Even your Granny doesn’t believe you anymore

Written By: - Date published: 11:37 am, October 10th, 2008 - 32 comments
Categories: crime, election 2008, national, slippery - Tags:

The Herald editorial this morning lambastes National’s crime policy as “simply a more extreme version of a policy that has failed this country and others” but Granny Herald consoles herself:

In all likelihood, this is not something that Mr Key will pursue if National wins the election. It is a policy calculated to strike a chord with those who despair of violent crime and particularly horrific murders. As such, it may capture the public’s attention. It can then be put quietly to one side as a more cogent, more flexible approach to sentencing and parole is adopted.

Even the Herald editorial no longer believes that National’s promises would be matched by action in government (incredibly, though, it doesn’t seem to care). As more evidence emerges daily that National’s promises are just a facade hiding their secret agenda, who would believe anything they say? 

32 comments on “Even your Granny doesn’t believe you anymore ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. Dismal Soyanz 2
    10 October 2008 at 12:08 pm

    I wish both the left and the right would stop trying to characterise the media as being in the pocket of one or the other. They are there to sell copy and raise ad revenue and will poke sticks and wave flags in whatever manner necessary to do so.

  3. r0b 3
    10 October 2008 at 12:11 pm

    Even the Herald editorial no longer believes that National’s promises would be matched by action in government.

    OK – but what worries me is that the author of that Herald piece seems quite happy with that as a strategy. Lie about your true intentions, sure not a problem. “In all likelihood, this is not something that Mr Key will pursue if National wins the election. It is a policy calculated to strike a chord…”

    What is the world coming to?

  4. Steve Pierson 4
    10 October 2008 at 12:12 pm

    holy crap!

    Nat 40.5
    Lab 37.5
    G 9
    NZF 4
    ACT 3.5
    Maori 2
    UF 1
    Prog 1

    Voters seem to be deserting National for ACT, Lab, Greens.
    NZF is falling (6.5, 5, 4)

    Roy Morgan is traditionally overly good for Greens and NZF but very good on the major party gap.

  5. Tane 5
    10 October 2008 at 12:15 pm

    DS:

    In general, yes. But you also have to remember that the newspapers are corporations too. And just as Fletcher Building and Rio Tinto push political views to further their own economic interests, so do the newspapers in their editorial lines.

    That’s why editorials tend to be conservative and pro-business, if not openly partisan. The Herald, however, has crossed that line in the last year or so and become a transparently pro-National, anti-Labour newspaper. That’s why it gets such a hard time from many on the Left.

  6. r0b 6
    10 October 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Holy crap! Nat 40.5 Lab 37.5

    Too good to be true? I’d like to believe it but won’t let myself. There’s more work to do – hard yards people!

  7. Pascal's bookie 7
    10 October 2008 at 12:16 pm

    oob, SP, those results won’t include National’s aspirational economic package.

  8. insider 8
    10 October 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Careful – those results may not be final. There is no link from anywhere on the RM site and no commentary that usually accompanies such data. Might be true but might be a mistake.

  9. insider 9
    10 October 2008 at 12:27 pm

    I wonder if Labour is still pursuing carbon neutrality and the top half of the OECD?

  10. Janet 10
    10 October 2008 at 12:28 pm

    That poll could be true. These are weird times instead. That poll covered the first stage in the collapse of capitalism.

    (Captcha Remarkable 27 – some of you are!)

  11. Steve Pierson 11
    10 October 2008 at 12:31 pm

    yeah, wonder how many of those 800,000 kiwisavers and 700,000 getting WfF had been leaning to national.

    the numbers do appear to be too good to be true but consider this – the margin of error at 40% is 3.2%, so as long as the poll’s methodology hasn’t gone awry (and they would have definitely made extensive checks given these numbers), it is 95% certain that National’s support is less than 44%. That’s an absolutely crucial number – at 44% National will never get the numbers to govern unless you believe in fairy-tales about Maori/National/ACT coalitions.

  12. Pablo 12
    10 October 2008 at 12:31 pm

    That’s gotta be a rogue. I assume it was taken before the Nats tax policy was released anyway, so let’s wait for the good news and not jump on the first sniff of it!

    (captcha: but examine) wise words

  13. lprent 13
    10 October 2008 at 12:47 pm

    insider: That was what I noticed myself. That is the first time I’ve Roy Morgan not making his famous comments. Also can’t see the dates or sample sizes.

    I tend to ‘believe’ Morgan’s polling more than I do others (and I really don’t get too excited about any – their methods suck in this changing world). However tt tends to be closest to what I see on the ground. Treat that poll as interesting rather than a trend.

  14. Steve Pierson 14
    10 October 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Pablo. Rogues are highly unlikely to be that roguish – it comes down to what’s called the standard deviation – in a random sample of 1000, there’s a 66% chance that the true value is within 1.6% either side of the sample value (for values close between 40% and 60%), there’s a 95% chance that the true value is within 3.2% either side, a 99% it is within 4.8% either side.

    So, 66% likelihood of National being between 38.9% and 42.1%, 95% between 37.3% and 43.7%, 99% between 35.3% and 45.3%.

    Unless the methodology goes awry and so the sample isn’t close enough to random, in which case, all bets are off. Pollsters get worried when they see big movements and double-check their methodology.

    The other thing we have to ask when we see a big movement in the polls is ‘was there a political event that could have caused this?’ and we did have the Tranzrail revelations just before the period of this poll, which devastated Key’s trust ratings.

    So, it could be a rogue and I would suspect National isn’t actually that low but the error is unlikely to be so big that National is still near 50%.

  15. Pablo 15
    10 October 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Hi Steve

    looking deeper into the numbers I see that Labour has been at about that level since August, so no changes there. That’s a substantial fall for the Nats, though, which is encouraging. Like you, I’d be amazed if the Nats pull more than 45% of the final vote, which could be devastating for them.

    To be honest, I’m only preaching caution, so your statistical mumbo-jumbo is lost on me 🙂

    (that’s a comment on my stats ability, love your work etc.)

  16. mickysavage 16
    10 October 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Holy crap is right

    Perhaps the population realise now given the holy crap that Wall Street has dumped on various international economies that the last person you want in control of your country is a trader.

    Obama has picked up 10 points quickly in the US. Although Labour has apparently not picked up the Greens have and National has lost big time.

    Dare I say it but maybe the population is becoming more left wing in the realisation that the capitalist system has been given too much freedom?

  17. randal 17
    10 October 2008 at 1:28 pm

    yes indeedy…the nats have thought that all they had to do was get the media in their pocket and keep telling lies and everyfing would be hunkydory. endless blather from snakeoil radio and solid brass and the metropolitian dailies and it is in the bag. Not so. the people of this country…i.e. the ones who do the work will decide on nov8 and it is becoming clearer aND CLEARER that they do not want to be under the heel of natoinal and suffer from their depredations.

  18. Scribe 18
    10 October 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Steve,

    That’s an absolutely crucial number – at 44% National will never get the numbers to govern unless you believe in fairy-tales about Maori/National/ACT coalitions.

    That MAY be true, depending on the wasted vote. The closer NZF gets to 5% without crossing it, the better it is for National (assuming National beats Labour, which most expect).

    One factor not being considered much is Mangere. Anyone seen any polling? Surely Taito wouldn’t go with Labour if he won. Might that be another seat for the Right? And might it create another overhang seat?

  19. Pablo 19
    10 October 2008 at 1:39 pm

    One factor not being considered much is Mangere. Anyone seen any polling? Surely Taito wouldn’t go with Labour if he won. Might that be another seat for the Right? And might it create another overhang seat?

    A good point Scribe. I no longer live there, but when I did I was concerned about Labour’s relative invisibility, certainly compared to The Family Party & the Maori Party. I can’t see Field making too much headway down there (and I’ll put my balls on the block now and say he won’t come close to winning it). To be honest, it appears to me that National is actually driving those voters back to Labour. Labour have got to make the effort though and not take Mangere & Manukau for granted.

  20. forgetaboutthelastone 20
    10 October 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Roy Morgan has his interpretation of the results up now. The usual off target comments.

    I’m used to the polls going up and down in reaction to the latest scandals – but this one? There hasn’t been that much happening lately apart from perhaps the transrail thing. 7% – thats huge!

    NZers finally coming to their senses?

  21. Pascal's bookie 21
    10 October 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Could ‘undecideds’ moving into the decided columns be a factor?

  22. Scribe 22
    10 October 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Pablo,

    I can’t see Field making too much headway down there (and I’ll put my balls on the block now and say he won’t come close to winning it).

    I know Mangere’s Labour territory, but Taito had the largest margin in 2005, more than 16,000 votes. That, combined with the possible backlash from “one of ours” being booted from Labour, for something many of them might think was OK, could be enough, I reckon.

    Certainly not willing to bet bodily parts on it, though, and definitely not those parts.

  23. gobsmacked 23
    10 October 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Even if this poll were roguer than a roguely rogue thing, that would still make it a far more meaningful measure of voting intentions than all the usual rubbish masquerading as “public opinion” in the media (e.g. self-selected online polls, talkback tirades, talking to four people in Queen St for the TV news, my mate who used to vote Labour, the feeling in my bones, Auntie Dora’s tea leaves, and especially … um … bores on blogs).

    Both ACT and the Greens have gained support. That’s a double whammy for National. Go the Rodney-Russel Grand Coalition!

  24. Pablo 24
    10 October 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Heh, Scribe.

    To be fair, I think Feild winning Mangere would be a bigger upset than Rodders winning Epsom in 05.

    You’re right, it’d be interesting to see any polling in the area. I’m a bit nervous because I didn’t see anything of Labour in the area before I left (in August) I hope things have changed.

  25. bill brown 25
    10 October 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Did anyone else see the Tom Scott in the Dom this morning?

    Was this “one he prepared earlier”?

    Or do I just not get it?

  26. Scribe 26
    10 October 2008 at 4:26 pm

    To be fair, I think Feild winning Mangere would be a bigger upset than Rodders winning Epsom in 05.

    Really?!?! Taito’s the incumbent. Coming off a 16,000 winning margin. I’d say he’s at least a 40% chance at this stage.

  27. Draco T Bastard 27
    10 October 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Did anyone else see the Tom Scott in the Dom this morning?

    Was this “one he prepared earlier’?

    I’m wondering if he’s got the language backwards.

    As for Field – what happens if he gets voted in and then sent to prison? Do we then get to have a by-election?

  28. bill brown 28
    10 October 2008 at 6:32 pm

    You think it would make sense in Arabic?
    🙂

  29. Alexandra 29
    10 October 2008 at 8:44 pm

    BB
    Nationals tax cuts are not enough…even the rich are unimpressed!

  30. Lew 30
    10 October 2008 at 8:51 pm

    BB: I thought this too.

    For it to make sense you have to take a fairly bass-ackwards meaning of `hit’.

    L

  31. Steve Pierson 31
    10 October 2008 at 9:15 pm

    Tom Scott is following Watkins’ lead. She reportd that National was going to cut the top tax rate even more, since he only cut it a bit, that is meant to be punishing the rich.. of course it doesn’t actually make one bit of sense but that’s what you get from watkins.

  32. Pascal's bookie 32
    10 October 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Could be Tom was being sarcastic in the lower frame. The target of the cartoon would then be the media coverage in quote marks in the upper frame.

    But it’s still a jumbled mess. The coverage hasn’t really been dominated by that quote’s spin, which confuses his point. If that was his point.

    I can’t believe I’m saying Tim the great brain robbery Scott might have a point.