- Date published:
6:04 pm, April 3rd, 2017 - 60 comments
Categories: national, nz first, Politics, polls - Tags: election 2017, horizon poll
Horizon Research has just released two new research results.Which main party New Zealanders prefer lead a coalition government (and what voters for the coalition-making party, NZ First, would preferWhat issues are most important to Aucklanders (traffic, lack of trust and housing are concerning them and are best least well managed by the Government)These may be significant for those managing policy and with an interest in how Zealanders actually view issues, issues management and what coalition is preferred, given most polls now indicate NZ First will decide which main party governs..Kindest regards
In 2014, preceding the general election, Horizon Research asked respondents to four nationwide surveys which party they preferred to lead a coalition government if one was needed after the election. In the last survey, July/August 2014, 56% preferred National to lead a coalition if necessary and 44% preferred Labour.
In March 2017 the position is reversed. Overall, 54% would prefer a Labour led coalition if one was necessary after the election on September 23. 46% would prefer a National-led coalition.
Among those who say they are 100% likely to vote in the next general election, 52% would prefer a Labour-led coalition and 48% a National-led coalition
Winston’s choice – 77% of his voters want a Labour-led government
If New Zealand First ends up holding the balance of power after the next election, those who gave the party their party vote in 2014 are likely to prefer the party leadership to support a Labour-led coalition, just as they did in 2014.
Prior to the 2014 election, 64% of those who had voted for New Zealand First in 2011 general election preferred a Labour led coalition. In March 2017, 77% of those who voted for New Zealand First in the 2014 general election prefer Labour.
And if those voters don’t get what they want, the NZ First MPs are likely to a bath at the following election. Bearing in mind that, and the way that National husks out its support parties voters like a spider on a fly, then I think that is going to provide a powerful incentive to Winston’s MPs to treat a National embrace like that of a poisoned serpent.
So contrary to the “greed rules” crowd of idiotic RWNJs who have been confidentially saying that National can provide more goodies, I suspect that if NZ First winds up in the kingmaker position, they’re not going to be that interested in being sucked dry by National. And they will already know that they won’t get the same support next election.
Now I’d point out that NZ First polls most strongly in the provinces and among the elderly.
So of course there is the possibility that mid-age Auckland voters will continue to sustain National as they have in the last 3 elections. Ummmm nope – more bad news for our trolls.
An overwhelming 92% of Aucklanders rate traffic congestion as their city’s most important issue.
However, only 15% rate the Government’s management of this issue as good or very good.
Some 97% of Aucklanders rate trust that issues are being managed as important to them.
The score for Government on this issue is 20% good to very good.
Affordable housing is the third top ranked issue, with 90% saying it is important.
17% say the Government’s management of this issue is good to very good.
Ok, it is a poll and there are nearly 6 months between now and the election. But seriously!
Does any wannabe RWNJ seriously think that they’re going to get those voters detached from NZ First. It took more that a year in 2008 even with all that pathetic lying by the Nact coalition. Or can they change the minds of the truly pissed off voters in Auckland between now and the election?
What Auckland voters will remember is the lying – also known as Nick Smith. So full of promise and so pathetically ineffective on delivery. Now that what really hurts.
Somehow I don’t think that any late changes in the housing crisis in Auckland nor National’s policy of unfettered inwards migration driving the shortage of housing and road room in Auckland will change anything in the next 6 months.
Voters usually start making up their mind early in this six months, and up here in Auckland they really aren’t happy with National.
A very good post Lrpent, it almost confirms what I’ve thinking of late and is it going to be the year for Us where we finally kick these Muppets out of office?
Why yes, yes it is. The day after the Spring Equinox everything will change 😀
Yep, but why did it take so bloody long?
It was obvious years ago that National was only going to be governing in such a way as to make matters worse.
I think it’s taken so long because the PM who quit had the gift of the gab
The gift of catering to cronies and covert agencies while pandering to the bottom quartile of the IQ scale.
Its going to be extra funny in light of these posts when you guys lose again.
Only in a black and twisted way because National and their rich pricks will continue to make matters much worse. It’s the nature of such petty, greedy schmucks to do so and you, being the idiot that you are, will crow about how great it is while you and your family suffer their depredations.
You have over look the most important component of your post Lrpent…that is Winston himself.
It makes most of the above irrelevant.
Crowd fund Winston a big cigar.
Winston is a populist.
He makes National irrelevant.
this appears to ignore the likelihood that Labour and NZF will not have the numbers to form a government, bringing Winston’s old mates the Greens into the equation – oh dear!
Anyone know how NZF makes decisions about who to form a coalition with?
They will do it their traditIonal way.
1. Talk to the party with the largest number of MPs.
2. Talk to the party with the next largest number of MPS.
3. Look at the advantages of each based on advantages and disadvantages and past and future advantages and disadvantages.
With National, there is 1998 and 2008 to consider in the disadvantage column. Read about it in their history
There are no such incidents with Labour because they are respectful of differences and agreements. They aren’t arseholes. The hard part is how to get them to agree to anything with another party. Hard enough to get agreement within the party. They get religious about getting solid agreements and obeying both the legalities and the spirit of them.
The significant difference for Winston now of course is that if you buy labour, you get the greens too
so what if you were at rocket park you would release labor supporters and greens are the same people
That was quite visceral, eh. The party supporters get along really well.
Some of my best friends are Greens!
Not necessarily. Short-sighted Labour advisor-dunces might propose consigning the Greens to the crossbenches to humour Winnie’s historic aversion to them, missing that he has little to lose given his impending permanent retirement from politics. One-term govt, if that.
So? NZF has actually got a good working history with both Labour and the Greens, even despite locking the Greens out of government that one time. They’ve quite wisely not been trying to punish NZF for that so as to keep their options open if they need them to form a government.
There’s tension between the two parties, sure, because the Greens are genuinely left (and liberal) wheras NZF are centrist conservatives, with labour sitting between as liberalish and just-barely-left-of-centre that more easily get along with both, but they can make that work a lot better than the various policy tensions between a very right-wing and surprisingly liberal National Party, but both the Greens and the non-Winston members of NZF have shown they actually share a fair amount of priorities and can co-ordinate like professionals. I’d say the tension there is actually much less than the tension between National and NZF, so I don’t particularly see that as an obstacle myself.
It’s also within the realm of possibility that Labour and the Greens will close enough ground with National that they will have the option to go to either NZF or a Mana/Māori option for confidence and supply, in which case that will kinda force NZF’s hand towards Labour in talks so they’re not locked out.
I meant how do they make decisions within the party. Is it caucus? Exec? Do the members have a say?
If it’s like other NZF decisions then their Caucus will decide, although I’d check their party rules to be sure.
If it’s like other NZF decisions then their Caucus will decide
If it’s like other NZF decisions then Winston will decide and the Caucus will nod their heads in agreement while their mouths are duct taped shut.
Well, yeah. Because NZF’s caucus is full of both yes-puppets and Winston clones.
That’s what they’ve said in past elections, sure, however to my knowledge they haven’t:
a) Re-committed to it for this election yet. (and with NZF, a principle is a principle until it gets in the way of electoral expediency)
b) Clarified whether they’ll count in the Greens in with Labour in terms of whose coalition they’ll talk to first, as we have never had a pre-election deal in NZ before, so arguably this is a different situation than previous elections.
If the answer to (b) is yes, then it’s pretty slam-dunk that NZF will support Labour in my opinion, as their voters want it, they have a better history with Labour, and it’s absolutely doable for the coalition to exceed National’s share of the party vote, and even if they don’t, being two seperate parties will actually give them more seats for the same amount of Party Vote, so they can afford to even be a little behind so long as it’s seats that NZF is counting
If the answer is no, then I have no bloody idea what they’ll do as it’s possible that National will give them an acceptable offer first, and it’s possible they’ll just say no because they don’t want to risk working with them again after the experience in the 90s.
King Winnie, pray accept this modest crown.
Unless that big bump to the MP enlarges in the next poll, it’s looking very likely he will be the kingmaker, yes.
These numbers are only two snapshots in time that don’t provide a reliable evidence base for forecasting the result of the next election. It is positive that most of the people polled say they will vote for parties other than National; it is also positive that most of the people who say they’ll vote for Winston also say they’d prefer he entered government with Labour. However, that outcome is far from certain and ignores: the course of the next five and a half months, especially the campaign itself and the effects of cockups and own goals by party leaders; the effects of Dirty Politics, which doesn’t seem to have cranked up yet but almost certainly will; Winston himself (he’s not noted for paying careful consideration to the views of other people); National’s tax bribes, especially if lower-middle class people think they’ll be made better off; and a whole lot of other stuff I can’t even imagine. There’s also Labour’s less than stellar performance in Opposition over the last three terms: it isn’t even good at that, let alone appearing as a credible government in waiting. My pick is a fourth term for the Nats, with Winston decorated in the baubles of office and further coups, plotting and squabbling within the Labour caucus.
“Labour’s less than stellar performance in Opposition over the last three terms: it isn’t even good at that, let alone appearing as a credible government in waiting.”
May even just be better in govt than outside but way unimpressive stretch, yes.
Lack of trust is continuing to corrode election turnout.
Lack of trust shrinks the voting core smaller and smaller, to those who almost always vote, and they by majority vote National governments in.
I don’t see the word “trust” radiating from the public’s lips when they hear the name New Zealand First.
National would do well to put the question of trust in New Zealand First front and centre this election.
Knock out Winston, and English wins the magic 4th, taming him with a Confidence and Supply basis.
I don’t see the word “trust” radiating from the public’s lips when they hear the name New Zealand First.
Jacinda turned up at my work the other day to give a pep talk and was given the VIP treatment by the CEO – a sure sign the corporates are starting to hedge their bets.
I wouldn’t mind betting a few more corporate donations will start finding their way into Labour’s coffers soon as well.
The Herald is working hard to get National reelected
Story after story after story…….
There is no housing crisis you see?
Don’t underestimate the depth and power of the corrupt National Party machine and their many minions
Yep, there are several stories a day on this particularly from the Herald. That and Lottery win stories. Not sure how it constitutes news but I suspect those who feel obstructed and left behind will not take kindly to the frequency of these stories.
Remember the Herald is owned by a Bank…
Some of the articles about hard up couples getting into home ownership can’t be taken seriously. The finances often don’t add up and not a lot of info about the level of debt that now has to be repaid. The articles look like party political bulletins and will only make those doing their best to become home owners feel more hopeless.
Also National’s colour is blue, other news at 6. 😉
I thought RNZ had caught the blindness but then I read it.
It would be interesting to see a similar poll on what the provinces think about
Tourists ie freedom campers,drivers. I have already had the pleasure of meeting a long haul traveller head on,it was an interesting experience.
Water. I personally think this is an issue that could bite the Nats in the bum.
In regards to freedom campers there is a lot to be said for Garth Morgans idea, would certainly get the message across that you do not shit in our backyard. Kick out a few and Social media would do the necessary educating.
At the foot of this post, one of the ‘related’ posts promoted was this https://thestandard.org.nz/mishandled-rena-costing-nats-votes/. I quote:
“Unlike some news organisations we don’t usually bother reporting Horizon polls here. Their numbers generally sound like wonderful news for the political Left, because they tend to rate National led and Labour led coalitions as pretty much neck and neck. But hyping these results would be intellectually dishonest.”
Yep. Which is why I pointed that out in my post – didn’t you read it?
I would suggest that some kind of proof is required of actually reading to the last para. We authors tend to get finicky about that.
I wonder if Hooten has read Hager and jon’s book yet – or if he is going to continue his childish boycott as he disses the book he hasn’t read?
Not that you are quite in the same class of narcissistic troll.
Horizon underestimated National by over 14% in the 2011 election and overestimated NZF by 5%. They didn’t bother trying in 2014 that I could find. Maybe learnt their lesson .
if you want to pump that, then good luck to you. To me it reads like the ‘good news’ internal polling Labour was spruiking in the months up to the 2014 election. How’d that go?
Polls these days in nz are only interesting for trends. Anyone who relies on them for absolute values is daft.
The horizon polls are much more issue based and their numbers exaggerate because of their technique. But they are very useful for looking at qualitative trends.
Btw: they polled through the 2014 preelection and election period. It appears you didn’t read my post. The comparisons with 2014 were quite obviously quoted.
It does appear to be a trait that idiot right wing nuthobs share. I wonder if there is a cause and effect – an inability to read or comprehend and stupidity in making political decisions.
They haven’t done a primary vote type poll as done by Colmar or Reid etc. They just do these overcomplicated ‘what if’ and “but what if” scenario polls that yield almost meaningless results that anyone can take something from (as demonstrated above)
As I said,being so spectacularly inaccurate in 2011 seems to have scared them off producing headline party polling
Even in the stockmarket, it is better to leave the mindless charting to the mindless. And headline polling doesn’t have that level of detail because the number of polls form a single company aren’t regular enough to observe motivations. Besides, they aren’t real decisions by voters. Most make their headline voting intentions very close to an election. Which is why the commentary by the likes of Gower have the approximate credibility of reading your biases into the perusal of chicken entrails.
At best you can look over long trends when you look at a series. But it still doesn’t give you ANY information about what is causing voters to shift opinions.
The kinds of long-term qualitative surveys of the type that Horizon publish and which are done by the major parties are more useful if they keep the same format over time. They show where voters are hurting or comfortable, and the drives into close to the election decisions about how to vote.
Questions by the committed voters based on their previous about what they feel like about particular scenarios is usually useful for political parties as well. There is usually a disjunction between what the professional politicals see (ie MPs and staffers) and what their party, their activists, and their supporters see. So for that matter is simply watching the activists in the social media.
Headline rates outside of the close to the election period are pretty much for the politically ignorant if you are looking for nuanced analysis.
I’m not interested in Hooten, and yes I read your entire post. But from the headline on, you have written a publicity piece and nothing more. Any ‘proviso’ was so subtle it was lost in the sycophantic dribbling from your chin. I’ll stick with the 2011 version.
With so many NZF voters wanting NZF to go into coalition with Labour, the question Labour needs to ask themselves is why aren’t these voters voting Labour in the first place?
Is it the “standard’ here to insult people with different opinions to yourself?
I assume the term “RWNJ” isn’t exactly complimentary
[lprent: ‘The Standard’ doesn’t think. It is a machine.
I, as the author of this post, do think. And I think that you are a profoundly stupid arsehole who clearly hasn’t taken the time to read our about or our policy before coming on the site and giving your idiotic opinions about how we should run our site.
I have had to clean up after generations of the profoundly ignorant arseholes like you when they troll their small minded unclear pontifical and unsubstantiated opinions without bothering to find out anything about the site. That does mean that I have a low opinion of right wing nut jobs. Particularly as they never seem to be able to handle criticism of their beloved opinions without whimpering into a victim mode or blustering with unsubstantiated opinions that they appear to have extracted from their arse (ie doing a Donald Trump). Most appear to be incapable of mustering an actual argument sufficient to be part of a debate. Those that can, we tend to give a lot of room for them to debate their opinions.
But hey – maybe you will another RW exception to disprove the NJ rule. But that seems unlikely. In the meantime, I’ll use pejoratives that I consider are accurate to describe people who cause me work. I find it gives me pleasure and tends to encourage them to either do better or leave ]
LPrent has been triggered by my post at 10.44 last night. That’s put him in a bad mood, and now he’s justifying blatant censorship. Typical left wing approach.
[lprent: Please don’t be a complete idiot. Check out Sam C on the day before getting banned for exactly the same length of time and for exactly the same moronic and easily disproved lie that you repeated. How we moderate is different from how we argue.
Moderating is serious and is work undertaken to both protect this site from legal action and to ensure that the debate doesn’t drop from robust to facile. It is taken very seriously. The only reason why neither you or Sam C got a permanent ban was because I didn’t think that you knew what you were doing. But you were both being defamatory by asserting obviously false facts and motives to non-politicians. That falls out of acceptable public debate and puts the site at risk for publishing it – which is something that we aren’t prepared to tolerate.
But I have to say that your response is that of such a typical troll. They think that the world revolves around their teeny lower brain. The one that they love to stroke to boost their up their unearned self-esteem. And they are seldom able to accept responsibility for their actions. Like all mindless bullies they prefer to whimper how they are the victim. ]
I thought you were banned for 3 months for lying.
I’d stop posting right now if I were you before the ban is made permanent.
Thanks for your response
I have no intention of voting in the next election. All the parties are equally loathsome, and I think the terms left/right are outdated anyway.
So why are you here?
… only 15% rate the Government’s management of [Auckland traffic congestion] rate as good or very good.
The score for Government on [trust that issues are being managed] is 20% good to very good.
17% say the Government’s management of [Affordable housing] is good to very good.
So, polling shows significant dissatisfaction with government management of these issues.
Yet National still out-poll Labour about 45-to-30, and outpoll the combined Lab-Gre coalition roughly 45-to-42.
So.. .what does this say about the public view of the proposed solutions or competence of the opposition?
One of the hassles with headline polling is that it is a usually a sticky lag. Outside of a major political meltdown or an election due shortly, people will usually say what they voted last time because they haven’t bothered to think about it. This leads to some pretty weak opinions and is why you’ll get ridiculous figures (like 56% to National – when they have never made 50% in any election) when you are far from election time. The polls get more accurate closer to an election when people are actually starting to think who they WILL vote for.
However if you ask them something that affects them daily, they tend to have a strong opinions on it. Similarly if you ask them something related to something that they ‘own’ – like their previous election vote, and how would they feel about their party going into coalition with – then you usually get more forthright and informative answers. At least they are if you aren’t trying to give a single sentence answer to a complex question on TV.
people will usually say what they voted last time because they haven’t bothered to think about it. This leads to some… ridiculous figures (like 56% to National – when they have never made 50% in any election)
That’s logically inconsistent. National couldn’t poll 56% midway through an election cycle if at least some people hadn’t thought about it and changed their minds.
The polls get more accurate closer to an election when people are actually starting to think who they WILL vote for
No, that’s not true. The accuracy of a poll doesn’t change if it takes place 12 months or 12 days out from an election. However, the usefulness of the poll as a predictor of possible election outcomes does change the closer you get to the election. I appreciate some might consider that a subtle difference, but those people would be wrong.
If there is one truism from the last 10 elections. it is this – NZ elections are decided in Auckland simply because of their population. This poll confirms the trends in recent national polls – that the Nats have lost the confidence of JAFFAs and with it their chances of retaining government. The question that follows is “will Lab/Greens get enough to govern without NZF?” I think not – so what is likely to make NZF coalesce with a Lab/Green majority? Love to hear people’s thoughts on that one.
Good analysis there, lprent, of the characteristics and limitations of polling these days. I think polls are getting less accurate, over time, possibly because public trust in anything political is diminishing. Still, as you say, it is the trend that matters. Apart from the one poll that matters more than any, of course: the votes cast on election day.
It will be extra funny when National win, given that Labour can’t spend more then 30% of GDP now but somehow have to be able to cut spending whilst massively raising it. Whose idea was that.