- Date published:
9:28 am, June 8th, 2016 - 149 comments
Categories: greens, labour, nz first, polls - Tags: colmar brunton, poll
Labour and The Greens will be pleased with headlines like this:
Agreement gives small boost to Labour, Greens
Labour and the Green Party have received a small boost in a One News Colmar Brunton poll taken over the period in which the parties announced an agreement to work together.
National is still riding high on 48 per cent – but did not receive any increase in support following last month’s Budget.
The poll has put National on 48 per cent (down 2 per cent), Labour on 29 per cent (up 1 per cent), the Greens on 12 per cent (up 2 per cent) and New Zealand First unchanged on 9 per cent.
The poll of just over 1500 eligible voters was taken between May 28 and June 2 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 per cent. …
Dig a little deeper and things get interesting. From the CB report (ht Toby Manhire):
To the extent that we can believe the shift before vs after the MOU (small sample, margin of error etc), the MOU certainly did not drive support to NZF as some were (of course) spinning. In fact there seems to have been a shift from NZF to Labour (the only statistically significant changes – except for the ridiculous Conservatives). That might wipe the smile off Winston’s dial.
People wanted a signal that Labour were abandoning Nat Lite policy and going back to it’s roots. The MoU has provided that. The Greens were being tarred as a possible National partner after Red Peak so the MoU has taken those fears away for voters.
As for Winston, the clear tactic for him is to go after his traditional and conservative voters who want a change of government i.e. National supporters. – there is nearly 5% of voters who voted conservative last time to pick up, the farmers who are tired of being shafted by National, the elderly and people who want a return to Nationalism rather than then globalism. It’s pretty big group.
And there needs to be tactical voting to change the government with collaboration by Labour and Greens aka Northland.
I would love to see the Natz defeated by a landslide and with a lot of hard work including going around to all these effected people by Nationals policies (farmers, elderly, state house tenants, the provinces, ChCh, Auckland, factories, manufacturers, health workers, teachers and so forth, and gaining their trust and giving them hope of a change of government.
I wont even start on how laughable it is to think that a farmer would vote for Winnie so he could team up with the Greens!
Quite a few farmers are starting to vote Greens directly.
I’ve just shown this to my 60yo brother-in-law who has been a farmer since the year dot, carrying on from his family before him. He nearly popped an artery when he saw this – the majority of the farmers think the Greens are a joke.
His opinion. I don’t necessarily agree with him as I have been a tactical Green voter. However, I won’t be voting Green in 2017, I prefer they standalone and stay on task with environmental issues. The Green’s purpose (other than jump on the change the government bandwagon) is now a blurry green-brown.
Yes, the majority of farmers think the Greens are a joke, but a notable minority of farmers are voting Green.
And no one knows how shitty and unusable our waterways have become better than our farmers.
That’s hardly surprising since they’re the ones doing quite a bit of the polluting.
They’d be cutting their own throats voting Labour/Greens.
They’ll be cutting their own throats to not vote L/G. There’s only so long that NZ will let the pollution go on. The Greens have pretty clear pro-farmer policies. Better to get on board now.
There’s a line I quite liked from Six Feet Under:
Everything, everywhere, ends.
Farmers will stop polluting rivers in NZ eventually. The only question is what makes it end (and relatedly, when).
Pretty much. We can regulate now, or we can wait until the land is completely stuffed and farmers go bankrupt.
When farmers go bankrupt, foreign companies are waiting in the wings to buy up NZ land to farm for their food supply.
The Chinese must be laughing all the way to the bank. I have also heard they negotiated with the UK to fund their nuclear power for them at 4x the going rate because the UK conservatives are so stupid and don’t understand solar and renewable power.
@ David C, just the idea of Farmers reading the Standard is progress….
Now we have the managing director of Sky City posting too,
The propaganda approach of NZ media is now so poor across all aspect of NZ society from farmers to business that they are now reading The Standard to find out what people are really saying and what is news…
That’s why Shaws interview on henry was so good . he spread the blame equally between farmers , business and urban dwellers, and mentioned how some farmers are doing a terrific job on water.
labour increased at cost to greens? national increased? so uhh…
I think you will find this will be short lived. Only takes Andrew to open his mouth…
Also, I dont nats would rise that much, or labour… or greens/nzf drop that much.
LAB/GR partnership has a lot of hard work to do over the next 2-3 months to capitalise on the MOU announcement. If they do not do it right, any extra support will drip away by the end of the year as people perceive no real change.
Remember, there’s a 5% margin of error, so the drop for the Greens may not be statistically significant, unlike the drop for NZF, and the gains for Labour and the extra 1% wasted on the Conservatives.
So after the M.O.U was announced National + ACT could form a govt without any others. Whereas beforehand they could not.
Yip that is a win for Labour. ?
I don’t get the thinking here sometimes.
Every green shoot has to be the start of a bumper crop. Point out the tiny bump in Centre Left polling but ignore the bigger rise in Centre Right polling.
Labour+Greens+NZF is simply not going to happen.
Labour+Greens is just 41%
The wishful thinking is that the tide has to be turning. It’s not even high tide yet. That is 2023.
The Greens suffered a big drop – 3.5% – and although it wasn’t statistically significant at the 95% reliability level it probably is at the 90% level.
I bet you the Greens will be doing some fast internal polling to figure out if this is a real effect or not. They will not have been expecting the MOU to drop their polling at all.
However, quick judgements are limited – it is the polls over the next 1-2 months which will tell us the real effect of the MOU.
Well said. I would be surprised if those numbers hold, but if they do, the Greens membership and caucus will be kicking up.
There’s always a bit of movement between the two parties, give and take. The vital issue is to ensure each leverage from the other to campaign in a complementary way to increase the Labour-Green bloc exponentially over the next few months. Grant will be fantastic and he is a wonderful electorate MP, together with James who is a really nice guy and will increase the Green party vote. The other electorate to look out for will be Auckland Central where Green candidate, Denise Roche, should stand aside to allow Jacinda to have a strong and clear run against that horrible Gnat shouty incumbent.
There is no historical evidence that the overall Labour/Green vote will increase. In recent years in particular the overall support has simply divided between the two parties in differing ratios. NZ’s appetite for left wing politics has diminished in recent years. CV is onto the numbers. If labour want to seriously challenge the government, they need to be polling in the mid 30’s, and to do that, they need to move the the centre, not the left.
Finally, your comment about Auckland Central is revealing. The left have previously criticised National’s similar accomodations with Act in Epsom. An accomodation between Labour and the Greens in any electorate could easily be criticised as hypocrisy. Having said that, I see it as inevitable.
Actually, to poll in the mid 30s is easy for Labour. They need to show that they stand for something clearly different to National.
Aping National will see their numbers continue to deteriorate.
They have been going down the leftist track since Cunliffe. In 2008 under Clark they polled 33.9%. In 2011 under Goff they polled 27.48%. In 2014 under Cunliffe, a game breaker according to the left, their vote dropped to 25.13%. The NZ electorate rejected left wing politics a long time ago. Clark got that. Key gets it. Labour don’t.
I reject your analysis. The more that Labour try and ape National, instead of standing staunch on clearly distinct alternatives, the more Labour will lose.
BTW if you really wanted Labour to fail then according to your own thinking you should be encouraging Labour to go further left…but you’re not are you.
No, because I don’t want them to fail. I want a strong political opposition to whoever is the government of the day. Labour is weak and getting weaker.
You don’t have a strong Opposition if the Opposition is not providing clear political alternatives to the Government.
“You don’t have a strong Opposition if the Opposition is not providing clear political alternatives to the Government.”
True, but Labour could do that without appealing to what is an ever decreasing constituency.
I think Cunliffe’s result being lower than Goff has more to do with the media vilification of Cunliffe (Dongua Liu, “sorry for being a man” and the public white-anting by other MPs) and Kim Dotcom than it does of Labour’s values or broader electability.
I enjoy your comments, and I’m surprised you would take the ‘blame the media’ line. The media beat up the ‘moment of truth’; they swallowed Nicky Hager’s ‘Dirty Politics’. In my view they showed no particular bias, the MSM are just generally incompetent. On the other hand, Labour policy was poor. The CGT particularly was disastrous in its detail and delivery, and their power policy (said to have cost the MRP float alone around $400m) was seen as sabotage. No, it was policy that lost Labour in 2014.
The Dongua Liu affair reporting was biased, and at least 1 senior political commentator has publicly apologised for calling for Cunliffe to resign over it. It’s hard to understate how damaging it is to have senior political reporters demanding the head of a party who is running to be Prime Minister should resign for corruption.
The MSM didn’t bother to wait for an affidavit from Dongua Liu – which never eventuated, because he’d seriously distorted the truth. The media never apologised or backtracked on this. Eventually it came out that Dongua Liu had actually donated to the National party, but that didn’t get anywhere near the coverage that the beatup on Cunliffe had.
I forgot the other beatup of Cunliffe, it was over his “secret trust”, which while in the grand scheme of things was a poor decision on his part, was made with the best of intentions (and per Labour party policy, and something that National themselves routinely use). After the flap from that, all money was either publicly declared who it came from, or refunded in the case of the donor who didn’t want publicity, but again that was not reported by the MSM nearly as widely as the initial allegations were.
Finally the “sorry for being a man” line made perfect sense in the context of how Cunliffe said it, at a conference for women’s refuge (and others). It is only out of context that it sounds insane – so of course that is how the MSM (and National) ran with it.
In each of these cases, the media deliberately sensationalised the message of what was happening, and didn’t bother to correct the record or present a more balanced view after the facts became clear.
“and their power policy (said to have cost the MRP float alone around $400m) was seen as sabotage.”
Yes, some saw it as sabotage. Other saw it as democracy – since NZers were (and are) overwhelmingly opposed to asset sales, National knew this and went ahead with them any way. Well it turns out, the government doesn’t get to call all the shots in a democracy.
I suspect it runs far far deeper than that. I suspect Labour is a 20th century relic that might never be in government again. Much like the 20th century Liberals in England. I reckon that Labour’s whole raison d’etre has been achieved and with National markedly raising benefits, increasing maternity leave and ploughing money into helping the most vulnerable etc what reason is there, other than habit, to still vote Labour. This question is already being answered by the Indian and Chinese communities and increasingly the Pasifika communities.
You’re begging the question (in the proper sense of the phrase), fisi.
The only reason National did those things is because there is a Labour opposition. If National were unopposed, they would not have done those things.
So at best your argument is “Labour never need to get into government, because they are effective achieving their policy gains from opposition”.
Labour is in fact a 19th Century formation. It’s creation in the 1910s was driven by an ethos of industrial socialism dating back to the 19th Century.
In the latter part of the 20th Century Labour updated itself with two new paradigms: neoliberalism and identity politics. Neither paradigm found much favour with people who had previously been core Labour supporters, and this ‘new’ updated Labour Party was quite happy to leave those people behind as dinosaurs.
But this is not a Labour issue. The entire Left hasn’t developed the new socioeconomy needed to face the challenges of the 21st century. Where winning in terms of the traditional metrics of more jobs, more pay, lower unemployment, means losing in terms of the environment, fossil fuel depletion and climate change.
Sorry for being a man killed him. As soon as it came out of his mouth. The tide was already going against him, and that just cemented it.
“The Dongua Liu affair reporting was biased…”
Agreed, as are many political stories.
“I forgot the other beatup of Cunliffe, it was over his “secret trust”, which while in the grand scheme of things was a poor decision on his part…”
Particularly for a politician attacking other peoples trusts.
“Finally the “sorry for being a man” line made perfect sense in the context of how Cunliffe said it…”
No, it didn’t. It was pathetic. Domestic violence is not only a male on female issue. Cunliffe made a huge political blunder, and one can only sit back and wonder what bullet the country dodged.
“Yes, some saw it as sabotage. Other saw it as democracy – since NZers were (and are) overwhelmingly opposed to asset sales…”
You simply don’t know that. The fact is the only poll that mattered was the election to which National took that policy openly and won hands down. But worse, Labour’s alternate policy was horribly flawed, and exposed as such.
In recent years Labour have developed a history of releasing policy that is both ill conceived and poorly marketed. The Greens have not suffered from that dual affliction (at least until their latest rivers stunt).
“Particularly for a politician attacking other peoples trusts.”
The purpose of Cunliffe’s trust is so that he could receive donations, but not know who they were from, so that he could avoid all possible accusations of favouritism. That’s not the same as John Key’s non-secret trust that he uses to increase his own private wealth.
Cunliffe was trying to be a moral politician. Key uses his trust (who is administered by his close personal friend) for private gain.
So the MSM didn’t accurately report the intent of Cunliffe’s trust, it just reported “Cunliffe is a hypocrit!”.
“Cunliffe made a huge political blunder, and one can only sit back and wonder what bullet the country dodged.”
He made a blunder by speaking some words in a speech that one time. Whoop-de-doo. It’s not like he sold our assets or our sovereignty off like National has.
“You simply don’t know that.”
There was a referendum on it. Anyone who wanted their voice heard had the option.
See my comment at #8 about how to interpret the pre/post MOU polling figures.
I agree that it is probably significant at the 90% level, but all that can be said is that the MOU has reduced the Green’s support – but we can’t say by how much (ie, it has not necessarily dropped by 3.2%, it may have dropped by 0.1%), just that it’s reduced. And at 90% confidence, it means that 1 out of 10 times, the drop is support is purely random / unrelated to MOU / nonexistent.
If Greens and Labour are holding hands then why would anyone vote Green in an MMP environment.
The Labour list candidates in the 30 – 35% bracket are much stronger and have parliamentary experience whereas the Greens do not.
Why would anyone vote newbies onto the team when experience is at hand.
I expect the Green share of the Left block to plummet in the near future.
Wait and see – Values showed that environmental values are deeply imbedded in New Zealand – and the Greens have not had a quisling leadership like Douglas.
The Values Party vote in the elections they contested was 1.96%, 5.19%, 2.41%, 0.19%, 0.20%. How does that show that “environmental values are deeply imbedded in New Zealand”?
Under FPP where it couldn’t work – pretty significant.
And there’s this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nkPI6BDZsE
Loved that song! My point wasn’t that kiwi’s don;t care about the environment, we absolutely do. I just question that Values showed that. FPP or not, their level of support was dismal, aside from one year. But I will grant you they ‘paved the way’ to some extent. I don’t agree with much the Greens advocate in the way of policy, but they are consistent and seem to work from a position of integrity. All the more reason why shackling up with Labour is dumbfounding.
The Greens have come a long way from the 70s mystics who didn’t want to understand the economy. Serious economists would’ve noticed that their critiques of the Key government are well founded.
This government is frankly rubbish and pretention, all the bullshit that doesn’t end up in our rivers. The Green preference is competent and environmentally positive – hence their ask for Treasury policy analysis last year. National doesn’t want any independent economic analysis – they know they’re absolute rubbish by any unbiased metric.
“National doesn’t want any independent economic analysis…”
They participate in independent analysis willing. As have all NZ governments to my knowledge.
” – they know they’re absolute rubbish by any unbiased metric.”
I presumed you were above such nonsense. Here’ I’l help you with some independent economic analysis of the economy:
“The New Zealand economy has performed well in recent years, and well-being is high.” http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/economic-survey-new-zealand.htm
“New Zealand should be one of the stronger growing economies in the developed world in the coming year, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) latest global outlook.”
“Noting that New Zealand’s economic growth has been faster than most other developed countries in recent years, the OECD commented in 2015 that: “inflation and inflation expectations are well anchored… Strong fiscal monetary policy frameworks and a healthy financial sector have yielded macroeconomic stability, underpinning growth. Employment is high, in large part thanks to flexible labour markets and ample immigration, business investment is robust and households and firms are optimistic.””
Reading English’s numbers as if they were meaningful is like the kind of pitiful crap you get in Forbes – feteing Enron two years before it collapsed from faking its numbers.
National must meet a critical standard of governance – not a crawling sycophancy standard the MSM prefer and not econobabble.
The econobabble allows them to pretend there is no housing problem, that the economy has grown meaningfully, and that employment and wages are positive – none of these things are remotely true.
Critical standards means they must persuade sceptical observers. Show me meaningful job growth Bill. Show me improved living standards and the increased consumer confidence that is its reflection. He can’t because all his positive numbers are puffery.
Remember the ‘3000 new jobs in Whangarei’? Northland has not forgotten it.
Pretty sure you mean it’d be significant at something like 98% confidence? I don’t think any of the changes would be significant at 90% confidence, even the bump to Labour.
No, that’s an invalid interpretation of the poll results, because each polling period only had ~620 respondents. The whole poll has 1245 respondents, which gives it a margin of error of +/- 2.5%.
With only ~620 respondents in each half of the polled period, the margin of error is going to be something on the order of +/- 10%.
See my comment at #8 for semi-related statistical commentary on these figures.
In short, you can’t take these numbers on face value and draw conclusions from them.
Someone statistically minded can figure out from the data if the true mean shifted from before the MOU to after the MOU.
That’s what CB did, that’s what their “statistically significant” determination is saying.
It’s saying that based on their sample size and the results they received, the true mean of the second sample is different from the true mean of the first.
They fail to say how much by; I’m not entirely sure you can work out how much by, but what definitely can be computed is the threshold at which it becomes statistically significant, eg if the threshold was 3.2% and Labour increased by 5.2%, that’s (surely) telling us something different than if the threshold was 5.2% and they increased by 5.2%.
Based on typical equations 620 respondents has a 95% confidence interval at about +/- 4%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination (see Equations).
But that only means 19 of 20 surveys of 620 people from the same population will have a mean within 4% of this samples mean. One in 20 will be more than 4% different even under ideal conditions.
Even with the full sample over 1400 respondents and the 2.5% confidence interval most poll shifts equate to noise.
Of course thats accepting the inherent survey bias which is in addition. Your sampling method is unlikely to accurately sample the mean of actual voters so whatever the polls says the actual election results *are not* expected to be within 2.5% of your poll results simply because the election is not held by over the phone poll of householders (or whatever sampling mechanism is used in practice).
So now we know why Winston has been having political hissy fits. Here he is immediately after the MOU announcement – starts @1:44 min:
We don’t like jack ups or rigged arrangements behind the people’s backs. he says. So he doesn’t like MMP? Well, why has he been happy to participate in MMP-type arrangements in the past?
Did Labour party or Green party members get to vote on the MOU ?
No. Some Labour caucus members are very grumpy.
Ok,I find that quite surprising that the membership wasn’t even asked.
I always thought Labour was supposed to be all about the membership and that the Labour party mps are purely there to represent the membership.
The Labour hierarchy likes to say its a democracy where its membership democratically determines its policies and positions.
As you have observed, that is clearly untrue.
Also for the Chinese sounding last names tactic, for withdrawing the GST off fruits and vegetables policy, raising the super age, and many other examples.
TL/DR the general membership is far to the Left of where the caucus is and they both know it.
Do you think there should have been a membership vote?
From your experience within Labour do you think the MOU would have majority support, both with members and more importantly voters.?
The debate would have been energising to both Greens and Labour and would have attracted the attention of the entire electorate. Memberships of both parties would have climbed during the process.
It would also have given the MOU more guts and detail and gotten the voting public warmed up for election year.
But the debate and the specific result may not have been within the control of the Labour Party hierarchy. And the Labour caucus would have chaffed at being bound by an outcome not entirely of their own making, guaranteeing its eventual failure.
Look, Labour members just need to trust their MPs to do the right thing. The outcome would have been the same anyway. Just quicker and more decisive for the caucus to appear strong.
I think if they had voted/discussed with members it would have also stayed in the media for a lot longer, which would have been a good tactic imo.
That’s exactly right. IMO Labour failed to learn from the positive momentum (and stacks of extra members) it got from its Leadership selection process.
What?? That surely can’t be correct.
I thought Labour members at their LECs and regional meetings have already voted on withdrawing from the CGT idea, on leaving superannuation issues to a process after the election as Grant said, on not talking about tax issues now but setting up a working group to look into them after the election, and on having a UBI?
Agree though that the MOU idea was not put to members to discuss.
A small fraction of the membership, around 10% to 15%, will have participated in any such vote. With the decisions on Super, the hierarchy maneuvered the membership into giving caucus discretion with what to do on that in future i.e. got the membership to democratically vote to give up democratic decision making on super.
So that’s the kind of democracy we are talking about here.
10 -15% of the labour party membership is all that would have voted? so 100-150 members, may as well leave it to caucus. they can each ask 3 members how they feel about the issue
Sure, that means what exactly? An undemocratic process replaced by an undemocratic process. Cool.
I’ve heard Winstons price for going with national is Keys head on a spike….
Or a wine box will do 😉 …. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8515361/Money-trail-leads-home-to-New-Zealand
Yeah, the Labour caucus right wing will be pissed off with this move.
I think the Robertson faction of caucus will be generally fine with Labour getting together with Grant’s good mate Shaw.
Yes, Grant and James are friends. I know each pretty well and they will both make a great team of Finance Minister and Deputy Finance Minister.
Is that sarcasm?
Only you wish it to be so. Do you actually know each of them and have heard how they think and speak? Grant is shaping to be a Helen Clark and Michael Cullen combined. James has deep and broad experience from the business consultancy sector.
I wasn’t commenting on James Shaw. I have a lot of time for James, particularly his desire to integrate market economics with environmental sustainability. Grant Robertson, on the other hand, has zero qualifications to run an economy, and his lack of economic credentials is constantly shown up in the House.
Given the sustained failure of everything Bill English does, how do you feel about him?
Bill English has done a reasonably good job with the economy, as virtually all OECD comparisons prove. He is certainly light years ahead of Grant in terms of competency.
$120 billion in debt – no growth except immigration and Christchurch – complete failure of dairy – unemployment at 10% if you don’t accept Bill’s fiddle – record suicide – no surplus ex borrowing no plan for the future.
Grant could be a gibbering idiot with an IQ of 40 and do a better job without trying hard.
FFS English has been right running up the government debt.
How many times do I have to go through this.
Government spending into the economy is the only thing keeping NZ afloat.
What do you lefties prefer English to do? Slash welfare or increase GST to 25%?
Why are lefties even using the Government surplus/deficit as a measure of economic “competence”? That measure is totally narrow and neoliberal in focus.
You complain that there hasn’t been enough growth in the NZ economy yet you want English to slash the money spent into the economy? Or you would prefer him to take money away from household incomes and savings, because somehow that will encourage people to spend into the economy?
I mean seriously, WTF.
Spot on CV.
IMO, bill is pretty switched on. I have gone to a few of his breakfasts where he has explained quite a bit of the ‘why’ behind their decisions. It makes sense.
Recently quite impressed with the new social fund, and what they are looking to in the next 2-3 years.
He is also bracing for the bubble bursting in Auckland. He said it’s coming. It’s just no one can predict when.
My bet has always been the end of this year.
If an international event occurs which forces international investors to liquidate their Auckland housing stock to cover margin calls etc, that’ll do it.
However, there is a true housing shortage up in Auckland so I can’t see the prices falling that far. 10% maybe?
English promised surpluses on top of tax cuts.
Nothing he has done worked so he has borrowed the difference – that’s a long way from being clever.
His spend into the economy is diverted by austerity policies and corrupt special interests – not rebuilding Christchurch for example. You’d think he could do the math that fucking over NZ’s second largest city won’t help the economy but evidently not.
If his pretention had not been empty his tax take would’ve grown to cover his promises – Cullen’s did.
There’s the multiplier effect for starters – the lower you spend into the economy the greater the churn before it ends up in deadspace – property or finance. Cutting benefits has a much greater negative effect than paying them. But Bill has ignored that for irrational, ideological reasons. His balance sheet shows the result.
Paula Bennett, on the other hand, has zero qualifications to run a Climate Change portfolio, and her lack of Climate Change science credentials is constantly shown up every time she speaks on the issue.
Kennedy Graham, otoh, will be excellent in the role.
I agree. Although the portfolio is, frankly, just silly. Having a Minister of Climate Change is a bit like having a Minister for Earthquakes. They’re going to happen, have been for eons, and there’s not much we can do about it.
we can get ready for climate change and fossil fuel depletion. Currently we are simply speeding into a block wall.
Climate change is predictable and preventable to an extent. We still have plenty of opportunity to mitigate the worst effects. Complete different to quakes.
We have minister of quakes, the civil defence minister.
I wasn’t aware of Shaws “deep and broad” business experience.
Can you please tell me the names of the companies he has owned and directorships he has held?
Thanks in advance.
Ditto for John Key and Bill English, thanks.
Also how many of those legal entities were based in tax havens.
Actually it’s not necessarily an explanation for Winston’s “hissy fits” at all.
It may be Winston’s hissy fits that lead to this lower polling for NZFirst.
I will celebrate when Labour at polling in the late 30s early 40s.
They HAVE to lift their number’s.
National still the largest party and that hasn’t changed.
15 months until polling day.
Labour needs at least to get over 30% on election day. That will give Winston a good reason to support a Labour led govt. If Labour gets mid 20’s in comparison…Winston won’t go with Labour, IMO. He won’t be able to justify doing so internally within his own party, or externally to the electorate.
I think your celebration is going to be years away, if ever.
I’d be happy to see Labour at 33-34% – that is enough with the Greens to be highly confident of winning the election.
Its all about getting the confidence of parliament. With 38-42% party vote that would give Labour the authority in any prospective coalition or minority status in dealing with other parties.
The numbers are finely balanced if you have National with the same share of the vote then it becomes a lot more interesting.
Even with 42% in 2002 Helen chose to lead a minority govt.
Yep 33+12+9=54%=good majority. Nats on 44%. 2% for the rabble.
Peters hates Key=Little as PM. This result is my pick-you heard it here first.
I still see it as very unlikely that Labour will get over 30%. I believe the most likely range is 25% +/-3%.
Peters hates the Greens more. That’s the left’s issue.
Sounds like Peters’ issue to me
Not when he is the left’s only chance of getting in to govt.
I know this is difficult for people to understand if they live in a world of powermongering and manipulation, but change is more important than power and there is more than one way to skin a possum.
Peters is the one responsible for his behaviour. He’s got an open invitation to help change the govt. What he does with that is his problem not anyone elses. Him hating on the Greens is only a problem for the rest of us if we deem Peters indispensible. He’s not, which is what Labour and the GP just demonstrated.
After the MOU, National is up 1.9%, Lab/Greens up 1.7%. (For those who argue Peters is part of the opposition (conveniently forgotten??), then Lab/Greens/NZF are down 2.4%).
With National partners Maori and Act being electorate seat holders, this is good news for the centre right. Very early days though.
John Key and the National party tried to get rid of our New Zealand flag.
Labour and the Greens together fought hard to keep the flag.
And New Zealand backed them.
2 September 2014
‘Labour backs national flag review’
‘Labour would also review the design of the New Zealand flag, with the party saying “the time has come for a change and it is right for the issue to be put to the public”. ‘
So what changed?
really scaredy pants!…so you are saying Labour really supports jonkey nactional?
Massive Key campaign for the bacon wrapper.
“So what changed?”
National decided on a ham-handed and tone-deaf approach to changing the flag, primarily championed by Key, and wasted $26M in the process.
Labour would have done it differently, and likely cheaper.
srylands boasted here on the standard that he donated money to whale-oil/Lost sole …..
It was all a bit pathetic watching a vindictive little troll like srylands trying to coat-tail in on Slaters promotion in the media and false image as a ‘likable rouge’ … the narrative about him having powerful friends, key & collins, was 100% correct though. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201779410/dirty-politics-players-back-in-the-frame
Anything changed for you srylands ??????
Slug boy needs your cash more than ever now ………
James Shaw and some other idiotic Greens wanted ‘Red Peak’ corporate flag actually…and supported jonkey on flag change…many thought Greens flakey after this…and potential Green voters went back to Labour
imo this is a rogue poll ( jonkey and the nacts are running very scared )
…it is a good move on the part of Labour and the Greens to join forces and work cooperatively together….shows them to be a solid Opposition to jonkey nact ( before they looked fragmented and in competition)
….and as usual Winston NZF will be king maker
( he works silently behind the scenes drumming up support in old fashioned town hall meetings…at which I have seen many farmers )
…if offered PM ( for at least the first year) the Left coalition will WIN!
…the right wing hates Winston Peters…he is one of the most savvy effective Opposition spokespeople , if not the best…he always has his finger on the pulse…he is solidly against TPP, against foreign agencies spying on New Zealanders and has ALWAYS staunchly opposed sale of STATE ASSETS
No surprise that Winston is the most effective. He has been a Parliamentarian for a long time and is very experienced and knowledgeable. While I haven’t looked up the dates, Winston would have been an MP when the current Labour Leader was merely still in his early teens and not even had gone to secondary school, if only just.
My point being, if National can be accepted by the general public as Economic Masters, despite the well-documented arguments to the contrary, Labour and the Greens can easily claim to have saved our flag from the attacks of John Key and the National Party.
It doesn’t matter what Nat supporters here say, it’s a ‘legend’ that can be, and in my view, should be, told over and over again. It’s a simple, comforting message for all New Zealanders 🙂
Little has ruled out Peters as PM Chooky. Just forget it-it ain’t gonna happen.
And I think The Standard should be a flag-free zone from now on; another non-issue.
“Little has ruled out Peters as PM.”
Not to mention it’s just a daft idea, that is being pushed by the right as a means of manipulating the political process. It’s not like they actually think it’s real, they just want to confuse and scare people. Hooton, who seems to be the main pusher of the idea, got trounced on Dimpost the other day.
No one who knows anything about politics believes this could work. And Hooton knows a lot about politics. It’s a line, manufactured to create fear about the potential dire consequences of voting Labour, without any relationship to political reality. It’s stupid.
“daft idea, that is being pushed by the right”
… to save the nacts…I think Hooton has flown this idea as a way of saving the right ( the right wing are the ultimate pragmatist strategists…leave the Left for dead)
…it wouldnt do for the Greens and Labour to get too snooty about this idea of Winston being PM…if they want to be in government
Ok, so you accept that the right are using the idea of Peters as PM as a way of underming the left and thus staying in govt and you think they are clever for doing so.
But you think that L/G should stay open to Peters as PM.
Brillian strategy there Chooky.
Did LAB/GR brief Peters on this MOU before it was announced.
If not why not.
why would they do that?
To privately demonstrate a measure of trust in Winston, in order to bring NZF on side with the plan, to give Winston a chance to prepare barbs to attack National with on the day, and to prevent Key from messaging Winston: this time around, Labour is treating you like you are the last cab of the rank. How does that make you feel, Winston?
Clearly though, the LAB/GR team can’t think that strategically.
Clearly you can’t. What you say is predicated on Peters being interested, playing fair, and not having a history of powermongering. I don’t think any of those things are true. The man plays games, Labour and the Greens made the right move.
Actually let me put it another way. Your critique would carry more weight if you understood what their strategy is, or even knew that there was one. Because it’s clear to me and others that they have one, and that it’s potent. If you want to disagree with the strategy you have to understand what it is.
Well, time will tell. But leaving Winston out of the planning is dumb. That’s not a “strategy,” that’s an oversight.
Because there is no scenario in which Labour/Greens can do without him in 2017, and leaving the door open for National to say to Peters…see…they don’t have any real intention of treating NZ First as an equal to themselves…they don’t think you can be trusted and they see you as the last cab of the rank…
Is a major mistake. And I think you know it.
” Because it’s clear to me and others that they have one, and that it’s potent. If you want to disagree with the strategy you have to understand what it is.”
That’s just a huge get out of jail card. An error is an error. Even if you don’t want to admit it.
Winston will do whatever he believes will increase NZF,s vote (and why not, he’s a politician after all) and has categorically ruled out even the perception of an agreement prior to the voters having their say on polling day over the course of several elections.
It would be the height of folly to set a strategy on the basis he will change now and the best defense to any potential downside to NZF strategy is to remove yourself from it by being able to be unconnected to anything NZF say or do do during electioneering.
The best strategy is the apparent one adopted of attempting to present a coherent alternative, attain the largest support possible and use that position to form a government when the time comes….if that requires a deal with NZF (although likely nothing is certain, a week is a long time in politics, up to 16months is an eternity.) then that deal is more likely IF the L/G match or exceed National at the polls.
Time will indeed tell CV. Oversight? The fact that you believe that the Greens and Labour didn’t think long and hard about Peters and what was the best approach makes it very hard for me to seriously consider your political analysis. What they are doing doesn’t fit your notions of what is right and useful, so you are deciding they are stupid. But others of us can see the strategy loud and clear.
Not sure what you mean about the equals thing. Each party is independent and unto themselves. What Labour and the Greens have done is work on a partnership. Peters had many chances to be involved in that and he blew it.
I think what you are pointing to is the fact that Peters has been playing powermongering games for so long, and now that L/G have finally gone fuck it, had enough of that nonsense, we’re just going to get on with doing what is right, it’s basically knobbled Peters’ power plays. So yeah, Peters doesn’t have the same power he had a few weeks ago, about bloody time too. Now we’re on a more even playing field.
As far as I can tell Peters is still welcome to talk with both parties. There has been no coalition deal. I don’t see any reason to not believe that, National party strategy imaginings aside.
The irony here of course is that when Peters has been in Kingmaker role in the past (at election time) he hasn’t treated the Greens as equals. So it’s strange to see you arguing for that now, as if Peters deserves special treatment that he doesn’t give others.
” Because it’s clear to me and others that they have one, and that it’s potent. If you want to disagree with the strategy you have to understand what it is.”
That’s just a huge get out of jail card. An error is an error. Even if you don’t want to admit it.
It might be an error, but unless you understand the strategy you can’t see what the error might be. At the moment you appear to just be arguing that Peters deserves to be included in an agreement between Labour and the Greens. I can’t see why he should, and you haven’t made an argument as to why.
+1 Pat. And NZF voters who prefer Peters to choose the left over the right are going to be paying a different kind of attention now.
It’s a big bold move, which is exactly what we need at this point in time.
+100 CV…they are self- interested fuckwits…if I were Peters NZF in a king-making role I would be pushing a very hard bargain indeed
“And I think The Standard should be a flag-free zone from now on; another non-issue” ( censorship?)
…well you may well say so but others have long memories and obviously for them it was not a “non issue”
Little may have ruled Winston Peters out as PM …but we will see what the Election results are….time will tell
( btw…Little doesnt have much to commend him as PM imo…and is very inexperienced)
Btw, I just had a look at the CB report and it isn’t very clear what it means by “statistically significant”.
What it really means in this case, is that based on the earlier poll results and the later poll results, we can infer that support for the parties (Labour, NZFirst, Conservatives) has materially changed after the MOU was announced, assuming all else remains equal.
This doesn’t give any gauge about the actual increase, however. It’s tempting to look at the +5.2% for Labour and say “Labour gained by 5.2% from the MOU!”, but actually the pre-MOU figure was only 26.1%, which is a low figure compared to other recent polling, so it may have simply been the case that without the MOU announcement Labour may have gained 4.5% in the second half of the polling period.
What the statistical significance test is really saying, is (something like) “We would have expected that 19 times out of 20, Labour’s results in the second half of the poll would have been at most +4.5%. Because the result is actually +5.2%, we can infer that the Labour result in the second half of the polling period is 0.7% higher than it otherwise would have been, without the MOU agreement”.
One should be very careful in interpreting these results, as it seems unlikely that the Conservatives would truly have gained any support on the back of the MOU announcement – so this could be the 1 in 20 cases where the Conservative vote in the first half of the polling understated their true position significantly, and the second half of the polling period has just reverted to the ‘true’ value, and has nothing to do with the MOU.
Anyway, bottom line for people reading my comment and not understanding what I’m trying to say: don’t look at Labour’s +5.2% and think the MOU has made great gains for them. instead look at the +5.2% as being a signal that the MOU has increased Labour’s support by an *unknown* amount, and also there’s a 1 in 20 chance that that *unknown* increase is purely random and has nothing to do with the MOU.
Note: someone with more statistics talent than myself (swordfish?) can probably use the numbers provided by CB to give us a ballpark guess about what the *unknown* amount is. Actually I’m a little disappointed CB didn’t try and do that themselves.
Conversely, don’t look at the figures and see the greens drop of 3.5% as being a ‘disaster’ for them. First, it isn’t statistically significant at 95% confidence – so this is a reasonably expected result to have occurred in any poll that was split down the middle as this one was.
Secondly, even if it were statistically significant, all it would mean is that after the MOU, the Greens support had dropped by an *unknown* amount. Not dropped by 3.5% – that’s the *signal* that something has changed, but not the actual amount of the change.
Reading this alongside the Labour result post MOU, one possible narrative is that the MOU has increased Labour’s vote share by 0.5%, at the expense of 0.5% of the vote for the Greens.
Nobody can make this estimate of the *unknown* amount in fact it makes little sense. If we had an infinitely large population of coloured balls (in the parties colours) in proportion to the initial poll results of 620 samples. Now if we took samples of 620 of them then 19 of 20 will have a mean within 4.5 % of the initial. 1 of 20 will have a mean more than 4.5% away from the initial. Can you tell the 1 of 20 sample from a sample taken from a separate infinite population with different proportion of ball colours? Not really with any confidence (especially if the proportions are quite similar).
The population from which they are sampling is not infinitely large!? In fact, nobody knows the population size, only its lower (i.e. zero) and upper (with reasonable accuracy based on census results) limits. Nor are the ‘party colours’ truly fixed; this is an assumption necessary for the polling and found in the wording of the report or in the fine print of the methodology.
Yes. Its just an analogy for ideal conditions showing that purely random variance is significant over a small sample size.
I have to say I’m a little surprised by this, I wasn’t expecting Labour to surge ahead nor Winston to fall so far behind, early days though
They didn’t, read my posts above. Overall Labour increased by 1% and NZFirst stayed the same.
The +5.2% and -4.1% are only indicative in a change in support for these parties, but provides no information in itself as to the extent of the change, merely that in 19 out of 20 possible worlds, a charge of this size is (expected) to be meaningful and not just random chance.
A shorter way to say it: don’t look at the numbers, just look at the + or – sign in front of them.
Fair enough but I still expected a decent bump for winston
Wait, I’m a little confused. This poll represents what was taken after the MoU, correct? And the 26% for Labour etc. was what the poll was beforehand? So the 29% is an average of the two polls?
To be clear, this was not “two polls”, but rather one poll that was undertaken, where the MOU was announced in the middle of it. Since this is such a significant political event, they have chosen to dig into their poll data and present the before and after figures, whereas usually they would not (and have no reason to) report those figures.
Yes, 29% is the support for Labour over the whole polling period, which has a margin of error of +/- 2.5%
So what about the adage that political events don’t get reflected in the polls for several weeks as it takes time for people to process what happened?
I’m not sure it’s an “adage”, and it’s something that Lynn has said numerous times. I don’t particularly agree with him.
His view might be more nuanced anyway – some high profile events may be reflected, but other issues may take longer to seep in. Also it’s hard being a political junkie to really tell which issues the electorate will care about and which they won’t.
The Greens always had a few urban well educated voters who regarded them as a way to environventilise (my neologism) whatever government was in power. They seriously thought that Greens could go either way if holding the balance of power. Now that pretense is gone. Why vote Green if all you get is Red. Why vote Red if all you get is Green. Those voters will return to their natural home of National. I still cannot see how significant numbers of National voters would abandon National. 40 houses a day are being built, wages are rising faster than inflation, National does not hate Chinese, the economy is growing, rivers are cleaner and schools are better.
As always, I applaud Fizzers Swiftian moments.
Whenever people use comparatives, I always want to know “than what”?
Uncompared comparatives are advertising spin.
Houses are rising faster than inflation, the economy is growing faster than National, rivers are cleaner than National, and schools are better than National.
That what you mean. Fisiani?
I think he/she was joking….either that or hasn’t been following the news …or in denial.
Always nice to give one the benefit of the doubt.
And citizens of the country are homeless.
A message to the Prime Minister from an 11 year old living in a van.
‘Try walking in my shoes. It’s not actually that easy’
its Fis never let the truth get in the way he/she is john keys mini me!
Game On! Nat’s down to 43% on Roy Morgans latest Poll. http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6816-roy-morgan-new-zealand-voting-intention-may-2016-201605230014
You have accidentally put up the May one. This is the latest Roy Morgan link:
Ooops! My Bad…Cheers m8 🙂
Just done a new post on this 🙂
Thanks to MS for cleaning up my bad formatting 😛