Measuring the honeymoon

Written By: - Date published: 8:27 am, November 14th, 2017 - 34 comments
Categories: polls - Tags:

One of the things that I like about the Horizon poll is that it is unashamedly qualitative and highlights data beyond what is required for Paddy Gower or Mike Hosking to build a ‘fact’ soundbite out of and then to bullshit wildly about the makeup of governments.

Given the usual infrequency of the published polls in NZ, there is barely enough red meat on them for even a vegan to get upset about 😈 Yet we have the idiot talking heads making public obscene sucking noises trying to suck out the gristle of meaning from long dead bones… Ok – that is a ‘discussion’ for later – about the desperation of the media to find something to waffle about.

Who’s going on honeymoon with the new Government” from Horizon gives a demographic breakdown of their poll between October 24 and November 1. It provides some interesting insights on who the ecstatic and grumps are. The more useful tables are in this document (docx).

First some relevant information – this is an online poll and ..

Results are from a nationwide omnibus of 1068 adults representing the New Zealand adult population at the last census.  Weighted by age, gender, ethnicity, personal income, region and party voted for in 2017, at a 95% confidence level the maximum margin of error is +/- 3%.

You can read the report, and I have tossed some of the eyecandy further down. But I found this one be the most interesting in terms of a political impact for the coalition.

Party vote impact:

Which party people voted for in September is also strongly driving people’s outlooks.
92% of Labour voters and 91% of Green voters are feeling confident the new government will be good for them personally.

57% of New Zealand First voters feel positive, 20% negative, 24% neither positive nor negative, indicating the party’s voters are more satisfied than dissatisfied with the decision to form a coalition with Labour, supported by the Green party.

64% of Maori Party voters are positive, 9% negative.

However, only 13% of National and 24% of ACT voters are feeling positive. 54% of National voters are feeling negative, while a large 33% say neither positive nor negative.

Effectively this indicates exactly what you’d expect the spread to be like across the political spectrum.

The Labour and Green supporters recognize a left coalition as being something that they wanted to represent them.

As a centrist populist party, NZ First is more divided but largely split into its left leaning and much smaller right leaning rump with a characteristically small undecided cohort.

National has a majority of their voters against, but also the large number of wait and see.

And as an aside, who gives a shit about Act voters opinions. At 0.5% of the party vote in a poll of 1068, there should have been only  5-6 of their voters polled.

Similarly the income spread follows an expected pattern.

Personal incomes:

Those on highest personal incomes are least positive.

  • 76% of those earning $200,000 a year or more feel the new government will have a negative effect on them (15% think it will be positive)
  • 68% of those earning between $100,001 and $150,000 are not positive, while 22% are.

However, among all other income groups more are feeling that the effect will be positive rather than negative, with peaks of 55% among those earning between $50,001 and $70,000 a year (26% negative) and 53% among those earning less than $20,000 a year (18% negative).

Which if we ever got a breakdown of the demographics of National voters would pretty well describe their support levels by income.

But percentages get less interesting when you break that down the sample in the tables for :-

  • >= $200k is a sample size of just 9 people,
  • there were 54 in the $100k-150k,
  • 166 in $50k-$70k,
  • and 225 in the less than $20k.

So I’d guess that the order was more a ranking for National party donors and their tax cut welfare recipients rather than those that they ran their punitive campaign of theft with GST increases and scattering homeless on to the streets through cuts to welfare for people.

You see the same kinds of trends throughout the data. It leaves you wanting to see more cross-correlations. For instance in the data for single person households, there is a massive 41% of 186 sampled who were neither positive nor negative.  It makes me wonder if it is related to elderly single person households or to young professionals.

But there is definitely a honeymoon going on. Hopefully this government will manage to ride with it and use it to achieve some of the infrastructure and people wilfully neglected by the past nine years of National wasting time and opportunities for the future.

34 comments on “Measuring the honeymoon”

  1. Carolyn_Nth 1

    Are the positive/negative impacts questions about the impact on the person polled personally?

    because that’s somewhat different from feeling generally positive/negative about the government and it’s impact on NZ.

    A high earner might say they will be negatively impacted personally, but also feel positive about what the government will do for the country generally.

  2. Ad 2

    Sure hoping it’s not like the Key government and simply ride their honeymoon to go nowhere. Point of political capital is to spend it.

    Time to start seeing some legislative action.

    • Puckish Rogue 2.1

      Agreed and you can see Labour is doing that right now with the TPPA

      • KJT 2.1.1

        Once the effects of the TPP become widely known, Labour may find they have blown their “political capital” with their supporters, in one fart.

        Pleased that the Greens are sticking to their pre-election positions/promises tho!

        Obviously both National, and Labour, feel that pre election promises are fine to abandon once in Dictatorship, sorry, Government.

        • Ad 2.1.1.1

          The hard core fringe have their representatives with in the Green Party, who have made their positioning and intent clear on CPTPP.

          The political capital that Labour have bought within Parliament is massive, since it shows that National will cooperate with them in specific legislation, which in turn means on specific legislation the Greens are simply not required.

          To the general public that looks like cooperation – massive political capital gain.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1

            To the general public that looks like cooperation – massive political capital gain.

            I think for the majority of people (all the ones that voted for change) it will look more like selling out rather than cooperation.

            • Ad 2.1.1.1.1.1

              You’ll have to wait for the next poll to find out.

              So far, so good.

              Plus they picked off National.

              Another good week for Labour.

            • KJT 2.1.1.1.1.2

              It is.

            • tuppence shrewsbury 2.1.1.1.1.3

              no, the majority of those who voted, voted for those parties to represent their views in parliament. They didn’t vote for this government per se.

              So far from selling out, Labour and National, representing a bit over 80% of votes cast and 60% of all enrolled voters, are legitimising the CPTPP.

              Very clever politics by labour, representing the will of the majority in true democratic fashion by forming a grand coalition on the issues that really matter.

              • no, the majority of those who voted, voted for those parties to represent their views in parliament. They didn’t vote for this government per se.

                This is correct. The problem is that very few of those that voted for Labour would condone teaming up with National to pass the TPPA and thus, if Labour do so, they not representing their views.

                This is a problem with Representative Democracy in that the representatives quite often don’t represent that views of the people who voted for them. A lot of the people who voted for National also voted, in the referendum, against asset sales but National still did it.

                Labour teeming up with National to pass the TPPA is the Labour Caucus representing the views of the Labour Caucus.

                • tuppence shrewsbury

                  I think you are making an assumption about the majority of labour voters.

                  If Jacinda and her team can negotiate a deal while maintaining sovereignty, i bet most would get in behind.

                  Representative democracy is fine. it works well. It throws out the odd thing supporters don’t like and if there are enough of these parties lose support.

                  Nothing can please every single issue nutter who thinks their vote is the only vote that counts and no one elses.

                  • I think you are making an assumption about the majority of labour voters.

                    Nope, I’m not.

                    The majority of people across the nation are against it. If we were a democracy it would be thrown out.

                    Representative democracy is fine. it works well.

                    No, it really isn’t. We keep getting governments in that go against the majority wishes of the people. And when we vote them out the next group just continues where they left off.

                    Exactly as we’re seeing now with the TPPA.

          • KJT 2.1.1.1.2

            As at least 75 to 80% of the public are opposed to the TPPA.

            Hardly an extreme fringe.

            Unlike authoritarian followers like Ad. Most of us cannot be fooled, twice.

            In fact we know that most people prefer Green policies.
            Which is why both National and Labour pretend to care about us more than they do, just before elections!

      • cleangreen 2.1.2

        Puckish Rogue!!!!!!!

        “You can see Labour is doing that right now with the TPPA”; – UH what?

        Explain what you mean?

    • red-blooded 2.2

      They’ve been pretty damn active already, and announced a really ambitious 100 day plan. Legislation doesn’t come out of thin air, after all.

      • Ad 2.2.1

        The Speech from the Throne last week is consistent in policy intent, but not clear on a legislative timetable.
        That is what I am looking for.

        Three years is a surprisingly short time.

  3. lprent 3

    They are a bit short on being explicit on that kind of detail. But in the section on age they say (my italics)

    However, increasing age drives changes in positive and negative feelings.
    65% of those aged 18-24 feel the new government will impact them positively, while among those aged 75 or older this falls to 43%.

    The group aged 65-74 years is the only one in which more feel negative than positive.

    • greywarshark 3.1

      Probably retirees would think of the keeness that Labour had for changing to an age of 67. What next do they have in their slick policy bag? No-one thoughtful considers Labour is the Party that looks after the people.

      It is more the Party that ups the cleaning schedule of Parliament, making sure that the corners get swept thoroughly and ensuring that shelves are properly earthquake-fixed to the wall to prevent injury and damage to the books. But dealing with the people, it probably would show up as instituting a wide mat at the front steps so people’s shoes would be clean once they entered the House.

      We actually need people who are passionate about helping people to have options to get better lives using their own skills, getting training, and helping them set achievable goals and then giving them support as they work towards them.

      • red-blooded 3.1.1

        Hey mate, it was your sweethearts in National that took the 67 super suggestion to the electorate this time. Try to keep up!

        (& I still see this as pretty much inevitable st some stage, but probably in a different form, making allowances for early retirement due to medical issues etc.)

        • greywarshark 3.1.1.1

          red-blooded
          You should curb your enthusiasm about whom you consider RW. That just shows you up as a relative newbie here, full of certainty of your rightness about everything.

          And Labour did bring the ogre of 67 years being the new marathon finishing line so don’t try and weasel out of that. National followed did they? I stopped listening to every statement of theirs, as if they ever say anything that would seem to suit my ideas, I’m wary as to their real intentions. Desperately hollow policies from similar talking heads is their reliable stock-in-trade of the money-mad-men and women.

          Putting up the age is being treated as TINA. It shows an intellectual vacuum on policy and practice for the future, and the systems we use. That space describes Labour still – they have much to do to repair the holey fabric they have passed on to us, and being a Green I accept that we should restore the old of value and give it new life. Labour cannot just do another Helen Clark look-alike who fills in the holes but doesn’t change anything.

          This sounds interesting – RadioNZ on at moment on changing minds in youth for helping people turn themselves around. Its interesting, I’ll see what I can put up about it. If it sounds good, Labour politicians can put themselves through it as they need to change their bad materialistic, class-oriented, individualistic ways.
          http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018621569/last-chance-before-jail
          Last Chance before Jail 19.17m
          Kathryn meets Stephen Boxer, former soldier and founder of the South Auckland youth development programme, MYND, which works with the high risk offenders as a last chance before jail. It’s a community based 30 week course, targeting young offenders aged between 14 and 17 – described as the top 20 percent of criminals responsible for 80 percent of crime committed by their age group, and referred by the Youth Court.

          (As the guy says in the piece ‘We don’t want to give up on them.’ Labour politicians can do with being humble and put themselves through a course like this to help themselves, to experience what others are dealing with. It would prevent comment like David Shearer’s using a beneficiary doing some positive DIY as a point to criticise. He finds that he can handle war-torn Sudan in a clear-eyed way. Labour here are confused in comparison as to who they are for. Think pollies of this idea, it shows a new approach that you need so much.)

          David Shearer commented as he left politics –
          “Whoever wins next year – and no prizes for guessing who I’ll be backing – take care of my country for me and for God’s sake, be bold.”)
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87987692/david-shearer-the-man-who-shouldve-been-pm-but-couldnt-quite-get-there

    • lprent 3.2

      Of course putting italics doesn’t help in the mobile version, where blockquotes are italics.

      The first para has the basis of the questions.

  4. DH 4

    I’d question the margins of error and confidence level on some of their conclusions. It may be correct on broad answers but I suspect not when drilled down to particular voters or income earners. To get the same margin of error on, say, high income earners, I’d think they’d need to use the same size sample of high income earners as the original poll.

  5. Bill 5

    Compared to a National government, of course this government is going affect me positively.

    But that doesn’t translate into me feeling positive about the government (and that’s what Horizon’s done).

    And no, I don’t think I’m occupying some peculiar space in acknowledging some positive benefits for me (eg – winter fuel allowance and maybe a less bastardy WINZ) while simultaneously being way fucked off with the clowns.

  6. Bill 6

    The Honeymoon.

    Well it was somewhat a shot-gun wedding,right? Not a lot of love there. Question is, did they leave on the plane on their own, or when it crashed in Vietnam, were they not quite alone?

  7. greywarshark 7

    I this the end of the honeymoon?
    National saying that Labour should allow both parents to take maternity leave together. Oh the kindness of National, it would fill a bellows.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/343779/labour-dogmatic-over-paid-parental-leave-national

    • garibaldi 7.1

      Wow ,go National. Dump the child on the grandies and go on holiday to the Islands! Choice!

      • greywarshark 7.1.1

        garibaldi
        Didn’t think of that. Funny and why pass up on the opportunity and then sneer at Labour as being naive and trying to load business up with costs. (Image of employee lying on a beach sipping something while poor boss has shirt sleeves rolled up to elbows and is hard at work having to do it and also pay for the supposed childcare.)

  8. cleangreen 8

    Exactly Ad, at 2.2.1

    labour are going six months before they complete the 100 days stuiff at least so they willl ruin out of time if they dont start doing stuff under urgency now.

    Natioal did when they wanted stuff rushed through before the election dont we all remember?

    So labour it is time to pull out the stops and put the peddle to the floor.

    Remember Gisborne/Napier rail has been forced closed now for six years and still waiting to get you to reopen it again as you promised pre-electiojn and only need to spend about a small $20 millon to get it really up to scratch we are told by our rail engineers.

    lets sit down with you and discuss?

    While National want you to spend at least another $100 milllion on the state road for trucks!!!!!!!

    So rail is the way here, “lets do this”. Your first labour government built the rail to Gisborne from Wairoa during Michael Joseph Savage labour Gov’t in 1937 to 1942, so reopen your rail service that national wanted to destroy as they hated labour.

  9. Tanz 9

    You don’t get a honey moon when you lose an election and Labour did lose.
    You only get a honeymoon when you win an elecition and National outpolled Lab. and greens by far. Losers took power, remember, enabled by one Winston Peters.
    No matter what, more people voted for National than Labour, have you asked why. The Greens shed votes for goodness sake, so did NZF, shed rather than gained votes. FFS, we have a daft voting system, Peter Shirtcliffe was right.

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts