Pollwatch: Colmar Brunton, 16/4/18

Written By: - Date published: 4:00 pm, April 18th, 2018 - 78 comments
Categories: greens, labour, national, nz first, polls - Tags: , , ,

An arc chart of seats in the latest Colmar Brunton poll: Greens 7, Labour 53, New Zealand First 6, National 54, ACT 1.Colmar Brunton has, to much fanfare, released its latest poll. As Mickysavage noted recently while I’ve been on internet hiatus, (thanks for covering!) this result is a bit of a correction from a post-government high, with a 5% drop for Labour relative to their February poll, and a 2% improvement for NZF and 1% improvement for the Greens. (the latter being a bigger deal than you might expect, as internals between these two polls apparently had the Greens back under threshold) It is still an overwhelmingly strong endorsement of the current government, but it’s possibly also reflecting a bit of frustration that the government is not moving as fast as all of its fans would like on all of their priorities. I won’t cover the exact same ground as him, but calling this anything more than a setback for Labour is trying too hard. They’ve just lost some of the additional ground they gained post-election, probably due to overpolling in that February poll.

Statistically, it’s worth noting that the drop in this one poll, either for Labour or for government-vs-opposition on the Party Vote, is not significant enough to rule out it simply being a combination of under- or over-polling for the parties involved. While the margins of error in this poll were lower than the change for both New Zealand First and Labour, you need to add together the margins of error from both polls before checking for statistical significance, so until a second poll shows up confirming this dip, it may literally mean nothing, as per my prior disclaimers on polling. From an MMP perspective, in fact, this poll is the better of the two, as I’ll discuss below regarding threshold maths.

I’ve currently got my seat calculations for all three scenarios (expected, left-wing MoE, right-wing MoE) up on Datawrapper, which I am currently trying out instead of doing two of my three excel graphs. Its political chart is pretty great for doing seat allocations, in my opinion.

Fieldwork for this poll was conducted from the 7-11th of April, so it captures the very beginning of Marama Davidson’s co-leadership of the Greens, and also included the day before the announcement, when some people may have been assuming Julie Anne Genter could win. Make of that what you will. Also worth noting, as below, that Simon Bridges’ first ever preferred PM result was returned with this poll, and while it’s a relatively junk stat, it’s also abysmally low.

How low? Looks like someone else has handily compared for us:

(Additionally: Only three actual party leaders have polled lower than this: Bolger, English, and Little, and there is absolutely no precedent for a right-wing leader with such low preferred PM ratings)

This is with the known phenomenon that right-wing or conservative politicians enjoying a much more instant boost to their popularity among their own party than left-wing or liberal ones do. Bridges is basically a space-filler, and his own party is implicitly admitting it here, rating him even lower than Labour’s succession of Davids, or their misadventure with Little as Leader. That’s got to hurt for Simon, but I wouldn’t expect National to be sharpening their knives just yet: everyone knows that sticking with this leadership team and looking unified even if they’re not is the only way they have a shot in the 2020 election, and pushing over Bridges only makes things even worse. This is where people like me really wish someone were polling comparative approval ratings for the Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister, so we could do some more solid analysis on whether this is simply a failure of Bridges’ name recognition, or to what extent it’s an approval gap or simply disapproval of both our most prominent political figures. (Ardern’s 37% is actually not terrible when compared to Clark’s rise in popularity under her own government- Labour PMs traditionally do better once they’ve settled into government for a year or more, so she’s still ahead of the curve there)

Microparty news tends to be the same: There is still small but significant support for the Māori Party, and next to none for ACT.

Pie chart showing probable coalition outcomes if a general election happened based on this poll: Labour-Green: 63.5%, NZF-Labour-Green: 35.3%, National-ACT: 1.2%

This also shows that perhaps NZF’s dip under threshold was part of a brief period of discontent. This poll notably does capture the new Transport GPS, which was likely a win for all three parties to some degree, but the biggest win for the Greens, and just misses the new oil exploration policy announcement, which is likely to be seen as a loss with at least some NZF voters, and at least a moderate win for the Greens and climate activists within the Labour Party, despite it actually being a very “first steps” sort of policy that doesn’t roll back any existing fossil fuel exploration, and still allows for exploration on land in Taranaki.

I’ve once again run my probability model with 2,000 elections simulated for likely coalitions within this poll’s margin of error, and the results are pictured to the right. There is also two invisible too-small-to-count single outcomes: one where there was an outright Labour Government, which likely occurred by my random number generator simultaneously spitting out that National overpolled, Labour underpolled, and both NZ First and the Greens fell under threshold, and one where Parliament was hung and either ACT, NZF, or the Greens would have had to cross the house or commit to abstaining on confidence and supply to form a government. Excel doesn’t count half-per mille results on pie charts, so those two outliers are removed from the graph automatically.

While I give the threshold results to a rough 5% rounding above, the Greens only came under threshold 1.6% of the time in this run of my model, while NZ First came in under threshold 52.9%. While it’s even probabilities to come over threshold at 5%, in reality every party that’s consistently polled at or above 5% before an election has managed to pull off coming in over in our brief MMP history, so I wouldn’t count NZF out just yet, so if we do assume NZF is getting over threshold or winning an electorate at the next election, (essentially removing all the under-threshold results for NZF) it’s roughly 60%/40% odds that they’ll be needed for the next government if the election result looks roughly like this poll. (Which it almost certainly won’t, things are always changing, but it lets us know where the electorate is sitting now)

At this time Colmar Brunton haven’t posted their detailed results, but their response rate is falling in their last poll, and I expect it will have done so again this time, or at best regained a fraction of its lost ground from February- something to keep in mind for polls outside of the election season. This does mean that these polls are more likely to represent relatively decided or motivated voters, and less likely to represent swing or demotivated voters. It’s quite possible that this will hurt National more than Labour, as swing voters tend to largely vote based on a perception of unity and competence within governments and oppositions, and right now National is looking very shambolic in those regards.

78 comments on “Pollwatch: Colmar Brunton, 16/4/18”

  1. Matthew Whitehead 1

    Just a note that while I will be checking this post, as I’m currently routing my internet through my phone rather than accessing TS directly, I’ll be a little less present than usual because my connection is noticably slower and I can’t sit refreshing as much as I usually do for moderation.

    Please continue behaving reasonably so I don’t have to moderate anyone. Thanks in advance. 😉

  2. patricia bremner 2

    Thank you, a great explanation of the poll. Generally they haven’t favoured the right, so explains the dearth of them.

    • Matthew Whitehead 2.1

      Actually this dearth is normal for NZ-based polling, the only thing that’s not is Australian-owned Roy Morgan’s break from polling, and they’re actually the most friendly poll to the left, so them stopping for now could well be an economic decision.

  3. Wayne 3

    Wishful thinking that National looks shambolic.

    Literally no-one is saying that. That discussion is always about the government.

    This of course is just one poll, lets see what the trend looks like.

    But as a fundamental proposition, National is holding up, which is pretty consistent since the election.

    If National remains above Labour in most polls over the next few months (which I expect it will) the issue will be whether NZF and the Greens can survive above 5%. If they do, then Labour staying in government after the 2020 election is highly probable.

    If not, well then it depends. If NZF goes under 5%, then National still has to beat a combination of Labour and the Greens. That would require National to be a good 7% ahead of Labour. But if the Greens also go under 5% (not that likely in my view) then it would almost certainly be a National government.

    Labour will have a challenge at the next election of having to campaign on increasing taxes. At least if they follow the Tax Working Group.

    Of course Jacinda and Grant might say that is not a risk they want to take, and will just campaign on existing tax settings. Fiscal drag (not changing tax thresholds even though incomes rise) pushes up taxes anyway. Labour got that benefit from1999 to 2008. Over a 9 year period, fiscal drag, even in low inflation times, had quite an effect.

    • Matthew Whitehead 3.1

      Sure it is, just like it was always about the government whenever Labour leaders were languishing in polling, lol.

      National holding at current polling is them losing, and this poll would have them losing even if NZF fell under threshold. You shouldn’t be happy that they’re staying still. As I explained in the post, it’s a less-than-5% proposition that the Greens would end up under threshold based on this poll alone.

      Increasing taxes to spend more on public services is generally more popular with the electorate than tax cuts. *shrug* (This was polled when the election was made about tax, as fucking usual, during Cunliffe’s tilt at dethroning Key. Polling showed that the electorate liked Cunliffe’s policies on spending more on public services and implementing a Capital Gains Tax, but still wanted to vote for National for non-policy reasons)

      • Wayne 3.1.1

        Yes, National cannot beat a Labour/Green coalition unless they poll 7% ahead of them, which I explicitly stated.

        As for the tax debate. It won’t be tax increases versus tax reductions. I can’t see National campaigning on reducing taxes. Instead it will be Labour campaigning to increase taxes and National saying no change. That is quite a different contest to “Tax reductions versus tax increases”.

        In a sense it is a reverse of 2017 where National had tax reductions and Labour had no tax changes. Effectively Labour won that debate, but only after Jacinda ruled out tax increases for the period 2017 to 2020.

        So it will be a “brave” move to campaign on tax increases.

        • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1.1

          It’s not a reverse. It’s the same exact thing, the age old debate: National wants to run a fiscal strategy so tight it’s suffocating, Labour wants at least room to breathe, while the other more sensible voices saying we should actually right-size our government to something a little larger than either are willing to, because we can effectively afford it regardless, are excluded from the room. Kiwis want proper service provision and are willing to pay for it, so long as the tax load is fairly distributed. (It’s not right now, it’s all on direct income, next to none on capital income, and those taxes that do hit it are largely avoidable)

          • Baba Yaga 3.1.1.1.1

            The current tax load distribution may not be perfect, but I’m yet to see an alternative prescription that would be economically beneficial and electorally palatable. Taxing capital is tantamount to taxing investment, and that is counter productive when we also want to attract investment for jobs and growth. NZ has achieved a very high standard of living considering our position in the world, and that is in no small part to the gradual lowering of income taxes, and the benefits associated with a wide reaching consumption tax (GST). Long may that continue.

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.1.1.1.1.1

              ” Taxing capital is tantamount to taxing investment, and that is counter productive when we also want to attract investment for jobs and growth. NZ has achieved a very high standard of living considering our position in the world, and that is in no small part to the gradual lowering of income taxes, and the benefits associated with a wide reaching consumption tax (GST). Long may that continue.”

              In other words, reduce the tax burden on the wealthy, and let it lie on the less well off. And cut public services, which the less well off rely on the most.

              Brighter Future!

              • Baba Yaga

                “In other words, reduce the tax burden on the wealthy, and let it lie on the less well off.”
                Well that’s presumptuous. Anyone who owns a home has capital, but not all are wealthy, at least by NZ standards.

                “And cut public services, which the less well off rely on the most.”
                Really? The less well off rely more than the more well off for roads, rubbish collections, emergency services? You’re just a little mis-informed.

            • Stuart Munro 3.1.1.1.1.2

              “we also want to attract investment for jobs and growth”

              That “we” ain’t us paleface – we’ve heard the lie about foreign investment too often – all it does is inflate our property market.

          • Wayne 3.1.1.1.2

            Matthew,

            Your point is a bit obtuse to put it mildly because campaigning not to increase taxes is quite different to campaigning to reduce them.

            More to the point, Labour is currently governing on the existing tax settings and will do so for the next 2 and half years.

            If Labour is going to argue, both now and in 2020, that this is a “fiscal strategy so tight it is suffocating” I guess they can. But they are the ones who chose not to increases taxes 2017 to 2020, presumably for electoral advantage.

            Obviously Labour can campaign in the next election to increase taxes, just as National can campaign not to increases taxes.

            I reckon that will be a tough call for Labour because they will be basically saying they made a mistake in 2017 not to increase taxes, even though they did so to reassure middle voters.

            That is why I doubt whether the PM will want to campaign in 2020 to increase taxes. Not unless she is very confident of her electoral position. She might see fiscal drag as doing enough of a job.

            The last government that campaigned on introducing a new tax was Labour in 1990, campaigning to introduce CGT. They lost the election. Labour did campaign in 1999 to increase the top rate to 39%, but that was when the skids were already under the Shipley government. Harder to do when you already the government.

            In any event any tax economist will tell you capital gains taxes don’t actually raise very much, certainly not compared to income tax and GST.

    • In Vino 3.2

      “Literally no one is saying that.” Try to be literate, Wayne, please. Matthew has already said it.

      • SPC 3.2.1

        You are tying to find the word … and here it is …literal.

        • In Vino 3.2.1.1

          I am well aware of the word literal. It is the adjective from which ‘literally’ is derived. Wayne’s misuse of ‘literally’ is obvious. My choice of the word ‘literate’ was completely correct in view of his semi-literate misuse of ‘literally’.
          Got that? If not yet, look up the word ‘literate’.

      • tracey 3.2.2

        And someone in msm today

    • SPC 3.3

      We get it Wayne, if taxes do not go up under Labour and go down under National, then Labour government can never afford more than an endeavour to use fiscal drag to rebuild health, education and housing funding (after neglect) – should they stay in power three terms to do so.

      The Tea Party calls it starving government of capacity.

    • Tamati Tautuhi 3.4

      NZF will be 10-15% come next Election when voters realise the Natzis are stuffed for the next 6-9 years ?

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.4.1

        While I’m not yet predicting their demise, I would say predicting a return to double-digit polling is bold and optimistic for NZF’s chances.

        I expect Labour to be the first stop for departing Nats, with small diversions of rural voters to NZF, and environmentally conscious centrists to the Greens.

    • Matthew Whitehead 3.5

      BTW Wayne, Tax Cuts are about as popular as the Māori Party right now:

      https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/third-kiwis-say-health-main-priority-spending-in-2018-budget-1-news-colmar-brunton-poll

      From the related questions in this poll.

      For those who don’t want to follow the link, this was an open question about priorities in this year’s budget:

      30% – Health
      13% – Education
      10% – Housing
      9% – Roads and Public Transport
      6% – Poverty and Welfare
      4% – Mental Health
      2% – Policing
      1% – Environment
      1% – Tax cuts
      1% – Regional investment

      (Precise wording: “The Government will announce the new budget next month. What do you think should be the main priority for any additional government spending in the budget?”)

    • tracey 3.6

      I believe I read an msm opiner online saying Bridges has internal problems. Anyway how would you know? You constantly tell us you have nothing to do with the caucus

  4. Bewildered 4

    Michael on the stats how do you see the volatility of the col polling results to national going forward. National result seem to have very low volatility to the downside ( ie rock solid) in contrast to COL while potentially having more room to the upside based on both parties best polls over the last 2 years Simiarly 2 of the coalition parties are in margin of error territory in regard to been out of parliament altogether on these number. Is it really all rosy if we also consider oil and gas policy is also not in these numbers and that while Simon is polling low it is not in combination with party which was case with Cunliffe and co

    • Matthew Whitehead 4.1

      Who’s Michael?

      And I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking here. The post actually gives model results on ending up under threshold- the Greens are very close to being out of danger of dipping under the threshold entirely if they can stay at 6%, it’s just above 6.5% iirc where it becomes a full impossibility and a party can be statistically assumed to be above threshold with 95% confidence. (ie. the same confidence as the poll itself)

      The model only gave 1.2% chance (or 24 victories) over 2,000 simulations based on this Colmar Brunton Poll of National managing a government together with ACT. I give ACT a 95% chance to re-win Epsom in that model, and currently give the Māori Party a 0% chance of re-winning a Māori electorate, which are probably charitable assumptions to National.

      It is a requirement under current polling numbers that at least one support party fall under the 5% threshold, and one of the following, for National to win:

      • Almost all of the coalition be grossly overpolling and National underpolling.
      • The other support party also falls under threshold, and Labour doesn’t end up underpolling enough relative to gain 2 more seats than them, locking them out of govt even without MMP-style support party government.

      Historically, any scenario that has multiple contingent requirements like this simply can’t be relied on based on polling- it will only happen when it happens. This is how you talk yourself into thinking you can win when you can’t.

  5. Nic the NZer 5

    “you need to add together the margins of error from both polls before checking for statistical significance,”

    This in incorrect and missleading. You have to make a mass of pretty unjustifiable assumptions to compare two polls at different times. The statistical significance (if its accurate) just tells you that only one in twenty of the same polls at the same time will differ by more than the margin.

    • Matthew Whitehead 5.1

      Well, my point was more about when you can assume something is insignificant, and purely about margins of error. Yes, there are good reasons that you would say that it’s way more complicated than that in terms of establishing significance between just two polls. (A longer trend may be significant once you’ve had many polls say the same thing with the same overall delta, as that’s an easier judgement to make)

      • Incognito 5.1.1

        You need to square the two margins of error, sum them, and then take the square root. If this number is larger than the difference between the two poll results it means that distribution of the difference includes zero and therefore the difference is not significantly different (i.e. P>0.05).

  6. Bewildered 6

    Who is Michael indeed, sorry

    What I am getting at is accepting your stats on this poll in this moment of time the col results in future polls appears a lot more volatile to the downside than national that appears rock solid,

    • SPC 6.1

      Rock solid as to continuing to be unable to govern alone (since MMP 1996) , and left with only 1 seat ACT (of former coalition partners) for support in getting a majority of parliamentary seats.

      As for National needing both NZF and Greens to go under 5% to win, this has never happened (NZF failed twice but only in extreme circumstances, break up of a caucus and sustained media coverage over undeclared party donations).

      • veutoviper 6.1.1

        Twice? Definitely in 2008 but what/when was the other occasion?

      • Bewildered 6.1.2

        I am not discussing what I want or hope simply a view on the stats are not all positive for labour Labour’s number appear implicitly a lot more volatile on the downside going forward, I think their measure of volatility been the standard deviation around their average poll result is a lot higher and skewed to the left and down side Here (this is opinion only ) I feel there is a lot more that can go wrong for the col than that for national re future polls and that labour to a degree has peaked on near term historical numbers where national where at 58pc not so long ago I also ( again opinion) feel there are votes national can steal from labour and nzf, However I don’t see this going the other way with national natural vote pretty much at the 44pc, hence rock solid view COL risk is also amplified by existential risk of nzf and greens, oil gas and irrigation policy is not in these numbers? likewise nzf is not a given for coalition this term, let alone the next

        • SPC 6.1.2.1

          History may mislead you on the range of the Labour (in government) vote. A better reference would be the post Alliance, 2002-2008, period.

          The Labour Party faced two rivals for the opposition vote (NZF and Greens who were quite high in 2011 and 2014).

          NZF has demonstrated the capacity to last a three year term in coalition (with Labour), and no waka jumping would veto Naitonal’s penchant for poaching)

          Peters clearly understands the role United played in 2002, so while NZF will run as an independent party it will be to negotiate from a position of strength. So no one will know, but …

  7. Bewildered 7

    Agree we don’t really know trying to predict future on past, Recent History has shown this is getting less useful as a predictor , things seem to change more quickly now with increased complexity on many fronts . It may only be gut feel but I feel there is more risk around col vote than national, I guess time will tell

  8. Tamati Tautuhi 8

    NZF will be 10-15% come next Election when voters realise the Natzis are stuffed for the next 6-9 years ?

    • Bewildered 8.1

      Wishful thinking , my gut feel probably gone already on oil and gas and irrigation policy and all bluster on immigration and moari issues ( Thier go to constituency ). But you never know, saying that going from 6 to below 5 is highly more likely than. 6 to 15 time will tell Note above is not comment on policy simply my opion of winstons constituencies view of such

      • Matthew Whitehead 8.1.1

        Well, indications are that their base liked the transport announcement, (which was their only real win since last poll IIRC?) and there is a real possibility that NZF’s spinning that they are all that protected existing exploration rights might actually sell in the regions. Lets wait and see, eh?

  9. Baba Yaga 9

    “right now National is looking very shambolic in those regards.”

    Did you mean to write ‘Labour’ where you wrote ‘National’? Or have you not heard of Clare Curran, Willie Jackson, Kelvin Davis or Phil Twyford? And that’s not including the non-Labour government members who look like amateurs. So far the media are being relatively gentle on the government (eg they have not dwelt on the conflicts of interest now being exposed in the PM’s own staffing), but if the government keeps up the level of dishonesty and incompetence that has characterised it’s tenure so far, the media will smell blood.

    • Matthew Whitehead 9.1

      1) I was talking about party unification, not qualifications of ministers, but that is a valid change of topic ofc. There is little indication of enthusiastic support for Bridges, so I stand by that comment, regardless of protestations to the contrary.

      2) Yes, I am aware of those ministers. I’ve openly called for Curran’s firing already, and am not personally impressed with Jackson, but have not followed him closely enough to be comfortable making a judgement yet. I’ll get to it. Davis actually has the right perspective you’d want from a corrections minister, finally, and is grappling with a very undefined and difficult portfolio in Crown-Māori relations, so I have a lot of time for him despite his having difficulties as a deputy leader, and I actually think Twyford is doing a really good job, at least within the policy parameters provided by the Labour Party, although I accept he will annoy National supporters because, well, he’s winning IMO. I agree in the long run weakness of ministers can be an issue, at least for Labour governments. Didn’t seem to hurt Bill English or John Key any though, with numerous scandals being brushed aside with “don’t know, don’t care, hey we’re still polling well!”

      • Babayaga 9.1.1

        So your saying National is shambokic because you perceive insufficient enthusiasm for Bridges? A bit of a stretch??

    • Michelle 9.2

      key was an amateur for many years and he still doesn’t know how to speak properly nek minute he mastered the art of bullshitting and in was in the house for 9 yrs promising to deliver us our brighter future this included but was not limited to mouldy hospitals for the poor and working class

      • Babayaga 9.2.1

        Key was PM for 9 years for the same reason Clark was…competence. Ardern is a lightweight by comparison.

  10. The Chairman 10

    I must say, I’m surprised the Green’s support increased.

    The feedback I’m receiving runs more inline with the internals you mentioned (that had the Greens under the threshold).

    A lot of Green supporters were/are disappointed with the oil exploration announcement, believing it didn’t go far enough. And many were/are also disappointed the transport announcement added to the fiscal burden of the poor.

    Gifting questions away also ruffled many feathers.

    Marama Davidson’s co-leadership win was widely supported.

    • Incognito 10.1

      The feedback I’m receiving …

      A lot of Green supporters were/are disappointed …

      And many were/are also disappointed …

      … ruffled many feathers.

      … was widely supported.

      Personal hear-say – did your hear it in the pub? – and so-called anecdotal evidence with unsubstantiated numbers versus a legitimate poll result. Enough said.

      • The Chairman 10.1.1

        Anecdotal evidence? Indeed. However, it is backed by Marama Davidson’s overwhelming co-leadership win and the Green’s internal polls.

    • solkta 10.2

      Feedback within your head is just feedback within your head.

      • The Chairman 10.2.1

        Unfortunately for the Greens, it’s not just feedback from within my own head. As their own polling indicates. And they are free to ignore that at the risk of their own peril.

        • Incognito 10.2.1.1

          Ahah, you have seen their internal polling; why didn’t you say so?

          Anecdotal evidence and personal bias make for interesting companions.

          • The Chairman 10.2.1.1.1

            “Ahah, you have seen their internal polling; why didn’t you say so?”

            It was in reference to this (quoted below) in the thread header above.

            “A 2% improvement for NZF and 1% improvement for the Greens. (the latter being a bigger deal than you might expect, as internals between these two polls apparently had the Greens back under threshold).”

            • Incognito 10.2.1.1.1.1

              So, have you or have you not seen the internal polling by the Greens? The word “apparently” puts the question into doubt.

              • The Chairman

                No. As I told you above, I was referring to what was said in the thread header.

                Therefore, if you want further clarity, best you direct your question to Matthew.

                • Incognito

                  Thanks for answering but like you cannot talk on behalf of the many Greens Matthew Whitehead cannot (and should not) answer on your behalf.

                  Anyway, I don’t have any further questions to you right now 😉

                  • The Chairman

                    “Matthew Whitehead cannot (and should not) answer on your behalf”

                    In no way did I imply he should.

                    You had doubts due to the use of the word “apparently”, hence I suggested you ask Matthew if you wanted further clarity.

                    • Incognito

                      No, I had doubts about you having actual & real facts, not just anecdotal evidence based on hear-say. And I established that you had not and still have not. Thus, I agree with solkta @ 10.2 about your confirmation bias being on show (again).

                    • The Chairman

                      You stated: “’apparently’ puts the question into doubt.”

                      Which is why I suggested you ask Matthew.

                      As for your doubts about me having actual & real facts, I’ve always conceded the feedback was anecdotal evidence. Therefore, you established nothing. However, it is backed by Marama Davidson’s overwhelming co-leadership win and the Green’s internal polls, apparently.

                      Additionally, the feedback I’ve had predicted the Greens decline in the previous Colmar Brunton Poll and Newshub-Reid Research Poll.

                      And what exactly do you think this bias you are accusing me of having is? I voted Green.

                  • The Chairman

                    “You cannot talk on behalf of the many Greens”

                    I was relaying the feedback a good number of Green supporters have expressed, I wasn’t speaking on their behalf.

                    • Incognito

                      I agree, you only speak on your own behalf with your interpretation of their feedback, which we cannot verify in any way.

                      You have conceded nothing and just keep going around chasing your own tail. I don’t need Matthew to confirm this for me because it is literally on show in your comments.

                      You seem to have your fingers firmly stuck in your ears and the only pulse you’re feeling or think you’re ‘measuring’ is that of your own making.

                      What has your voting preference got to do with your bias? Nothing and everything, apparently.

                      I’m getting tired and bored of this and I hope next time you’ll present some hard facts & figures and not some arm-waving mimed biased Wayang.

                  • The Chairman

                    If you wish to establish how close my finger is to the pulse, you could always try clarifying with Matthew re the Greens internal polling.

                  • The Chairman

                    As I predicted (on here) the Greens decline in the previous Colmar Brunton Poll and Newshub-Reid Research Poll, the feedback and my interpretation of it has been verified.

                    And apparently, verified again, by the Greens internals.

                    I’ve always conceded the feedback was anecdotal evidence. Therefore, your claim I conceded nothing is kaka.

                    I’m not running around chasing my own tail, merely correcting you rubbish.

                    I voted Green, hence I’m not bias against them.

  11. lurgee 11

    While Bridges is going to struggle to make an impact, with a shiny new government installed, I wouldn’t be trying to write him off just yet. The problem for Shearer, Cunliffe and Little was that they failed to make an impression against an incumbent government, and didn’t change.

    I am more worried that Ardern is only getting 37% support as preferred PM. In 2016, it was a hock when Key polled that low, after about a million years in power.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2016/06/newshub-poll-keys-popularity-plummets-to-lowest-level.html

    • Tamati Tautuhi 11.1

      They loved JohnKey the beer swilling man next door best m8’s with Ritchie McCaw.

      • lurgee 11.1.1

        Yeah, that’s kinda my point. Ardern is PM. Usually that means a boost – even people who don’t instinctively support the PM’s party will often give them support in preferred PM. But Ardern – in spite of being quite lovely and pregnant and actually shown herself to be actually really quite good at representing New Zealand and being PM – is stuck on 37%.

        Inpsite of spending acres of pixels on proclaiming how badly Bridges (I accidentally wrote Key there – sorry, Simon!) and National are doing, skirted around this rather worrying point. I think it needs to be acknowledged. Though – as I recall the endless claims that David Cunliffe was “Doing really well” – I doubt we’ll get it.

        • tracey 11.1.1.1

          It doesnt mean squat against a well oiled machine with an existing strategy. Rolling out Key V2.0

          If Bridges hasnt been getting intensive training I will go hee

          When he is ready the well oiled machine will go full bore and the media will lap it up.

          Tracy Watkins says she had written Bridges off for next election but has changed her mibd. WTF

  12. Philg 12

    These polls are just job creation for the jabbering classes, and the polling companies. Not much different from the perpetual bank surveys, or Jim Mora’s ‘ An overseas survey says… ‘ I switch off and wonder how many others do.

  13. tracey 13

    No offence but I hate that polls get so much oxygen. Like clicking on Hosking. You encourage it. I reckon more kiwis can tell you a poll result than can tell you what is happening at Middlemore, Chch hospital… Dunedin hospital, teacher shortages, midwife shortages, nurses appalling conditions etc etc

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    5 days ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    6 days ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    2 weeks ago