Media don’t believe their own polls

Written By: - Date published: 11:14 am, September 21st, 2014 - 62 comments
Categories: election 2014, Media, Politics, polls - Tags:

LanthanideYou have to laugh at this tart comment from Lanthanide

What strikes me now is the media commentators saying it was “a surprising result”.

Well, if we were to believe all the polls, then this result is not a surprise.

This tells us that the media don’t believe their own polls, but they have no qualms peddling them at us, trying to get us to believe them.

They don’t get to have it both ways – saying National could govern alone, then when they do, saying it’s a surprise.

62 comments on “Media don’t believe their own polls”

  1. Enough is Enough 1

    There weren’t any polls in the last week that suggested National would be able to govern alone

    • Lanthanide 1.1

      Note that I said “all the polls”. I generally choose my words quite carefully.

      • Enough is Enough 1.1.1

        Yeah fair enough.

        Going into last night though my general read of the MSM was they expected Winston to hold the balance of power. The surprise is that Winston is irrelevant and Key can do what he likes for the next 3 years.

        • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1

          I was expecting National to drop ~3-4% points from their polling of ~48%, Conservatives to get around what they did, Greens to get ~13%, Labour on ~25% and IMP and NZFirst with enough to give a left-wing government. My boyfriend thinks such a result would have given a 1 term government, and that Labour needed to be on about 30% to be a credible government.

          But yeah, the media seem most surprised by Winston not being the kingmaker, but the point still stands that their poll numbers didn’t show that would be the outcome.

          I wouldn’t mind if the media reported the poll numbers and then discussed about how we can’t take these results as a given and how they’re likely to change on the day, but they never do. Instead all we get is a consistent narrative of “National will govern alone!” and then when it happens, they act all surprised.

          • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.1.1.1

            Yeah I was making around the same calls myself, Lanth, although your boyfriend might be right that such a government would be one-term unless it made some bigs wins during its time in office.

            And yeah, I think this shows very clearly that the media have the same reservations about their polls we do, but that they don’t publish or mention them in their coverage. I feel like we either missed a big shift in public opinion close to election day, the rain hurt left-wing turnout more than right-wing turnout, or something else is going on that’s outside our usual narratives about the election, so I’m giving a think to what it can be and keeping an eye on the blogs for ideas too, as the Greens not improving their vote suggests that whatever it is effected the broader left. Maybe it’s backlash from the National Party suggestion that left-wing politicians are as bad as they are? Seems unlikely that backlash would hit the Greens though, so unless it was the rain I’m somewhat stumped.

    • lprent 1.2

      Yes there were. Most of the polls said (like RM on the 17th) that conservatives would get 4-4.5% and National would get 48%

      Because the conservative votes would be “wasted”, National would slide over the line because of that because the pool of votes dropped from 100% to 96%.

      Perhaps this is why journalists are surprised. They can’t count?

  2. For years I was called a retard, a troll, an idiot among other things, I was told I was crazy for thinking the greens would only get between 10-11% so I left here.

    Well my final election predictions were pretty close to the actual results.
    National 48%
    Labour 24%
    Greens 11%
    NZ/First 6.5%
    Conserv 5%
    Maori 2%
    InterMana 1.5%
    Act 1%
    United 0.5%
    Other 0.5

    I guess all that is left to say is…

    “BUT what are the trends saying????”

    Seriously National is a real centered government, things will go along
    okay, and perhaps political parties will now know not to do “Hate Politics”
    just talk of the issues.

    • Well, either you were oddly prescient or you happened to coincidentally be right.

      I’m going with coincidence, because other than the Greens and NZF, the overall poll trends were actually really good, seriously, go back and have a look for all the other parties. (In fact, they didn’t really over-estimate National so much this time, which is odd) The big surprise for me was Hone losing Te Tai Tonga.

  3. Lanthanide 3

    I’ll also point out that this morning on Q&A, Hooton didn’t mention that he was wrong with his belief that the election would be a tight one and close to the wire, when he was the only high-profile commentator saying that for a long time. He was happy just to gloss over that and act like he knew the score the whole time.

    • aerobubble 3.1

      Hooten lied. Politicians lie. The media cat chased Hagers and then Dotcoms ball. The fog came over the democratic process. As Key said, voters voted for steady as she goes, or rather given the nonsense that has pervaded our collective processes, voters voted for the less unknown.

      So who won it? Well the media won it for Key.

      Welcome to day one of Dirty John.

  4. Fran O'Sullivan 4

    Maybe, but Herald’s political editor Audrey Young did call the election result correctly.

    • nukefacts 4.1

      Except she’s a total National troll, in love with Key.

      I note that National’s total vote went down. Interesting. A few thoughts based on qualitative analysis of the discourses related to me by some voters…

      The campaign – not about Policy as National pretended, because they don’t actually have any. Rod Oram’s recent analysis of this issue was telling – the economy is going backwards under National who instead focus on micro-managerial details that reeks of no plan for the future. Labour and the Green’s campaign should have made more of the Dirty Politics saga and the corruption of democracy this revealed

      IMP – obviously some serious scare mongering going on, and a distinct hatred of .com by voters, not really based on any facts

      Messaging -three major issues here :
      1) Vote Positive is a nothing, means nothing, inspires nothing etc. What does it really mean? Nothing. Contrast to the Greens – all about the environment plus some other stuff, and National – working for NZ – a clearer message than Labour.
      2) cohesion – Labour went to great pains to diss IMP, the Greens etc – not good messaging around collaboration. Voters want unity from their government, not this childish bickering.
      3) ‘Aspiration’ – Key himself referenced this in his acceptance speech. National’s strategy, as well as suppressing the vote, as been to destroy as much of civil society as possible so all that is left is empty aspiration to wealth and status. We’ve had repeated assaults on our excellent education system, public service, and broader democratic entities like ECan in an attempt to drive citizens into aspiring to claw their way up on top of our fellow citizens. Globally, surveys report the five most important motivating factors for people are happiness, love, family, friends and money. Undermining the first four leaves only the fifth, which is the least important. Enter Key ‘I rose from nothing to be PM so you can too’! Bullshit but seductive. Coupled with incessant messaging reinforced by the media, I’m not surprised it worked.

      Media – including you Fran, they show a strong bias for National and a deep collusion with Whaleoil – to the serious undermining of our democracy. E.g see the ‘Greens prepared to work with National’ lie, the manufactured Liu affair where the Herald worked hand-in-glove with WhaleOil etc, Cunliffe’s red tie, the incessant sucking up to National around Charter Schools (seriously, why import a model that’s failed everywhere else in the world when we have one of the best systems in the world). We can only hope that you all grow some balls and morality and eschew the fat-one’s allure and actually do your job and hold the government to account.

      On this issue, it’s clear from analysing discourse that the media has seriously undermined the credibility of Labour – many people I surveyed indicated they thought Cunliffe was ‘a dick’ and couldn’t be trusted – discourses you in the media put out there in collusion with WhaleOil. Do you guys actually care that you undermine democracy and serve the bidding of the National party? You should all be ashamed!!!

      Money – National have lots, others not so much, so they can reinforce their messages put out by the Nat-loving media and the disturbed right wing bloggers etc (Farrar and Slater et-al)

      My predictions for the next three years – more assaults on education, workers, the poor, the sick, beneficiaries and anyone else that dares raise their head above the parapet. National under Key are hell-bent on undermining democracy so they can maintain power and enrich their friends at our expense.

      Hopefully sleep NZ will wake up and realise they’ve been had and boot these fools out in 2017.

    • lprent 4.2

      I was more interested that the Herald poll dropped National by (what was it?) 6.8% in that last poll to do so. It was like they knew what the real numbers were all along, had been fudging it to make National look good, and then changed it at the end to look like the real result.

      Then Audrey concealed the level of the drop with that quoted bullshit about ‘significiant’ changes through the polling period.

      What was that all about? It looked *wacky*

      • Wreckingball 4.2.1

        If you actually believe what you are saying then that is just unbelievable. There is no mass media conspiracy. The country have voted, the polls were overall accurate. People don’t want a far left wing socialist government.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1

          They weren’t being offered one.

          If you actually believe what you’re saying then you’re delusional.

          Perhaps you don’t understand how money and politics intersect. Have a little think sometime.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.2

          …a planned inquiry to be launched after the election could see the Ombudsman’s office using its Commission of Inquiry powers to compel evidence to be given under oath were there signs information was being hidden.

          “Ministerial offices will be figuring in our inquiry and that is all I will say.”

          She said the Ombudsman’s relationship with the government service was based on trust. Without that, she said, “we’re all in trouble”.

          “We may as well kiss democracy goodbye. The work of this office relies in great measure in the maintenance of a high level of trust and integrity between ourselves and government agencies…

          Beverley Wakem.

          Over the next six months, you’ll see what happens when a criminal government gets found out. Wreckingball is apt.

    • anker 4.3

      Fran @ 4.

      Firstly Fran, thank you for posting on here.

      I am hoping that we could set up some honest and open dialogue with yourself and other members of the NZ Herald.

      I believe there is a fear/suspicion that members of The Herald, engage with the Whale Oil and use its tip line. I think we have been heartened by some of your colleagues, such as Wendyl Nelson and David Fisher, being very open about there experience of Whale Oil

      I think the Standard readers would welcome more discussion and dialogue with you and your colleagues, on line where it is visible for everyone to see (unlike what I suspect happens at Whale Oil). I know we give you a hard time about how you report, but perhaps it would be more constructive if we dialogued with you. We would at least feel the media were listening to the left’s point of view (it may be that you feel you are already, but that is not the impression that most people get her).

      I think we would dearly have loved to discuss the issues/policies with you here, such as NZ Inc . Would you be willing to consider this if other Standardistas are interested (iam just one person who comments here).

      Cheers,
      Anker

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1

        Except that Fran can’t answer the most important questions truthfully: if she did she’d incriminate people.

  5. Richard 5

    I would have said the same thing.

    Looking in a little more depth, the dirty politics of Hagar coupled with mana’s strong turn outs at the halls from photo’s I had seen of them showed there was a big undercurrent of disgust and revolt for national. I won’t go into them individually but there was enough bad national party decisions over the last 6 years to make a great number of people NOT vote national and it also shows if you look at the vote count.

    When I looked at the advanced polls even I did not believe them yet here was the media banging on about them when even they didn’t believe it. Lant said what I would have and many others thought too. That there was a massive tide of revolt against National, on the ground it looked like it.

    What a surprise result is the glaring question. What happened to mana’s support, what happened to the herald comments polls after the debates 3-1 ratio for David winning them, in all three debates? Where did it all go? To national as party vote? but a tick labour for the electorate?
    Where did the protest vote disappear to and please do not insult my intelligence that there were thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people against most of what they were up to.

    How come the polls were just so spookily accurate all night.?

    Queue One foot in the graves, Victor Meldrew, “I don’t believe it”

    • Chooky 5.1

      good questions…some thoughts that come to mind …the Polls are the PR tail wagging the voter dog and persuading people not to vote….the Polls are rigged( that is why msm dont believe their own propaganda) …the Election was rigged( unthinkable in NZ , but possible given the overseas interests and high stakes at play)

      …plus in the last two weeks there was a vicious anti Mana/Int Dotcom onslaught by right wing journalists and a campaign of disinformation and confusion to undermine the integrity of the Left (eg the Greens wanted to form a coalition with Nactional)…these journalists should be named and what they said dissected and analysed and preserved for future reference

    • 2011 National Party vote: 1,058,636
      2014 National Party vote: 1,010,464 (this is pre-specials and likely to increase)

      Overall pretty similar, possibly grown a bit once the specials are taken into account. I would suspect that any losses National has had to their recent scandals have been offset by a strong right-wing and conservative turn out this year. (I suspect there have been losses, given New Zealand First’s absurdly high performance this time, that a lot of the squishy National vote moved to them, and that the migration to the Conservatives was offset by increased turnout from advanced voting- possibly increased rural turnout? I’d have to look into individual polling places or electorates to see, and I’m not doing that unless I’m getting paid for it)

      One thing we can’t say is that National suffered any significant net loss from their scandals- possibly they were actually bad news as they covered up for the Government’s lack of ideas or grasp on policy, but it seems that National’s campaign strategy is still working very well at this stage.

  6. Gosman 6

    Can people stop this nonsense about how the polls are inherently biased towards the right now please?

    • Lanthanide 6.1

      In 2008 and 2011 they were. In 2008 and 2011 they also underestimated NZFirst.

      So, given that we now have a new datapoint, the belief that the polls are biased to the right needs to be reconsidered.

      • Liam 6.1.1

        And in other elections, they have overstated NZF’s support.

        If there is one lesson from this election, it has to be that the strategy of declaring that the polls must be wrong works no better for the left in New Zealand than it did for the right in America in 2012.

        As plenty of people pointed out throughout the campaign, it was a strategy predicated on the following, unsustainable assumptions:

        1- That the National Party, sensing a deficit between it and Labour on GOTV organisation, wasn’t going to invest quite a bit of resources in closing the gap;

        2- That, if the polling companies had got it wrong, they would not act like any other business and adjust their methodologies to eliminate bias; and

        3- That the variance between the voting habits of landline and cellphone only subscribers would be so large as to make a material difference in the polls anyway.

        On the plus side, there’s nothing like a comprehensive repudiation on polling day to shock you out of an addiction to confirmation bias (I speak from experience). Perhaps now Labour will see that it needs to get just left of the political centre and develop an agenda of gradual achievable reform rather than a series of gimmicks with the word “Kiwi” slapped on the front.

        • lprent 6.1.1.1

          So do you think that the fairfax/ipsos poll from 2 and half weeks ago that showed National at 54% and Labour at 22%, and NZ First at 4.4% had statistical validity?

          Here I was thinking that it looked like poll done for its news value…

          What I found interesting was that the two polls that I consider are the most weird in their results (Fairfax’s ipsos poll and Herald’s Colman poll) had a 6-7% swing in their National results in the last two weeks to get close to the actual result. While a poll that is not commissioned by a media organisation showed gradual shifts towards the actual result – Roy Morgan.

          I think that the simpler explanation is that media organisations get the types of results that they pay for. The ones that are entertaining on the news or that suit the media’s editorial line.

          That is why I don’t pay much attention to certain polls and polling companies.

        • Lanthanide 6.1.1.2

          “it has to be that the strategy of declaring that the polls must be wrong works no better for the left in New Zealand than it did for the right in America in 2012.”

          Except if you actually did an analysis of the polls, as Nate Silver did, it was obvious that Obama was going to win. His final forecast was something like 95% chance of Obama winning. The republicans just stuck their heads in the sand about it.

          We had no such in-depth analysis in NZ. In fact the most anyone tried to do was Danyl at Dim Post with his ‘corrected averaged polls’, but as we’ve seen, in this case the assumption that National was overstated (that all the political commentators seemed to think, but not actually tell the public) turned out to be false.

          If you want any other evidence, iPredict had National around 44-46% for most of the entire campaign, even when the public polls were saying 53-54%. So I don’t think you can single out the left as somehow being way-off on their interpretation of the polls, given the past evidence we had to work with.

          • Liam 6.1.1.2.1

            I am sorry but I don’t agree. Those of us who followed the Curiablog weighted average or the Pundit Poll of Polls found it a reliable measure of support for the 3 big parties (although on this occassion they slightly underestimated National and overestimated Labour and the Greens).

            The hard truth is that is seems that nobody outside of, a) Martyn Bradbury b) Matthew Hooton and c) authors and commenters at this site seemed to have seriously thought that the election going to be near run thing.

            What I am saying is that for a combination of the above reasons, it was always an unwise assumption to just declare almost every unfavourable poll as being a “rogue”.

            • Lanthanide 6.1.1.2.1.1

              “I am sorry but I don’t agree. Those of us who followed the Curiablog weighted average or the Pundit Poll of Polls found it a reliable measure of support for the 3 big parties (although on this occassion they slightly underestimated National and overestimated Labour and the Greens).”

              Sorry, what are you saying here? Are you saying that looking at the 2011 weighted polls, they turned out to be an accurate forecaster of the 2011 result?

              Because if you’re talking about 2014, then we didn’t know how accurate curiablog was until the election itself was held, at which point it validated the model. You logically cannot say “On Wednesday we all knew Jim Hickie was the best at predicting snow for Saturday, because on Sunday morning we woke up and the ground was covered in snow”.

              You’re using the results of the election to validate the model – and that’s fine and a valid thing to say. But you can’t say that it was obvious the model was correct prior to the election, when if that same model had been applied to earlier elections it would have proved wrong in those cases.

    • aerobubble 6.2

      Yeah. ACT+NAT+NZF+CON+UF suggest NZ is locked into the finance industry for its daily bread. Sydney Bankers make far too much money from our housing sector.

    • Needs more data. If the polls perform accurately in future elections, perhaps they’ve solved the landline bias problem. At the moment I doubt it, but perhaps. My suspicion is that either the polls missed a big shift rightwards, or that the left turned out really badly at the election compared to polling, most likely due to the rain affecting our less-motivated voters more heavily.

    • They’re not biased at all, Gosman. It’s just that when you read the papers you know which party they want to win. It’s not so much a bias but a a clear manipulation of the voters into voting the party that will do the corporate bidding. You see bias implies a somewhat nasty tendency to favor the one and diss the other but other than that no clear intend. Bias like manipulation is just a technique they use. They are quite open about who we should vote for. Nothing to do with bias.

  7. Disturbed 7

    Poll results can be manipulated.

    Global evidence in the form of 21.4 million sites on goggle show polls are manipulated and there are suspicion around this corrupt Government that may have been the case here in NZ as this is the most unusual poll result “never seen before in history” BBC report this morning so perhaps the results need to be independently verified?

    Wonder if Key would allow it.

    In Florida they called an official independent recount of the florida election returns as they were on a knife edge.

    It was a justifiable request as historically it was Democrat territory for years.

    They called for this after Clinton’s Dem candidate lost to Jeb Bush in late 1990s and the decider for the federal election.

    I was there and they looked fishy results but the Republicans wouldn’t allow it, and everybody wondered why, what were they afraid of?

    https://www.google.co.nz/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+election+poll+results+can+be+manipulated

    • aerobubble 7.1

      There is a solution. Many now have handheld mobiles that can do polling. If enough people just poll on their lunch break, then collate that data online and we have a alternative to the polling companies. The sooner people know Cunliffe isn’t selling a CGT the soon Labour can start rethinking.

      How can every major western comparable country have a CGT and we can’t even sell it? Because Labour does not want to win.

      • Richard 7.1.1

        I think the CGT is a red herring mate.
        I ask the question, do the Chinese immigrants they have let into NZ only ever vote far right and definitely not anything red? For obvious reasons?

        Does that same demographic outnumber NZ born and raised kiwi’s yet? How much are they influencing the vote by design of the right?

        Have the boundary changes influenced these elections much and why.

        If you borrow to the tune of 80 billion dollars stimulating the economy, whilst raising a further 6 billion in asset sales and only reap back 100 odd million dollars in surplus on the books, where did all the money go? and why do the public never see this type of question being asked to give us assurance the oppositions worth voting for as they ask the awkward questions we want asked?

        The opposition could think of polling the population for the questions they wanted asked most occasionally?

        If Hagars book is correct and they have been playing the game like that, why are Labour not pulling out the stops. In the old days strikes were a tool. Oh that’s right while Labour ignored their unions rights being stripped, and when they got back in power, they left the status quo, didn’t maintain the union image, jeez I don’t even have a union rep at work to vote and strike with when my rights like smoko are about to disappear.

        When is labour going to admit to itself and deal with the real issue! That since a one bloody Margret Thatcher and her and subsequent Tory dismantling worldwide of the unions respectful standing in the community to the point of distrust, and knock on effects, to the point the working man has been decimated if not plainly attacked in his standard of living, work conditions and rights, with the big business owner reaping larger and larger rewards and faster personal wealth.

        Once labour figures that gem out and comes up with a strategy to even up business interest vs workers interests like they used to because trust me Keys Tories are doing the same thing they have been doing successfully for generations of the party, National, supports business interest, minimalistic government, low taxes and they havn’t changed.

        Labour used to be the party of social care, workers party, backed by the unions, teachers, dock workers, what happened? Why did you not restore their power when they were stripped by national?

        Maybe I’m rude and wrong but this has to be said.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1

          Labour used to be the party of social care, workers party, backed by the unions, teachers, dock workers, what happened? Why did you not restore their power when they were stripped by national?

          Too scared to, trying too hard to appear to be “centrist.”

    • Richard 7.2

      I doubt it was interfered with but you know, now i’ll always wonder in the back of my mind tick, tick, tick. The sort of result I see is one that we had 6 years of perfection, no Earthquake, no Cambell’s wall of shame, no novapay, just a perfect 6 years.

      No scum, no feral, no OIA leaks, No definitely maybe, probably can’t remembers my office did it’s. ,

      Solid honest straight forwardness, excellent economy, no borrowing to 88b and then yes a massive win for National bigger result than last time with Mana, Hone, Maori and all the rest gone able to go alone, Act by my side to get the nasty policies through.

      But we didn’t we had a shocking 6 years numerous resignations and one during the campaign, dirty politic revelations, a strong opposition and debater who won his debates according to the Heralds after debate polls. The greens doing well, Winston looking good.

      and we get the perfect results outcome, how come?

      • Richard 7.2.1

        We can’t go back to those days and all though in some ways I’m right about Labour having been run through with a big right wing spear, labour could never rewind the clock.

        But they still seem to have the mission to fight for social justice having lost a solution to the social problem and solutions don’t grow on tree.

      • Liberal Realist 7.2.2

        “and we get the perfect results outcome, how come?”

        Labour has been under sustained attack for 6 years. Brand Labour = Bad has been burned into the psyche of New Zealanders. The messaging from MSM was/is constant & consistent. National = Good/Competent, Labour = Bad/Incompetent.

        People have decided that they don’t like Labour and they don’t like David Cunliffe. Trouble is most don’t know why they don’t like Labour or Cunliffe. MSM have been telling New Zealand that Labour = Bad (More tax, more welfare, uncertainty etc.) for 6 years and Cunliffe = Bad since well before he became leader.

        Then we have Slater cabal. Ede running black ops out of the office of the prime minister, collins and god knows how many other ministers mucking in when it suits their interests.

        Next we have the polls. IMO the polls manipulate by design. The companies who conduct these polls have a natural vested interest in successive right wing governments because they are owned by people or organisations whom are ideologically right wing. Polls are one of the most powerful tools the right has. Tell the public over and over and over again that the election is a forgone conclusion and reduce the turn out.

        IMO New Zealanders are not very politically engaged. The average punter doesn’t take time to consider how their elected representatives shape and mold the society they live in. New Zealanders believe what they read in the media. The media say National = Good, Labour = Bad and the punters believe them.

        Labour ABC crowd also have a lot to answer for. “United we succeed divided we fall” and fall they did.

        I could go on but we’re getting to tl/dr territory!

  8. Disturbed 8

    Richard;

    While the “big right wing spear” machine goes on a slash & Burn NZ while we all die in the radical sell out?

    Is National winding the clock forward to a place we have never been before?

    “National” by Dictionary terms roughly means “culture of people of the country,”

    So we wonder if this form of National is actually not National at all now?
    If they can move us to another direction, why cannot Labour?

  9. Andrew Welsh 9

    The conspiracy theories posted around poll results being manipulated or biased journalism conveniently avoid facing the reality that New Zealanders were interested in the Key issue (“it’s the economy stupid”) and we’re not interested in one version of a bunch of selectively hacked and published e mails. Two media outlets who were 100% correct are WO and KB but the left view them as the anti-Christ so best avoid giving credit where credit is due.

    • Lanthanide 9.1

      But it’s not a conspiracy theory that there is biased journalism – Dirty Politics exposed that there are some journalists that work directly at the behest of the government.

      Also while I don’t think the polls are being manipulated, reporting on them certainly isn’t fair or accurate, which in itself creates a narrative and self-fulfilling prophecy that is not helpful – the media use “bad polls” to attack a certain party and put pressure on them, leading to more “bad polls”, while also brushing off criticism or stuff-ups by the parties that have “good polls”.

      • lprent 9.1.1

        That last poll “analysis” by Audrey at the Herald being a good case in point. An abrupt and very strange drop of nearly 7% (did they need to get it in line with reality before the actual election?) was concealed with some frigging awful statistics by the head of the polling company about trends in microscopic sample sizes.

  10. Disturbed 10

    AW,

    So you believe in politicians as honest, in entirety and Key does not lie or Collins for that matter?

    Rather a long bow to draw.

    You may be one, (a politician or aide,) how would we know?

    Or even the “wholly than thou” media who are definitely not unbiased or honest.

    Nah. Perhaps you should read Dirty politics and learn. anyway we await the investigations as we are interested what those black ops like you and your lot may be are up to.

  11. Andrew Welsh 11

    My point regarding the polls is the weighted average such as KB is very accurate but the left don’t like the politics of DF so this is ignored. Sure polls such as RM or Stuff showed big variances so all the more reason to view a poll such as KB or even Colin James where averages are used from multiple polls.
    As for biased journalism, both the left and right have accused all reporters as being biased to the other side so I call that a draw.
    Why should I believe what’s written in Dirty Politics is anymore true than what I read on WO is always true?
    I will take it as a compliment if you think I am a politician or aide, what I am is one of the 48% who voted for JK who believes that the direction we are going in is the right direction 🙂

    • karol 11.1

      As for biased journalism, both the left and right have accused all reporters as being biased to the other side so I call that a draw.

      That is a very superficial non-analysis. It’s like saying, “Some people support the All Blacks and some people support Samoa. So the match was a draw”. it ignores what actually happened on the field and the relative strengths of each team.

      Of course there will be people from the left and right who criticise the media. But in order to show a dominant bias, there’s a whole lot of elements that need to be analysed – and it is not about finding bias in one or two selected articles.

      Why should I believe what’s written in Dirty Politics is anymore true than what I read on WO is always true?

      It’s about looking t their research and the evidence they put forward.

    • lprent 11.2

      The problem is that there are too few polls in NZ and their techniques appear to have less to do with statistical validity than they do with entertainment. How else would it be possible have polls taken in the same week that show particular parties with more than a 8% spread when the confidence limit is less than 3%.

      It is just as much a GIGO problem when you mash them up and you only have 5 of them happening about once a month if you are lucky. It is different in the US where the polls are taken by different partisan groups, and there are 10s of them per week.

      It is far better in the NZ environment to look for a single regular poll with a known systematic bias. The probability of error is far lower than using a mashup of dubious statistical validity.

      Why should I believe what’s written in Dirty Politics is anymore true than what I read on WO is always true?

      It has been obvious for people blogging what the Whaleoil blog was doing as far back as 2008. The difference was that it wasn’t verifiable and we didn’t know the extent.

      It has also been obvious that Farrar was at least in part complicit with some of it. That showed up in the synchronised resonance effects that they and some journos did.

      Eventually I and various other bloggers started to independently spike them. It became obvious when they were mounting a political campaign. We’d simply write posts of comments that pointed out the flaws. Periodically various of us would simply attack each of them personally.

      That was pretty much when at least Cameron started to take money to attack people out in businesses.

      You’d have to had been willfully blind to have missed it. But that does seem to be your position.

  12. Annie 12

    God help those 285,000 or so children living in poverty for the next three years.

  13. Disturbed 13

    AW I voted for Robert Muldoon when he was a true National politician but my standards are way beyond choosing this simple yes-man Currency trader.

    Why has Key been at meetings with the controversial Bilderberg group black ops world one order agenda group?

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Banned for 4 weeks for using stupid conspiracy theories that appear to have no basis in fact in a post that has nothing to do with them. If you want to write comments here then please don’t be a dumbarse fuckwit. It just displays that you can’t argue or have problems moving the rust in your brain. I really don’t like seeing the other commenters (and me) bored shitless for a nincompoop who can’t leave nutty conspiracy theories in OpenMike. That is what it is there for. ]

    • Jimmie 13.1

      Yeah ok so the evil Jew John Key is actually a neo nazi, one worlder secretly plotting to rule the whole world. (maybe from his secret bunker in Wellington?)

      Plenty of tinfoil hat material in that statement – big picture though if leftie folk keep thinking that the evil John Key is the reason why they’ve been left in the dust then 2017 is gona go the same as last night.

      [lprent: Banned for 4 weeks for using stupid goodwin and wingnut stereotypes. If you want to write comments here then please don’t be a dumbarse fuckwit. It just display that you can’t argue or have problems moving the rust in your brain. I really don’t like seeing the other commenters (and me) bored shitless for a nincompoop who has to resort to a godwin. ]

      • Richard 13.1.1

        Well even if I ignore the man and his she’ll be right attitude (hard call), the policies are crud. Whats trickle down, English didn’t have a clue how to grow the economy, What else they doing, to grow the economy? create jobs talking the talk lets see them walk the walk they portray at the end of the day I’m worried 88b and climbing it’s got to come down like a Greek temple sooner or later.

      • Jimmie 13.1.2

        Yeah ok. The post I responded to was someone saying that John Key was a secret Bilderberger or something of that ilk. Perhaps my response was a little Godwin however he was the one who brought up the weird conspiracy nonsense.

        [lprent: They also received a ban for a different reason. They put up a comment that had no context with the post. However trolling a troll is just as bad. It encourages them. ]

  14. meconism 14

    What I don’t understand is the number of electorates that voted the Labour constituent in and gave their party vote to National. I do not understand how that happens. I understand splitting the vote to other parties on the left but to give it to the Nats? Also the language of left wing posters here and elsewhere using the following words. “Unbelievable’, ‘gobsmacked’, ‘shocked’, ‘don’t understand’, ‘stunned’, ‘struggle to understand’ and’ beyond incomprehensible’. I am more than faintly suspicious of this result.

    • Blackcap 14.1

      Hi meconism,

      I can maybe help you with that one. I (normally would vote National but voted conservatives this time) but gave my electorate vote to my Labour electorate candidate. He is a good man and as such I would rather have him in parliament representing me than the people not standing in electorates but that make up the Labour list. (ie my bit to oust Little, Ardern, Cosgrove out of power if I could). I am assuming there were many others on the centre right that were thinking along the same lines?
      As an aside, I know there was loud cheering in the National camp when Labour’s Kelvin Davis was getting ahead in TTT. So with MMP all sorts of vagaries are possible. People do think about their vote and do vote tactically.

      • meconism 14.1.1

        Hi BlackCap, Thanks for that, however as you say you ‘assume’. If from your avatar I can suggest a cricketing analogy, if this was an IPL 20/20 match result would you be happy with the ‘perfect’ outcome that has been achieved? If the Nats had written their wishlist for Saturday night it would have looked exactly like this result. Yours suspiciously, Meconism.

        • ma rohemo 14.1.1.1

          It did look too good to be real. Greens sat at an even 10.00% for a long time until it looked like it had stuck.Then it changed ever so slightly so it wasn’t a round figure. All the other parties were knocked back to one, except Hone who sat with a softly eroding 240 votes until I looked back later and saw a 1400 swing towards Davis.

          Where were those polling boxes from? So late and so loaded.

          It has us all wondering around here. Where did all the anger at FJK go to within one day? Anyone I talked to last week was very much against him and his behaviour.

          I would like to see audits of the voting in certain electorates.

          I have no trust in the way this country is run.

          Then just to darken my day FJK makes his first real announcement and it is about our flag.
          They’ll keep people looking at trivia while they sneak off to sign the TTPA.

          • Richard 14.1.1.1.1

            Been working for them well, like it’s all dirty politics from the loony left when all the dirty politicking has been coming from WO the herald and National.

  15. scott1 15

    Media reporting is biased obviously towards exciting outçomes. Like peters as king maker.
    By the way geneally it makes sense to vote against your party in the electorate vvote as list is better according to the party itself.

    • Richard 15.1

      I don’t get it Scott. I put two ticks labour. I thought one was for my local electorate, one was for the party, but I too did not know the local one means nothing. Why? if my local MP wins doesn’t he get into parliament? Yes he does and then I thought if they get enough members elected nationwide that will get them more on the list.

      Hmm how do I explain this so you understand..

      I thought the list was decided by how many MP’s were actually elected in local seats, the more seats a party wins the more list members they can invite. This maybe a common misconception.

      Last election it was local vote labour, party vote NZ first a I was sure Goff would not win, others would help Labour and I could also get Winny in to help the left keep key in check. At that time the country was stalking Key, this time I thought the gloss and BS had finally fell off. Sadly mistaken I was.

      You see, without knowing how list members get into government it’s easy to make a complete cock-up of your voting strategy.

      • lprent 15.1.1

        Nope. The party vote is usually the only one that counts. It determines how many seats a party has in parliament.

        The number of list MPs for a party is the number of seats entitled from the party vote, less the number of electorate seats.

        After that there are all kinds of quirks, but that is the essentials.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago