- Date published:
7:11 pm, August 8th, 2020 - 45 comments
Categories: act, class war, Dirty Politics, greens, Judith Collins, labour, MMP, nz first, political parties, Politics, same old national, vote smart - Tags: judith collins, national, Roy Morgan poll
The latest Roy Morgan poll is yet another rogue result, claiming that new National Party leader Judith Collins has actually cost the Tories votes. That can’t be true, surely?
On the day that National have released their party list, this will be a reminder to Tory MP’s ranked in the mid 30’s that they shouldn’t get their hopes up.
Labour? Well, they just keep rollin’ on.
ACT continue to be the gutter into which blue votes drain, lifting to a remarkable 6.5%. That would give them at least 8 MPs by my calculation.
The Greens are comfortably safe, so clearly there’s no need to campaign hard in the Auckland Central electorate. The energy really should be focussed on lifting the party vote and bringing in MP’s ranked in the teens on the list, not subsidising what is essentially now a Queen Street vanity project.
Anybody remember NZ First? Me neither.
My quick shufti at potential seat outcomes suggests Labour will have 68 seats and the Greens 10, versus ACT 8 and National 34.
That’s a dead set shellacking.
Perhaps National should change leader?
"Perhaps National should change leader?"
John Key's slinking around in the Natty shadows; perhaps he smells an opportunity?
Not a chance, mate.
Glad to see an opinion piece in the Herald, I think saying that Key’s comments about opening the boarder are dangerously reckless.
Indeed, so why give him the audience?
Just seen Roberts comment. Imagine the knifing of Judith after the election. If she fails to get a poll bump for National she will be gone by lunchtime. Wonder if Bridges is waiting in the wings??? Or maybe Maureen Pugh who has risen on the list??? Gerry for PM anyone?
NZ First who chose to change the government and support Jacinda for PM? Yes, I remember them. Who in parliament is a politician of the stature of Winston Peters? If half of them last half as long as him they'll be happy.
Younger generations do not view length of stay as success.
And neither do some of the older generations. Hopefully NZF’s time is well and truly over.
The bluster from NZ first is no longer cool.
so clearly there’s no need to campaign hard in the Auckland Central electorate
Yes, TRP seems to have a bit of an issue with Chloe running a campaign for the Auckland Central seat.
It is only upsides for the greens if they can establish an electorate seat, so let it play out and the best candidate will win
I suspect that he is looking at the electorate results from the last 4 elections. There is a very consistent level of support for Green party candidates in Auckland Central – it is extremely low and getting lower.
No amount of numerically illiterate fools trying to talk it up will help it that much. Door knocking and phoning may help win it in a few election cycles of very hard work. But years are what are going to be needed to take the electorate.
Personally I don’t think that Chloe Swarbick has any significiant chance of winning the election there (and I live just a block from the electorate). The electorate boundaries haven’t changed since 2011. There haven’t been a significiant demographic shift in the last two elections. Denise Roche was a well respected local councillor and Green MP and had more name recognition in the electorate than Swarbick has outside of the university circles.
Just look at the real numbers…
LEADING CANDIDATE: KAYE, Nikki 13,198
2nd CANDIDATE: WHITE, Helen Ione 11,617
3rd party candidate
ROCHE, Denise 2838
The 2014 election
ARDERN, Jacinda LAB 11,894
KAYE, Nikki NAT 12,494
ROCHE, Denise GP 2,080
The 2011 election
ARDERN, Jacinda LAB 14,321
KAYE, Nikki NAT 15,038
ROCHE, Denise GP 2,903
The 2008 election
KAYE, Nikki NAT 14,677
ROCHE, Denise GP 4,592
TIZARD, Judith LAB 13,180
What has been consistent is that National has been winning the electorate seat because of few thousand votes going to the Green candidate and a few thousand extra votes going to a popular local National candidate.
I suspect that the latter won’t happen this time because Nikki Kaye had managed to build up a personal vote that was about 1500 more than the National party vote (in 2008 her vote was almost exactly the same as National party vote). That probably won’t transfer to a new National Candidate. And bearing in mind that a new candidate shoved in at the last minute probably won’t have local support, I think that the National electorate vote is going to drop a lot.
But there simply aren’t enough Green votes in Auckland Central to win for a Green candidate. The Green party vote of 4170 was close to 1500 more than the Green electorate vote. That party vote was well less than the 7737 peak in 2008, and the 6242 in the 2014 election after the boundary changes.
What Chloe Swarbick would have to do to win it as an electorate seat is to convince large numbers of Labour electorate voters to vote for her. I can’t see that happening when Helen White has been working her way in that electorate for two terms – even and obviously collecting Green votes.
At best Chloe might persuade the Green party voters to vote for her at an electorate level.
But frankly I have to consider anyone saying that Chloe can actually win the electorate seat is just being a blithering idiot.
To be fair I never mentioned that Chloe could win, although there are a few out there that seem to think that is possible. But it seems unlikely given overall green support in that seat
I just noticed a pattern of this author being almost resentful that Chloe is running a campaign proper in that seat, and a similar vibe coming from the Helen White campaign.
I'd like to think most people realise that it doesn't matter if Helen ot Chloe win the seat as they'll both be in on their parties’ lists, barring disaster for the Greens. It might even be beneficial if the (likely) liberal Nat candidate for Auckland Central wins and takes a place off one of their more conservative list MPs
Sure, I've noticed it as well. That is his opinion and expressing it is what happens here.
I trust that I've explained why he is likely to feel that way. Those three way electorate splits in 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017 with a minor party result in the electorate vote that resulted in a National candidate winning the electorate tend to sour many Labour activists views on the role of the Greens in that electorate.
Unless you happen to have been a on the ground supporter / activist in that electorate to have spent 4 elections working your arse off to elect candidates each election in the seat and fallen just short each time because of the efforts of another parties candidate to drum up party vote support.
I suspect you have a rather naive view about how this affects the viewpoints of hard working volunteers who see their efforts fall short of the goal because of the efforts of another party to achieve a separate and different target.
Personally if I was operating the electorate campaign for Labour in that electorate, I'd have switched long ago to targeting resources into getting out party vote for Labour in that electorate targeting the easiest votes to gain. That would have a triple effect.
It'd be easier to target minor party votes and consolidating them into a bloc than targeting the harder National party voters. Over time it'd undermine both the National party and Green party efforts away from electorate vote campaigning – which means that it'd take less work to push through a electorate vote campaign.
But generally most political activists aren't quite as focused or strategic as I am. The Labour party campaigns in Auckland Central have deliberately persisted in targeting the electorate vote and not targeting the Green party votes. This is exactly the same political logic (but inverted) that I followed when targeting get out and vote for identified Green supporters who had a history of not getting to the polls in Mt Albert in the 00s.
Why? In a lot of ways politically over time it'd be better to differentiate national by letting National fall to its social conservatives.
What you have to remember is that political parties at best are wary semi-allies – frenemies. They are organisations that focus on promoting their own interests. Like all organisms in biological systems they usually try to not directly compete with other similar organisms because it wastes effort for little return. Instead they pick strategies that complement each other. Effectively that is what Labour has been doing in Auckland Central. The Greens have been acting more like competitors.
And why should that failure to move on from FPP be somehow the fault of any other party?
Chloe makes the point in this interview that this will be the first time the Greens have run a two tick campaign in this electorate. They have never before asked people there for the electorate vote. She also points out that Auckland Central is one of the youngest electorates in the country:
In 2014 the Greens got more party votes than Labour (6,242/6,101) in this seat. And in the 2011 nearly as many party votes as Labour (7,797/8,590):
In 2017 there was a shift in results that you left out. I hadn't looked at it before. But I guess someone decided to shift focus along the lines I was suggesting in a comment further up.
Labour got 11340 party votes and the Greens got 4,170 votes. Ouch that is a clearly a result of a targeted campaign to get soft party votes
Yes, last election the Greens slipped back. They could also slip forward again, especially with a candidate as dynamic as Chloe. My point was that you were talking nonsense by just looking at the candidate vote. The Greens have always done really well in this seat relative to their average, to suggest that they should not try for an electorate win in this seat is to say that they shouldn't try for an electoral seat at all ever. That is a silly ask.
2017 party votes for Labour were mostly for Jacinda I think, but I doubt Helen White thought she would win the electorate, so yes, likely the ground team would be aiming for party too.
As the Greens will probably be closer to 5% than 8% in other polls, and Labour will have very little advantage from winning, there could be some rescue voting.
Chloe has a way higher profile. People unhappy about Labour's progress. Actually asking for the electorate vote.
There could be a surprise, but, as Labour will probably pick up most of National's lost votes, I'm picking they have the best chance of winning.
Interesting to compare the RM polling to the nearest dates for 2011 and 2002.
The RM poll taken 25th July – 7th August had National on 51%, Labour on 32%, Greens on 7%, NZF 4%, Act 2%.
I can't find RM polling for 2002 (before their time??), but at the same time prior to that election, the TV3 poll had Labour on 56%, National on 24%, Alliance 1.2%, Act 3.9%, Greens 9%, NZF 3.1%.
Are we really that 'patterned"?
I'm not one of those predicting a National meltdown, they won't be sub-30 in the end. But even a mid-30 vote share causes a lot of problems in their caucus.
They've chucked a bunch of MPs under the bus to save Maureen Pugh, and at around 35% they would only bring in one or two new MPs on the list (depending on electorate results). And Ms Samarakone has been told that it's Auckland Central or nothing, she's ranked in the impossible 50s.
I suppose ambitious candidates will have to wait for the 2021 by-elections (starting in Papakura).
Not long ago Judith Collins mentioned during the course of an interview that Maureen Pugh was a personal friend of many years standing. Judith would want to make sure as many of her supporters as possible were sufficiently high on the list to make it back to parliament. You know, just in case there was a leadership challenge.
Can never have enough “stupid” caucus colleagues who know they are only there at your whim.
That's a bit unfair – same goes for all list candidates. (It's the term "stupid" I find objectionable). An ally is an ally….end of.
Unless its National.
if you add width="550" before the end of the tag, the image will fit in the TS page size. Although in this case I had to use 500.
it does! Easier to remember than 550 too.
#55 Nuwi Samarakone – Manurewa
#66 TBC – Auckland Central
Mike Hosking remains optimistic , Labour just can't be that far ahead ! We can’t have that !
Quite funny watching Winston being turfed.
Do not get to cocky. Still need to get the public to actually vote and crush the crusher.
So based on this, the TV1 and TV3 polls Nationals support sits around 28%. Looks like their internal polling was the rogue poll. Goldsmith must be in real danger of going out based on this. Guess he will have to campaign to win Epsom. Good.
These levels of support are knife in the back figures. Bridges got it. Wonder if a number in National are ruing that decision now.
Not made the papers yet. Wonder why?
Good question, Al1en. The poll was released on a Saturday morning, which is weird in terms of news cycles. Not sure why RM would choose that time when waiting till Monday (or even Sunday arvo) would have guaranteed more media coverage.
It came out on Friday:
What is weird is that the polling was done through July (so partially pre-dates Reid research poll and more so the Colmar Brunton poll which was done late July) but took a week to be promoted by RM.
It suggests that the RR poll may not have been a 'rogue', and that all three polls may have been somewhere close to the mark at the time they were taken.
Regardless, all of them are great news for Labour and ACT, and bad news for National and NZ First.
Cheers, Pete. Mind you, 9.30 on a Friday night isn't that far off Saturday morning and effectively it meant it wouldn't be picked up by the media till the next day. Or not picked up at all, as seems to be the case.
There were a number of other political things going on during Saturday.
But yeah, it seemed unusual.
This year, Roy Morgan have been polling over a uniquely extended period of about 4 weeks. Fieldwork for this one began while Muller was still leader (before the latest Newshub was conducted) & probably ended not too long after the Falloon & ILG stories broke (possibly around the time the latest Colmar Brunton fieldwork started). So the last to be released but not quite the latest sampling (although it does have the advantage of smoothing out any short-term fluctuations).
Wouldn't take too much notice of the Greens' 8% … Roy Morgan tend to overrate our Organic Friends.
Do you see any data-driven reason that this poll tends to over-project for the Greens?
I did look at this a while ago. My best guess was that it was probably because it used cellphone numbers more extensively.
But swordfish is correct. It always seems to have high Green party numbers across a decade of elections.
ACT (at 6.5%) and the Others (at 4%) seem to be the only ones trending upwards at the moment.
NZ Herald Kantar poll —–why did the Herald not publish the full poll this week?
Campaign like there's no tomorrow!!
Jacinda and Labour have got a lot of media coverage from this virus crisis. These latest polls just go to show where the National Party's true support level would usually be, if they didn't have all this mainstream tory media constantly banging on on their behalf and brainwashing the public.