National’s polling hypocrisy

45 comments on “National’s polling hypocrisy ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mike 1

   27 October 2009 at 7:40 pm

   On TV1 tonight Goff stated that this (polling) used to be done by professionals but it’s cheaper for us to it.

   Couldn’t agree more with old 5% there. Makes you wonder why we let these bloody amateurs run the country down for 9 years…
2. Pat 2

   27 October 2009 at 7:46 pm

   “…John Key has gone very quiet on the issue…”
   “…By this morning Key had gone to ground on the issue…”

   Yep Key is definately hiding from the issue. Or he is in Asia doing PM stuff. One of the two.
   • Eddie 2.1

     27 October 2009 at 8:52 pm

     Um, look at his weak comment on RNZ. Russel Norman was going in for the kill, Key basically had nothing to say. A far cry from the thundering denunciations we were hearing on Sunday.
3. Pat 3

   27 October 2009 at 7:54 pm

   “…If you’re going to poll just pay UMR to do it for God’s sake…”

   Assuming your party has got the money to pay UMR. Presumably money was the reason why Labour was using volunteers with fake names and a fake company.

   I guess Labour have learnt their lesson and from now on will use volunteers with fake names and a real (albeit non-descript) company.
4. Ron 4

   27 October 2009 at 8:13 pm

   It really isn’t an issue, is it? The media do it regularly, other companies do it, political parties do it. By not revealing who they are they get a slightly more uncluttered response, I imagine.(how many double negatives was that?)
   It has BECOME an issue because key waded into it. Idiot.
5. TightyRighty 5

   27 October 2009 at 8:28 pm

   If you want to make an issue out of nothing, at least take one lesson from farrar. you need to have at least one piece of believable evidence backed up by a whole lot of spin, then people will believe. this is a lame attempt, i seriously thought you were better than this.
   • Eddie 5.1

     27 October 2009 at 8:56 pm

     You are sensitive about this aren’t you? It’s not spin, it’s a genuine question. A former National supporter has given us detailed information about National’s polling activities under English. Easy enough for him to deny it.

     I have no interest in defending Labour, I think Barker’s actions were stupid even if hardly worthy of the condemnation we’re hearing in the media. What I am interested in is seeing the same standards apply to National as they demand of Labour.
     • TightyRighty 5.1.1

       27 October 2009 at 9:04 pm

       not really, as i have said, provide some real proof and i’ll back off. but only seems to be unsubstantiated rumour? give me some more detailed information eddie, i think it’s important, you know, to apply the same standards of reporting as the media do. you don’t want the msm showing you up do you?
       • Eddie 5.1.1.1

         27 October 2009 at 9:08 pm

         Media use anonymous sources all the time. They also have access to politicians to ask them follow-up questions, unfortunately we don’t. Bill can end the speculation by denying the claims. So far he hasn’t done that, and I don’t think he will.
         • TightyRighty 5.1.1.1.1

           27 October 2009 at 9:14 pm

           so any allegation, if not denied, is then true? has anyone even asked bill english if this has happened? or is he going to have to trapse over here and answer to innuendo and hearsay? if you don’t have the info, you don’t really have a story.
           • Eddie 5.1.1.1.1.1

             27 October 2009 at 9:20 pm

             I don’t think you understand what a blog is, or you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand it.

             The claims made here have as much weight as you choose to give them. I wouldn’t convict Bill in a court of law based on a guest post on The Standard, but an enterprising journalist might like to ask him a few questions.

             And it goes without saying that I wouldn’t be putting the claims out there unless I had confidence in the source’s integrity.
           • TightyRighty 5.1.1.1.1.2

             27 October 2009 at 9:43 pm

             ok, so give me some more information so i can reassure myself that it’s not BS. think of me as the journalist who you think should be asking Bill English the tough questions.

             Eddie, what information or proof do you have to back up your allegation that national has also been as deceptive as labour over the internal polling conducted in ministers offices, and where can the public see such proof?
           • Eddie 5.1.1.1.1.3

             28 October 2009 at 8:57 am

             It’s not The Standard‘s policy to reveal our sources.
6. mickysavage 6

   27 October 2009 at 8:29 pm

   Sorry it was not a fake company. As long as the word “Limited” was not used no law was broken. And if they said it was the Labour Party then the result would be skewered.

   If the nats want to debate this maybe they could tell us how Curia is being funded.
   • Herodotus 6.1

     27 October 2009 at 8:33 pm

     Your statement is deflective for the actions. Why cannot someone either say this is what we did and we are NOT ashamed, embarrassed and we will continue to do so, OR this was misleading and we are sorry. Which ever may be applicable.
     • Ari 6.1.1

       28 October 2009 at 7:41 am

       Reading the paper this morning, it seems like that’s exactly what the Labour Party is doing.
       • Herodotus 6.1.1.1

         28 October 2009 at 7:54 am

         Which paper is this so I can read this on line, I am interested in which direction Labour have taken?
         Thanks Ari
         • Tigger 6.1.1.1.1

           28 October 2009 at 8:57 am

           Dom Post today has an editorial slamming the practice as though Labour are the only ones who’ve ever done it (also page 2 piece on Barker).

           Honestly, at least do some damn research, Dom Post!
           • mickysavage 6.1.1.1.1.1

             28 October 2009 at 10:27 am

             The reasons are for the protection of the interviewers. I am aware that a few senior public servants are Labour supporters. When they help the party they do not want their identity being made puublic. No doubt the comment was made in that context. Not a good look but not a hanging offence either.
7. Daveski 7

   27 October 2009 at 8:51 pm

   Come on eddie.

   Howls of outrage when the right tried to use the “they did it too” line when Nat MP’s were in the spotlight. Surprised to see you there for stoop to such a tactic.

   What about Barker’s lies to the media? Are there situations where it is OK to lie? I assume this only applies to Labour or left MP’s?

   felix comments yesterday did make me think. Sadly, all that’s happened is that we seem to have reversed sides and roles with equally hypocritical behaviour on both sides. I also think it’s fair to say these exchanges are being played out on the fringes which the general population is largely disinterested.

   It’s sad because the economic challenges we face along with the well documented (at least here!) climate challenges would suggest that now is the perfect time to be having a some serious debates about long term decisions and directions.
   • Eddie 7.1

     27 October 2009 at 8:57 pm

     Nowhere have I attempted to defend Barker. Read the post, I even explicitly criticise him. I’m just saying that if National wants to get on its high horse and demand transparency from Labour it should be prepared to answer questions about its own polling activities.

     Seriously, sometimes I wonder about the reading comprehension of some of the righties here.
   • Ari 7.2

     28 October 2009 at 7:44 am

     “They did it too” isn’t a valid defense, but it is a valid criticism if you admit that your side was wrong to do it as well.

     Right-wing bloggers tend to use “they did it too” as a defense. Eddie is using it as a criticism of National’s attacks on Labour over this. There is a big difference.
8. mickysavage 8

   27 October 2009 at 9:09 pm

   To get things into perspective I think the following are really important issues where the current Government is failing us:

   1. Its sabotaging of all of the country’s climate change policies,
   2. Its sabotaging of Auckland’s democracy,
   3. Its destruction of our education system by, for instance, cutting very good programs such as ACE and giving this money to private schools,
   4. Its undermining of workers rights through ACC reform, the 90 day fire at will bill and various other policies.

   The following are not:

   1. The anti smacking referendum,
   2. Whether or not Phil Goff rode a bike when he was younger,
   3. The state of John and Bronagh Key’s relationship,
   4. Whether Labour volunteers conducting a poll used their correct first names or not.

   Perspective would be good.
   • Daveski 8.1

     27 October 2009 at 9:29 pm

     Mickey

     I’ll disagree with your views on 1-4 but I agree entirely that the debate is no longer on the issues but on matters of perception. I don’t think this is a post election issue either but a trend over many years.

     The dumming down of the media has a role to play as does news and entertainment … or should that be entertainment as news???

     So couldn’t agree more – perspective would be good.
     • Herodotus 8.1.1

       27 October 2009 at 9:46 pm

       I concur. Yet we get this from Labour. Is this not confirming an earlier post from here “Everyone is doing it…” hundreds of thousands of families…. (see below) If we are to have real issue debates then can we also have committment not to feed us crap. Selwyn Pellet (Posted Bty T Mallard) had 2 interesting posts on issues that I think relate to NZ. yet how many have a grasp of what is being referred to.
       Perhaps there are far too many issues of min thought just junk food topics. How about focusing on real issues ACC, Govt depts spying, ETS & EFA to name a few.
       Trevor Mallard says:
       October 27, 2009 at 5:49 pm
       Piggy – there was substantial change in child poverty through working for families for example where hundreds of thousands of families were lifted over the poverty line.
9. Ianmac 9

   27 October 2009 at 9:58 pm

   A few years ago I was polled. The questions seemed to have a bias towards National but I was not sure. So I asked the man who he was working for. He said he didn’t really know. I asked him if it was for National but he hung up. Have wondered though but can’t prove anything.
   • Mac1 9.1

     27 October 2009 at 11:48 pm

     Ianmac, I too was polled by a National phone canvasser a few years ago. Her first question was whether I knew who the present National MP was. Answer, “Yes”. Another question. “Do you know who the new National candidate is?” Answer. “Have you forgotten who she is?”
     About this time the National canvasser, as she ‘fessed up, and I was told later by her daughter too, twigged that she was talking to an opposing candidate.

     I also know that the Brethren push polled in our electorate in 2005. One of my activists had that experience.
10. Captain Rehab 10

    27 October 2009 at 10:13 pm

    Dudes, check out the doco about the 1996 Wellington central election “Campaign”. There’s a scene in it where we actually see this kind of polling taking place with the candidate hovering over the shoulder of the caller. I can’t remember if it’s Labour or National doing it but back then it was hard to tell the difference anyway.
11. snoozy 11

    27 October 2009 at 11:25 pm

    what’s this with another bill passed under urgency- this time breaks? Dude we want our democracy back!

    when was the last time we had a general strike? Or the last time if ever the government resorted to urgency to ram this amount of stuff through? Roger Douglas blitzreig tactics. Needs to badly be checked.
12. Barnsley Bill 12

    27 October 2009 at 11:46 pm

    I thought you lot had moved on from the ” I know we did but so did they” defense after the electoral thumping last year.

    The real story is the fact that labour is broke and the fact that Barkers immediate response was to lie through his teeth. Another trait that I thought would have been given up on after last year.

    It appears nothing has been absorbed, which is a bit of a pity really because while these feeble attack lines are being hatched you lot have failed (miserably) to do anything for the telecom techs.
    • Killinginthenameof 12.1

      28 October 2009 at 1:50 am

      “They did it too!” has been nearly exclusively the cry of embarrassed kiwibloggers reeling from Key repeating at times almost identically the same things that Farrar has beaten well out of proportion and used to personally attack Clark in a 3 (going on 4) year delusional tanty, starting around the time of Nationals 2005 election loss.
    • Eddie 12.2

      28 October 2009 at 8:56 am

      Barnsley, read the post. I’m not defending Barker, I’m asking National to abide by the same standards they’re demanding of Labour.
13. Graeme Edgeler 13

    28 October 2009 at 12:35 am

    we know that under Bill English’s leadership National told volunteers to say they were from ‘Gallagher Research’ (which appears to have never existed as a registered company) and use fake names as they conducted public polling.

    1. Wellington City New World isn’t a registered company. So what? That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Maybe it was a partnership. A sole trader. A trading name for the National Party. Something else? The companies register is evidence of company registration and little more.

    2. I can confirm the Gallagher Research story. I polled for National while a student. Paid pretty well. But we weren’t told to use fake names.
14. RedLogix 14

    28 October 2009 at 7:25 am

    Still a total non-story.

    There is nothing wrong with using pseudonyms in a public setting. We do it on blogs all the time.

    There is nothing wrong with using a front name to obscure who is doing the poll, in order to gain a less biased result; this would appear to be almost universal practise. Professional pollers such as Curia or UMR never explain who is really paying them for their work.

    No-one is being materially disadvantaged, there is nothing to criticise or apologise for.
15. TightyRighty 15

    28 October 2009 at 8:06 am

    with respect to redlogix above. I think there is something to apologise for. Eddie has made this up. if he can’t reveal any new information or proof, then this post and the other post are total BS. apologise to the people eddie. show us your standards and you ethics.
    • IrishBill 15.1

      28 October 2009 at 8:18 am

      I assume you’re calling Graeme a liar too?
    • Graeme Edgeler 15.2

      28 October 2009 at 8:19 am

      I revealed more proof a couple of comments up. I confirm the accuracy of stories of a Gallagher Research, although I don’t remember being told to use a pseudonym.
16. TightyRighty 16

    28 October 2009 at 8:22 am

    no, but his version differs from “the classic liberals” and eddies, did you read the last line of his comment? it seems that was the crux of eddies and the bs artists posts, that national did exactly the same. I never said national don’t conduct polling under a company name, i see no problem with that, but they never used fake names, and they paid their staff. where is labour on the minimum wages of their “volunteers”?

    The standard has all the info, so just release it.

    edit: just saw that the dom post has an editorial on this issue, not a single mention of accusations of National “doing it too”, they must pay their staff and use real names or, possibly, it would be reported
    • Eddie 16.1

      28 October 2009 at 8:55 am

      You’re a bit oversensitive there Tighty. Clearly we can’t reveal our sources, but we wouldn’t have put this out there unless we have reason to believe it is genuine.

      It is not The Standard‘s policy to reveal our sources.

      Graeme has confirmed the polling under the front company Gallagher research occured, but in his case he wasn’t told to use a pseudonym.

      Like I said, this could easily be cleared up with a denial from National.
      • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1

        28 October 2009 at 9:33 am

        Dompost also reports that National used the name “Access Market Research” in ’96.
      • TightyRighty 16.1.2

        29 October 2009 at 8:11 am

        pathetic. your full of it. you said you had new information. don’t reveal your source, reveal that. but you can’t can you? so i call BS
17. Selwyn Pellett 17

    28 October 2009 at 9:38 am

    It was wrong of Labour to do what they did. I understand why, but dont do it a again.

    The new polictics of this country going forward, I hope will be about genuine integrity. It’s okay to make a mistake but front up on it. We all make mistakes and thats typically not the issue, covering it up is.

    National has almost certainly done the same thing but so what? It was wrong, man up and move on.

    As to the issues facing the country, this must rank as number 780,000,000,001 in order of importance.

    Lets focus on how we can build a better country as we have some serious work ahead of us on that score.
    • mickysavage 17.1

      28 October 2009 at 10:28 am

      Hear hear.
    • RedLogix 17.2

      28 October 2009 at 11:03 am

      It was wrong of Labour to do what they did.

      Explain why. Frankly I cannot even begin to see the issue here.

Links to post

1. Kind offer of training extended to Labour’s Barker « Life and Politics: posted on 28 October 2009 at 3:37 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS