Poll Watch: Colmar Brunton Poll 2018-2-19

Written By: - Date published: 8:30 am, February 20th, 2018 - 47 comments
Categories: greens, labour, national, nz first, polls - Tags: , , , , , , ,

Kia ora koutou and welcome to the second edition of Pollwatch, where I, your host, copy polling into spreadsheets and analyse what its margins of error mean so that you don’t have to, and try to share some dispassionate and hopefully objective analysis on trends. (although, relying on the human brain as it does, I concede it may be less reliable within its limitations than the numbers) Today, we analyse the Colmar Brunton poll sweeping in to the capital just ahead of Cyclone Gita, and like a cyclone, there seems to be a certain feature dominating the forecasts. Colmar Brunton’s detailed report will be available here, but as of the drafting of this post, that page still shows December’s poll, so I have made do with One News’ brief analysis instead.

A breakdown of seats if the Colmar Brunton poll 19th Feb 2018 were an election. Greens: 6, Labour: 60, ACT: 1, National: 54

First, a little disclaimer- my seat totals differ slightly from the official One News ones, because they have access to unrounded party vote figures and I don’t. I have left these deviations in to accurately show the limits of reading this stuff off public polling information, but thought you all deserved to know. In the official seat counts, Labour has 59 seats, and National 54, suggesting Labour has been rounded up to 48% and that ACT, despite not registering in the results as provided on the TV, has at least 0.4% support, as that’s the only way for Labour to lose a seat without National or the Greens gaining one on this poll.

On either result, however, Labour would require the Greens to govern, meaning any snap election held anytime soon would likely result in a coalition government without New Zealand First.

How likely, you may ask? Well, after copy-pasting a new formula to 50 different spreadsheet tabs, and completely rejigging my totals columns, I have for you a new colour in my projection graph, because this new poll made considering the possibility of an outright Labour government a thing we should take seriously. Those words sound scary, but remember, at several times during the Key government, he was polling at a high enough level to do the same, so this is no guarantee this trend will continue forward to 2020.A pie graph of simulations based on the margin of error of the same Colmar brunton poll. 63% chance of a Labour government, 37% chance of a Labour-Green government, and 0.1% chance of a National-ACT government.

Those of you paying close attention will note that not only were there 2 National victories in 2,000 random simulations, but that excel sometimes sums totals to over 100% in its enthusiasm for rounding. This small chance of a National victory even with Jacinda Ardern at the height of her powers should hopefully temper our rhetoric around the National Party leadership selection: there is still a chance whoever is chosen by their caucus (still no moves to let their members help choose…) could be Prime Minister, especially once the potential of a comeback closer to the election is considered, so for those of us who weigh in, we should do so with our genuine opinions of who would be the best pick for New Zealand, not for our hopes of sabotaging their party, and of course, any National supporters listening can then take them with a rather large pinch of salt due to our different perspectives, if they wish to listen to our ideas at all, of course.

Speaking of English’s successor, this poll largely completed fieldwork before he announced his resignation on the 13th, but contained at least one full day after it too, given its finish on the 14th. Uncertainty around this news may at least partly explain the giant bump for Labour, or may simply represent the lack of effective opposition his party have provided so far- my position so far is that this is probably an accurate representation of the state Bill English’s (and to a lesser extent, Steven Joyce’s) post-Key holding actions have left his party in: they put everything they had into holding out for the election, and couldn’t quite do it, and now the decline has, perhaps, set in.

Back to more left-wing matters, it’s worth talking about the government’s coalition and support partners, New Zealand First and the Greens. New Zealand First, polling at 3%, is absent from all of these graphs because they are under threshold, and didn’t win any electorates in the previous election, so I have assumed for now that they would not were any snap election to be called right now with similar levels of support to this poll. Even considering the margin of error, there is no chance for New Zealand First to make it above 5%. These simulation results also assume a 95% chance David Seymour retains Epsom, and factors him into the National Government chance, as his presence or absence does not really seem to significantly alter its character.

The Greens, however, at roughly 5%, have about a 50/50 chance of being above the threshold. Those are dangerous waters, and suggest that action to remind the public of their wins, and accrue more, are needed to make progress if Labour is to continue to have a medium-term ally in government, and an effective left-wing check on their tendencies to compromise with corporate interests. Like New Zealand First, this is likely an adjustment to their role as being mostly-in-government, although a friendlier one in this case, and to the reality of the dead rats one needs to eat in coalition, and arguably reflects the mistake in process made by Labour that made them think the Greens wouldn’t have issues supporting the Electoral Integrity Amendment (Waka Jumping) Bill. More on that subject in another post, as that subject is worth an entire post.

A nested donut graph of seats in parliament at either extreme of this poll's margin of error. Left wing margin- Greens: 8, Labour: 63, National: 49, ACT: 1. Right-wing margin - Labour: 59, National: 61, ACT: 1.

And finally, you can see here the extremes of the margin of error in a nested donut graph, with National just able to squeak into government when the margin of error goes almost entirely their way in every respect, hence why it only cropped up twice in two thousand simulations. (This should also reinforce how rare these two extreme scenarios are to everyone, the reality is that scenarios only a little different from the first graph posted are the most likely)

Now we’ve gone through what this specific poll tells us, some commentary on trends. New Zealand First seems to be at or near the genuine bottom of the barrel in their support at the moment, having fallen to a comparable level to the prior Reid Research poll. This suggests that they’re at their natural core support of around 3-4%, and they had made soft gains of 5-6% in the election, some who immediately deserted on their choosing Labour, and other who are not impressed with their performance in the coalition government thus far. There is enough time for them to pull back and survive the 2020 election, but they’ll need to get some big wins before then, and reconnect with the left-wing popular base that seems to be really connecting with Ardern right now.

Secondly, the Greens are still falling. This is once again danger territory for them, and it will be a hard slog to even hold ground against an ascendant Labour party that is eating into some of their strongest policy areas despite arguing not delivering as well, scooping up large amounts of the Māori and queer vote. Some of this may be a lack of credit for their own wins, some may be getting the blame for decisions Labour has forced their ministers or Party into as a result of coalition talks when the reality is a bit more nuanced, and part of it may just be that the party is suffering from a news cycle very dominated by Labour ministers and a National opposition eating up large amounts of oxygen between its extra time to talk to media and its current leadership contest going on in smoky back rooms.

National’s fall here isn’t yet a hugely significant trend, but it could suggest a slow leak of support. This is something to monitor in the future. When you’re above 40%, you actually need a large 4% drop for a loss of support to be guaranteed to be significant in any one poll, but smaller drops over time can add up to a trend, even if any individual poll’s drop could simply be down to the margin of error.

Lastly, Labour has a huge bump in this poll, one that would be significant so long as the result isn’t rogue, and we’ll need to wait for the next one to see if this is just Colmar Brunton’s recent tendancy to overhype Labour’s performance, or if it represent a genuine and large shift to Labour as the most popular party in the country right now, or merely an overestimation of a slow push in their direction. (a shift not unwelcome, although perhaps some of us were hoping it would come more at the expense of National than of other parties, especially as there’s a chance that eliminating the Greens next election could be disastrous for them) The bump wasn’t so dramatic in previous Reid Research or Roy Morgan polls, but this does reflect general indications that a Labour(-Green) government without New Zealand First is currently very likely across all three companies that release their polling data publicly.

We’re also in the unenviable situation that Roy Morgan seem to have taken a break from polling New Zealand politics, which is unfortunate, as they were previously the most reliable polling company in terms of releasing public data on a roughly monthly turnaround. Whatever you think of their lean and accuracy, (my opinion was their accuracy was good, but that they leaned a bit obviously leftward in their results, which was not a bad thing back when Colmar Brunton leaned right and Reid Research tended to lean slightly less right) that regular information was a really useful reality check, and I personally hope they will return to releasing poll information soon, and are just taking a well-earned break.

47 comments on “Poll Watch: Colmar Brunton Poll 2018-2-19”

  1. James 1

    Fantastic post. I really enjoy your detailed analysis of the poll results. Better than any media or blog imho.

    Thanks for taking the time to do this – I hope it continues.

  2. ianmac 2

    Great info thanks Matthew. So complete I can think of no questions.

  3. Johnr 3

    So, in summary. Were winning, and you’re losing. Yippee.

    As much as I don’t like the process. Largely because of the participants. It would perhaps be beneficial for Labour to gift the Greens a seat in 2020. This, l feel, would give them the confidence to leverage more of their policies to the fore.

    These policies are critical to NZs survival as our whole economy is centered and reliant on our environment, in terms of tourism, agriculture and farming, which we seem to be doing our damndest to destroy

    • Ed1 3.1

      “Gifting a seat” is in effect an admission that the system is not sufficiently “proportional” – although National’s would still follow their arrangement with ACT; they could not get a list seat on current support, and he is worth on average half a seat to them. It would be interesting to see just what the composition of parliament would have been following the last two elections with a smaller, or zero, threshold. I suspect many would argue for retaining a threshold of 2 to 4 percent, but the example of Seymour provides an argument that a zero threshold (effectively a one seat threshold) would be fairer.

    • Matthew Whitehead 3.2

      I honestly think there’s a strong argument for Labour MPs to vote for a lower threshold because it will preserve their coalition partners even when they’re doing badly and allow them a chance to spring back, while still allowing Labour to hoover up a lot more of “their” votes, and also increasing the chance of new list parties winning seats and making our democracy more healthy.

      I don’t think Labour should do any electorate deals in return for mutual considerations- I think Labour should make its own decisions about where to run its electorate candidates and who to run independently, and if it really wants the Greens to win somewhere, should pull out themselves to concentrate the electorate vote. (There’s an argument that running, say, Julie Anne Genter up against David Seymour in Epsom might be a really legitimate strategy, for instance) But I think changing the threshold is the best way to do it, because it opens the field for any smaller allies of National to enter the race, too, which the public will see as fair and not punish Labour for, with any luck.

  4. Enough is Enough 4

    I can’t see any downside to National being kept from power and NZ First being wiped out forever.

    However I am deeply concerned that the Greens are beginning to trend the same way as other coalition/ C&S partners Alliance, Progressives, ACT, United Future, Maori Party etc. They are being eaten up by their senior partner and that is alarming.

    Early days but these results are not good.

    • Matthew Whitehead 4.1

      Just remember about 1 in 6 of my simulations had the Greens in Parliament but Labour able to govern alone, so it’s still about a 50-50 outcome that the Greens are actually over threshold in the voting intentions when we show them as on 5%, even though I call it a 67% chance of a Labour government- I assume they won’t invite parties into government when they genuinely don’t need any partners.

      The Greens historically do very well at clawing back soft Labour support to get over threshold when they’ve hit times when their support is around 5%. I think there is plenty of time to strategise to stay over that mark, and even start aiming higher, and that the big publicity push will start in April, so I wouldn’t feel too doomy and gloom about the possibility of the Greens declining over March, we’re just taking a moment to sort out our internal democracy and digest some of the stuff we need to support in order to get NZ First’s support for the government.

      (And we do get a lot in return for that which NZ First ideally wouldn’t want to vote for either, much of it environmental)

      • Enough is Enough 4.1.1

        Thanks MW.

        Anything can happen between now and 2020 so certainly not a time to panic.

        The difficulty is distinguishing yourself when you are part of a popular government.

        A couple of past examples are KiwiBank and Charter Schools. Labour and National claim those as their own achievements respectively. The reality is neither would exist if it wasn’t for their now defunct junior coalition partners. They took the credit while the parties that created them are now dead.

        If the Green Party introduces successful policy and legislation to deal with climate change, poverty, discrimination, the key in 2020 will be demonstrating to the public that those changes have only been made because the Green party initiated them.

      • The Chairman 4.1.2

        “I assume they won’t invite parties into government when they genuinely don’t need any partners.”

        They may, as National did. But for anyone watching closely last election, it was clear Labour would rather retain power alone.

        • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.2.1

          National has never had an MMP election in which they had an outright majority, so of course they did.

          There is good reason to invite more partners than you need when you don’t have the numbers to govern alone, as it gives each partner less leverage over your government. That’s not an option for this government, and it wouldn’t be a necessity for Labour if they win 61 or more seats, barring multiple overhang MPs from other parties. I would assume the same would be true of National- while they wouldn’t burn bridges with ACT if they got 61 seats, I’m not certain they would invite them into government under that scenario, and they certainly wouldn’t give any major concessions in return for support.

          • The Chairman 4.1.2.1.1

            Yes, there is good reason to invite more partners than you need when you don’t have the numbers to govern alone.

            However, Key publicly committed to looking at forming partnerships even if National was able to govern alone.

            National utilized concessions with ACT to pivot further right. Shame Labour don’t do similar (in this case, pivot further left) with the Greens.

      • The Chairman 4.1.3

        “We’re just taking a moment to sort out our internal democracy and digest some of the stuff we need to support in order to get NZ First’s support for the government.

        (And we do get a lot in return for that which NZ First ideally wouldn’t want to vote for either, much of it environmental)”

        More dead rats?

        I can tell you now, people out there want more economic change, hence environmental change alone will be far more challenging to regrow support.

        Is there anything to come that hasn’t already been outlined that you can speak of?

        • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.3.1

          Nope, I’m just referring to some additional context our local branch received when both new co-leader candidates came to speak with us- they also had a better explanation of what went on in the coalition negotiation process and why there is an obligation to support the Electoral Integrity Amendment Bill. (basically, Labour asked the Greens blind what NZ First policies they’d object to during the negotiations, and vice-versa, and because NZ First never campaigned on re-instituting a waka jumping law, Labour put it in the agreement thinking it wouldn’t be an issue, and there was no cross-check of the Green agreement by NZ First, or vice-versa, before they were signed. So there was no “list” of every item NZ First had asked for and nobody “missed” the Waka jumping bill on there- we were guessing based on their advertised policies, and they decided to throw in one they didn’t campaign on) Essentially, if we want what is in the Green agreement to go unchallenged by NZ First, there is a good faith obligation to support the bill. (but not necessarily unamended- if you have suggested safeguards in addition to the ones added by the Greens already, submit them to Parliament!)

          There are definitely things coming, and the Greens will also be trying to work on economic change, especially in areas that there is commonality with NZ First on, like railways, housing, etc… The Greens will also be trying to make the case that we should raise more revenue and spend more on addressing the infrastructure debt than Labour has been saying we should, but we’ll do that in a way that’s respectful of our partners in Government.

          There’s also been a learning curve on how agile you can be out of government versus making change through ministries. The Greens are planning to accelerate policy development and start debates ahead of the next campaign, so that we can warm the public and the ministries up to our ideas in advance of the next election, rather than trying to sell big things like pollution charges for farmers in just a few months.

          • The Chairman 4.1.3.1.1

            “Labour asked the Greens blind what NZ First policies they’d object to during the negotiations”

            And the Greens messed up by accepting that and not asking Labour to get NZF to supply a list of their policies.

            “The Greens will also be trying to make the case that we should raise more revenue and spend more on addressing the infrastructure debt…”

            Interestingly enough, the Government’s books are in a better position than initially expected, have the Greens made any case for that (utilizing the improved fiscal position)?

            “There are definitely things coming, and the Greens will also be trying to work on economic change, especially in areas that there is commonality with NZ First…”

            What about wages paid in the tree planting scheme? Are the Greens working on securing employees in the scheme receive a living wage? Have they had any discussion with NZF and Labour on that?

            Have the Greens given up on securing more money (either via a larger and extended energy payment, a Christmas bonus, or by any other means) for beneficiaries this term?

          • The Chairman 4.1.3.1.2

            Additionally, Matthew, as Labour largely failed to address the need for urgency in their medicinal cannabis reform, are the Greens working on bringing the agreed cannabis referendum forward?

            There have also been calls (outside of Parliament) to bring forward the families package, are the Greens doing any work on that?

      • The Chairman 4.1.4

        “And we do get a lot in return for that which NZ First ideally wouldn’t want to vote for either…”

        Do you know if the Greens were allowed to submit what they could work with NZF with? And vice versa?

        I was wondering about the minimum wage. NZF wanted it to be $20.00, Labour were looking at $16.50, were the Greens able to have any input on that? Or did Labour prevent NZF and the Greens putting the squeeze on them?

        • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.4.1

          I’d suggest you ask Marama about that on Twitter or Facebook- IIRC it’s her portfolio. The Green policy is a *little* lower than the NZ First one, iirc, it’s $19 and change, but we want to peg the minimum wage to that fraction of the average wage (iirc, 2/3rds) permanently, so it will only need adjustment if the earnings distribution changes greatly. Any movement on the minimum wage will require Labour, so I expect it will have been a matter of them having a defensive strategy about not wanting to move the minimum wage too fast so that they don’t spook business. I think there’s a perception that this is what caused Clark’s eventual defeat, and Labour are running very cautious strategies.

          • The Chairman 4.1.4.1.1

            “Any movement on the minimum wage will require Labour, so I expect it will have been a matter of them having a defensive strategy about not wanting to move the minimum wage too fast so that they don’t spook business.”

            At the risk of disappointing employees. Which probably make up more of Labour’s support base. Thus, there is a perception out there that this is what ended Helen’s run.

            Moreover, the related expected surge in consumer spending should help appease business concerns somewhat. Not to mention, a number of businesses already pay above the minimum.

  5. dukeofurl 5

    I thought before the cabinet positions were announced that Peters would have a local economic development role.

    There are no votes for NZ First in being Foreign Minister. While its early days Peters has to be seen in the provinces and getting votes from national to make sure they stay well over 5%.

    • Matthew Whitehead 5.1

      Peters’ doling out of positions to his caucus was actually very clever if you assume he’s planning to retire after this term or the next one. Yes, there’s generally no votes in foreign minister, which means it’s a position he can reasonably take to enhance his own mana without taking away something one of his caucus colleagues could build their own profile with.

      I agree that a big part of their vote collapse is the perception that Shane Jones is full of hot air and not going to deliver on any of his promises to the regions.

  6. Mark 6

    You would assume this is the high point for Labour (the baby bump) and that Cindy will slide downhill gradually from here.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

      Who are you talking to? Your menz rights activist imaginary friends?

    • Mark
      … ‘ I would ‘hope’ this is the high point for Labour (the baby bump) and that Cindy will slide downhill gradually from here ‘ …

      Corrected it for you , you complete far right wing National supporting derp.

      But I’ve got news for you , derp boy , – and its all bad.

      Had a look at National party infighting and disarray , lately ?

    • Matthew Whitehead 6.3

      I’m actually in agreement with you that it’s probably near the high point now, (most governments are most popular after their initial period of reform, and decay over time, with some of that decay being channeled into their support partners if the public perceives them as effective) but I honestly don’t think people are evaluating Jacinda on being pregnant, outside of the sexists who think she won’t be able to do the job properly because of it. *insert eyeroll here*

  7. eco maori 7

    I’m sure I predicted these polls 2 months ago sorry I’m tired and the egos let lose

  8. Phil 8

    New Zealand First, polling at 3%, is absent from all of these graphs because they are under threshold, and didn’t win any electorates in the previous election, so I have assumed for now that they would not were any snap election to be called right now with similar levels of support to this poll. Even considering the margin of error, there is no chance for New Zealand First to make it above 5%.

    Even considering the margin of error, no chance to make it above 5%? That seems… harsh?

    • Incognito 8.1

      It’s poorly phrased because the margin of error is defined as the 95% confidence interval for a poll result. There’s a non-zero change that the true population result will fall outside these intervals. If I am right, there is less than 2.5% change that the real result will be above the poll result plus the margin of error. Matthew Whitehead can correct me.

      • Matthew Whitehead 8.1.1

        So, the confidence interval is a different thing again. You should think of it as the probability a poll isn’t rogue. 95%, or 19/20, is the confidence that everything in the poll is inside the margins of error, and some of those trips outside the margin of error will be subtle enough not to be spotted anyway, so if a polling company is doing their job well, you should only spot the occasional rogue poll from them. Colmar Brunton seems to be the worst of the three still operating in NZ in this regard, IMO, but other people use different methods of checking and dislike Roy Morgan more- I think their departures from the trend are more subtle.

        If a polling methodology is statistically rigorous, all they need to do to get that 95% confidence of a 3.1% maximum margin of error is to take a sample of at least 1,000 people. You could take a larger sample for a higher confidence interval or a lower margin of error, but 1,000 is generally considered the most economical balance between confidence and cost, so the only time you take anything smaller is if you are surveying a much smaller population, like say a specific New Zealand electorate, and you can’t reasonably complete the survey in a cohesive time period like over a week or two without limiting the sample size to say, 300-400, or you can take a bigger sample if you want to be able to sub-divide it into demographics.

        Basically, you can almost always assume that any given polling measurement is out by less than 3.1% in any national poll of the party vote.

        This doesn’t prevent problems coming in from asking a stupid question- for example, the unprompted “preferred Prime Minister” poll is not, in my opinion, statistically rigorous. Likely there are more than 40% of people who approve of the job that Ardern is doing- in fact, I think many soft Nat supporters think she’s doing okay. But that’s not the question that they ask, which is in fact basically a proxy for name recognition among politicians, a factor that is almost completely irrelevant in our system, and really only measures someone’s advantage in electorate contests. Were I commissioning polls for the ‘shub or TVOne, I’d have them ask two questions instead:
        “Do you approve of the job, Jacinda Ardern, is doing as Prime Minister?”
        “Do you approve of the job, insert Bill English Replacement Here, is doing as the leader of the Opposition?”

        • Incognito 8.1.1.1

          Thanks Matthew.

          I know it is a pedantic question but when NZF polls at 3% in a poll of 1,000 people the margin of error for that result (3%) is not 3.1% (it’s smaller) but the chance that the actual result will be 5% or higher is not really zero, is it? I mean, it might be very small, but still not zero?

          If I had more time I could try and calculate it 🙁

    • Matthew Whitehead 8.2

      Basically, the maximum margin of error of 3.1% (at 95% confidence with a sample of at least 1,000, with CB usually manages) actually scales down the further distant you get from 50%. This means you need to be within about 1.9% of 5% to have any chance at all of going over threshold if you’re under 5%, or risk going under if you’re over 5%. Basically, 7% is the real “safety” line in polling, and 3% is the real “danger” line. Between those two it’s a matter of probabilities for individual polls, or sometimes trends. (ie. a party that has been reported at 3% over multiple polls, especially from different companies, will much more likely be at 3% than one that just dipped down there in one poll)

      • Phil 8.2.1

        Yeah, I was aware the MoE scales down as you move away from 50%, but wasn’t sure of the rate of that decline. Thanks.

  9. mary_a 9

    Matthew, thanks. Much appreciate the easy to follow analysis.

  10. mosa 10

    I love these polling posts well done Matthew.
    Looking at your graphs you could be fooled into thinking we are looking at pre 1993 with a first past the post result not MMP.
    The two largest parties are holding most of the polling numbers with the Greens hanging on for dear life and the atrocious consumers party is as useful as a motor car without a steering wheel.
    The mindset seems to be that in a coalition arrangement the largest party dominates and the small party vanishes.
    The Greens must be more prominent as a left wing voice because it is clear that Labour are not moving anywhere except to stay in the centre with a few small tweaks here and there and Nash with his backdown on cameras on fishing boats to help stop the environmental carnage is a case in point and we will see more of this as time goes by.
    It is a rerun of the last nine years with a slight move to the left………slight.

    • Matthew Whitehead 10.1

      I think right now National and right-wing voters are desperately holding on to the idea that they can win back the government as a monolith. I think under MMP that is a straightforwardly losing strategy, and they will need to either help revive ACT, or split off a credible new party, (parties?) in order to grow their vote by concentrating their policy, rather than spreading it out over a huge coalition of constituencies.

      I don’t think there’s actually a big movement back towards large parties as such, it’s just a side-effect of all the smaller parties other than the Greens having short-term strategies and not having been very careful of how they function when part of government. We’ll see if New Zealand First manages to survive, (you’d think if anything they’d be doing well in this time of nationalist politics around the globe, but in some ways their pre-existing efforts have innoculated the electorate to its charm, a fact for which I am thankful) and I think in the future we’ll likely see new parties split off, especially if the Greens can persuade Labour that further electoral reform is a necessary step.

      There is a very real risk that in government a smaller party can be seen to “vanish” even if it makes very real wins. This is largely because media credits any wins to the “government,” rather than tagging them to smaller parties when they’ve clearly earned the credit. The Greens and New Zealand First will both be hoping to communicate their wins to voters more directly, or to sell the media on their own effectiveness when discussing issues.

      I’d say Ardern’s strategy definitely seems to be a lot like Clark’s, so I wouldn’t call it a rerun of the last nine years, but I would say we’re in for a government that will be promising evolution, not revolution, and may be slow in any area they view as a risky move for them that they haven’t been pushed into by their coalition partners. (For instance, any moves on welfare reform are likely to have been driven by the Greens’ demands, and the legacy of Metiria Turei)

  11. Sparky 11

    Ah polls, I find them slightly more convincing than reading tea leaves but not by a lot. Suffice to say this govt is in its “honeymoon” period. I would suggest something measured over the space of a year would be more likely to give an accurate picture of their impact.

    Still newspapers to sell so good to have anything to say that’s not especially relevant or meaningful or worse still likely to have people asking real questions of themselves and our politicians.

  12. timeforacupoftea 12

    Labour may have to gift the greens a seat from somewhere.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    53 mins ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    1 day ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    1 day ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    1 week ago