Pollwatch: Colmar Brunton poll released 2020-07-30

Written By: - Date published: 7:30 am, July 31st, 2020 - 54 comments
Categories: act, david seymour, elections, greens, Judith Collins, labour, national, nz first, polls, Shane Jones, winston peters - Tags: , , , , ,

Another day, another poll! So, we can see from the party vote trend here that CB is sharply disagreeing with the other two regular pollsters over what’s going on in this election. My internet access is still spotty for another week, so apologies if there’s any relevant list rankings news missed here!

National says Curia looks a lot more like CB- to me, that actually reinforces that they’re both using phone-only polling and it’s causing them trouble getting their methodology right, but I’m sure there will be other takes as to what’s going on. I don’t think any of the last few polls have been “rogue” looking at this trend, this is a result of differing leans because of differing methodologies, and 2017 was definitely better predicted by the polling methodologies that have Labour trending up and National trending down.

TVNZ gives Collins’ approval as “+27” in their reporting, but also notes that a total of 56% approved and 23% disapproved- making that figure consistent with the way Reid Research reports it (and what I understand a “net approval rating” to mean…) gives her a +33% net approval. This is a useful point of comparison to Reid Research, who had her on +8.7%, as there really should have been minimal positive change to approval or negative change to disapproval  for Collins between the two polls with Collins only making a fool of herself in the meantime, so there’s a definite difference in lean between CB and RR lately, given they have her approves about 16 points higher and her disapproves about 8 lower. As above, given RR was closer to predicting last election and also aligns better with the National/Labour trend from Roy Morgan, I am more inclined to believe it overall on approval rating.

As before, the party vote analysis is full-blown red again for this poll, so I’ll give you how often my random simulations decided the smaller parties were under threshold, as well as the overall trend. 2017 showed a strong NZF trend around this time, and the shape of the race never really turned, and it successfully predicted to result- I would expect at LEAST a significant green chunk to need to show up on our trend again for a coalition government to eventuate in 2020.

The incidence of the smaller incumbent parties going under threshold in this simulation was:
Greens: 51.2% of simulations
NZF: All simulations
ACT: 62.8% of simulations
The Greens should approach 50%, so this is likely an unfriendly simulation run for them, but it’s notable that there wasn’t a single government where Labour required their help within the margin of error here.

Finally, the list analysis. Again, this analysis is based on trying to determine how many electorates won/lost, and I don’t stand by individual seat calls. I’ve tweaked it a little bit, as looking at historical elections where National is behind, they were losing too few electorate seats. The model now assumes about an eleventh of the vote is uninfluenced by the 2017 electorate vote, and that they will vote two ticks for parties whose party votes have improved since 2017. Unrelated to this change, National’s improved party vote in this poll has won them back Northland from Shane Jones in the model, meaning no New Zealand First returning without a sharp change of fortune.

These party vote results give us electorate totals of:

ACT: 1
Labour: 39
National: 32

And thus the following Parliament:

I predict that if the election were held over this poll’s field period, we’d see the following MPs delivered in on the National list: (assuming it mirrors their caucus rankings)

3 Paul Goldsmith
7 Chris Bishop
12 Michael Woodhouse
13 Nicola Willis
16 Melissa Lee
18 Nick Smith
19 Alfred Ngaro
21 Harete Hipango
24 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi

It also loses them the following incumbents:

28 Lawrence Yule
29 Denise Lee
30 Parmjeet Parmar
31 Brett Hudson
34 Jo Hayes
39 Maureen Pugh
41 Agnes Loheni
42 Paulo Garcia

In from the Labour list would be: (no incumbents predicted to lose seats)

7 Andrew Little
9 David Parker
11  Trevor Mallard
15  Kris Faafoi
17  Ayesha Verrall
19  Willie Jackson
20  Aupito William Sio
22  Vanushi Walters
27  Louisa Wall
30  Camilla Belich
32  Jan Tinetti
34  Marja Lubeck
35  Angie Warren-Clark
36  Willow-Jean Prime
38  Naisi Chen
39  Jo Luxton
40  Jamie Strange
41  Liz Craig
42  Ibrahim Omer
43  Duncan Webb
44  Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki
46  Rachel Brooking
50  Angela Roberts
51  Shanan Halbert
54  Lemauga Lydia Sosene
56  Dan Rosewarne
60  Soraya Peke-Mason
61  Lotu Fuli

New Labour Electorate Winners:

25  Kiri Allan
26  Kieran McAnulty
31  Priyanca Radhakrishnan
45  Ginny Andersen
48  Helen White
52  Neru Leavasa
55  Steph Lewis
57  Rachel Boyack
– Anna Lorck

And on the Greens’ list, this would give us:

1 Marama Davidson In
2 James Shaw In
3 Chlöe Swarbrick In
4 Julie Anne Genter In
5 Jan Logie In
6 Eugenie Sage In
7 Golriz Ghahraman Out

Will provide ACT’s expected list MPs when I get my hands on their party list, but I assume there are 5 friends of David Seymour, whether or not one of them is also named David Seymour.

54 comments on “Pollwatch: Colmar Brunton poll released 2020-07-30 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. Craig H 2
    31 July 2020 at 8:56 am

    Duncan Webb is highly likely to retain Christchurch Central (he beat a sitting minister last time and it's historically a Labour seat), so probably won't need to come in on the list.

    That minor point aside, I always like your work, thank you for putting these together.

    • Anthony Rimell 2.1
      31 July 2020 at 10:18 am

      Agree with this point.

      Also, I assume that in your assessment the change of Labour candidate in Port Hills (now to be Banks Pensinsula) from Ruth Dyson (who is retiring) to Tracey McLlellan is viewed by you as 'no change'? This is a 'correct' assessment as not a gain, but a little bit misleading.

      Is there a way of capturing this, or am I focusing too much on the trees and so missing the wood?

      • Craig H 2.1.1
        31 July 2020 at 10:24 pm

        Ruth and Tracey don't appear on either list, so I guess we mentally remove Duncan from the likely list candidates, but figure Tracey is being elected either way on current polling. That said, on current polling, likely Labour electorate MPs are all high enough on the list that it doesn't make any difference.

  3. Dennis Frank 3
    31 July 2020 at 9:04 am

    I heard the One News political editor mention that the CB poll had 14% undecided. That suggests more volatility than the RR poll (someone wrote here that had 6 or 7% undecided). So best to assume that different polling methodologies is just part of the explanation for different results from polling companies.

    A large pool of voters who are likely to shift their preference from week to week make campaigning a chore for planners. Manufacturing good news or propaganda then becomes a weekly task for the diligent schemers.

    I think we can safely say that the Greens's decision to pitch their economic policy to the poor has failed. No sign of the missing million thinking "Cool, finally we have a political party serious about representing us. Let's vote for them!". If that was a realistic prospect the Greens would have lifted at least a point or two.

    • Sacha 3.1
      31 July 2020 at 9:09 am

      Reducing poverty is important not only to poor people.

    • woodart 3.2
      31 July 2020 at 9:30 am

      no dennis, we can safely say that people who assume things like you have, mostly are proven wrong.

      • Dennis Frank 3.2.1
        31 July 2020 at 9:45 am

        Well, I wrote here yesterday that I expected the Greens to arrive at 9% in the election, so I'm as much optimist as realist, eh? If that happens, you'll be proven right about the assumption. Could be the poor don't get asked their opinion by pollsters, eh? Or if asked, they decline to respond due to lack of civic motivation.

        • left_forward 3.2.1.1
          31 July 2020 at 10:21 am

          But you think that achieving this 9% is more important than the principle of equity?

          • Dennis Frank 3.2.1.1.1
            31 July 2020 at 10:29 am

            No, I agree that equity is essential. That particular provision they designed, I'm unconvinced is fit for purpose. But hey, I'm no leftist. Let the market decide…

        • novacastrian 3.2.1.2
          31 July 2020 at 2:34 pm

          Don't worry about it too much Dennis, there are those of us on this site who are sufficiently balanced, and indeed have the intellect to identify as you have, that the Greens along with NZ First are both political Road-Kill.

          The whole tax is love dogma was the final nail in their coffin.

          You did identify the elephant in the room though, the silent 14%. This could be a real wildcard come election night.

          Labour will win the election in their own right, but not by a landslide, yet a healthy margin of perhaps 5-6 seats.

          • observer 3.2.1.2.1
            31 July 2020 at 2:45 pm

            You have the intellect? Well done.

            But "Greens are road-kill" is not based on polls, or precedent, or analysis of voter behaviour (e.g. how MMP voters react when a party is predicted to govern alone).

            What is it based on?

    • Bearded Git 3.3
      31 July 2020 at 10:28 am

      I don't think people have the phone on the hook re policies at the moment….in another 5 weeks time when advanced voting starts they will have noticed the Greens policy.

      The Greens don't "pitch" their policies….it is what they believe in as the only truly progressive party in NZ.

    • Stuart Munro 3.4
      31 July 2020 at 10:34 am

      It's likely more a reflection of their performance in government. Probably mostly due to NZF queering the pitch (Though it was Parker who apparently sabotaged the freshwater reform), the Greens have few credible claims to present to their constituency beyond what they would have achieved from opposition.

      Their social policy stance is actually pretty sound – the problem is getting it past coalition partners. And if you can't get policy implemented, it is, however attractive, meaningless.

    • swordfish 3.5
      31 July 2020 at 2:55 pm

      I heard the One News political editor mention that the CB poll had 14% undecided. That suggests more volatility than the RR poll (someone wrote here that had 6 or 7% undecided).

      Not all that much volatility:

      Colmar Brunton (Undecideds + Refused)

      Last 6 Polls: … 18% … 17% … 17% … 16% … 15% … 14%

      (Or just Undecideds)

      Last 6 Polls: … 14% … 13% … 13% … 11% … 10% … 10%

      And bear in mind, these are generally hardcore Undecideds, most staying home on Election Day. Pundits tend to overrate their importance.

      • Craig H 3.5.1
        31 July 2020 at 10:28 pm

        My basic theory on it is that undecideds tend toward Winston (stick it to the Man!) and away from the Greens, but other than that, have a limited impact.

  4. Brendan 4
    31 July 2020 at 11:19 am

    All the more reason to consider voting Green if you are a left leaning voter. A strong progressive coalition.

  5. Dawn Trenberth 5
    31 July 2020 at 11:26 am

    Aupito William Sio has the safe seat of Mangere so wont be coming in on the list. Also Romy Udanga is a sitting mp and number 70 on the list so likely will not be back.

  6. Gosman 6
    31 July 2020 at 11:29 am

    I'll help you out with the ACT list

    1 David Seymour In

    2 Brooke van Velden In

    3 Nicole McKee In

    4 Chris Baillie In

    5 Simon Court In

    6 James McDowall In

  7. Gosman 7
    31 July 2020 at 11:31 am

    Given how ACT has performed to date in the campaign I would expect it to get between 5 and 7 % on the night

    • Sacha 7.1
      31 July 2020 at 11:33 am

      A lot of gun buyback money to help with their campaign expenses this time too.

    • Tricledrown 7.2
      31 July 2020 at 12:20 pm

      Considering they are cannibalizing National voters because of their dumbarse and despicable behaviour.

      National will need to keep their powder dry no more misteps or scandals till voting day .ACT will drop back.

      National will have to appeal to the hard right ,conspiracy theorist's etc.at the same time trying to appeal to centrists.

      Seymour's cancelling the $25 welfare top up doesn't do National any favors especially in the middle of a global financial meltdown.Stupid idea even Boris Johnston reckons it's better to bailout mainstreet than Wall St.

      You would think Seymour would cancell the $60 billion bank bailout.No he wants to go after the poorest who spend in the economy and not speculate like the banks encourage.

      • Gosman 7.2.1
        31 July 2020 at 2:26 pm

        Incorrect. They are getting votes from NZ First before National. National tends to be losing supporters to Labour

    • woodart 7.3
      31 July 2020 at 1:11 pm

      in a roundabout way I hope you are correct gosman. that many actoids in parliament will really shine a light on their lack of depth, and general foolishness. and seymour would spend most of his time putting out fires.

      • observer 7.3.1
        31 July 2020 at 1:23 pm

        "Seymour would spend most of his time putting out fires".

        Roger Douglas was an ACT MP (often forgotten). Before 2008 Key had to explicitly rule out having Douglas in his (future) government, because Roger was so toxic to potential Nat/swing voters.

        The next National leader will spend a lot of time being asked "Do you rule out this fringe person or proposal from ACT?". Should be fun.

        • Sacha 7.3.1.1
          31 July 2020 at 1:39 pm

          Could ratchet up tension between the shooting and moderate factions in the Nats. Bring it on.

        • woodart 7.3.1.2
          31 July 2020 at 2:16 pm

          yes, wonder if the media would put as much effort into trying to divide act and nats as they have with nzfirst and labour?

    • te reo putake 7.4
      31 July 2020 at 1:19 pm

      I agree with your guess Gosman, but not the reasoning.

      ACT's best ever results came when Labour won power (1999 and 2002). In both elections, it was reasonably clear that National were either going to need help to form a Government or were simply not going to make it at all.

      My read is that a small, but politically aware portion of Nat voters chose ACT as a safeguard. That's what's happening now; some Nats are going to vote ACT because they've nothing to lose.

      Having said that, I did refer to Rimmer as the leader of the opposition in the CB poll post. To be fair to him, he's done a pretty good job. Of course, that's far easier to achieve when you have a united caucus 😉

      • Gosman 7.4.1
        31 July 2020 at 2:29 pm

        I can tell you that while ACT is getting some support from ex-National supporters they are gaining potential voters from across the divide but mainly ex-NZ First at this stage.

        • observer 7.4.1.1
          31 July 2020 at 2:47 pm

          You've said this a few times, and I agree it's very plausible (given ACT's recent positioning) but do you have any evidence?

        • te reo putake 7.4.1.2
          31 July 2020 at 2:47 pm

          I can't see that happening, Gosman. There aren't enough NZ First voters to make a significant difference to ACT's vote and most NZF folk are socially conservative, not libertarian. I'd see them as more likely to go with the various nutter parties that have popped up in recent times than an urban elitist outfit like ACT.

          • McFlock 7.4.1.2.1
            31 July 2020 at 3:58 pm

            In 2017, a quarter of NZ1 party voters split vote to Rimmer (30% voted for the NZ1 candidate). 19% of NZ1 voters voted for the nat candidate.

            Assuming the ones voting for Goldsmith were rationally trying to nobble the cup of tea and the ones voting for Rimmer were trying to get a right-wing govt (nat/nz1/act), there's a certain amount of play in one of the more well-to-do right wing electorates. But if a quarter is all act can get from the urban elites, not sure how much of the overall party vote it would gain from an NZ1 implosion.

          • Maurice 7.4.1.2.2
            31 July 2020 at 10:28 pm

            For an "urban elitist outfit" Seymour is gaining considerable traction with the farming community – especially on his (and the Party President's) forays into Southern regions. They are not called the 'squatocracy' down there for nothing … and are every bit as elitist as their urban counter-parts. The amount of money and support for ACT the inclusion of fifteen Licenced firearms owners in ACT's Party List (and Nicole McKee there as #3) has made available shows just how seriously Seymour is taking these demographics.

            I believe there are going to be some surprises at the scope and size of the Act Party Vote

          • Uncle Scrim 7.4.1.2.3
            1 August 2020 at 1:20 pm

            Yes I'd have thought a lot of NZF voters would be strongly opposed to euthanasia (and cannabis of course), so I wouldn't think they'd embrace Seymour, who has built quite a bit of his profile on the End of Life Choice issue. To be fair, ACT are probably benefiting from looking more competent and stable than National – a low bar to be sure.

            The more interesting question is what will National try to do to win back voters from ACT?

        • Drowsy M. Kram 7.4.1.3
          31 July 2020 at 3:03 pm

          Without the National party's Epsom electorate ‘lifeline‘, ACT would have ‘perished‘ years ago. Come September, will some National party MPs have cause to regret that lifeline?

        • woodart 7.4.1.4
          31 July 2020 at 6:16 pm

          doing a gosman here. prove your claims..are you hanging out in phone booths i.e. act party meetings, and actually asking new faces where they are from, or are you guessing gossy

        • woodart 7.4.1.5
          31 July 2020 at 6:18 pm

          evidence?

        • Grafton Gully 7.4.1.6
          31 July 2020 at 7:07 pm

          Hey Gosman, do you know of any data that the Green's Wealth Tax is deterring potential Green voters ? If so please share. Thanks !!!

          • Binders full of women 7.4.1.6.1
            1 August 2020 at 8:03 am

            That data will be confirmed or not after the September election. Usually it is the poor who hate greens and rich who love them. (party votes 300! In Mangere vs 4..5..thousand in Devonport and Khandallah). How will the 2% on 2 mil deter the leafy-suburb greens?

  8. Uncle Scrim 8
    31 July 2020 at 2:42 pm

    After 24 years of MMP elections it's remarkable that we are likely to get a Parliament much more akin to the FPTP years. At the 2005 and 2011 elections 8 parties were elected to Parliament. This time it looks like 4 max.

    • Scott 8.1
      31 July 2020 at 10:17 pm

      Think you're right and think it's down to MMP having reached a level of maturity that means it no longer does what it was asked to do.

      Would like to see the system evolve.

      Would prefer to see a system that has multiple mps within electorates that enables more mps from minor parties into parliament

  9. RedBaronCV 9
    31 July 2020 at 3:03 pm

    Well if I was writing the slogans :

    Vote ACT get guns

    Vote National get covid

    Vote Labour get fairness

    Vote Greens lose global warming

    Thanks for the work in your post. Will use it to reassure the younger crowd who fear Judith

    And does this mean Nick Smith is toast? Do we have the Nact list yet or are they holding back – because on current polling most candidates would be better not campaigning but hanging on to their day job. Actually the thought of National not really bothering to campaign in a lot of electorates cheers me up.

    • Chris T 9.1
      31 July 2020 at 5:09 pm

      "Vote ACT get guns

      Vote National get covid

      Vote Labour get fairness

      Vote Greens lose global warming"

      Lol Ffs

      • xanthe 9.1.1
        31 July 2020 at 7:03 pm

        Vote ACT get guns

        Vote National get covid

        Vote Greens get racism

        Vote Labour get Jacinda

        fairly easy decision !

        • The Al1en 9.1.1.1
          31 July 2020 at 7:16 pm

          Vote Greens get racism

          How so?

        • Chris T 9.1.1.2
          31 July 2020 at 7:27 pm

          I'd go with

          Vote ACT get the only MP that has done anything in the last 3 years, but wouldn't vote for them.

          Vote National get nothing particularly inspiring

          Vote Greens get nothing, because they don't understand they have power.and are getting a bit pointless

          Vote Labour get a figurehead and broken promises

          Vote NZF get someone who just bloxks the figureheads stuff

  10. observer 10
    31 July 2020 at 3:09 pm

    A useful summary here by David Cormack (usually paywalled, but not currently):

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/39896413

    A reminder that the 2017 comparisons, often made in media commentary, are simply wrong. Labour in 2017 had a lot of opposition votes available to harvest. National 2020 have to get their (intended) votes directly from the government.

  11. Riff.s 11
    31 July 2020 at 5:48 pm

    It is fair to say that when Ardern became leader of the labour party she had one job: convince the Greens to support a Labour – New Zealand First coalition. The numbers were there.

    What the media called Jacindamania was basically Labour regaining its historical support that had been lost to the Greens and New Zealand First during the years of insipid leadership from Goff, Cunliffe, Shearer, and Little. Not until Covid did Ardern gain support at the expense of National.

    Collins has a far greater mountain to climb and she has to do it against a more popular opponent. This is not 2017.

  12. Binders full of women 12
    1 August 2020 at 7:57 am

    Kiri Allen? To win? That will be interesting, she's worked really hard on the ground but Tolley had a decent majority. Tolleys out and Tania Tapsell is running.

  13. DS 13
    2 August 2020 at 12:13 am

    Obvious point, again: if Labour is winning the party vote 53%-32%, it is winning more than 39 electorates.

    Unless you are expecting absolutely insane levels of split voting, that sort of margin (a 14% swing from National to Labour, the biggest since 1935) would knock National under 20 electorate MPs.

  14. Maurice 14
    2 August 2020 at 3:46 pm

    As the Left Wing and Right Wing battle – perhaps someone with two wings will emerge and fly straight through the middle?