Roy Morgan

32 comments on “Roy Morgan ”

• Comments are now closed

1. roger nome 1

   24 April 2008 at 10:29 am

   As usual we have to factor in the likelihood that the Maori Party will win 6-7 of the Maori seats. So in reality the center-right block only leads by 2-4 seats. Not too much in it at all.
2. Steve Pierson 2

   24 April 2008 at 10:31 am

   He really is funny.

   Fancy seeing a minor party bob around within the margin of error and attributing it to a minor event related to their cause.

   I guess if his analysis was “no change in the balance between parties. movements are all within normal variation between polls” it wouldn’t make him feel like he was contributing.

   Tane uses conventional assumptions like the msm does: assume all electrate seats stay as they are.

   Over at kiwiblogblog, they use assumptions of the Maori Party winning all Maori seats and Winston Peters winning a seats. It changes the makeup significantly.

   Both sets of assumptions are likely to be incorrect on the night, the truth will be somewhere in between.
3. Tane 3

   24 April 2008 at 10:35 am

   At least he’s not calling National “the Nationals” anymore.

   (captcha: Steven City – that’s what we’re renaming the blog if Pierson keeps posting at this rate.)
4. East Wellington Superhero 4

   24 April 2008 at 10:38 am

   You Standard guys crack me up,

   The polls are really bad for you (Labour) and what’s your response: to pooh-pooh the polling company’s analysis of a 3rd party (while at the same time undermining your own comments by calling them a “pretty credible polling company”).

   C’mon, put some effort into it!
   Act like you actually want to win the election.
5. mike 5

   24 April 2008 at 10:46 am

   “As usual we have to factor in the likelihood that the Maori Party will win 6-7 of the Maori seats. So in reality the center-right block only leads by 2-4 seats. Not too much in it at all.”

   RN – Your math is crap but full marks for possitivity…`
6. Tane 6

   24 April 2008 at 10:58 am

   EWS, I’m not saying the poll is good for Labour or the Greens, but it’s no different from the trend we’ve seen in recent times. I’m also confident the gap will close before the election, so you’ll have to look elsewhere if you’re looking for a crisis of confidence on the left.

   There’s also a difference between being a good pollster and being a good political analyst, hence my comments. Gary Morgan’s analysis is laughingly bad and I think that’s worthy of comment.

   My advice to you, EWS, is to read the post more carefully in future before embarrassing yourself with ill-informed criticisms.
7. Steve Pierson 7

   24 April 2008 at 11:06 am

   mike. if you’re going to criticise someone’s maths have the decency to show us your calculations.
8. East Wellington Superhero 8

   24 April 2008 at 11:12 am

   Actually Tane,

   Reading the post is not the point. We all know thestandard is a spin machine and that’s what that post was, a spin on the bad poll.

   Thus, comments about whether I read each line carefully are irrelevant, because the end product you’re selling is trying to spin a bad poll.

   I know you think that you Labour-elites are smarter than everyone but we’re not as dumb as we might look sometimes.
9. Felix 9

   24 April 2008 at 11:13 am

   In fairness though, thanks EWS for beautifully illustrating the difference between accurate reading (credible polling) and meaningful comprehension (credible analysis).
10. Tane 10

    24 April 2008 at 11:24 am

    We all know thestandard is a spin machine

    That’s rather rich coming from you EWS, I gotta say. You must take us for suckers if you think we’ll fall for your “I’m just a punter tired of Labour” shtick.
11. East Wellington Superhero 11

    24 April 2008 at 11:34 am

    Actually Tane, there is a big difference…

    I didn’t set up a weblog dedicated to a political party and whose connection to the current govt is very blurred.

    Checkmate my friend.

    I’ve gotta work mate. Catch ya next time.
12. Benodic 12

    24 April 2008 at 11:40 am

    Gary Morgan’s problem is he’s writing his analysis from Australia. It’d be worthwhile seeing whether his commentary on Aussie politics is any better informed.

    Anyway… I thought you guys got rid of your National party trolls?
13. AncientGeek 13

    24 April 2008 at 11:45 am

    mike:

    I think that they are referring to the Nats being able to form a viable coalition after and election.

    The objective isn’t to be the biggest, it is having an ability to wield power. At present the nats must be far too close to the edge for their comfort levels. They don’t have than many viable coalition partners.
14. Tane 14

    24 April 2008 at 11:45 am

    Neither did I EWS, but good to see we’ve got you lot rattled enough to send attack trolls onto us. Keep fighting the good fight brother.
15. Steve Pierson 15

    24 April 2008 at 11:51 am

    we try to be very careful about trolls. We don’t want to stifle discussion and ban views that are different from ours, far from it, but we can’t have threads becoming flamewars.

    So, we’ve had to ban a couple of the worst offenders – Dad4justice permanently, Michele will be back in May, and others for shorter periods – and it has definitely improved the quality of debate we have here but we don’t like doing it.

    It’s unfortunate, but arguably inevitable, that most of the offenders are from the Right and we are very aware of the charge that we’re only coming down on rightwingers (it’s because leftwingers mostly don’t offend). But there’s no concerted policy to get rid of rightwingers and it’s not actually in the blog’s interest to get rid of rightwingers – it’s their viewpoints that prompt a good level of debate.

    EWS is being annoying but not offensive or bringing the level down too much.
16. mike 16

    24 April 2008 at 12:03 pm

    “mike. if you’re going to criticise someone’s maths have the decency to show us your calculations”

    LGP = 53, NAUF = 65 If the MP got max 7 thats still only 60.
    Its something I’m sure you number jacks would pick up on.
17. mawgxxxxiv 17

    24 April 2008 at 12:08 pm

    I reckon Helen has a very good chance of a fourth term. Why would all those who have benefited from either WFF or being employed into a bulging state sector take a risk by voting National ? And I really can’t see the Maori Party joining up with National, it would be suicide.
18. East Wellington Superhero 18

    24 April 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Tane,

    Well, you’re top-poster. And how am I supposed believe you when even your boss, the Labour President, has a track record of lying. Anyway…

    “we’ve got you lot rattled enough to send attack trolls onto us”

    What?

    I’m not rattled. You contribute little to my lot in the world and I come here for amusement. Thus my initial comment – ‘you guys crack me up’.

    TTFN.
19. Tane 19

    24 April 2008 at 12:12 pm

    You do live in a fantasy world EWS. National attack troll or paranoid loner? I’ll leave it to the readers to decide.
20. Matthew Pilott 20

    24 April 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Tane, are you working for Mike Williams now? I thought the edicts for The Standard were issued from H1’s office on the 9th floor, not his…

    And EWS wonders why s/he’s earned the ‘attack troll’ label… which is a shame, EWS is capable of rational discussion, so it’s pitying to see this kind of drivel.
21. randal 21

    24 April 2008 at 2:21 pm

    mp you are just as as silly if not sillier than ews if you have read his posts and consider his confabulated nonsense as rational discussion…its just idiotic blowing off to make everything look as silly as you are. grow up.
22. Edosan 22

    24 April 2008 at 2:44 pm

    How could this post possibly be construed as spin? It’s true, the earth hour thing is ridiculous. It doesn’t make the results look any less bad for the labour party.

    What a bizarre conversation that was.
23. Matthew Pilott 23

    24 April 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Cheers randal, but I’ve seen EWS bring some good points to the table in the past so I’ll stick with that assessment – it’s stuff like this thread that’s just a waste of everyone’s time, as Edosan calmly elucidates.

    P.S you know my question to Tane was sarcastic? Hopefully, although unless you have read my posts in the pastyou might easily be confused – sarcasm isn’t the internet’s strong point!
24. Psychobunny 24

    24 April 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Yeah, The Standard is a total spin machine … I mean, it’s so cunningly DISGUISED. Truly, you lot should be in media analysis, until this post I truly had NO idea this blog was leftist. HONEST I DIDN’T. *eyeroll*
25. burt 25

    25 April 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Psychobunny

    I can understand why you are confused, there hasn’t been a single mention of the junior Dr’s strike. Kinda funny from a union advocate left wing blog to not post on something as significant as that.

    I guess if the Dr’s striking were employed in private hospitals the standard would be all over it and telling us how shameful it all is – but hey the Dr’s employer is the the precious Labour led govt which can do no wrong…

    The lefties are showing their principals:

    Principal 1: Do not upset dear leader
    Principal 2: See principal 1.
26. lprent 26

    25 April 2008 at 5:56 pm

    burt:

    Did you see this post I’ve got a solution, what’s the problem? from a few days ago. It is about the junior doctors strike.

    There were quite a lot of posts mid-week. It was a busy week politically. It was noisy – lots of comments.

    I would point out the statement on the top left of the site to PyschoBunny that if he is ‘confused’ about the objective of this site. But I suspect it was a rhetorical question.
27. randal 27

    25 April 2008 at 7:52 pm

    lprent…you have made a devastating commentary on the attention span of the right wing fleas and if I may be allowed then pmsl…hashahahahaha
28. burt 28

    25 April 2008 at 9:48 pm

    lprent

    Don’t be absurd. like any other post by Steve Pierson it’s simply another John Key beat up. I sort of discarded it as a commentary on the strike and took the thread for what it was, a distraction that the strike has occurred on Labour’s watch. Furthermore what John Key has to say about it is of little significance to the fact it has happened, on Labour’s watch ofter almost 9 years of Labour-led govt.

    I forgot the golden rule of Labour good National bad, let me guess, the junior Dr’s strike is the fault of the National party policies of the 90’s.

    NB: The National party policies of the 90’s were not the fault of the Labour party policies of the 80’s – the blame game only works in one direction…

    Come on, lift the game.
29. Steve Pierson 29

    25 April 2008 at 11:04 pm

    burt. I addressed the difficulty of the case in the junior doctors’ dispute. although I didn’t state a personal position others did in the thread. And I didn’t state my position because I don’t have a personal position – that’s what happens sometimes when you are fairminded rather than reflexively anti-Left – when an issue is finely balanced and you know you’re not particuarlly well-informed (I don’t know much about health and not all that much about the practice of wage negotiations) sometimes you don’t have an opinion.
30. burt 30

    26 April 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Steve P

    There is only one thing that is difficult about this situation and this is why the Dr’s have not had salary increases approved of a similar proportion to what MP’s have had every year since 1999.

    I’m just not understanding how the MP’s who are not in short supply can justify the sort of pay rises they have had, yet they deny the same level of pay rises for Dr’s who are in short supply. If Dr’s ( and teachers, police, nurses ) had had the same level of pay rises as MP’s since 1999 we would not be in this position.

    It is good to know John Key’s position (well your slant on it) but it would have been good to also get some balance and hear Helen Clark’s position.

    How is Labour planning to solve it – is their answer as weak as yours and all they can do is denigrate what they want us to think National plan to do ?
31. Steve Pierson 31

    26 April 2008 at 1:42 pm

    burt. MPs don’t set their payrises – the Remuneration Board does. And they go up every year, labour or national government.

    You don’t want to have the Prime Minister getting involved in every pay dispute in the country. National’s solution is no solutions, as i illustrated in the article.

    Isn’t it communism to claim that two different jobs should automatically have the same pay increases?
32. burt 32

    26 April 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Steve P.

    I know MP’s don’t set their own pay rises, that’s not the issue. The issue is they won’t approve similar size pay rises for workers that are leaving the country for better pay. IE: They are letting them go – and we are suffering because of it.

    You seem to be confused about communism and it’s relationship to pay rises. Communism could be better compared to union principals that seek to have Dr’s, Teachers, Police, Nurses etc salaries homogenised. Annual pay rises are to take account of inflation. Remember inflation, it’s the magical figure that MP’s pay rises have exceeded and that Dr’s, teachers, police, nurses etc salaries are pegged to.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS