- Date published:
1:10 pm, May 23rd, 2016 - 105 comments
Categories: act, conservative party, greens, internet mana party, labour, national, nz first, united future - Tags: roy morgan
The latest Roy Morgan opinion poll result is out. Taking the numbers at their face value and ignoring the margin of error suggests that National is up 3% to 45.5% although half of this came from its allies and from the Conservative Party.
Labour is up 3.5% to 29.5%. Andrew Little and the team will be pleased. The greens are down 2.5% to 12% and New Zealand First are down 3% to 9.5%.
The last poll was a shocker for National. This one has bounced back although general confidence was also up and this is normally good news for the Government. Winston is still the king maker and Labour + Greens are improving.
Since the last election the right vote block (National+Act+UF+Conservative+Maori Party) has gone from 53.24% to 48% on these votes. The Left (Labour+Green+Internet Mana) has increased from 37.25% to 41.5% on these figures.
Interesting times …
This is all during the Panama Papers debacle.
I am really struggling to understand these numbers on what should have been a complete game changer for the government.
I think this might actually be a rogue poll for a change, in that I can’t see what WinstonFirsts and the Greens have done to lose support and what National and Labour have done to gain support
Is that a new record? “Rogue poll” called on the second post.
I know right and, believe me, I felt odd typing it
great name for a garage band !
A garage band that specialises in industrial polkas?
Ask and you shall receive
If those pants where any smaller we’d be looking at a ” rogue pole” alright.
Your a dagg PR
The movements amongst all the parties does seem rather large, suggesting either this one or the previous one were outliers.
Its a doozy of a poll
Because the RMs bounce around, you need to look at the range for each party over a period of months. In the RMs both Nat and Lab have a range of about 5-6% between top and bottom. What we should be looking for is shifts in the whole range. If the Nat’s 42% in the last poll is the new bottom of the range and they don’t bounce above say 47%, then that may be a real shift because a few months ago their top of range was over 50%. Next one will be interesting, will the Nat’s go higher to near 50% or come down again to low 40’s?
Also as political junkies we shouldn’t expect polls to change over single events. Most people aren’t like us. Though there are exceptions to this rule such as Brash’s Orewa masterpiece.
Need too see a Labour lift trend taking votes from National and the sooner the better.
Sept 2017 fast approaching!
I think the last RM was the rogue-this one looks realistic. The gnats are gone at 45…and 45.5-Bye Bye Shonkey
National dogged by one scandal after another, (that would have seen a government led by another party out on their ears), haven’t done a damn thing to warrant a bounce up of 3% and just proves these opinion polls are manipulated BS and are nothing but spin to hoodwink the public.
That’s why Labour does its own UMR polling.
Was it you or someone on here that recently posted that Labour doesn’t have a pollster ?
Whoever suggested that was wrong. As CV says, it’s UMR. The last goss I heard about their polling was broadly similar to this result, though that was a few weeks ago.
As I’ve said more than once, I like the Roy Morgan polls because they do bounce about, which I reckon best reflects the mood swings of the electorate. The trend in all the recent polls seems to be National hanging on by the skin of John Key’s dentures or falling behind the alternative grouping. And this RM still has a progressive 3 way coalition winning comfortably, which is nice.
I did read that on here, so thanks for the correction TRP. Personally, I am not a huge admirer of opinion polls, I see them as being easily manipulated, and used as a political tool to hoodwink the public. Polling methods are outdated, and they have not kept up with the changes in technology.
Do the voting public of NZ believe that they are scandals though?
And that’s the #1 question. Over and over again, people here and on the left, in general, think things like the Panama Papers is the end of National.
They have no idea.
Its one of the things I find interesting about politics, peoples (on both sides of the fence) reactions to what happens.
Don’t you think it’s normal for people to be outraged at a dirty, corrupt National government like John key’s?
Fair call for some, but then neither does National – look at Northland.
I’m not even sure Key or Joyce have any real idea about why they are still in the 45% range. They just keep plugging the same moves (“not bovvered”) that do still work more often than not, but don’t quite have the zing that they used to.
Really, it’s all just cargo-cult political engineering, these days. National have no objective to work towards – the “rebuild” is pretty tired, the “brighter future” is a joke… yet they still muddle along.
Oh well. Pendulum swings the other way sooner or later. And the longer the swing, the more force behind it.
The Icelandic PM had to resign over the Panama Papers. Are you condoning corruption Infused? So, are you suggesting that those of the right have no principles whatsoever, and neither do they have a moral compass?
Yes, because the Icelandic PM is the NZ PM. No relevance what-so-ever.
You just did exactly what I was talking about. He is guilty, so our PM must be as well.
Rubbish, I said nothing of the sort Infused, you seem to think the Panama Papers have no relevance or importance at all, I just pointed out that the Icelandic PM had to resign over it. You didn’t answer my question.
I think members of the public with principles would see it all as scandals, and would be rightfully disgusted and angry at National and their cohorts in crime.
What has been happening with National re: corruption, abuses of power at top levels, conflict of interests, dodgy dirty deals, making legislative changes and/or refraining from doing so to suit the purposes of National’s close personal associates, bribes for favours and giving multi million dollar government contracts to their party donors, had of happened under a Labour government for example, you can bet that the mainstream media would be screaming “” scandals”” day after day, baying for blood and for the government’s resignation, and the media would make sure that the NZ public couldn’t ignore it either!!
Yes, this has been the main point all along.
The problem with this analysis is that although it’s accurate, there are enough right-wing voters who always vote, and don’t care about it – I’m all right Jack is their motto.
This type of behaviour drives left wing voters away from the polls, but not right wing voters, so for the right wing parties, there’s no reason to vary.
How many National voters do you actually talk to about their political views?
has it never occured to you that the public see the DP attacks from the left for what they are? and choose their preference accordingly?
Considering the mental contortions you have to perform to see it that way, I guess believing that everyone else shares your opinion comes easily.
E is E, it’s because the Panama broke down to John Key and co being personally clean.
I still believe that this poll is good for the left if they can muster a coalition but the question that will remain until after the election is which way will Winnie the Pooh jump.
I would not trust him as far as I could throw him.
No real slip for the Nats after Panama Papers and all the talk of the housing crisis…
Labour starting to make some gains- as I’ve said before, if they can stay on message with their current rhetoric (housing crisis, homelessness, middle NZ going backwards) and don’t get caught up in silly sideshows- leave that to NZ First/ Greens- and provide us examples of policy that will change things, I believe they will start to become a viable alternative and votes (and members) will swing back!
“Stay on message with their current rhetoric (housing crisis, homelessness, middle NZ going backwards)”
Wouldn’t you prefer some more positive noises, about how great New Zealand could be?
so you want to “make NZ great again” ?
does this involve any walls ?
when we have housing for all people
when homelessness is turned into home ownership
we can than say that Labour has not only made positive noises, but is turning NZ in to a livable palce and an affordable place for all NZ’lers.
But I am sure that Donald Trump would print little red hats made in China or Mexico stating that not only could the US be great again, but so could NZ.
Or maybe let me ask you how great NZ is when you have a Mother and her seven year old daughter scared of being discharged from hospital care as she has no where to go with her sick child? IS that how great you want NZ to be?
New Zealand is fucking terrible at the moment as a result of successive neo liberal governments in place since 1984.
I want us to reverse this disastrous policy platform that has done nothing but make a tiny minority rich.
I want New Zealand to be the caring place it was. That Is the vision I want Labour and the opposition to be articulating.
Exactly when was NZ a ‘caring place’?
@ Grantoc (126.96.36.199.1) … prior to 1984 NZ was a caring egalitarian society, one of the best in the world, in fact the envy of many countries!
A time when every NZer was valued for WHO they were, not WHAT they were.
A time when the government of the day was responsible for the well being of the nation’s citizens, regardless of social status.
A time when the government of the day placed strong emphasis on education, health care, employment and housing was a priority.
Hope that explains when NZ was a “caring place.”
I remember Muldoon’s society just like you do! Truly!
New Zealand was just The Sound of Music, with more sheep; Lassie ran across fields with Black Beauty. The Wombles ran our National Parks. No-one hit any one, we ate all the butter we wanted, everything was brown paper packages tied up with string, Gemima always went through the Round Window, Po Karekare Ana raced up through the charts with My Ten Guitars, and in 1984 we all died and went up to The Great Counterfactual In The Sky.
You knew who your neighbours were and they knew who you were.
And what a paranoid bunch of inbreds we were.
I forgot Follyfoot.
Well, a lot of Labourites in the 1980s supported Roger Douglas, and many of them still see Rogernomics while painful, as being very necessary at the time.
Not to mention those wee raids on everyone who looked like they were from Polynesia.
Police conducted major raid on “Polynesians” at 5 am in the morning and took them to police cells. At that time most of them lived in Grey Lynn and Ponsonby – at least until they were kicked out of their homes and sent to South Auckland in the late 1970s and early 80s.
The Muldoon years? And people try to re-write history and claim he was some sort of caring socialist – baa humbug.
the average rental tenure is 12 month, so you only ever knew your neighbourghs that owned their houses, tenants are transients in NZ. Regardless of where they live.
And that is not a new problem.
Muldoon robbed the NZ Pension Fund and tried to bankrupt the country with his Think Big Projects.
Those Think Big projects still power the nation, thank you very much.
Grantoc – Pre Rogernomics
And even if you do not accept that it was a caring society then, what is wrong with proposing that a new Labour lead government will implement policies to create a more caring society.
Why would we not want to care for the homeless, the poor, the students, the sick, the unemployed?
The governments of the last 32 years have cared only for the rich and those bludgers who are constantly crying for a tax cut.
Time to reverse that and promote a better kind of society.
Moving in this direction is actually key to surviving the climate change and fossil fuel depletion crisis that we are heading into.
Your vision for the future of NZ society is fine EiE.
I don’t think sentimentally evoking the past is that helpful though.
I suspect a close examination of NZ history will provide plenty of evidence that, whilst possibly ‘caring’, NZ society still had its poor, its unemployed, its violence, its homeless, its downtrodden etc etc. Whether or not there was more or less of these conditions then, compared to now is a moot point.
There were some downright nasty events and politicians pre 1984, not the least being Muldoon and his semi dictatorship.
Also I would argue that NZ society now is more vibrant, interesting, confident and diverse compared with the boring mono coloured culture that existed pre 1984.
“Also I would argue that NZ society now is more vibrant, interesting, confident and diverse compared with the boring mono coloured culture that existed pre 1984.”
I think that’s looking at the past through grey coloured glasses. There was a flourishing artistic and creative culture with plenty of vibrancy (Poets, artists, writers who are now part of the NZ ‘canon’). This notion that everything was suffocatingly conformist is just plain wrong. There was social experimentation in abundance – intentional communities, experimental schools, …
For goodness’ sake, it was the 1960s and 1970s – everything from so-called ‘wife-swapping’ parties, the pill, women entering the workforce in droves, second wave feminism, an environmental movement cutting its teeth, social justice movements to rival anything today, the Maori renaissance, etc..
Sure, we have inevitably gained more ethnic diversity but boring it most definitely was not pre-1984.
The idea that NZ was some kind of black and white movie set in a claustrophobic provincial wasteland pre-1984 is just neoliberal ‘Whig history’.
To flip your argument: a close examination of New Zealand history would actually reveal much more interesting social events and change than the cliched ‘half-gallon, quarter acre, pavlova’ mythology would have us believe.
People just need to look at what was in the old National Film archives
And NZ art, literature and music from the 1960s and 1970s
And to add my own perceptions of today’s world: There’s a sense in which it appears uniformly drab to me in that everyone seems so immersed in the semi-commercialist take on social life that there’s a predictability even to social activism (now called ‘social enterprise’ run by ‘social entrepreneurs’).
Blandly neoliberal in all things – or, at least, I could choose to paint it that way and make a pretty good fist of that portrayal.
But of course that, too, would be unfair to what’s going on today in the same way your characterisation of the past was also unfair and inaccurate.
Beautiful craftsmanship and care replaced by cheap breakable shit that no one cares about. In every aspect of daily life.
You have your wires crossed there Grantoc.
The 60s,70s and early 80s at least was an infinitely more interesting and vibrant time than today. Beneath the brash and colourful cloak of neo-liberalism lies a cheap, fatuous, banal and shallow world – a world which is ideologically opposed to such realities as Climate Change and is therefore likely to cause humanity to be wiped out in the not too distant future. That is, if we don’t get rid of neo-liberalism now.
Ooops. I see Puddleglum and CV have beaten me to it…
I accept the points made above about the vibrancy of earlier times, especially the 60’s and 70’s.
Thinking about it, I guess most periods in history have their good and bad features and that its a fairly pointless debate to say that this time or that time was better/worse than now.
Returning to the original point, I don’t believe in the mythology of a golden age that existed in the past when there was little or no poverty, or homelessness, and that we were more caring and so on. Such conditions have always existed, and quite probably always will.
Meanwhile, on Earth, people have noted that the proportion of children living in households with less than 60% of median income, has doubled since 1984, with consequent increases in infectious diseases etc.
It suits your vile, cruel narrative to distort that into “there was no poverty”, or is there something wrong with your English comprehension skills?
I don’t think anyone is suggesting such a Utopian era Grantoc..
Edit: OAB, I think you’re being a bit hard on Grantoc. We might disagree with him/her but to describe the comments as “vile and cruel” is going a bit far.
Anne, with so many kids living in such poor conditions, of course it’s vile and cruel to participate in the ongoing right wing denial of the problem.
OK. I see your point.
Actually its quite good to be on a different planet than you OAB.
To paraphrase you – your ‘vile’ cynicism is so unattractive who’d want to share a ‘planet’ with you? not me.
Your self loathing is quite something.
Yes yes, blah blah, me me me. Not everyone wants to discuss me, Grantoc, no matter how fascinating I am to you.
I note you have attempted no excuse, let alone an apology, for your (deliberate?) misrepresentation of the observations that are being made, let alone your collaboration with those who deny the problem altogether.
So much for personal responsibility.
@ Enough is Enough (188.8.131.52)
Hear, hear + a 1000 times over.
Not sure about the Panama Papers. This hit on April 4 and raged for a few weeks. It looks like this poll was based on returns between April 18 and May 15.
Exactly, Labour looking more solid and the left in general to give credit to the Greens and NZ First, all jointly pressurising the government on the housing crisis, homelessness and middle NZ going backwards is having a drip/drip effect on National’s credibility.
There will be plenty of opportunity to go positive leading into the election campaign.
Interesting times, everything to play for. 2017 election could go either way.
polls up, polls down. Not much change.
We’ll see how the winter goes. At least this time Labour seem to be going into an election with a certain amount of unity. Shearer’s doom was being predicted within days at around this time (hadn’t Garner seen a letter or something?) and Cunliffe was leading CV but couldn’t lead caucus.
Little seems a bit more solid, and that could well be the difference.
I afraid that 2017 is already lost. Time to start planning for 2020.
Hopefully the career politicians that inhabit Labour will realuse that they are holding the left back and retire. And then we will have an end to the stupid self serving factionalism which is holding the labour movement back
What a load of rot, you have been staying in bed far too long, 2017 is not already lost, unless you think John key and his black ops crew can rig another election?
Not yet, as for the second bit outofbed, yeah I kind of absolutely agree with you, I too yearn for the day the worker was supported. But the damage unions did back in the day sticks wit people and without the union strength labour is nothing.
Personally it may be an opportunity for splintering or rebranding, dropping the labour negatives and say forming am workers party or something IDNK.
Odds are well against Labour for 2017. As I have said before, Winston will find it politically compromising to support a Labour managed government if Labour come in under 30% and while National sits on 45%.
And without Winston, LAB + GR = 41.5%
Winston hates Key. He would love to partner Little and keep the Greens as perennial bridesmaids. .my pick.
Yep but Little has to give him a good excuse to do so i.e. Labour has to be 30% or over, not down at the 26% or 27% level.
When did you last get out of bed outofbed? Eighteen months ago? Little has done a great job drawing all the disparate groups within the Labour Party into one unified political party. Hang on… I believe there’s someone way down south who has voluntarily moved out into the cold. 😉
Reasonable percentage rise, needs to trend though. Good news stories are going to be scarcer leading into the election and if immigration doesn’t slow there is no way building can keep up with demand. pressures on housing will only increase.
What drives national is the tradies and land owners and associated services making a killing, housing demand is great for them. National are driving up demand and this is helping employment. The downside is social unrest. That is the straw that we must wait for on this path of Nationals IMHO.
I’d also be interested if anyones crunched the numbers on how many immigrants we need now, too counter the growing super costs and their projected costs. As services like housing heath roading schools etc are going to be under mass pressure well after it stops and we can catch up.
this once it starts should show a slow decline for National over time.
Compare this poll to the RM poll 18 months out from the last election when Labour/Greens were neck and neck with National on 44%. From that National are up 1.5% and Labour/Greens down2.5%. Usually in the run up to election day the Government does better than the other parties.
I tend to agree. Labour needs to be consistently on 32%-34% going into 2017 if it is to be in a real position to take the next election.
Still 6 months to get there.
Yep, Tom. The old saw is that Governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win ’em. And this is a Government which is tired and running short of ideas. Their current plan is to steal a play from Muldoon and dangle tax cuts in front of the voter next election. Labour’s already stuffed that one for them by framing $50 as the going rate. If National can’t deliver that for middle NZ and Labour can, guess who’s going to win?
And national still trending 45 to 50 pc halfway through their fourth term With an opposition Labour Party rudderless and sort of saying let us have our turn and we won’t really be that much different than national, Coupled with general public real confidence and competency issue with labours washed up MPs , let’s also factor a big discount on uncertainty of stability of labour, greens and nzf coalition that is not reflected in general polls but will be in a general election, not to mention labour annoying Asian voters re dog whistle politics, and lastly little angry andy lack of tv charisma, communication skills and union over lords is going to hurt when it counts during election time. Yep real winning strategy their and labour are in a good place
Rudderless? You been on Mars since the last election?
He must have been, he thinks it’s the fourth term…
Right. So now we have the unprecedented situation of 3 consecutive Roy Morgans placing the Opposition Bloc ahead of the Government Bloc of Parties. Or, to put it another way, NZF has theoretically held the balance of power for 3 RMs in a row.
Unprecedented, that is, since the last Election.
Here are all of the Roy Morgans since the Sep 2014 General Election in terms of the percentage point lead enjoyed by either the Govt Bloc or Oppo:
Bold = Oppo Lead
Normal Typeface = Govt Lead
(all figures rounded for simplicity)
Oct …… Oppo by 1 point
Nov …… Govt by 5
Dec …… Govt by 3
Jan …….. Govt by 12
Feb ……. Govt by 2
March … Govt by 2
April …. Oppo by 1
May …… Govt by 14
June ….. Govt by 6
July ….. Oppo by 7
Aug ….. Govt by 6
Sep ….. Oppo by 5
Oct ….. Govt by 3
Nov ….. Govt by 4
Dec ….. Govt by 4
Jan ……… Govt by 3
Feb …….. Govt by 2
March .. Oppo by 4
April ….. Oppo by 8
May …… Oppo by 3
You can see that, although (throughout mid-2015) the Roy Morgans continued to display their penchant for recording wild swings over consecutive polls, fully three-quarters favoured the Govt Bloc before March this year – and the Oppo Bloc were never ahead in consecutive Polls. That’s clearly changed in the wake of both the Flag Referendum and the Panama Papers revelations.
First and foremost, though, a swing from National and the broader Right to NZF.
Keep the faith, who else uses that slogan ?
I guess you didn’t actually read the comment. It wasn’t asking anyone to ‘keep the faith’. Rather it was an analysis of recent polling. If you’re reduced to strawman comments, then I’d suggest it’s you that’s struggling to keep the faith, bud.
My comment simply try’s to put you comment in 6.2 in some perspective re labour chances, what you are saying it’s all done to winston, good luck with that bud
So the mood has definitely changed in the underlying electorate is your message?
Getting and keeping Winston on board is so absolutely key now.
41.5% LAB + GR is still not particularly strong.
“LAB + GR is still not particularly strong”
No. Certainly up from their combined 36% at the 2014 Election but they really want to be another 3 or 4 points higher. A few months ago, Rob Salmond made the argument that Winnie will only head Lab’s way at the next Election if – at a minimum – Lab+Green = Nat’s Party Vote (wonder if that came straight from the horse’s mouth or was it just Salmond speculating ?)
No real growth in the Lab+Green rating over recent months. It’s been on a very steady 41% – 42% for 8 consecutive Roy Morgans (ie since October last year). Last 3 polls, Lab+Green on average trailing Nats by 4 points (although still better than at the 2014 Election when they were a massive 11 points shy of the Tories).
Before that, the Lab+Green total in the RMs swung about a bit from a low of 36% to a high of 46% – with a Sep 2014-Sep 2015 average (of 40%) slightly below the recent ratings.
“Getting and keeping Winston on board is so absolutely key now”.
Yep. Although that’s probably always been true. Always been hard to see Lab+Green getting anywhere near late 40s. And I’ve never seen much sense in the strategy (advocated by some) that Labour aggressively goes after the NZF base to drive the Party below 5%. Wouldn’t work and dangerously counter-productive.
Pretty sure some other outfit tried to drive NZF into extinction. Given what has happened since then I agree with you that it’s not really a good bet as far as strategy goes.
Hey Swordy one, I don’t understand this from the poll…
“Of all electors surveyed 5.5% (down 1.5%) didn’t name a party.”
But we know over a quarter of voters didn’t bother to vote. So how does that square with just 5.5% in this poll not expressing a preference or not voting?
In other words, is this a survey of those who intend to vote only, and iif you answered you didn’t intend to vote were you then discarded?
5.5% didn’t name a party. Some of them simply didn’t want to tell their preference to the pollster. Some of them were undecided.
Some of the people who did name a party don’t think their vote is going to make a difference so they won’t turn out. Or for the two weeks that they can vote, they can’t be bothered to turn out.
Roy Morgan play their cards pretty damn close to their chest when it comes to methodology. But I think it’s reasonable to presume that they do what most other Pollsters do – weed out the likely Non-Voters first.
Colmar Brunton, for instance, (and CB are by far the most forthcoming on methodology) ask an initial question on likelihood to vote and then only ask the Party Vote question of those respondents who say they are “quite likely” or “very likely” to vote.
So, yeah, you can be pretty sure (though not quite certain) that the 5.5% are Undecideds who still intend to vote at the next General Election.
Regards to Espana.
I don’t believe that all those new paper millionaires and those who have already taken advantage of the Auckland (and now Wellington) housing market to get their payoff are going to do anything that jeopardises their new found wealth.
I think that unless something dramatic happens in the housing market there is a large proportion of the electorate who will not vote for left leaning parties and instead vote for their own self-interest.
What about all those MPs who own property in Auckland? Where does their self interest come into their policy decision making?
Therein lies the problem, CV, with people who have portfolios of shares, property and other investments who then move into politics, or as I like to term it, Public Service.
They cannot be trusted to make decisions that affect everyone when they have their own self-interest to ensure.
Key and the TranzRail shares debacle was the perfect example.
If these people were genuine in the desire to take on public service, they would divest themselves of all the investments and just stick it in the bank and accept the same return the rest of us mere mortals get.
Not sure what it costs to run a good election these days but maybe we could save ourselves the trouble and expense and just cut straight to the end game by asking Winston who he is going to anoint. It seems highly unlikely that anyone will be able to form a govt without his support.
Except Winston won’t play that game. He has said time and time again that if he is to be the kingmaker, he’ll decide who to support after the votes are in.
Anyone trying to pressure him to declare his hand before then is likely to find the result to be counter productive.
Labour’s barely moved in the polls since the 2014 election – its worst-ever result. Is that because it is seen as too different from National or because no one can tell it apart?
The frequent change of leaders together with a perception of disunity certainly played a major role in turning people off voting for Labour, but you also have to include the successful smear campaign against the party – and David Cunliffe in particular – by the Right (including the MSM Right) as having a bearing on the 2014 result. These are NOT excuses because they actually happened, and the feedback I encountered reflected them. I, personally, don’t think “Dirty Politics” had any bearing on the outcome because the vast bulk of voters never read political publications of any kind and therefore didn’t really have a clue what it was all about.
The scenario is quite different now with a unified Labour Caucus and much better communications with both the Greens and NZ First, but it’s going to take all of the next 12 months for it to gradually filter through to the general public.