- Date published:
10:00 am, December 30th, 2010 - 87 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags: herald digipoll
With only a couple of days left in 2010 the Herald has released its latest digipoll showing a slight closing of the gap between National and Labour. But that’s not the interesting part.
What is interesting is the preferred Prime Minister polling. As usual it has Key right out front and Goff languishing in the single figures but it also does lists the don’t know/won’t say section and it’s a whopping 24.6%.
That’s right, nearly a quarter of people polled didn’t know who they wanted as PM or wouldn’t say.
Unfortunately the don’t know/won’t say figure for the main question hasn’t been published which is a real shame because when you’ve got a poorly performing government and a poorly performing opposition that figure becomes very important.
For example we don’t know how many people have abandoned National but don’t feel like they have anywhere to go. If, like in the preferred PM numbers, it’s a quarter of people polled then the “National could govern alone” meme is clearly disingenuous.
It seems to me that no poll can be taken seriously without the DK/WS figures being included. Especially in a political climate where the disenchanted swing voter is so critical to the result.
Irish “What is interesting is the preferred Prime Minister polling. As usual it has Key right out front and Goff languishing in the single figures but it also does lists the don’t know/won’t say section and it’s a whopping 24.6%.”
Hope springs eternal, I guess.
So you think that having a quarter of people polled undecided on preferred PM is insignificant? What if this figure is reflected in the party vote polling?
I don’t know. As I understand it, a lot of polls don’t include undecided figures. This might be par for the course if undecideds were included in all polls.
If the question was “who would you definitely not prefer as PM?” it might be a bit more revealing.
Not really, because you’d probably just get people saying “Winston Peters”.
That question asks for the worst of all worlds: most people would prefer either Key or Goff to Peters (and that’s why they also don’t vote NZ First), so really the question wouldn’t tell us anything that wasn’t already obvious.
The Herald article got it wrong where it said that all 3 of the latest polls had National over 50%. The latest Roy Morgan had the nats at 48.5 and support for all government parties at over 50. Small mistake but geez you have to wonder at the quality of our opinion formers …
Micky, I don’t think that there is much to wonder about at all.
Interesting. I’d say that 24.6% will be made up of a wide range of voters including:
* The obvious: low/middle income swing voters who voted for that nice Mr Key who promised them all “north of $50 a week” and now realise they were shafted.
* Lefties who voted for Helen but don’t have confidence in Goff, always wanted the party to move further left and don’t see it happening at the moment.
* Green voters unhappy with the shift to the right under the current leadership.
* ACToid liberals who lost faith after Rodney’s lies. Oh and all that dead baby stuff.
* Economic hard-line righties who think the Nats are too soft but have no confidence in ACT making the threshold.
* The kbr fundies who bought all the “nanny state/hulun’s a lezzer/iwi kiwi/beat my kids” schtick and are horrified to discover that National haven’t introduced sharia law yet.
* Reactionaries wondering about Winston’s chances.
Lots of discontented voters there. Anyone’s game, I reckon.
Lovely little deconstruct Felix, cant fault it…now is the winter of our discontent to be made glorious summer by the lopping off of the rulers head in November.
You forgot the largest percentage.
* I don’t give a fuck, fuck off and let me get on with my holiday.
Shit, have we shifted to the right?
No one told me
Actually lots of us have been telling you.
You just don’t fucking listen.
There’s certainly been no large policy shifts in the Green Party, it’s more a comment on what some lefties think of the Green caucus rather than the policy itself.
To use rough as guts numbers, Goff has 8% PPM rating, and Labour is polling at around 33%. It looks pretty clear to me that the 25% difference is likely to be Labour supports that don’t support Goff as their preferred leader. So don’t say who they support as a PPM for the purposes of the poll.
The party vote for labour is 37% but you could be right. The problem is you can’t compare the numbers for party vote to the ones for PM without knowing how many DK/WS what their party vote would be.
Sorry, I had a look over the article and realised the numbers were slightly off. But was using those numbers to broadly illustrate what I was trying to say rather than get an exactly fitting answer.
There doesn’t appear to be anywhere else where that 24.6% gap is coming from, Nationals support is 52.4%, Johns PPM support is 53.1%, so it doesn’t sounds like it’s coming from the National crowd.
Whereas Labours support is 37.2% and Phils PPM is 7.7% a gap of 29.5 percentage points. (presumably the bulk of that 24.6%)
We really could do with access to the raw data. I for one know enough Labour and Green party voters who like John Key enough to consider him their preferred PM, that its not a rare phenomenon.
I don’t disagree that John may cross many of the political boundaries, but I think it is relatively clear cut that Labour supporters on the whole are not behind Phil Goff as much as National supporters are behind John Key. Though that is from the information that we are given.
The percentage of undecideds is removed from the total, so it’s completely unrelated to the data you have on hand, genius. 😛
Well for what it’s worth, my swing nat-voting rellies are still firmly national, one of them, alarmingly, even more enarmoured with Key. Labour was considered unelectable by every person I spoke with while I was away and I did tend to bring the subject up.
Now I’m home where most around me don’t support national.
Yeah this shit worries me a lot. I have been out and about in different places and with different people over the last few days, and when I bring the subject up most people are still very keen on Key and on National. Some very specific spots have good Labour support but otherwise its not a good look.
How is that possible, just saying? I am sure you wonder, as I do…
Hmm…not sure about the validity of any polls until they can overcome the mobile phone factor. An increasing number of households don’t even have landlines any more!
Or like me, don’t answer my unlisted landline unless the caller id is recognized. People can leave messages and usually don’t.
captcha: executed – umm John Key or cold callers. Much the same really
But isnt it interesting that you dont actually see any pictures of Phil Goff, or for that matter any opposition party politicians, nor hear any of their true positive or informed comments in the daily papers. However, you do see lots of John Key and the National party ministers everywhere you look. How is anyone to know what the opposition parties do or are thinking if the media continues to invisibalise them. I think if the media played according to a fair playing field we would see polls with results which look a lot different. Examples are Pike River and Christchurch to which many leftist politicians went to lend a hand but we didnt actually see them did we. Thats right!! They were invisible.
Not only that, but the stories you see about the Nats are mostly all positive. It seems a bit strange how the negative stories are mainly about whatever can be found about Labour, and repeated ad nauseum, but some big negative stories about the Nats are hidden in places like the 7th page of the Herald and printed very briefly, once and with no pictures. Something is amiss here and most of our voters dont see this unfortunately. I dont buy papers any more because of the marked bias being showed. I would like them to give Kiwis the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about their voting choices and therefore the polling would be more honest.
If you don’t buy newspapers any more how can you tell that they are biased to the right … that makes as much sense as me not buying the local rag because I believe it is biased towards its largely leftish readership :-).
I dont buy the papers but I do have a computer. You claim that the local papers are leftist rags but during the local body elections in Auckland I saw lots of photos of John Banks and the right wing councillors but almost none of the leftist councillors. Its a bit sad now though isnt it, there arent that many on the right and our mayor is Len Brown. How sad for you.
I don’t think that there is any way at all that National can carry over 50% into the election.
There has only been ONE election in the last 70 years when a party got over 50% of the vote.
The was National in 1951, the Waterfront “strike”, or “lockout”, depending on your political leanings, election.
The Green Party are going to have to lift their game though as they usually only get about two thirds the vote in an election that they get in the polls.
The Greens polling trend is up at this stage of the election cycle, Alwyn
Auckland got it right in the local body elections and we got the only candidate who could pull the people together. The polls were wrong here and they could be wrong again.
Ask them when they have to make a decision about the future. At the moment people have a general intention of support of an ideology or image but these things can change when you start to think about the next 3 years that you vote will affect.
Ask them about what they want for NZ schools, their employment conditions, what sort of things they want their government to be involved in. Preferences change when you have to put your vote into action. No body ever got elected promising not to do anything- just ask John Banks.
Agreed. Some so-called keen National supporters can’t verbalise at all the reasons why they like Key/National. And when they do its often things like “Key is a nice guy, a good businessman, he really seems to care, etc.” In other words they have bought into the branding and the imaging lock stock and barrel.
Not everyone though. The people who dislike Key and National can really really dislike them.
A bit of editorial in the local rag was gushing about Key. Then in the same article was talking about the problems with increasing inequality. There seems to be a disconnect between awareness of politicians and awareness of the effects of their policies.
That reminds me that the other night, someone on 3 News was talking about the unbelievable prices rises for such things as cheese, milk and veg etc… Yet 3 News don’t seem to connect all this to NACT, of whom they are emotional supporters…
Not hard to see why there is so much vitamin D deficiency in NZ as dairy is becoming a luxury food item. Have not looked up the story, but heard a health professional today say that NZ has to test children for vitamin D. Also heard the other day that dairy has gone up internationally and that in a couple of months it will rise at the supermarket in NZ by 10 %.
Dairy products are essential for growing children or a good alternative is required if a vegan.
Ah…not really. OK so its what the Fonterra ads say, but how “essential” can it be if the majority of people in human civilisations have had very limited or no access to dairy products whatsoever until the last 500 years. In fact dairy is a recent enough addition to the human diet that a lot of people have some degree of allergy to dairy proteins or sugars.
And now that our dairy herds are being fed with palm kernel and tapioca, not clean green NZ grass (not that it was anyways…)
If NZ wants its kids with good vitamin D levels they need to get out and about and play in the sun.
I’m not sure where this came from, but let’s dispell some veg*an myths.
Generally the worry for vegans is actually B12, which is largely obtained from milk and eggs for vegetarians. It’s possible to obtain enough B12 by eating food made with rather specific yeasts, cereals or other food fortified with B12, or even taking supplements. (I think I read something about various funguses which also contain B12 which are where the animals get it in the first place, so that might be available too.)
Vegans can eat tofu, soy, bok choi, broccoli, and other foods for the calcium which improves vitamin D uptake- it’s relatively easy to get calcium as a vegan without even resorting to foods fortified with it. No dairy intake is necessary in a diet that involves a varied choice in vegetables, and vegetarians will easily get plenty of calcium.
The real problem with veganism is simply that it’s a lot harder to pull off and less adaptable than vegetarianism. Some people will not be able to be vegan due to health risks or allergies to particular sources of nutrients, so consulting a doctor that actually knows about vegan or vegetarian diets about how viable they are for you is never a bad idea.
Meat and dairy are heavily advocated for by industry groups, but neither is strictly necessary in a diet. New Zealand meat is certainly more ethical and healthy than wheat-fed livestock overseas, but that doesn’t mean it’s ethical or environmentally-friendly enough for people to eat. Even just eating vegetarian meals a few times a week will greatly cut down your carbon footprint, probably as much as switching to a more efficient mode of transport.
I still don’t believe the polls. The reason Labour lost the last election was low turn out. We had the lowest turnout for decades. National allways win low turn out elections.
So why didn’t left voters come out? It could have been they felt it was futile because the polls made it look like a left win wasn’t possible. It could have been a thousand other things but its possible the high polling for the Nats made left voters just not bother.
So the result mirrored the polls but was really a reflection of low voter turnout which means left voters didn’t go to the polls.
So if high turnout almost always means victory for the left that tells us that the majority of Kiwi’s support the left or that most Kiwi’s do not support the right. If high turnout favoured the Right believe me we would have had compulsory voting years ago.
It’d be interesting to look at the history of Australian elections who have compulsory voting.
The turnout in 2002 was lower (see: Wiki: Elections in NZ) so how did Labour win that one?
Also this link: http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/civil-political-rights/voter-turnout.html
English changes everything.
I’ve noticed that fascinating ‘Mutt and Jeff” thing going on too. Those ordinarily left-leaning Key fans invariably blame all the negative news on Bill English. They love that nice Mr Key and loathe the nasty Mr English, who Key for some unfathomable reason is unable to control. (That doesn’t make him a weak leader you understand, just too nice for his own good sometimes…) Previously as reasonably sane and sensible as most ordinary people – still lucid and reasonable in most things, and worst of all to me, often the very people that the NACT agenda is already hurting with a lot worse to come. Like turkeys falling in love with Christmas.
It’s quite mad, I’m not entirely convinced there aren’t psychotropic substances in Auckland’s water and subliminal messages on the TV. Come to think of it, with the relentless groupthink of the Key/Nact fanboi media, subliminal suggestion would be kinda over-egging the custard….
Nope, this is just an example of how you can’t override feelings by logic, which is a very distressing thing if you’re talking to someone who trusts their feelings more than their logic on something where feelings aren’t really relevant like politics.
Remember the bottom 20% on the income scale no longer participate in the democratic process anymore. Thats why left leaning parties struggle when they start talking about social inclusion and fairness arguments. Guess which groups of people like it when the Nats mouth off about welfare bludgers, the DHB and unfair taxation.
Of course these are only really catchy slogans because the reality of action is rather ugly. Nobody really wants to be assailed by beggars when they step outside their front door and nobody really likes the idea of children sitting next to their kids at school not having had breakfast or not being properly clothed, even if that is what they profess they will vote for.
It makes a good story for the Nats though.
In the end you individuals really need to ask- do they want to keep withdrawing money from the public good and why is there so little available for the public good when we are so rich. If you look at the Auckland Council elections you might see what people really think
That’s right, nearly a quarter of people polled didn’t know who they wanted as PM or wouldn’t say.
Given that Nat Deputy leader got 0%, and the second most popular Labour PM is in the UN, that indicates that many are happy with Key, but others are not happy with Goff or anyone else in Labour. Perhaps more Labour voters are happy with Key as PM than Goff, and alsowont vote for Labour’s deputy leader as they dont know her name.
People don’t just vote on the basis of their approved leader. Witness that Labour was polling more than twice as high as Goff for quite some time.
Somewhat pertinent news article on US cellphone-only homes here.
It is US data, but they have found for the first time that more than 50% of 25-29 year olds live in cellphone-only homes, and that the 18-24yo and 30-34yo have cellphone only rates of 40%+.
Even assuming that the NZ trend here isn’t quite so extreme, it does mean that phone-only polls are skewed towards rich, older folk.
My son lives with his flatties in Wellington, they’re about 23 (my son) to 30 (his oldest flatmate) and they have no landline – mobiles only… I think it’s getting more common here.
And though I have a land line, so it is economical to go on the web, I politely brush off all callers asking for money and rarely respond to surveyors. This raises an interesting question … how do all these cellphone people participate on the web? at e-cafes whathaveyou?or do they not? Or is it twitter and facebook?
The contract on my cell has a effective 3gb data cap (250mb nominal, but with a continuing 3gb promotion). If I was in an area with good cell coverage (ie not the wilds of chch suburbs) this last week then I’d have used about a third of that.
There are quite a few people either tethering their iPhone or using something like a vodem to hook wirelessly to the 3G net for data.
Some of us live in areas you don’t need a landline to get an internet connection.
Sorry for the gross stupidity. I based that on info I heard a long time ago which was obvioulsy a load of coblers. I was trying to locate that info so thanks.
I still think those polls before the last election kept a lot of left voters at home. The greens were polling a lot higher than the actual turnout.
There was another clue before the last election which made me think that the undecideds favoured the left.
In a poll on the tax cuts the far left i.e. Green voters were most opposed to further tax cuts, National Act voters were most in favour of further tax cuts, labour voters were in the middle and the undecideds were equal to the Greens in their opposition to tax cuts. That sort of indicates that the then 10+ undecided voters were far left wing voters but no one ever bothered to find out who the undecideds were or what they thought. In the US undecideds and independants favour the left by a hefty margin. So I still have big concerns about the validity of the polls. Add to that 23% cellphone only households who in many cases might be poor thus favouring the left. Again in the US those unpolled cellphone only households favour the left by a good margin.
I believe that the significant “don’t know” polling for preferred PM probably comes from people who arre confused after hearing the options “Helen Clark” and “Phil Goff”, with Helen Clark having been a popular past leader, yet obviously not being there anymore.
Trevor Mallard for P.M.
Fekk no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mind you compared to Goff, Trev is the bomb. With no more fuse I admit, a dud. Who will save me from Labour party leaders? Woe is me!
Only if he promises to punch everyone and fist Lockwood during question time.
Can’t see any reason why not.
National are (to use a Keyism) relaxed about fighting an election with Goff as the lefts figurehead. They are essentially going to sleep walk to victory. Internal complacency will still probably get them home if the uninspiring Goff remains the alternative.
Trev is the man that the Nats are whispering about and are quite worried about. Labour and the Left in general need a silver bullet and need it soon. Trev could be that bolt of lightning and energy that would scare the shit out of Key and inspire centrist voters.
Nope, Gillard showed to one and all that replacing a leader just before an election is just as likely to backfire and backfire badly. The Key Government can easily characterise such a move as a desperate stunt.
Frak, National and their Crosby Textor mates have already discussed scenarios on this so why walk into their ambush.
The thing about Mallard is, that he actually wants the job.
If after the election the majority of voters don’t go to National. And Phil Goff, in defiance of the wishes of the electorate, makes no serious effort to form a Labour led coalition government, and attempts to hand the country over to the Nats. for another term.
Then he should be dumped immediately, with the full support of the Labour Party, and Mallard be given his shot.
After all how hard could it be?
I honestly think that the next election is about Labour vs John Key. Not Phil Goff or Trevor Mallard vs him because that is not a fight they can hope to win. However, National are relying on the personality power of the Jonkey to get people to the polls in their favor because if they were to try and fight the election on their “achievements” they would solidly lose.
and the longer the wait for the election, the more chance key has of slipping – and he has a big chance of being just a bit too “relaxed” about the wrong issue.
Blind trusts won’t do it, rorts are what people expect, but some issue where brownlee does something like stripmine mount cook (although even key would spot that one) and key takes a while to figure out that it’s a bad idea.
Trev?? You must be kidding!
No please. As much as I like Trevor, he does have strong tendency towards impulsive acts that I would find a bit terrifying in a PM. It is bad enough having John Key doing stupid impulsive actions (cycleway anyone?) without having the same issues in Labour. If we only had a choice between two impulsive politicians, then it is time to start another party
I don’t think the cycleway was impulsive. It was cynical and probably pie-in-the-sky at the same time. Some sort of ‘think outside the box’ idea that as Minister For Tourism he can trot out, while simultaneously not costing much for the budget but somehow providing 4000 jobs.
I remember interviews on TV at the time, Key had heard about the cycleway idea at least 2 weeks before the ‘talk-fest’ where he announced it. It’s possible the whole thing was organised simply as a platform to announce it, actually – that’s why nothing else actually came out of it.
Iprent and Lan, I dont care if the cycleway was impulsive or not, I just want it delivered…….the clarion call fom the left should be, “Where is our f*****g cycleway?”
I would love to see John Key up against Cunliffe in a debate about the economy. That would sure shatter some illusions.
Yes, but it’ll be English vs Cunliffe. The facts tilt in Cunliffe’s favour, but English has never let the facts weigh him down.
Pete Hodgeson for PM?
[The anti spam word is ‘appropriate’ 🙂 ]
“Blind trusts won’t do it, rorts are what people expect”
If our media told NewZealand the real truth about Michael Ashcroft that might have an effect on Key. Most kiwis have no clue that he owns the Belize bank or of other scandals around his financial arrangements.
Labour really need to get this sort of information out somehow.
The media told us the real story about Winston but that hasn’t stopped Labour from wanting to get back into bed for another chance to rort the tax payers and not pay it back at the same time as using a secret trust and not declaring donations.
The same Winston who the media deserted so quickly when he exposed their paymasters with the sordid rorts that were the Wine Box? The very same sordid corporate types who bankroll the right?
Unfortunatly there is No one in the Labour party that could become popular enough to beat mr Smiley Wavey. We just need them to shoot them selves in the foot a few more times. Parliament should be interesting for a while in the beginning, however the deafening silence from said Labour party is also worrying. Surely they have speech writers that should be drooling over the ‘little’ cockups that have emerged from the Nats latley, but even Pete Hodgson has not been heard of. SO I sincerely hope that they have been taking notice and been buring phone and internet use with the said writers and when Mr Smiley Wavey comes back from entertaining all the ‘nice’ Americans and selling us further down the river, he will face a shit storm…
Oh well Dreams are free..
The problem is Deadly_NZ that the good old days of relying on short public memory have gone. This blog alone provides a treasure trove of peoples previous positions and apologist behavious.
The MPs simply can’t pretend they never said [xyz] or took [abc] position anymore.
Hey with pollies like John Key who don’t give a damn what they said on camera 5 minutes ago, what does it matter.
And the public continue to have painfully short memories.
It might surprise you to know that Labour had 9 years of appalling behavious all documented in blogs and online MSM sites. They are the first govt in NZ to operate in that environment and it seems that they haven’t yet worked out the significance of that and neither have their apologist supporters.
“National is not going to be raising GST” (John Key, 2008)
Burt, you implore us to take off the tinted specs….you might notice from my criticism of Labour that I see them warts and all. When perchance are you going to take off your tinted specs and see the NACT bunch as more corrupt and venal at a far faster rate than Labour ever managed? When are you going to be really honest and see it as it really is? As you say, its on the record.
well I did finish with dreams are free. But at least after labour was rolled there was enough money in all his funds that the Nacts have already frittered way on tax cuts and pretty baubles for their rich mates and the most frustrating thing is that Labour can see the same polls as us and it’s like they just dont give a shit! and thats scarey if you wanna get rid of the “smiling John and his cronies”
Deadly, Labour are a hollow vessel steered by one compassless captain, and the sheeple of NZ have no shepherd to herd them other than the one they are stuck with, keyed into we might say. Truly sad as the flood waters of corruption rise.
Gimme a break, you know how politics is supposed to work. Get ordinary people into politics at a grass roots level, either as independent activitsts, members or non-member supporters of either parties or interest groups. Make the voices of ordinary party members more numerous and louder and louder. Make the party machinery listen. Strengthen the party to the extent that the party views are clearly and plainly reflected in the deliberations of the parliamentarians. If the parliamentarians aren’t doing what we think they should be, don’t tell them at the polls on election day. Give them hell through their entire term. Force the fraking politicians to do the right thing. Now that’s democracy.
Now if the people don’t give a frak, and they end up thinking that politics is something that happens to other people on the 6pm news, then yeah they risk ending up as sheeple, and getting led to the slaughter while smiling and waving is par for the course.
if only the first scenario were true. In NZ politics is not about individual party members holding MP’s to account- its about corporate and special interest groups asking for action in return for financial and political support. NFF, BRT, Trucking lobby, mining lobby , Northern employers and the Auckland Business establishment on one side, CTU and welfare groups on the other. Of course these groups are only interesting in advancing their own interests- they don’t care about the public interest.
ZB, I don’t know why you think that the CTU and welfare groups don’t care about the public interest when every day they are dealing with real struggling people and fighting for those who are unable to fight for themselves. The difference is that the interests of the business groups and rich is about making money and keeping as much of it ( re tax cuts) without actually noticing that some of our kids don’t eat every day and are dressed in rags. The interests of the Ctu and welfare groups are about caring and sharing the good fortune with those less fortunate. What a sad society we would be without caring like that. The other sad thing is that there are poor people who just concentrate on getting through each day and who dont have the time, energy or faith in our so called democratic system to vote. They are also not told the truth by our media and it is difficult then to make the connection between a smiling, waving man and their increasingly desperate situations they find themselves in.
Nice riposte CV, gotta go to Oz next to see if they have sheeple too. Back in a fortnight to again demand my cycleway.
Enjoy the heat and the holidays dude.