- Date published:
9:16 am, November 25th, 2019 - 95 comments
Categories: election 2020, elections, greens, jacinda ardern, labour, national, nz first, Politics, polls, Simon Bridges - Tags: jacinda ardern, simon bridges, stuff.co.nz
Stuff have released their latest YouGov political poll. It’s grim reading for the Tories and current leader Simon Bridges.
Labour are on 41%, 3 points ahead of National, who languish on 38%.
But that’s not the only bad news for the embattled Bridges; at 8% each, either the Greens or NZ First would be both able to form a two party Government with Labour.
That won’t happen, of course, because Labour are committed to continuing the current three party arrangement. It will, however, make cross party discipline easier to maintain in the next government (Shane Jones, I’m looking at you).
No preferred PM poll, but the YouGov alternative is ‘favourability’. Ardern wins hands down, and her deputy PM also outscores the bumbling Bridges.
The big questions for National remain. When to get rid of Simon Bridges and who to replace him with?
I Have to say that I am skeptical of all opinion polls. But at least this one counters the false narrative that the msm drew from the last couple of polls.
Mango How cqn any poll be free of bias when every poll is either run by corporates or finance industry pundits?
At least Yougov was begun by a UK conservative politician and then listed on the public stock exchange for offer to the public so I am o/k with this pollster.
terrific. As it should be. Aren’t YouGov known to be very accurate.? Seem to remember exit polling on a British election
YouGov use a fixed panel of voters as their base point for polling. They stick with the same people as much as possible and it is the individual changes in views that are reflected in the results. According to YouGov, this allows for a more accurate reflection of changes in voting intention than randomly ringing different people each time as other pollsters do.
YouGov are regarded as being among the more accurate pollsters in the UK, though none are entirely reliable.
Yet they’re hopeless in the US. Way off.
Exit polling in UK election was very accurate
Its worthwhile knowing the difference.
NZ with MMP and party vote which directly gives party seats in parliament ( excl the 'one seat wonders') is far better than polling for FPP seats on such a regionally diverse electorate like UK.
as example only Labour could lose seats in London with ( say) 50% vote but gain seats in the country side with that vote and stay stable in other areas.
[Your user handle contains a piece of text from a previous comment. Could you please deal with it?]
Thanks for that , fixed
If this poll is accurate then it represent a huge defeat for the relentlessly negative culture war tactics of the Topham-Guerin social media strategy adopted by Bridges since the unexpected Liberal victory in the Australian federal election.
You would think alarm bells are ringing in National about strategy, and given how heavily Bridges is identified with the all-out online culture war approach the implications for him personally are dire.
Alarm bells are obviously ringing over there at National for sure.
Notice now that Bridges is now not fronting daily the media with his off hand statements about labour loosing their way?
Interesting times ahead.
Thanks for the info on the national adopting the Topham-Guerin social media strategy.
Conservative commentator Peter Hitchens laid out the issue with polling, writing:
That is mixing up two very different things:
1) What the polls are
2) How the polls are treated
The media require change, for their headlines. News is – by definition – new.
Say there's a series of polls which (for example) give NZF 5%, then 6%, then 4%, then 6%. Each of those polls would get a different, shouty headline: "NZF Out! NZF Back!", etc. All spun by the various parties, for and against.
The real story would be "NZF support steady, over several months, changes statistically insignificant". That is information. But it isn't news.
Polls are useful. They aren't responsible for what people then do with them.
Yep stuff polls are very accurate.
We daily observe most faces are smiling as if they are satisfied so we are seeing a labour coalition returned next year for sure.
You seem to have posted that in the wrong place, as it has nothing to do with my comment.
There are no "Stuff polls" (plural), not for years now.
Let him be, this isn’t about trains so his attention may have drifted.
Have you read the methodology on how the poll operates? It would pay to do that before you get too excited.
Too answer your question Alan
The methodology for the YouGov poll is different to other political polls in New Zealand, which rely on phone-calling or a mix of phone calling and online responses. It is conducted entirely online by a panel of respondents, as other YouGov polls around the world are.
It is the first poll published by Stuff from YouGov, a global polling firm which runs regular polls for The Australian, The Times, The Economist, and CBS News.
and how is that panel selected?
Any poll that has Winston First on 8% at the moment is highly questionable, perhaps they are having "teething issues" with their methodology.
Lets see what Reid and Colmar Brunton have to say before getting too ahead of ourselves.
The poll was taken before the latest controversy about donations to NZF. But seeing as the party got 7.2% of the vote at the last election, 8% is hardly extravagant.
8% would be surprising, except that commentators tend to forget how the "bugger the lot of them" vote responds to stories like the NZF foundation.
It doesn't matter if 90% of voters change their opinion of Winston from "low" to "rock bottom". What does matter is the tiny percentage who say "media beat-up" and consolidate NZF support. They are not at all representative of the wider public – but they don't need to be.
You are correct as this poll is " somewhat out of date "
The poll was conducted between 7 and 11 November by YouGov, before Stuff published a series of revelations about donations to the NZ First Foundation, so is likely to be slightly out of date.
Silly that they keep the poll results in the cupbaord until now , nearly weeks later.
Im guessing the CBON comes out this week or next as well (they did one last year for last week on November) and they want to be ahead of the buzz on that.
please check your username before your next comment, this is why you’re getting caught in the mod filter.
Hi Weka, if this was for me yes thanks.
As I wondered why I dropped off the 'Standard Planet' a week or so ago, so great to be back again.
That was because you had received a two-week ban on 4 Nov. You also received a warning that bans will escalate. Ignore at your leisure or peril, whichever you choose but ignorance is no defence.
Incognito I missed the ban notice so can you post it as I looked in my postings and did not spot the warnings.
If I did something wrong. then please notify me now, as I am not aware what it was for yet as it seems that Weka's .notice was Check your username before I make a comment. My username is always the same as greengreen?
What kind of device are you using to comment on TS cleangreen? Because my comments is clearly a reply to Duke, so I'm not sure why you are thinking it was for you. Can you see the 'nested' comments? Can you see the numbers on each comment? Do you use the Comments tab on the side of the page that shows who is commenting and who they are replying to and under what post?
Weka’s comment @ 18.104.22.168.1.1 was a direct reply to Dukeofurl\\\"Shaft enough people and they will bite you. @ 22.214.171.124.1. You should know by now how the threading/nesting of comments works here.
When you receive a ban, at least one warning usually precedes it.
Most moderators leave a reply too to help draw attention to their moderation and to avoid it being
If you pay no attention to those replies, you have only yourself to blame. It also begs the question whether you pay attention to replies to your comments at all.
For your convenience: https://thestandard.org.nz/dunedins-hillside-rail-workshop/#comment-1664659
Please do not litigate that ban because that is a bannable offence in its own right.
The methodology for the YouGov poll is different to other political polls in New Zealand
I always chuckle when people start panicking about whether or not polls are calling cellphones or landlines or sampling on internet panels… when the contact method is at least an order of magnitude less important to the final polling outcome than the weighting and turnout-model methodology (which polling companies very jealously protect and, understandably, refuse to make public).
Also that the margin of error of the poll doesn't (can't) say how biased (wrong) that modelling error is. The margin of error itself is accurate only if the model and weights are exactly correct.
Alan. Explain what you mean. Did you read above about how YouGov derive their info?
Figure it out for yourself Clive
Alan, could outline your concerns regarding the accuracy of this poll? Is it primarily the higher than expected % for NZF?
Are you suggesting that YouGov's polling methodology means that this result is likely to be less accurate than Reid or Colmar Brunton? Whereas some analyses suggests the opposite, and that the YouGov methodology is particularly accurate when it comes to assessing trends in voter intentions.
Welcome to the new kid on the ‘political poll block’.
Reid and Colmar also partly use online panels for political polling result
The main usage is to get the hard to find millenials etc , currently they quickly fill the 50+ quota so have to make lots of calls to get some 25 and under and of course its cheaper for a larger sample.
Please deal with your user handle or I will.
Yep just realised.
Stuff have released their first YouGov poll, not their 'latest'. Only useful once a trend has built up.
Ardern's 62% approval rating is entirely in line with the most recent TV3 and TV1 polls (Reid Research, Colmar Brunton).
Polls on party vote can jump around, and especially with minor parties, get over-analysed for statistically insignificant changes. But the approval rating is a very consistent pattern that can't be dismissed as "rogue" or "margin of error" or "name recognition" like preferred PM.
It makes a mockery of the fantasists whose "evidence" is to say "me and my mates don't think much of her and we're everybody innit?".
Perhaps William Wood will be the next National leader to be prime minister!
Coming soon: Wood insists Bridges has "my full support" … uh oh.
Simon will keep the opposition seat warm until baldylocks Luxon takes over, but the 17 year old from Palmerston North will be itching to stab a few boomers in the back.
Hes not going to win in Palmerston North…
That is how we got the current government. National just shafted Winston to many times for him to consider going with them. The knife wounds in his back from National MPs where still fresh after the last Election.
If people truly want transformational change they need to give labour more party votes or bump up the Greens Party vote then we truly will see transformation having three parties to appease is not easy too much trade offs
A general observation:
Stuff have been doing some good stuff in recent times. Their extended Erebus podcasts (together with RNZ) has been riveting stuff.
I presume their will be a post on Thursday to mark forty years since the accident and its horrible aftermath.
Agreed Anne fully with you 100%
Good to see ACT making some upward progress.
"Good to see ACT making some upward progress."
Thanks to Sean Plunket's stirling efforts.
He's a babe in arms, for sure.
National's problem is that ACT only add to the "Bridges failing" narrative.
See the headline on that Stuff story: "Labour ahead … ".
The media still think FPP, so if ACT gained 3 and National lost 2, a result that would be good for the Right, the headline would be "National down again". Good news would be made bad.
This is exactly what they do with Labour and the Greens, so I have no sympathy, but it is still stupid.
ACT are a joke. They're floundering around in margin of error territory.
Ker-Sploosh!…as another Gosman floater is deposited in the pool…
I don't think Simon will be kicked as their leader for a while yet as I think National party members already know they are unlikely to win the next election.
But his replacement is already set up, they just need him to be elected as an MP before they can dump Simon as their leader. He only still has the job as no one in his party wants it right now.
Maybe if JLR gets voted in as an independent for the seat it would scuttle their plans or have they put him in on the list at a place to guarantee he will become an MP?
Can't see even a desperate National Party anointing a less than one term MP as leader somehow
Bang on correct, as JLR is the fly in the national ointment today and perhaps JLR will come back as a push back to the way National tried to destroy him savagely.
If JLR gets voted in as an independent I won't care because if that happens cures would've been found for all cancer, there'd everlasting goodwill and peace in the Middle East, drug dependence would've disappeared from New Zealand and Donald Trump would be serving a 23 year prison sentence with all of his scumbag mates.
If Ross wins Botany, all we get is one more right wing MP in Parliament. An overhang.
It does not affect National's party vote, or their caucus.
(MMP, MMP, MMP … 23 years and counting)
Collins has to roll Bridges now.
Otherwise Luxon will, post general election, and her chance will be gone.
The replacement we will see
A couple more points on the details:
1) See the NZ First voters' responses on Ardern and Bridges. Completely squashes the myth that they might favour National over Labour.
2) The combined vote for ALL "other parties" is 1%. So that's Sustainable NZ (who?), the New Conservatives (who?), the Tamakis (who?), and any other fantasy partner for National.
And this is after Tava got his headlines from the launch.
There really is nothing there, and it's high time lazy commentators stopped pretending there is.
I'm sure earlier into this term there was a lot of talk around Simon's mission being purely kamikaze, i.e. with no expectation of winning 2020; just place-holding for someone like Judith to take over and start swinging.
Is that still a thing? I know Simon himself has to pretend that he means it but does the MSM still need to? Do we?
It's very amusing reading the comments on Kiwiblog and YSB arguing that this poll must be fake. Not only that, but the conservative old fogies can't get their head around a 17 year old standing for the National Party. Add that to their disgust that every Nat MP voted for the Zero Carbon Bill, and I get the impression the wheels are falling off the blue party bus.
National Party supporters are pissed off and disillusioned.
'National Party supporters are pissed off and disillusioned.' they didn't need the blue party for that, it's mostly a job done all by themselves .
I can't get my head around a 17 year-old standing for the National Party, not because he's 17, but because it's the National Party. Someone should hand that young man a copy of 'The Hollow Men' and 'Dirty Politics'. It's only fair he truly understands the nest of vipers he's getting into bed with.
National has dumbed down the young ones to do what they are told, and not ask questions so that's why they go for the young ones.
They'll possibly learn. At 17 I was a CQSM in the school cadets. At 19 I registered as a CO. Change can happen. World events and exposure to new ideas and people like I found in the Peace Power and Politics in Asia Conference in Wellington in 1968.
Best of luck to this young man to find his true morality and awareness.
The responses here are looking a little desperate ie looking for good news.
I have no idea how the writer can claim this is the latest Stuff YouGov poll given it is as I understand it the first. That surely suggests that regardless of what this specific result says, it is effectively meaningless until a trend can be established based on the methodology.
However, you will believe what you want it to be
No need to "believe". Simply read.
As I've pointed out, there is a trend, and it is across all polls.
Feel free to rebut specifics, rather than generalise with men of straw.
I don't normally bit but you last sentence is laughable and misses the entire point. This is the first survey – you cannot generalise or indeed draw any conclusions from a single poll. This is the outlier – it could be right, or it could be wrong and it could be the different methodology.
So how about you address specifics than ignoring the central point I made which is still valid. It is the first poll so on its own is effectively meaningless.
I already did at comment 7.
Data from three different polling organisations, with a consistent pattern across all three.
In comment 7 you've claimed that an approval rating can be compared to, or used to validate, a preferred PM rating. And then you've made up garbage about how an approval rating poll is not subject to the same margin of error and name recognition issues as a preferred PM poll.
You'll have excuse me if I put less than zero faith in your ability to analyse the results.
You seem to have misunderstood. I said that
"Ardern's 62% approval rating is entirely in line with the most recent TV3 and TV1 polls (Reid Research, Colmar Brunton)."
Both TV3 and TV1 included the approval rating question in their latest published poll. In both cases it was 62%.
TV 3 poll
You seem to think I've got it mixed up with "preferred PM". I haven't. That is a different question.
Ah, sorry, apologies – I hadn't seen the approval question in the One and Three results. I mistakenly assumed they'd only published the pref.PM.
Nevertheless, the comment you made about approval rating polls not being subject to the same margin of error and name recognition issues as a preferred PM poll is still plain wrong.
To express "less than zero faith" in another's ability is nonsensical – "garbage", followed by "
less thanzero faith" would have been solid jibes, IMHO.
My rationale was that "zero faith" implies total ambivalence to a statement, and that the statement would not sway my opinion one way or the other.
I used "less than zero faith" to mean I would take the statement as a warning indicator. I would actively take an opposite path or action – like if your friend who *loves* Taco Bell told you to try out a great new restaurant.
I (mis)interpreted "zero faith" as 'no faith', i.e. an complete absence of faith, and I couldn't think of an instance when I had had less than a complete absence of faith/belief, so was struggling to understand your phrase as anything other than hyperbole.
Thanks for your rationale – makes more sense now.
That doesnt mean anything either . Polls dont have memories like you suggest. The only way and I stress the only way to check for accuracy like that is to have an eelction next weekend.
I have a suspicion Stuff/Dominion Post , a well known Tory media group has tipped off National back when the numbers came in two weeks ago.
The tip off policy would be called No surprises
The Nats threw the kitchen sink to boost Bridges profile …they have been releasing policy now …in the run up to Xmas , when that would normally wait to Feb or later in election year.
My guess is a Colmar Brunton poll will be out tonight or next week and Bridges hopes the results will be OK for him.
I have a suspicion Stuff/Dominion Post , a well known Tory media group has tipped off National back when the numbers came in two weeks ago.
Fuck off with this conspiracy theory garbage.
It's YouGov's first poll. They're experienced operators and they know full well that the first 'live-fire' output needs to be double and tripled checked to make sure all their systems and analysis are robust.
They've taken the extra week or so because YouGov are prudent and 'small c' conservative with how they treat information. Stuff wouldn't have had access to anything meaningful until very recently.
Its two full weeks.
Yougov know all about the polling game , not new like you suggest ( founded in 2000).
Clearly they use their existing resources in Australia and help from HQ in Britain.
Checking …please a panel process that runs for 5 days needs 14 days for 'checking'
I once worked for a large metropolitan Australian paper , stories are often held for some time for various reasons, in those days 'space' was always a factor. Fast breaking political stories , not so much
And yes political parties have their own favoured sources within the media to give thema heads up on news affecting them in the pipeline.
This poll provides a nice positive backdrop to the Labour Party Conference this weekend 😊👍🏽.
I don't really take much notice of polls – they tend to shift focus onto the game of politics itself, rather than onto structural analysis of issues. But the erasure of this poll from mainstream public discourse is certainly impressive – shows what can be achieved when like minds work together..
Perhaps compare a similar poll (Stuff) taken in November 2016 (around 9 to 10 months prior to the 2017 election) if one exists, and try to determine just how the 2016 poll equated to the results on the evening of the 2017 election, then extrapolate if you can.
Still, there appears to be something not so satisfactory with the feel of National right now, and with the three or more faces of Simon Bridges as mugshots appearing so regularly, accompanied with some of his rather interesting comments and statements, (although some may be a little harsher with their descriptions pertaining to such statements), will it get any better for National?
Is Judith Collins likely to muster more favour as leader perhaps, and will we see a change of captain any time soon. Or might it occur closer to the day, or after the 2020 election, if it occurs? (This presupposes that she has gone from the position of “not interested” in being leader, to “interested” if others support her in relation to such a re position).
Does anyone really know her that well?
Would appeasing those further up in political management, and perhaps demonstrating a mission mentality, potentially put her at risk of perilous navigation, or is she in full control with a deliverable and reasoned mission mentality of her very own?
From the link below, (courtesy of the Morgan Foundation); can anyone determine which one's Judith?
I do not have much credence for polls. I am more with Jim Bolger, "bugger the polls, the only that counts is on election day".
Polls give media layabouts something to blather about, after their employers have paid for the poll.
All statistics are highly suspect when i used to draw conclusions
One of the most interesting aspects of the current UK election is the weaponising of polling as a disinformation channel as a political tactic – the Lib-Dems are particularly guilty of this, but all sorts of dodgy polls – often from reputable firms but with secretive funding – are popping up everywhere.
Maybe there is a case for banning polls within so far of an Election? 90 days perhaps?
The rise of disinformation, black propaganda and targeted fake news means I would ban all social media advertising and polling for 90 days before an election. Only traditional free to air broadcasting and print media would be allowed. And don't tell me the likes of facebook can't do it. Just change your country setting the Germany, and see how much far right stuff suddenly gets filtered.
I would ban all … polling for 90 days before an election.
This is a terrible idea that would make our society more poorly informed in virtually every facet.
One of the key reasons regular political polling is important is that it gives us a natural test of methodology. The fact that polling companies continue to have a pretty good track record of picking most NZ political parties within a few points and/or the margin of error means that they're doing the process and analytical grunt-work right. That fact in turn means that when those same companies come out with a poll saying something like "60% of New Zealanders favour marijuana legalisation" the public can actually have confidence that the figure being quoted is broadly true.
Otherwise, in a world without the 'test' of polling before an election… who the fuck knows with any confidence what we collectively think?
No is stopping them polling, they just can't publish them until after the actual, real polls close.
Ianmac I agree.
I agree as it is also occurring in the US with the democratic party politics.
I regard any political Party needs to be treated with suspicion now sadly.
The right have a problem The facade of economic competence is falling away.
National obvious lying, take prisoner voting, obviously disconnecting criminals from engaging politically feeds gang outlaw identity. They already cannot stand for office, so why totally ban them, and then managing the costs of exclusion, really!
It's low-hanging fruit. Many prisoners don't vote, even if they have the right, and how likely are the ones that do vote to vote for National? It's an easy win as far as they're concerned. Throw some red meat to the baying hounds in the form of "tough on crime" rhetoric, and drop the hammer on a group of powerless citizens largely free of consequence. Who cares about prisoners? Or beneficiaries? Or sex workers? It's like kicking a beggar. What are they going to do? File a complaint with the United Nations?
In fact the argument of economic confidence sits in the government's favour. It's a pity that the business 'doomers' don't read this and take heart.
Sent out by the local chamber of commerce CEO to its members. At least he gets it.