Latest DigiPoll favours National, Clark

67 comments on “Latest DigiPoll favours National, Clark ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lampie 1

   28 November 2007 at 6:38 pm

   But have you spotted the mistakes? Take a look at the sample, add the total and then ask a statistician for a comment.
2. thomas 2

   28 November 2007 at 6:51 pm

   300 sample size in AKL ?

   people who said they would vote green Greens =2

   Total no of extra people needed on total sample size to get green over 5% = 14
3. Luke 3

   28 November 2007 at 6:52 pm

   The obvious thing wrong with this poll is the greens only on 3.5%, down from 8.3% to 0.9% in Auckland. This has got to be complete rubbish.
   The other weird thing is the Nats on 52% party vote, but Helen leading preferred PM by 12%. On one of the other recent polls Key and Helen were almost equal on preferred PM, however Labour was only a few percent behind on party vote.
   Does anyone have any insights into how the different polls are carried out? i.e. the questions and the order they are asked?
4. Lampie 4

   28 November 2007 at 7:02 pm

   Add up the numbers, 0.6% missing of the vote and also “decided” voters, hmmm wheres the undecided??? Has the Herald (another boo boo as not an independent or respectable source) decided that the “don’t knows” don’t count? and yeah Luke, wonder what the questions were? Remember if I was doing a poll for a political party, I can dress the stats to suit my purpose i.e. make the sponsor hear what they want to hear. The Herald presented a poll from another source stating the gap was about 5% and two days later in their own poll becomes 13%. Go figure
5. thomas 5

   28 November 2007 at 7:04 pm

   Sounds like they use the same people who count marchers
6. Lampie 6

   28 November 2007 at 7:17 pm

   Sounds like they use the same people who count marchers

   most likely. “excuse me sir, last month I asked you who would you vote for, you said (whoever), same again sir?”
7. The Double Standard 7

   28 November 2007 at 7:23 pm

   Perhaps, since you folks were so keen on John Armstrong’s review of the Key DVD, you would like to hear his opinions on this poll result?

   Hint: he doesn’t think it’s good for Labour.

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/aft/the_panel_-_part1

   Lamprey – you do realise that the Herald doesn’t run the poll itself (this helps prevent it being hacked in favour of Teh Party)
8. Gruela 8

   28 November 2007 at 7:26 pm

   I really think Labour have missed an opportunity by not bringing in a pre-election poll ban at the same time as they pushed through the EFB. As so many polls are being published using flawed methodology and with questionable objectivity I think a real case could be made that they become at least as anti-democratic as any anonymous, big-budget attack-ad campaign. The idea certainly isn’t without precedence overseas.

   Also, it would make election night much more exciting.
9. gobsmacked 9

   28 November 2007 at 7:32 pm

   I don’t know if National would be too happy if this “govern alone” idea takes hold in the media. Problems:

   1) It’s based on both NZ First and Greens being out of Parliament. This is not going to happen.

   2) A general, vague anti-government sentiment will suit National as long as people are focussed on step one: getting rid of Labour. Once that becomes presented (falsely) as inevitable, then the “antis” will start to focus on step two: What *kind* of government will replace it? National really don’t want people to think about that, until their votes are safely locked up in the ballot box.

   For example, on closer inspection, it turns out that the caricature of Aunty Helen’s Sisterhood Nanny State will remain unaltered by National. Section 59? No change. Smoking in bars? No change. Civil Unions? No change. And so on. It’s your basic conservative approach to social progress, throughout history: oppose, then keep.

   The Kiwiblog crowd are too thick to have worked this out yet. But it’s going to be very funny watching it dawn on them s-l-o-w-l-y …
10. PhilBest 10

    28 November 2007 at 7:38 pm

    Actually the greens have lost all credibility because a lot of the sort of people usually associated with them have been exposed as wannabe terrorists, or are busily protesting on behalf of the wannabe terrorists. Most Kiwis are just glad the cops lock up people who wanna kill people, and now that the evidence has leaked all over the place, you lefties can’t pull that ol’ “civil liberties” “suppression of the truth on a legal technicality” game.
11. Lampie 11

    28 November 2007 at 7:47 pm

    Double understandering- stats to suit my purpose i.e. make the sponsor hear what they want to hear.

    Try reading the whole statement not bits.
12. Gruela 12

    28 November 2007 at 7:51 pm

    Phil

    Are these the same ‘wannabe terrorists’ against whom the Solicitor-General advised that no terrorism charges should be laid?

    And obviously you’re a fan of trial by media. I personally prefer 800 years of civil liberties, starting with the premise that I’m innocent until someone (in a court of law, with proper representation and judged by a panel of my peers) finds me guilty.
13. redbus 13

    28 November 2007 at 7:53 pm

    “Does anyone have any insights into how the different polls are carried out? i.e. the questions and the order they are asked?”
    – Look up ‘Textor/Crosby’. They conducted questionnaires to provide the Nats with stats that support their views, and which show them which messages appeal to peoples prejudices to sell messages like anti-Maori and anti-PC so they didn’t have to focus on proper policy during an election.
14. Lampie 14

    28 November 2007 at 7:56 pm

    Perhaps, since you folks were so keen on John Armstrong’s review of the Key DVD, you would like to hear his opinions on this poll result?

    Hint: he doesn’t think it’s good for Labour.

    well no shit Sherlock, biggest understatment of the year. As for his DVD review, I’m not interested in personal views from media as one eyed.
15. redbus 15

    28 November 2007 at 8:16 pm

    “I’m not interested in personal views from media as one eyed.”
    – Then you’re surely not interested in ‘Amateur in New Zealand – Meet John Key, because I’ve yet to find anything since seeing it that’s more biased.
16. Insolent Prick 16

    28 November 2007 at 8:23 pm

    Oh, what spectacular re-writing of even very recent history, Gruela. The S-G didn’t say that terrorism charges should not be laid. He said that there were extremely serious activities going on, that the Police should be praised for their investigation, that they were right to ask that charges be laid, but that the anti-terrorism law was so badly drafted that he could not use it to bring anti-terrorism charges against the accused.

    Hardly an exoneration for the alleged terrorists, is it?
17. The Prophet 17

    28 November 2007 at 8:26 pm

    Bye bye Winston. Bye bye Greens.

    And Gobsmacked thinks the right’s getting it slowly. Heh.
18. gobsmacked 18

    28 November 2007 at 8:31 pm

    “Bye bye Winston. Bye bye Greens.”

    See 1999, 2005 …
19. Lampie 19

    28 November 2007 at 8:33 pm

    Both redbus, I have to practice what I preach. I wouldn’t be surprised if John was told to tow the party line as some staff have most likely been told (a certain business editor was given a slight push for his more ‘leftie” views) and this is a bit of a smoke screen to please certain elements of readership.

    Back to me, sorry, the Herald is just too much opinionated rubbish. To be honest, if the results were the other way I still wouldn’t read into it too much. As for the DVD, was rated M for moron
20. Gruela 20

    28 November 2007 at 8:36 pm

    Okay, Insolent, no exoneration for those caught up in the police action. My bad. But the charges laid against most of them will be a lot less serious than was first implied by the police.

    And I still say that it was disgraceful and frightening that basically the entire police case against them was leaked to the media. This cuts against every intent of ‘impartial justice’. Whoever was responsible should be immediately kicked out of the force.
21. The Double Standard 21

    28 November 2007 at 8:54 pm

    Gruela

    “And I still say that it was disgraceful and frightening that basically the entire police case against them was leaked to the media.”

    Did it ever cross your mind that it may have been leaked by their side, to prevent a fair trial taking place?

    Also, I notice that you are quick on the “ban it” trigger for anything media related. Have you had some history there or something?
22. Gruela 22

    28 November 2007 at 9:48 pm

    Double

    Brilliant. I have to admit, the thought never crossed my mind, (and it should have.) Dur on me.

    I suppose I’ll have to find out when the first leak was made, and if the defendants were still in jail at the time. (It could have been one of their lawyers, but I’d be more inclined to believe it was from within the police. Also, the police had more to gain from the leaks, since they were coming in for so much stick about the way the raids were conducted.)

    And I’m not big on banning the media. Au contraire, mon amie, I want there to be a much freer market amongst the NZ media, rather than have it dominated by a couple of big overseas companies like it is now. And if regulation is needed to attain this, then so be it.
23. Insolent Prick 23

    29 November 2007 at 12:02 am

    Of course the charges brought against the accused will be much less serious than the Police implied, Gruela. The Police alleged that the people involved were engaged in terrorist activity. The Police assumed–wrongly as it turned out–that the law Parliament passed would be sufficiently robust to lay charges. Instead the law was not robust: so shoddy, in fact, that the S-G refused to lay charges. It had nothing to do with the evidence or the substance of the Police allegations.

    I would be very careful about claiming that the Police leaked the affidavit, Gruela. The affidavit I have seen was annotated by one of the accused. If you read the documents, it is pretty clear who leaked them. It’s less clear why that person leaked them. But if you’re planning to overthrow the government through armed insurrection, and assassinate politicians, then you may not be using the same logic process as the rest of the population.

    I must say, Gruela, of all the Standard’s left-wing commenters, you do make the most effort to engage in a discussion, rather than insult your opponents.
24. Andrew Jull 24

    29 November 2007 at 8:11 am

    People should be cautious about interpreting these polls from a stats point of view. Firstly, the sample population is never reported ie how many people had to be phoned in order to get 914 decided voters. Secondly, the true denominator (all people agreeing to participate in the poll) is unknown, as only decided voters are reported. So a measure of undecided voters in never included.

    As to why polls produce different results, that comes down to the uncertainly factor. The polls typically report their estimated standard error ( /- 3%, bound to be rounded). Standard error is an estimate of the standard deviation of error – or a measure of the likely spread of error. It is not a measure of uncertainty about the results likely to be obtained from repeated polls. To obtain that measure, confidence intervals should be used ie the 95% confidence interval. Basically take the standard error and multiply it by 1.96. So the uncertainty around the National party poll result is 51.3 /- (3 X 1.96) or 51.3 /- 5.9%. Thus the spread of results if this poll was repeated 95 times (hence the 95% confidence interval) is 45.4% to 57.2%. 95% is an arbitrary value, and there is no reason a 99% confidence interval cannot be constructed, but the confidence interval would be wider as a consequence.

    Confidence intervals provide some estimation as to how poll results might differ, all things being equal. However, they will not estimate why polls might provide consistently different answers. As other commentators have suggested, the answer lies in the method – differences in sampling techniques and bias in constructing questions being the most probable explanations.

    The other main issue with poll results is how the data gets cut up. The overall sample has a standard error of 3%, but once you start dicing up the data into cities, the standard error changes (as the ample is smaller) and thus the confidence intervals around these estimates will be much wider (and possibly even uninformative as they may get so wide). And of course, not all analyses are reported, so we don’t know what the other results are. Some will be interesting, others not. But some might simply be interesting because the data has been diced up some much the result is random error (due to small sample size), rather than reliable estimate. Within stats, this is known as data dredging and is widely discouraged. Not so in marketing, though.
25. Camryn 25

    29 November 2007 at 8:16 am

    Gob – Fair enough point about the “conservative approach to social progress” i.e. oppose, then keep. It can be observed on occasion.

    As a social liberal (as well as an economic one) I’m quite happy with that for the most part.

    You may wish to note that National did not actually oppose any of those three examples you gave…

    Civil Unions: Conscience Vote – although I admit that many opposed as individuals, presumably being socially conservative or believing their electorate to be so. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_New_Zealand

    Smoking in Bars: Conscience Vote. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokefree_Environments_Amendment_Bill

    Section 59: Was this a conscience vote too? I recall National voted for it after their amendment to make it slightly better drafted by specifically allowing police discretion was accepted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Discipline_Act
26. Billy 26

    29 November 2007 at 9:00 am

    Frankly, this is hilarious. The poll (and presumably all the others from the last 18 months) are the result of bias, or use improper methodology, or will be rectified when people realise. Is it just inconceivable to you that people do not like this government?

    Oh, the ingratitude!
27. TomS 27

    29 November 2007 at 9:08 am

    After the TVNZ Colmar-Brunton then Herald poll is traditionally the least favourable to Labour. However, I think Labour supporters have to accept that the Herald running a partisan anti-government campaign is hurting Labour support in Auckland. To that extent, the Herald’s poll is a self-fufilling outcome of the papers recent overt (and more damagingly, constant covert editorial slant) move to the hard right.The challenge for Labour is to come up with some sort of counter to a paper that clearly sees itself now as a right wing change agent.
28. Insolent Prick 28

    29 November 2007 at 9:28 am

    Tom Semmens:

    Quite right. The Herald is an enemy of the state. The Government should either change its tax status, make it illegal to campaign against the Government in election year, or, at least, have the editors and senior management shot. The socialist revolution is more important than liberty and freedom. The Herald’s actions of late are a suitable justification for suspending democracy and making Helen Clark the prime minister for life.
29. Lampie 29

    29 November 2007 at 9:34 am

    People should be cautious about interpreting these polls from a stats point of view. Firstly, the sample population is never reported ie how many people had to be phoned in order to get 914 decided voters. Secondly, the true denominator (all people agreeing to participate in the poll) is unknown, as only decided voters are reported. So a measure of undecided voters in never included.

    Good stuff, exactly. Might have an answer to that this morning

    Within stats, this is known as data dredging and is widely discouraged. Not so in marketing, though.

    Andrew, your the man.

    Thank you TomS, agree with that
30. Tane 30

    29 November 2007 at 9:34 am

    Prick, you’ll have to work harder on your sarcasm. That was weak.
31. Lampie 31

    29 November 2007 at 9:53 am

    Frankly, this is hilarious. The poll (and presumably all the others from the last 18 months) are the result of bias, or use improper methodology, or will be rectified when people realise.

    To me, sounds like Andrew could be a statistician, as my wife is. Any graphic in a newspaper is most likely to be presented statistically wrong. Example is using a table and along the x axis have 10, 15,20,30,40,60,80. which is used in conjuction with anm article to make an impact. With stats, the art of lying is made easy. Otherwords you can manipulate to suit your needs and when presenting to an uneducated auidence (in terms of stats) well what do you think?
32. redbus 32

    29 November 2007 at 9:59 am

    “…Teh…”
    – does anybody understand why he does this? Is it his thing – like how the characters on ‘Friends’ had a thing. Theirs were funny, ‘teh’ is just lame.
33. Matthew Pilott 33

    29 November 2007 at 10:07 am

    Isn’t it funny that IP will comment on other people and how he’s judged them to be more constructive and engaging, then spurts out the usual tory sort of giggerish in the form of

    “The Herald’s actions of late are a suitable justification for suspending democracy and making Helen Clark the prime minister for life.”

    I guess he’ll understand that of all the right-wing commentators, no-one would consider him the one who makes the most effort to engage in discussion!

    On a relevant note, does anyone have a link for any of the NZ political meta-polls? I’ve seen them mentioned every now & then and wouldn’t mind checking them out…
34. Sam Dixon 34

    29 November 2007 at 10:20 am

    The fact that the Green vote in Auckland is so out of kilter with what it normally is in these polls must throw the value of the poll into doubt.. Usually the Greens poll higher in Auckland than nationwide, in this poll they get 0.9%
35. Thomas 35

    29 November 2007 at 10:34 am

    Good post Andrew Jull

    What I take from this is
    Andrew Jull is not DPF
36. Billy 36

    29 November 2007 at 10:54 am

    Squirm all you like, boys. If this one poll was showing something majorly different to all of the others, you might have a point. But they don’t. Labour is consistently a long way behind National.

    Be my guest and ignore this simple fact and blame the Herald or the pollsters.
37. Lampie 37

    29 November 2007 at 11:10 am

    Poll Watch: Herald-DigiPoll, May 18-26
    Party Vote:
    National 50.9 (up 7)
    Labour 33.6 (down 7)
    Greens [only other party above 5% threshold]
    Destiny NZ 1.5

    Preferred PM:
    John Key 45.5 (up 9.3)
    Helen Clark 42.1 (down 5.6)
    Winston Peters 5.4

    May of this year, ohhhh what a big change there, can anyone tell me what has changed? See Billy, I can present the same stats to make this latest poll look bad for National, Key is now well behind Clark and Labour has gained 4.5% compared to National’s 0.4%. Hmmm really big change ah Billy and note, same source.

    Is it really great news for National based on this?
38. Lampie 38

    29 November 2007 at 11:12 am

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00469.htm

    Is the source plus still on Herald site too
39. Robinsod 39

    29 November 2007 at 11:13 am

    At the risk of sounding churlish I agree will Billy – even though polls are only indicative they do seem to be indicating a strong National lead. But if it gives Labour supporters any comfort I would suggest that this is soft support and will flow away from National once a few quick PR hits are landed on them in election year (I’d suggest that these will be due to Nat policy announcements or lack thereof). Having high levels of soft support is always a dangerous place to be in as it only takes one hit and a subsequent 10% drop to create the image of rapidly collapsing support. That generally leads to even more soft support leaving. If National are going to survive a campaign year with the support they have now they’re going to have to find a way to firm it up. Usually this means producing concrete policy and presenting a coherent vision. I’m not sure the Tories can do that.

    In the end they may have to face the fact that PR driven campaigning is like currency speculation – it’s not about investment and all that capital that flowing into your account today can disappear just as fast tomorrow.
40. Insolent Prick 40

    29 November 2007 at 11:15 am

    Come on, Tane and Matthew. Do I have to point out the frigging obvious?

    Tom Semmens said: “The challenge for Labour is to come up with some sort of counter to a paper that clearly sees itself now as a right wing change agent.”

    So I merely suggest that the Government change the Herald’s tax status. Oops, sorry. The Government’s already threatened the Herald with that. So the Government will have to dig deeper. How about making the campaign the Herald is running against the Government illegal? Whoops: the EFB makes that illegal already. Have to try harder. Hell, why not just shoot them?

    Face it, you can’t write this off as a rogue poll. Tom Semmens conveniently claims the Herald is the “second” most anti-Labour poll. Of what, four polls? Crikey.

    You folk at the Standard have had a depressing time of late. All the polls going against you, protests from the Left at your conference, protests from everybody else at the self-serving Electoral Finance Bill, the Press Gallery refusing to buckle to the PM’s bullying, and Australia showing the way to change a government that’s run out of steam. It’s no wonder the Standard chaps are so angry.
41. Lampie 41

    29 November 2007 at 11:17 am

    indicating a strong National lead

    possible but look to my above poll and compare
42. Billy 42

    29 November 2007 at 11:22 am

    Go for it, Lampie. Delude youself all you want. It actually quite suits me.

    The last poll the Standard posted on was bad for Labour. All the commenters were pretty unanimous that it was because that one was a “rogue” poll.

    This time, the poll is “rogue” again, but it is also flawed.

    Yup. Those are the only possible explanations. Because everyone thinks exactly like all of you.
43. Tane 43

    29 November 2007 at 11:23 am

    Prick, I haven’t written this off as a rogue poll, and if you have another look at our post we reported it as a straight news story.

    Having said that, I can see some major issues with the Herald’s stats – Greens on 0.9% in Auckland is simply not credible.

    Your understanding of the Electoral Finance Bill is pretty dire. If I were you I’d check it again before saying the Herald will be banned from running articles criticising the government in election year.

    The rest of your post is nonsense and I’m not going to address it point by point. But if there’s an anger problem here Prick, it’s certainly coming from your corner.
44. Insolent Prick 44

    29 November 2007 at 11:30 am

    Brilliant, Lampie. You are so much in denial about the poll results that you reject polling methodolody entirely.

    There’s a sliiiight problem with your claim. Poll results do generally very closely resemble election results. Poll averages across multiple polls even more closely resemble election results.

    If polling information wasn’t a useful tool, then why do you think the Labour Party spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year commissioning polling research?

    Yes, there are occasionally rogue polls. I note that every time a poll comes out that the Standard doesn’t like, they claim it is rogue. By definition and structure, it is statistically virtually impossible for all but two of the polls published by the main polling companies this year, to be “rogue”. The two that the Standard were crowing about showed a slight rise in support for Labour, and a slight dip for National–albeit National was still leading Labour by six points.

    Face it, Lampie. The poll results consistently show that New Zealanders are sick and tired of this shoddy government, and want a change.
45. Tane 45

    29 November 2007 at 11:33 am

    I note that every time a poll comes out that the Standard doesn’t like, they claim it is rogue.

    Prick, why do you insist on making stuff up? Don’t you want to have at least some credibility on this site?
46. Insolent Prick 46

    29 November 2007 at 11:44 am

    Come on, Tane. Give even your left-wing readers some credit for not being absolutely stupid. You attempted to undermine the poll by saying there are major flaws with it. You somehow claim that the Greens’ support level in Auckland is a “major issue” with the poll. That’s nonsense. Nobody judges a poll based a result of a minor party in a region.

    That isn’t a major issue at all. Small party results are volatile in polls. The big picture stuff–where National is versus Labour, and where the centre-left is versus the centre-right, have been absolutely consistent throughout most of the polls. The recent Herald poll is totally in line with all of the previous polls.

    I love it how the Standard cheers a poll, just a month ago, which shows a slight dip for National: the Standard heralds it as a sign Labour’s winning the arguments. Then every subsequent poll that shows National extending its lead on Labour, the Standard tries to undermine. That’s just pure comedy, that is.

    And clearly, Tane, you haven’t actually read the Electoral Finance Bill. Under clause 5(2)(c) of the Electoral Finance Bill, newspaper content is exempted from the definition of an election advertisement only if it is “solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers”. If the Standard’s stock claims that the Herald is anti-government and is campaigning to change it are true, then that would fall outside of merely “informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers”.
47. Lampie 47

    29 November 2007 at 11:56 am

    Brilliant, Lampie. You are so much in denial about the poll results that you reject polling methodolody entirely.

    ??? really??? Where did I say that?

    Go for it, Lampie. Delude youself all you want. It actually quite suits me.

    I am? hmmm strange, I’m haven’t even argued that the poll is completely wrong and Labour should be in front???? Sorry Billy but you just making assumptions.

    You righties need to learn how to argue the point not the player

    Also Prick, Poll results do generally very closely resemble election results.

    Digi poll claim to have 3 close to results, 1996, 2002 and 2005 which they are very proud of.

    If polling information wasn’t a useful tool, then why do you think the Labour Party spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year commissioning polling research?

    I would assume all parties do and present them to show whatever picture they want, stats can be manipulated to suit one’s purpose. All parties would do.

    The poll results consistently show that New Zealanders are sick and tired of this shoddy government, and want a change.

    That is a possible conclusion.

    Also answer me this, with credible evidence not opinion, who would be a suitable replacement for the current Govt.?

    Have evidence to support your argument as you two (Billy and Prick) sound like branded individuals.
48. Insolent Prick 48

    29 November 2007 at 12:08 pm

    No, Lampie. Political parties do not generally release polling data they commission. Labour and National certainly don’t release it. They don’t use the information to manipulate perceptions about how popular they are. They use the data to give themselves a clear view of what issues are of concern to voters, and what voters think about the respective performances of the parties.

    Poll results generally do very closely resemble election results: the averages of a group of polls are even more accurate. The Herald digi-poll is largely consistent with all but two of the polls in the last year. They show a consistent trend of National far ahead of Labour, and growing in support. Despite this, the Standard tries to undermine every poll result since the two that they celebrated, by inferring that the anti-Labour polls are “rogue”. Tane even had the gall to claim that the result of a very small party in Auckland was out of whack, so must somehow make the rest of the poll dodgy.

    Lampie, a suitable replacement for the current government is whomever the voters decide. That is how democracy works, despite the attempts of the Labour Party to stifle democracy by severely restricting opposition debate, while spending a hundred million dollars of taxpayers’ money telling voters how good they are. At the moment, based on the evidence of a year of polls that show National is far and away ahead of Labour, it appears that voters believe National is the suitable replacement for the Government.
49. Billy 49

    29 November 2007 at 12:19 pm

    Well, for starters, Lampie, let’s not misprepresent my argument.

    My argument is simply: you people need to make room for the possibility that the polls presently show that a significant majority of New Zealander favour the National Party over the Labour Party.

    My evidence is the poll results.
50. Matthew Pilott 50

    29 November 2007 at 12:33 pm

    My experience with polls (this was certainly the case last cycle) indicates that small parties drop off when it’s not near election time, so support for both major parties will be reduced by election time.

    The results are also usually far closer than polls a year out indicate, which bodes ill for National, and the inability of the right to consolidate enough votes to secure a majority in the house.

    IP, this type of comment “Face it, Lampie. The poll results consistently show that New Zealanders are sick and tired of this shoddy government, and want a change.” may mean the world to you, but I heard the same empty hetoric before the last election.

    It’s true that some New Zealanders percieve the government as having too much influence in their lives, and that is driving the poll results we are seeing.

    As a supporter of the left, and perhaps an optimist (although I base this upon previous National campaigns and their recent performance) I can’t help but feel that National support will dry up closer to an election. People may want a change but will hesitate to vote for one when they realise what that will entail under National. And if National don’t release enough policy, there will be plenty of others clamouring about to let people know – I don’t think they will be able to hide their agenda as well as last time.

    IP your claim about the Herald is clearly laughable and I can’t see why you post such nonsense. I mean most of the time people don’t even bother to respond to large portions of your posts bacause of this; it really is strange.

    If the Standard’s stock claims that the Herald is anti-government and is campaigning to change it are true, then that would fall outside of merely “informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers”.

    Really?! Do you actually believe anyone on earth would read that and think, “hmm, that IP, he’s right you know. what a bright cookie.” How would one prove that the Herald is ‘campaigning’ in a legal sense, and disprove that the purpose is not for the purpose of informing? Information about any policy would clearly to be to inform and therefore not an election advertisement. And from this laughable platform you claim Labour is trying to censor the media. Ho, Ho, Ho, I’m bleedin’ Santa!

    Even though people may claim that The Herald is running an anti-government campaign, I think you’re reading into it a bit too far in a legal sense, though it is charming of you to take what The Standard posts to heart. So don’t forget – Two Ticks Labour, there’s a good lad.

    P.S. IP does it annoy you that I use my full name on this site? I’ve noticed your childish tendancies to post, threaten to post, or imply personal knowledge about other commentators, I find it a very petty behaviour. Care to explain why? I can’t see why you would fail to respect people’s wish to use pseudonyms on an online forum, especially given your use of one.
51. Robinsod 51

    29 November 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Matt – IP is a bully. That’s why he likes to make out he knows about peole’s backgrounds (just like he likes to make out he knows other stuff he can’t provide proof for). But like all bullies he’s also a coward. I’ve noticed his habit of “outing” too and it pisses me off. If anyone has any tips about who he might be please feel free to mail them to mickyporton[at]hotmail.com

    Prick – You know I’ll find out who you are. Whether I post your deets or not will be up to you. Any comment, boy?
52. Lampie 52

    29 November 2007 at 12:46 pm

    No, Lampie. Political parties do not generally release polling data they commission. Labour and National certainly don’t release it. They don’t use the information to manipulate perceptions about how popular they are. They use the data to give themselves a clear view of what issues are of concern to voters, and what voters think about the respective performances of the parties.

    Correct. Now the point with that May digipoll and this latest one is that a)Leads more towards an argument that Labour has made some traction b)May poll DOES include undecided voters in it, this one doesn’t c)EFB row and other such things may not really affected this latest poll in a positive or negative depending what side of the fence your on.

    Billy, I haven’t stated against or for your argument and this is just my opinion, National may be looking at a wider scope with these polls plus their own and may thought that Labour has made some ground, we are still ahead but standing still a bit too much hence lets do some promotion say John Key’s tour, possible that their polls suggest need to do this eariler than this latest one, remember this is speculation, just my thoughts.

    Poll results generally do very closely resemble election results: the averages of a group of polls are even more accurate

    Hmmm know what my wife would say to that!! More as in what the other polls say, sorry, National is front, no one doubts that.

    Lampie, a suitable replacement for the current government is whomever the voters decide.

    I’m talking YOU, your argument who should be Govt.
53. Tane 53

    29 November 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Robinsod, don’t play that game. If Prick wants to act like a jerk then let him, there’s no need to sink to his level.
54. Robinsod 54

    29 November 2007 at 12:52 pm

    Tane – we all know you can’t sink lower than Robinsod.

    Prick – come on boy, what you got to say?
55. Gruela 55

    29 November 2007 at 1:01 pm

    I hate to interject, but this altercation over poll credibility reminds me of the piece in Gulliver’s Travels where two countries went to war over a disagreement over which end of a soft-boiled egg should be broken, the pointy end or the rounded end.

    Happily, I have a solution for you all. Chill out, wait 11 months, and then you’ll find out who was right and who was wrong.
56. Gruela 56

    29 November 2007 at 1:18 pm

    Sorry, didn’t mean to sound condescending or anything, but the hostility in this thread was getting a bit overwhelming.
57. PhilBest 57

    29 November 2007 at 1:20 pm

    Gruela, I’ve been absent since your comment on my posting. Meanwhile Insolent has made the relevant points and I agree with him, you’ve been very decent about the argument. I would just like to add that if anyone should be sacked, its the people who drafted the antiterror legislation that the solicitor general said was unworkable.

    It is only very rarely that most of us would agree that the media SHOULD publish “inadmissable” evidence, and this time, they’ve done us a massive service. It was utterly unjust that the cops take the blame for this debacle.
58. Billy 58

    29 November 2007 at 1:36 pm

    Gruela,

    You are right, of course. To me, the poll is of limited interest, given how far away the election is. I suspect that this is largely a vote against Labour and National may struggle to maintain that when it has to satisfy what I expect is a very diverse range of discontented.

    What I find much more interesting is the left’s reaction to it. They just cannot understand why people would not be satisfied with a government which, in their eyes, has delivered so much. So they think it must be a mistake. A terrible mistake or a conspiracy.
59. Phil 59

    29 November 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Andrew,

    Thanks for educating these poor souls in confidence intervals, etandard errors etc. It certainly saved me a lot of typing!

    But, you forgot to add the demographic profiling aspect to it as well.

    I know that in the case of the major research houses (AC Nielsen etc) they dont just take raw poll results and publish them with a /- 3% caveat.

    What happens is a complicated and, quite frankly, boring mathematical computation, to ensure that the demographic profile of the polled responses broadly matches with demographic profile of the nation as a whole (taken from the last census).

    There are also demograpic targets that the pollsters have to reach, so that you dont end up in a situation where one response represents, say, 10% of the total population weight.

    All of this, by the way, is international standard practice.
60. insider 60

    29 November 2007 at 2:49 pm

    MAtthew

    You are correct that there is a perception that major party support drops away in favour of third parties at election time, it is not true as demonstrated by the last election. Noine months out Labour were well ahead but there was a shift from Labour to Nats and the minors stayed within the margin of error on election night or decreased their support.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=185&objectid=8501131

    http://2005.electionresults.govt.nz/e9/html/e9_part1.html
61. Lampie 61

    29 November 2007 at 2:55 pm

    I know that in the case of the major research houses (AC Nielsen etc) they dont just take raw poll results and publish them with a /- 3% caveat.

    your not talking about the margin of error???
62. lyndon 62

    29 November 2007 at 4:46 pm

    For people’s information,the only media who seem to release a decent summary of their poll results, or who feel the urge to even mention don’t knows etc, is TV.

    for eg
63. Matthew Pilott 63

    29 November 2007 at 5:55 pm

    Insider – good point re. small parties, I’m trying to remember the same with previous MMP elections but can’t off teh top of my head.

    The other pint, though, is very well illustrated by that poll/election – the gap between the big parties closes remarkably. Not always (thinking the English landlide defeat) but there you have a 50%-30% poll, with a 20% gap. Come election time…

    That’s what I would imagine this time around if the public reacts negatively to National policy. Who knows, they may not!!
64. Lampie 64

    29 November 2007 at 6:44 pm

    thanks lyndon, great stuff
65. Andrew Jull 65

    30 November 2007 at 7:58 am

    Phil

    You are of course right – alongside polls results should be published the demographic characteristics of the participants with, ideally, the corresponding percentages of voting the population. If this information was available, we would then be informed about how representative of the population the sample really was.

    Personally I cannot see why such the full polling reports cannot be posted on commissioning organisation’s websites, so that they can be fully scrutinised. I am particularly interested in the [1] the methods and [2] the size of the undecided vote. Differences in methods ie what times people are being polled, whether landlines and mobiles are being called, etc (increasing amongst younger people, Maori and Pacific groups only mobiles are being used) probably contribute to different results. It would also be fascinating to see what questions were actually asked.

    By the way, could someone fix the website so that plus or minus shows up as symbols rather than the somewhat incomprehensible /-.
66. Phil 66

    30 November 2007 at 10:42 am

    andrew,

    I’m sure they do, but to get access to it would requires some kind of paid subscription
67. Santi 67

    1 December 2007 at 7:46 am

    Tane, Robinsond, and Gruela, you hounds of the left thrill me with your incisive and intelligent commentary. I could swear you’re the result of fine red unionist homes.

    Lets work together to socialise beautiful New Zealand and empoverish its population. Labour to rule unopposed (with a little help of the EFB) until 2056!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS