors due to their collection techniques – which are essentially shit. You can see this clearly in that the various polls that are meant to be sampling the same population are consistently different by a margin that is well outside the purported confidence limits.

              And Frank must be well aware of that because in what I have read of his posts and comments, he has consistently been pointing to the trends within a poll rather than the actual poll numbers and applying them to the actual election results. In other words, correctly looking at the poll numbers and using them for the only thing they are good for – trends.

              I haven’t seen him misuse the stats yet apart from his rounding errors. ]

            • bad12

              Changing that vowel would seem suitable moderation indeed…

            • Wonker

              Fair enough – how about we look at a longer time period:

              Feb (2011) 51
              Apr 54
              May 52
              Jul 53
              Aug 56
              Sep 56
              Oct 56
              Nov (5 -9) 54
              Nov (12-16)53
              Nov (19 – 23)50
              Mar (2012) 51

              One can say that National has consistently polled above 50% between 50% and 56%. So while one could get excited about a downward trend since Oct (which generally always happens in the run-up to an election) a longer-term 12-month view suggests that this isn’t material. National starts 2012 with the same estimate of popularity as it started 2011. If you care enough to do some calculations on this go for gold.

              • Te Reo Putake

                Three points.
                One, Colmar Brunton had the Nats at 50 going into the election. Actual result? 47%. CB consistently over-rate the right.
                Secondly, under MMP, even with that 47%, National needed 5 extra votes to have a workable Government. Those 5 seats will be reduced to one at the next election, maybe two if Dunne is forgiven for the asset sales lies.
                Thirdly, the alternative Government (Labour, Greens, NZF) is polling between 43 and 46% since the election (and higher in the more accurate Roy Morgan poll). They only have to improve slightly to win power. A mere ten thousand votes, I’m told.

                • Wonker

                  I think you’ll find the election day result as within the margin of error. You’ll also find that CB at National at the second lowest estimation and only 0.8% points higher than Roy Morgan. Not including the spurious Horizon poll.

                  “Those 5 seats will be reduced to one at the next election, maybe two if Dunne is forgiven for the asset sales lies.”

                  Care to lend me your time travel device. Thanks.

                  Full disclosure: I don’t particularly care who wins in 2014 – so vent all you want.

                  • Te Reo Putake

                    Jeez, you give up easy, Wonker! Better luck next time, eh.

                    • Wonker

                      Man, I see in the Standard the strongest and smartest men [sic] who’ve ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping out posts, writing comments; slaves with keyboards. PR has them chasing polls and rumors, trawling through muck they hate so they can make up shit they don’t need. They’re the middle children of history, man. No real purpose or place. They have no Great War. No Great Depression. Their Great War’s a spiritual war… their Great Depression is their lives. All been raised on clusterf*ck television to believe that one day they’ll make a difference. But they won’t. And they’re slowly learning that fact. And they’re very, very pissed off.

                    • Jackal

                      Hey Wonker, would you happen to know why Culmar Brunton hasn’t published the report? I mean if you can take some time out from your ranting that is.

                    • Wonker

                      I’m guessing it’s all part of the global capitalist conspiracy. It was probably a strategic action agreed at Davos. Shhh don’t tell anyone.

                  • McFlock

                    I think you’ll find the election day result as within the margin of error. 

                    Oh look dear, the parrot has learned a new word.
                    You might want to read the pre-election poll.  On the face of it you would be almost correct, given the CB max error of 3.1% and a CB:ER ratio of  50%:47.31%. But look at the results – they obviously round the larger parties’ support. So National’s actual support might be anywhere in the region of 49.5%–50.49%, meaning with the max error something in the region of 46.8%–53.6%. Yes, the difference between 47.3 and 49.5 is error-level stuff. but 53:47 is an interesting disparity. And if you look at the poll mix over extended periods, CB is consistently to the right of the spread.
                    Fascinating stuff, but then I’m a geek at heart. 

                    • Wonker

                      You’re giving me goosebumps.

                    • McFlock


                    • BW Lord

                      @ Wonker

                      Love your post above. Would vote it for post of the day.
                      Wonder how many here can pick out the reference.

                    • McFlock

                      Somehow I don’t think wonker picks the marxist overtones in it.
                      In fact, I think that that wonker probably just chose some macho bullshit that looked cool in a film (I doubt he reads much) and had lines at the beginning and end that he could mean sarcastically.

                    • Wonker

                      Oh noes my ‘marxist’ credentials are being audited.

                      Personally I like to think of the passage in Gramscian terms (admittedly his thought is classed as ‘Marxist’).

                      Strum my pain McFlock… strum my pain.

                    • McFlock

                      yeah whatever, dude

                    • Te Reo Putake

                      “wonder how many can pick up the reference”
                      Meh, it’s just a Hollywood scriptwriter being lazy and dumbing down the classics for the masses. Here’s the source.

      • They are dropping Frank, because National has been way too hasty trying to get big radical reforms underway and is not doing due diligence on the legislation it is trying to pass before it goes to Parliament. An example is the – I believe very dangerous – Social Security Bill currently taking submissions (you have until 13 April). It affects the way people as diverse as pensioners and school age children; young mothers and people on the dole get their benefits. Some aspects are frankly Orwellian in nature – like the clock will be rather close to striking 13 if passed into law.

  5. captain hook 5

    I’m not sure about the daily MSN poll as I think Hooton and co manipulate it but today it says that a significant percentage believes that national has done a poor job this term.

    • I heard Hooton on Radio NZ today. I cannot believe that he couldn’t see the significance of those poll results.

      I’ve emailed RNZ a link to my blogpost.

  6. Sanctuary 6

    Even when I checked the result on Curia, the undecided vote was not listed. So to my mind, National could be sloughing support to the undecideds, whilst only reporting on the decided vote makes it look like National is doing better than it actually is.

  7. captain hook 7

    and then along comes gosman and plays the man and not the ball.
    a typical tory trick for lack of anything substantial to say and bury their venality under a welter of meaningless verbiage.

  8. Bill 8

    I don’t usually give much of a flying fuck for polls and stuff. But I just watched the TVNZ vid clip on the poll.

    Focussing more on the supporting visuals which help shape and audiences perception rather than the commentary is kind of interesting.

    John Key is shown mucking around with laughing kids accompanied with a ‘crawling ahead’ commentary and later with kids enjoying themselves and balloons being released.

    Shearer is shown getting a haircut and asking where the magazines and coffee are (hardly ‘inspiring’) and shearing a sheep (Labour will fleece you?)

    Add on top that National are referred to as a ‘centre right’ (ie moderate) party rather than by the more accurate epithet of ‘extreme right’ or just plain ‘right wing’ party and the message this particular media outlet wishes to portray becomes pretty damned obvious. (Just a thought, but if National are ‘centre right’, then doesn’t that make Labour completely redundant in the eyes of most people?)

    Forget about ACC and all the other nonsense and drama coming from National. When the media couches information with pleasing or positive visuals (or at least neutral rather than negative images) and when they also use misleading labels to describe or ‘place’ those they are commenting on, then it is that, rather than any substantial issues laid over the top of that framework, which will influence and ‘inform’ people.

  9. james 111 9

    Whatever way you look at it a great result for the Nats with all the crap going on. John Key still comes out smelling of roses. Much to the disdain of the Labour voters.
    Shows the opposition isn’t really being effective in the house ,and are scoring very little if any blows being challenged in the house by David Shearer is somewhat similar to a person hitting you with a wet paper towel. The Nick Smith affair did nothing for Labour as most punters saw that as being very Petty ,and they all remember how Long Helen Clark kept Phillip Taito Fields in train just to remain in government when the man was found to be a exploiter ,and a criminal. Yes I think National will quietly smiling over that Poll.

    • Te Reo Putake 9.1

      So you haven’t read the post or any of the comments, James? Just riffing on the headline, hoping for the best?

  10. james 111 10

    Great comment this from another blog so I thought I would share it with you for your further edification. Explains the Poll result in a nut shell really.

    (1) No one cares about the ACC thing.
    (2) Lots of people care about the port strikes.
    (3) But mostly not in the way that Labour want them to care.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere