Hey Newshub polls – where are the results on the English-Barclay question?

Written By: - Date published: 8:54 am, August 5th, 2017 - 19 comments
Categories: accountability, national, polls - Tags: , , , ,

We’ve had plenty of coverage of last weekend’s Newshub poll:
Poll: Labour crumbles, falling towards defeat (happily overtaken by the Ardern effect)
Newshub poll: Jacinda Ardern overtakes Andrew Little again as preferred Prime Minister
Newshub poll: Winston Peters cements position as kingmaker
Newshub poll: The Opportunities Party is on the rise
Finally and crucially:
Newshub poll: Most Kiwis say Metiria Turei was wrong to lie to WINZ

It so happens that I was a participant in that poll. Along with the the Metiria Turei question I was asked a very similar question on whether Bill English was correct and honest in his handling of the Todd Barclay scandal. We’ve heard a lot about the answer to the first question, but oddly enough we’ve heard nothing at all on the second. What’s up with that?


‘Deeply implicated’, Winston Peters calls for Bill English to quit
Peters lays complaints over Barclay saga
Bill English accused of misleading Parliament
Winston Peters asks if English interfered with Barclay dispute

19 comments on “Hey Newshub polls – where are the results on the English-Barclay question?”

  1. Pat 1

    guess that tells you who commissioned the poll then……

  2. dukeofurl 2

    Maybe it will come up when Bill English appears on one of their interview shows.

  3. savenz 3

    Yesterday was 2500 signatures, today nearly 10,000

    Paula Bennett Winz Allegations Inquiry petition

    https://www.change.org/p/justice-minister-paula-bennett-winz-fraud-inquiry

    Share and lets look at the media bias as this petition is not reported…

    • bwaghorn 3.1

      interestingly she 100% denied every misleading winz on the am show yesterday , which means she is either telling the truth or she is risking all in a game of bluff ,

      • KJT 3.1.1

        I don’t think anyone can claim they are totally square with WINZ. The rights and responsibilities go on for pages.

        WINZ staff definitely do not understand it. Even when they want to.

        I think the left should be above digging unto what someone did in the past when poor and disadvantaged.

        There is enough to hang Bennett with in her current actions, as a figurehead for National’s scapegoating poor people.

      • Gabby 3.1.2

        She might’ve been told everything’s been tidied away now.

  4. Chess Player 4

    I’d guess that Newshub is more focussed on a centre right audience.
    Just like this blog is more focussed on a centre left audience.
    It’s really left to the individual to cast around for opinions across the spectrum of media offerings to inform themselves and then make up their own mind on issues.
    Newshub being a privately owned business, I don’t consider they have an obligation to be balanced any more than this blog does.
    TVNZ however does have that obligation in my opinion, given it is publicly owned – not that you’d guess given it pays Hosking.

    • RedLogix 4.1

      In general I don’t mind media having position. Just as long as they’re reasonably transparent about it.

      Hoskings is a piece of work. Exactly how this blatant govt propagandist got to be paid by the public purse is likely a nasty corrupt little story itself.

      • Honestly, I wouldn’t mind Hosking if he was honestly presented as a media advocate for the National Party rather than some sort of objective political commentator. It would give them an impetus to actually balance him out with people on the left whose voices need highlighting. The point shouldn’t be to lock right-wingers out of media, the point should be to let us have an honest and transparent debate, where media doesn’t let people use them to engineer the Overton Window and instead requires everyone to be honest about their interests.

        I don’t mind if their view is coming from somewhere, I just need to know where from first.

        • RedLogix 4.1.1.1

          True. Unlike a few people here I don’t view conservatives as inherently evil. Not even close. In many ways I see progressive and conservative minded people as both essential contributors to a healthy society.

          Crudely we try new shit out and they take what works and consolidate on it.

          When we have conservative people commenting here in good faith, I do my best to ensure they get a fair hearing. And when progressives reflexively attack them we miss the chance to engage intelligently and learn how better to work with them to achieve enduring progress.

          The deep polarisation in politics is not so much left and right, but aligned along an authoritarian – collaborative axis.

          • greywarshark 4.1.1.1.1

            we try new shit out and they take what works and consolidate on it.

            Consolidation is what they do on roads with roller-compactors to create a solid, hard-wearing and long-lasting base. The expectation and hope is that
            it will remain in place serving its purpose and not need constant inspection.

            Conservatives might hope for the same in the political sense, but the policies have to checked regularly for effectiveness to the people. If not effective, the public road-gang need to meet, discuss, be informed and alter the mix. It is better if the progressives aren’t forced to ‘try new shit out to see what works’. The people aren’t well served by complacent governments just allowing things to slide until someone grabs power of the situation and imposes something new, probably untried and not well thought out.

          • Oh I do view conservatives as something approaching almost categorically wrong. (I’ll credit them with not being evil because they generally at least think they’re doing good but haven’t examined things well. However, down that road and all…) A conservative’s main job in politics, in my view, is to slow a liberal down enough so that they get their laws/point completely correct. I’ve never met a small-c conservative policy that I’ve liked taken as a whole, even though I don’t always unreservedly support liberal viewpoints. They’re (conservatives are) largely just authoritarians with a penchant for nostalgia and a fresh coat of paint. (or new suit)

            But yes, with ordinary people talking about politics, I try to be almost ridiculously generous to opposing points of view nowadays. But with MPs who are paid six-figure salaries on our behalf and still aggressively “don’t get it,” I feel like I’ve earned a right to be impatient and go on the attack.

            And yes, it’s authoritarians vs liberals that mainly gets people emotive. (collaboration is tricky to define and I wouldn’t actually consider it a political axis the way I do liberalism/authoritarianism, left/right wing economics, environmentalism or nationalism. Liberals tend to call it consensus, those more strongly supportive of being left go for collaboration, and right-wingers tend to just hurl insults at everyone not doing The Authorities have agreed to. All teamwork has some degree of authoritarianism to it, if only to resolve situations where consensus can’t be reached)

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.3

            Unlike a few people here I don’t view conservatives as inherently evil.

            Neither do I but the ones at the top of their hierarchy are often outright psychopaths that the majority of conservatives support because they’re their leaders as shown in The Authoritarians. And this comes back to the:

            All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

            The ‘good’ conservatives tend to do nothing.

            Just look at the ones attacking Metiria Turei about her fraud but not questioning the law itself or even questioning why Bill English isn’t going to jail for the obstruction of justice in the Barclay Affair.

            There are multiple, well documented, cases of National MPs being liberal with the truth and yet these ‘good’ conservatives do nothing or even defend those immoral actions.

            • WILD KATIPO 4.1.1.1.3.1

              100%

              There have been so many blatant outright double standards with this govt its often hard to know where to start , from either incidents that involve the law that have never been properly resolved or social policy’s that are obviously morally deficient.

    • dukeofurl 4.2

      “Newshub being a privately owned business, I don’t consider they have an obligation to be balanced any more than this blog does.”

      Thats not correct, as holders of broadcast licenses they ARE required to be balanced . Same way TVNZ is. A Blog doesnt.

      Section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.
      https://bsa.govt.nz/standards/practice-notes/balance-on-tv

      But national changed the rules in 2009, as it used to be more specific in individual programs

      ‘Programmes which deal with political matters, current affairs, and questions of a controversial nature, must show balance and impartiality

      Not the stronger emphasis on ‘impartiality’

      • ianmac 4.2.1

        TV 1 @ 7 gave Hoskings a great chance to hoot with derision because the street poll showed very few knew that Andrew was the Leader of Labour then a week later the derision because few knew Jacind’s name.
        Now to be balanced surely they would do the same ask who is the leader of the National Party but not likely. Lop sided? Yeah!

  5. francesca 5

    One of the reasons that the polls got it so wrong on Trump was that the media were so virulently opposed to him , that participants didnt want to own up to supporting him.Yet they did, many to punish the Democrats and many to spite the media
    Yes, 3 million more voted for Clinton, mainly in the liberal states of New York and California, but not in the states that mattered, like Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan which flipped.
    Could it be that the question asked is so lacking in nuance that it would cast the pollee(if thats a word) in a bad light by saying no.If the question was

    “Metiria broke the law ,but the crime was forgivable given the circumstances
    agree or disagree”

    I suggest we might have a different outcome
    Personally, I think it was the law that was wrong , even Bolger has recanted on the policies of the past
    Lets see where the chips fall come the election

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts