Reid poll

67 comments on “Reid poll ”

• Comments are now closed

1. james 1

   22 March 2017 at 10:36 am

   “I see a poll where Labour leadership is within striking distance of Nat leadership, for the first time in quite a while”

   What ? If you add Ardern and Little, you might get above bill.

   Its possible – but Im doubting that Little will be adding much to that %age.

   But the main point is 47 vs 30 – And we all know Winny will talk to the largest party first.

   Still not looking good for Labour.
   • r0b 1.1

     22 March 2017 at 10:47 am

     47 vs 42 (Labour Green coalition), and if you think you “know” anything about Peters you’re dreaming.
     • weka 1.1.1

       22 March 2017 at 10:50 am

       Well we do know that he’s an unknown, which IMO is the most important thing to understand about him when considering who to vote for 😉
     • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.2

       22 March 2017 at 1:33 pm

       FYI, Labour was actually slightly ahead in the recent RM, which was 43.5 vs 44, to use the same ordering you did in describing the Reid Research poll.

       Both polls have NZF controlling who forms the government if the election were to follow their results.
     • Phil 1.1.3

       22 March 2017 at 2:43 pm

       if you think you “know” anything about Peters you’re dreaming.

       We know that Peters’ is not some mythical Magic Eight Ball of randomness or unpredictability.

       Regardless of the pop-culture meme that Winston is an electoral wild card, it’s far from the truth. He has, like any politician would, always chosen the option that gives himself and his party the greatest power or influence to wield. It’s not surprising, or unpredictable, in any way whatsoever.

       It also means that Labour has a lot of ground to make up, or they’re going to be shit out of luck.
       • weka 1.1.3.1

         22 March 2017 at 3:45 pm

         “He has, like any politician would, always chosen the option that gives himself and his party the greatest power or influence to wield.”

         That’s not the problem. The problem is that too many left voters still seem to think he’s a safe bet. Which he patently isn’t, by his very own positioning.
   • weka 1.2

     22 March 2017 at 10:48 am

     Someone in the MSM needs to ask Peters if he will talk first with L/G if they have more votes than National.

     Voting NZF and changing the govt are not the same thing.
     • Antoine 1.2.1

       22 March 2017 at 11:01 am

       He so doesn’t answer questions like that
       • james 1.2.1.1

         22 March 2017 at 11:02 am

         yes he does – he said that their “polls were dribble”.

         So he answers the question – just not very helpfully 😉
       • weka 1.2.1.2

         22 March 2017 at 11:17 am

         “He so doesn’t answer questions like that”

         Good. Because then the message for left wing voters is that Peters refused to say whether he would consider the L/G bloc, and thus cannot be trusted.

         The question still needs to be asked.
         • Grantoc 1.2.1.2.1

           22 March 2017 at 2:08 pm

           You didn’t already know this about Peters – that he can’t be trusted?

           That’s been one of his defining characteristics since he entered parliament.

           I wouldn’ t trust or rely on him if I was Labour (or national for that matter)
           • weka 1.2.1.2.1.1

             22 March 2017 at 2:16 pm

             I already knew. My comment was about lefties who still think NZF is a viable vote.
             • Antoine …

               22 March 2017 at 11:27 pm

               Is there anyone who actually thinks like this?
               • weka …

                 22 March 2017 at 11:46 pm

                 Yes.
                 • Antoine …

                   23 March 2017 at 4:11 am

                   Oh dear
       • MikeS 1.2.1.3

         23 March 2017 at 4:51 pm

         Yes he does. He’s always stated that NZF will first talk to the party that gets the most votes on election night. He’s always said that and has always done that.
     • Matthew Whitehead 1.2.2

       22 March 2017 at 3:42 pm

       Hahaha Peters is much more likely to tell an average voter what he thinks than he is to tell the Media. He’s been playing the “lügenpresse” game even longer than Trump has.

       That said, I sent him a very friendly tweet asking for clarification just in case he thinks it’s obvious what the answer is and got distracted by how much he hates Newshub when asked to comment.
       • weka 1.2.2.1

         22 March 2017 at 3:46 pm

         Did Shub actually ask him already?
         • weka 1.2.2.1.1

           22 March 2017 at 3:50 pm

           Crikey mate, that was a bit vague.

           Peters’ tweets sound like him though, I wonder if he writes them himself.
     • red-blooded 1.2.3

       22 March 2017 at 8:06 pm

       Peters has always said that he’d deal with the largest party first. This does suggest problems, as L/G are not one party (plus his antipathy towards the Greens is well-known and longstanding). I hope I’m wrong, but I do think we should be concerned about the idea of Winston choosing who forms the next government.
       • weka 1.2.3.1

         22 March 2017 at 8:46 pm

         So either that means he would first deal with National. Or, he’s going with the intent of MMP and he would deal with L/G first if they had higher numbers. But given Peters has monkeywrenched MMP I also don’t have much hope. More likely is he will imply something and then just do whatever afterwards.

         This stuff really needs to be clarified by the MSM during the election campaign.
         • red-blooded 1.2.3.1.1

           22 March 2017 at 11:08 pm

           Ought to be, yes, but will it be? I’m not holding my breath; Peters blusters and bamboozles and they see it as kinda cute and let him walk away smiling.
         • Pete George 1.2.3.1.2

           23 March 2017 at 6:41 am

           But L/G ends on election day. It is a campaign arrangement with an end date before coalition wrangling begins.

           Labour obviously want to keep their coalition options open. Particularly if NZ First gets more votes than Greens (a distinct possibility, if voters dump National they are more likely to vote NZF than Greens).

           The MSM can’t clarify what Peters will do before the election. I doubt Labour will clarify what their strategy is either.

           Remember that Labour has shat all over the Maori and Mana Parties and has ruled out dealing with them. That leaves either NZF or Greens.

           Unless Labour+Greens can for a majority on their own the Greens are in a weak bargaining position.

           [BLiP: Provide evidence of Labour having “ruled out dealing with [maori and Mana parties]” in your very next comment or do not post here again for one week. Up to you.]
           • weka 1.2.3.1.2.1

             23 March 2017 at 12:02 pm

             “The MSM can’t clarify what Peters will do before the election. I doubt Labour will clarify what their strategy is either.”

             I’m not suggesting the MSM to clarify, I’m suggesting that they ask the questions. It’s up to Peters to clarify or not.

             I already know that Labour and the Greens want to change the govt. Neither will support the formation of a 4th National govt. Same cannot be said for NZF (or TOP). I think both Labour and the Greens *are clear. Not sure what you are confused about.
           • james 1.2.3.1.2.2

             24 March 2017 at 9:24 am

             I know the moderation comment wasnt for me – but here would be an example:

             “Jackson coming on board is an “expression of the frustration and just abandoning the Maori Party because they’re so hopeless and have done nothing for Maori,” Little said.

             “Maori are looking elsewhere and so they should,” he told Radio NZ.

             Little has also ruled out working with the Maori Party after the election saying, “I’ll be looking to parties who have substance”.”

             http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/89623055/Political-attacks-are-in-full-swing-as-Labour-and-the-Maori-Party-go-head-to-head-for-the-Maori-seats
2. Jordan 2

   22 March 2017 at 10:38 am

   How is 8% within striking distance of 25%? Classic left-wing delusion.
   • r0b 2.1

     22 March 2017 at 10:49 am

     18% want a PM from Labour, 25% want a Nat. Classic right-wing comprehension fail.
     • MikeS 2.1.1

       23 March 2017 at 4:58 pm

       Does that mean that of the 30 odd percent who said they would vote Labour, 40 % don’t want a Labour PM?

       This preferred PM thing has always confused the fuck out of me. If Little and Adern make up 18% of voters PM preference then over 80% of voters (which would include a large number of Labour voters) don’t want a Labour PM? Well who do those Labour voters want as PM then??

       I guess it confuses me because for me if I say I’m going to vote Labour then my preferred PM is automatically the leader of the Labour party. Am I missing something here?
   • Psycho Milt 2.2

     22 March 2017 at 10:56 am

     Try reading up on how MMP works. We don’t vote for Prime Minister in this country.
     • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.1

       22 March 2017 at 3:52 pm

       Oh I’m pretty sure a fair amount of Nat voters do vote based on the likely PM, it’s probably part of why their vote sucked when Bill English and Don Brash were leaders.
3. Cynical jester 3

   22 March 2017 at 10:39 am

   Its not a bad result. Labour seems to be stripping support from nzf in this and and yesterdays Roy Morgan. We could potentially govern with labour/nf with greens and maori party on confidence and supply on both polls. I’d rather a full labour /greens govt but nz can’t go through a fourth term of this government, we need change.
   • Enough is Enough 3.1

     22 March 2017 at 11:52 am

     That is the best we can hope for on these numbers because I still cannot see Winston working with two parties when he has the ability to work with only one.

     The big question is would the Greens support being locked out again and give the confidence to that arrangement.

     Everyone needs to know that a vote for Winston will either return English to power, or lock the Greens out.

     DO NOT vote NZ First.
     • weka 3.1.1

       22 March 2017 at 1:08 pm

       Pretty much, although I think it’s more likely that he would choose National anyway.
     • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.2

       22 March 2017 at 4:02 pm

       Do we actually know that?

       I still don’t pretend to understand exactly how Winston makes coalition decisions even to this day. Sure, he could potentially be top dog for three years going with the Nats, but last time he tried that it really hurt both him and his party politically, wheras he did very well working with Labour, delivered on a lot of his priorities and grew his party vote.

       Maybe he personally doesn’t like the Greens a ton, (I suspect that’s the real reason he locked them out of coalition when he and Dunne had the numbers) but everyone else in his party has been working together with them really well in opposition, and they’ve been aligning both on criticisms of the government and on some important policy issues. That seems like a lot of work to do for someone you totally intend to stab in the back and lock out of government at any chance you get.

       Winston is staying mum because he knows he can court both sides if he does. He likely has a preferred option, (and I don’t pretend to know what it is, in fact I hope he clarifies how he intends to decide before we vote) but he almost always does well when it looks likely he could work with either Labour or National.

       It’s also worth noting that the Party is a bit less of a cult of personality than it’s been previously. Members and MPs are conscious that Winston won’t be around forever, even if he’s nigh impossible to lock out of Parliament for good, at some point he will want to retire, and it may be soon. Once that point comes, the Party will need to have a consistent ideology and direction so it doesn’t fall apart without its charismatic leader. Part of that involves thinking about its long-term direction and who else in Parliament aligns with that- and on all of the not-so-racist parts of their platform, that’s essentially the Greens and Labour, and there are at least a few prominent members and MPs of NZF who see things that way too.

       I agree with your conclusion not to trust NZ First (yet) if you’re committed to changing the government, but you’re being a bit hasty about determining that they’re actually on the other side.
       • Enough is Enough 3.1.2.1

         23 March 2017 at 10:14 am

         “wheras he did very well working with Labour, delivered on a lot of his priorities and grew his party vote”

         You might want to look back at your history.

         Winston was voted out of Parliament after working with Labour. It may not have been caused by Labour but he certainly did not grow his party vote while working with them.
   • james 3.2

     22 March 2017 at 12:18 pm

     Why would the Maori Party go with Labour when Little has been acting the way he has?
     • weka 3.2.1

       22 March 2017 at 12:26 pm

       Because they’re not petty and vindictive and this isn’t a children’s sandpit. Instead they will go with the party that has the best policy match and best offer of power and effect for Māori. In previous elections the Mp have gone back to their people to ask who they should support.
     • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.2

       22 March 2017 at 7:12 pm

       The MP know Little’s reaction is based on their determination not to lock themselves into a permanent relationship with either Labour or National, and feel like things will change if they’re needed to sidestep Winston in the future.
4. Sanctuary 4

   22 March 2017 at 10:46 am

   A quarter of those questioned were from “an internet panel”, presumably to save $$$. I don’t think this poll is worth anything.
5. MG 5

   22 March 2017 at 11:26 am

   There’s been very little coverage of the most recent Roy Morgan – is that because it bounces around more than a trampoline on a car roof?
   • Matthew Whitehead 5.1

     22 March 2017 at 1:31 pm

     All polls bounce.

     RM has been pretty stable throughout 2017, (I’ve been tracking poll data since 2016, where RM has a single rogue poll, which is where all these comments about it being unreliable have originated. One rogue poll in 20 is the expected rate for rogue polls, and RM actually has less rogues than Colmar Brunton does, and they’re both under 1 in 20 in terms of polls that, with hindsight, look like rogues) always bouncing by amounts that you would expect given the margin of error.

     It’s also the only regularly scheduled poll on New Zealand politics, so it’s inherently more reliable than all of the others because you can form a trend from it on its own, wheras the others essentially need the RM data to be able to form any kind of useful picture about political trends over time.
     • weka 5.1.1

       22 March 2017 at 2:17 pm

       So you think the Green % is accurate this time?
       • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.1.1

         22 March 2017 at 7:19 pm

         I expect we’ll probably see at least an 11% result at the general election for the Greens, yes. It could be higher, but the Greens are a little hard to nail down because they overpoll so consistently, but by varying amounts. If the Greens get the 14.5% result than the RM gives them from time to time, they’ll probably be pretty happy with that, (especially the Greens placed around position #18 on the list…) but it’s also given them results around 11.5% too, so RM isn’t out of the norm.

         I expect this is just a natural bounciness you expect when a party’s result isn’t actually changing a ton and the movement is mostly down to oscillation within the margin of error- this is roughly the sort of range of results you’d expect if the Greens have a consistent level of support of about 12-13% of the country.
6. adam 6

   22 March 2017 at 12:28 pm

   I know some here have a real fetish for polls, but I think they are just another weapon to put off voters.

   I’d like to see them talked about less.
   • Matthew Whitehead 6.1

     22 March 2017 at 1:27 pm

     Polls are indicative. They should be talked about a little, but not used as a bludgeon too much.

     The important part of this one is that it confirms the RM’s results that National has lost ground after announcing its Super policy, confirming what we all thought: it was a dumb idea to make cutting entitlement to Super into an election issue.
     • adam 6.1.1

       22 March 2017 at 2:18 pm

       And that is exactly the type fetish talk I’m talking about, thanks for the example Matthew Whitehead.

       But the reality is they are used to bludgeon poor people not to vote. So even a little talk at this point is bad.
       • Phil 6.1.1.1

         22 March 2017 at 3:39 pm

         … the reality is they [polls] are used to bludgeon poor people not to vote.

         Citation needed.
         • adam 6.1.1.1.1

           22 March 2017 at 3:47 pm

           How many people did not vote last election?

           That said I really liked this piece I read, sorry not the full piece.

           https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/hub/publication/10094

           Trying to find another thing I read on why people don’t vote and the role polls play.
           • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1

             22 March 2017 at 3:53 pm

             how many of those that didn’t vote were poor, and of those how many are apolitical by character?
             • adam …

               22 March 2017 at 5:20 pm

               A whole lot of reasons why people don’t vote. The biggest is they feel that they are not listened to, even when they vote. Good example was the recent vote in the USA, look how many democrat’s lost seats.

               As for polls, funnily enough it was Winston Peters, and a comment by him that made me look into how polls put people off voting. At the very least we should have no polls in the press three months out from an election.

               But then again, why would the corporations give up such a lever. They will not and many people will not vote, becasue they don’t see the point.
               • MikeS …

                 25 March 2017 at 12:52 pm

                 Here’s an obvious example which shows why large numbers of people may choose to disengage from the political system and not bother voting…

                 I know heaps of people adore Helen Clarke and in their minds she was an awesome PM, etc…

                 But did she get rid of the employment contracts act? Did she roll back any of the disastrous economic reform policies (some were needed) adopted in the late 80’s? Did she restore benefit levels to what they were before the likes of Ruth Richardson (that nasty, miserable excuse for a human being) slashed them by 50% and more?

                 etc,etc,etc

                 Why vote if you can quite clearly see that regardless of which party or parties end up in office, for you, nothing ever changes?

                 Just a comment on those benefit levels. By not restoring them i believe Helen Clarke is actually the greater evil than Ruth Richardson. The reason being that Clarke and Labour if asked today would in my opinion always suggest that they were there for the poor and those at the bottom end of the ladder whom the National Party couldn’t care less about. You would be being perfectly reasonable to think that Clarke and Labour would do something about many of these policies enacted by an extremely right wing block of the National party, but she didn’t and Labour didn’t.

                 Our Two largest political parties with a combined 75 or so percent of the vote may as well be one party with a few minor policy differences on the left and right edges of the party.

                 I started off thinking hey this guy Little seems pretty good, but he has steadily declined for me personally in terms of what i think of him. Has he stood up and said he will restore benefits to acceptable levels? Has he stood up and said he is boycotting this years america’s cup regatta and any companies associated or involved with it? (In fairness to Little, have any of our big names and ‘role model’s in the media spotlight stood up and said that?? )

                 Any support for the regatta even just watching it on TV means essentially support for or legitimization of tax havens. For example Emirates, by being involved, is saying that they see nothing wrong with tax havens. I wish a couple of million hard working kiwi taxpayers would get off their arses and let companies like Emirates know that tax havens are not ok.

                 Has he announced pans to get rid of the employment contracts act?

                 etc etc etc
           • Phil 6.1.1.1.1.2

             23 March 2017 at 2:21 pm

             From the link:

             The apparently conflicting findings of some major pressure groups’ polls plus confusion between straw polls and scientific polls seem likely to create antipathy amongst the general public, if not hostility to polls.

             The paper is saying that, unsurprisingly, the public doesn’t understand the difference between a methodologically ‘scientific’ poll and something that is more akin to clickbait.

             Their thesis statement doesn’t, in any way whatsoever (note: i also don’t have access to the full paper ) support your claim that the scientific methodology used by the likes of RM, CB, etc would be responsible for demotivating “poor people” from voting.
             • adam …

               23 March 2017 at 6:17 pm

               No missing what I said. It’s not the poll methodology that is the problem, but the how, the when, and why they publish them that is the problem. How they frame them as well. One good example, is the preferred PM – utterly pointless poll.
       • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.1.2

         22 March 2017 at 7:26 pm

         Polls are reasonably accurate indicators when you understand their limitations. They’re not fucking genies.

         We can draw some broad conclusions based on their trends, but shouldn’t assume we know too much off them.

         I agree somewhat with your sentiment that certain talk about polls can discourage people from voting, but you’re misattributing the blame: it belongs to horse-race coverage of polls, not polls themselves. If you tell people you know for sure what the election’s going to be like from a poll you’re a liar. If you over-focus on polls, you’ll discourage people from voting because they think it’s a done deal and it will discourage them. This is why I don’t actually blog about every single bloody poll, even if I pay attention to them and tweet when they show something interesting.

         I’d also note you’re playing the ball a lot there, adam. Literally anyone who’s giving a more nuanced position than you like is becoming a “poll fetishist,” even if they’re ostensibly on your side. We don’t put up with that sort of ad-hominem nonsense from right-wingers, it looks just as bad when people on our side do it.

         While I don’t doubt poor people are over-represented in non-voting statistics, I’m interested why you think polls in particular have something to do with that. I’d be much more likely to think it’s about a degree of neoliberal consensus between Labour and National making them think that There Is No Alternative.
     • james 6.1.2

       22 March 2017 at 5:00 pm

       “The important part of this one is that it confirms the RM’s results that National has lost ground after announcing its Super policy, confirming what we all thought”

       I know its a bit of a pain for your argument but National GAINED ground – not lost it – confirming what we all thought apparently.
       • adam 6.1.2.1

         22 March 2017 at 5:12 pm

         And like clock work, a fetishist comes into the debate.
         • james 6.1.2.1.1

           22 March 2017 at 5:36 pm

           and like a petulant child, name calling comes into the debate, when the point cannot be argued.
           • adam 6.1.2.1.1.1

             23 March 2017 at 6:21 pm

             You deliberately did not read my first point so we are not in a debate.

             Oh wait your the supporter of child beating. I forgot, now I remember, you get precious at the drop of a hat.
       • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.2.2

         22 March 2017 at 7:29 pm

         Nooo, National gained ground from the March RM poll, (I have it logged as being conducted on March 12th) which was conducted after the Super announcement on March 6th. Both the Reid Research and RM polls in March show a drop from the RM poll in February, (also Feb 12th, coincidentally) which was the most recent one before the Super announcement.

         It’s hard to come to conclusions as to what’s up to that movement as it’s actually not large enough to say for sure it’s not simply a matter of RM underestimating National’s support and Reid Research over-estimating it. We’ll want to see what direction the next poll goes in- if it doesn’t show National back up at 46-48%, then my theory is likely correct, if it does, then either that RM was slightly off-trend, or there was a temporary dip in response to the super announcement, but people have stopped panicking since.

         If you’re going to critique my timeline, at least provide dates.
7. Brutus Iscariot 7

   22 March 2017 at 2:49 pm

   Unusually poor results for NZF given their supposed “electoral sweetspot” right now.
   • GregJ 7.1

     22 March 2017 at 7:18 pm

     I seem to recall there has been a historic tendency for most of the polls to underestimate NZF support. Perhaps it’s a bit like Trump’s election – people don’t want to say they support them but how they vote in the privacy of the polling booth is another matter.
     • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.1

       22 March 2017 at 7:38 pm

       You’re correct. NZF are almost consistently stronger on Election Night than they’ve looked in the polls. This could be because they underpoll, or it could be because they have a lot of draw for undecided voters, who aren’t normally accounted for very well in phone polling, because most polls use a “likely voter” screen.
       • Phil 7.1.1.1

         23 March 2017 at 5:44 pm

         t could be because they have a lot of draw for undecided voters

         There’s also a possible third (or, more accurately, 2B) option that I have an affinity for: Winston Peters is the most successful, or lucky, late-campaign politician.

         For instance, the political fallout from the Tea Tapes occured in the last week or two of the 2011 campaign. Winston appeared to reap huge benefits from it, in terms of media attention and public favourability. But that was far too late in the campaign for polling firms to realistically ‘price-in’ the swing in support and show it in a poll.
         • Phil 7.1.1.1.1

           23 March 2017 at 6:05 pm

           NZF are almost consistently stronger on Election Night than they’ve looked in the polls

           I did some digging on NZF…

           Year; election result; average NZF polling in the last month; difference.

           2005; 5.7%; 5.88%; -0.18%.
           2008; 4.07%; 3.45%; +0.62%
           2011; 6.59%; 3.53%; +3.06%
           2014; 8.66%; 6.27%; +2.39%

           In 2011, Winston took full advantage of Tea Tapes. In 2014, he was again at the forefront of the final part of the campaign with the Collins/Slater SFO fiasco.

           My gut feeling is that, unless Winston is on for a hattrick of late-breaking stories that change the campaign narrative, his polling for the 2017 election is probably going to be about right.
           • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.1.1.1.1

             24 March 2017 at 1:40 pm

             That’s not actually a good thing for NZF, as that would suggest about a 0.5% drop in their party vote.

             I think you’re definitely onto a reasonably solid thing there, Peters is very good at getting late press near the election that might not be captured in time by pollsters.
8. Antony Cotton 8

   23 March 2017 at 7:55 am

   Yes I want a Labour Government but I don’t like the Greens much do much in charge Winston is better Opinion than the Greens but Labour will need to work with both.
   • Matthew Whitehead 8.1

     23 March 2017 at 12:30 pm

     What’s wrong with the Greens in your opinion? 🙂

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS