Roy Morgan bounces left

76 comments on “Roy Morgan bounces left ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tracey 1

   20 August 2013 at 6:23 am

   I dont get excited Bout polls. Rightly or wrongly I believe they are only as good as therson writing the questions.
2. Melb 2

   20 August 2013 at 7:08 am

   Maybe this poll is the outlier.
   • Akldnut 2.1

     20 August 2013 at 7:27 am

     You obviously haven’t had a look at the summary or you wouldn’t have made a stupid comment like that, or maybe you did and would have still said it anyways.
   • lprent 2.2

     20 August 2013 at 7:56 am

     All local political polls are highly erratic. Small sample sizes, suspect population sampling, etc. The Roy Morgan happens frequently enough (about every two weeks), so you can see it. You can see the underlying trends as well.

     Read the numbers.
3. amirite 3

   20 August 2013 at 7:27 am

   The teflon is starting to wear out, it seems.
   • vto 3.1

     20 August 2013 at 7:30 am

     The teflon has worn away to a mess of sticky gooey bits of gunk and hair.

     It is very off-putting.
   • jaymam 3.2

     20 August 2013 at 7:32 am

     Toxic Teflon:

     http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20050113/is-teflon-chemical-toxic-epa-seeks-answers
4. hush minx 4

   20 August 2013 at 8:32 am

   Two thoughts occur to me – labor is back to where it was in 2008. Good but not good enough. Low 40s is where we need to be, so let this just be a step on the journey. Two, is labour really ready to deal with the greens at almost half their vote? Look how they treated Catherine Delahunty’s bill and you’d say probably not.
   • Jackal 4.1

     20 August 2013 at 9:26 am

     Firstly, the fact that Labour is back to 34% while the Green’s have increased by 7.3% to 14% means your comment is largely irrelevant hush minx. On the current numbers Labour would form the next Government with the Greens. Secondly, Catherine Delahunty has had four bills so which one are you talking about exactly? Clearly the Greens and Labour can work constructively together. Labour does not need to “deal with the greens” at all.
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       20 August 2013 at 10:18 am

       1/3 Greens Cabinet is going to be a very interesting phenomenon.
     • George D 4.1.2

       20 August 2013 at 10:28 am

       What Hush Minx is referring to was a bill that would have withdrawn the ability of the creators of otherwise illegal water pollution to claim exceptional circumstances in perpetuity. Instead, they would have had five years to phase out their pollution. It’s aimed squarely at the Kawerau mill and particular mine sites, but had the support of unions and iwi. It’s hardly unreasonable.

       http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/217021/greens-take-whack-at-labour-over-environment

       We can only speculate as to what the motives of Shearer and his Tight Five were.
       • Jackal 4.1.2.1

         20 August 2013 at 11:17 am

         Clearly the Labour members on the committee saying that the black drain bill proposed a too “short a consent time for useful investment” doesn’t preclude them from working with the Greens in government, which seems to be what Hush Minx was arguing.

         Keep in mind that the select committee had a National majority anyway. It’s membership included: Nicky Wagner (Chairperson), Maggie Barry, Jacqui Dean, Paul Goldsmith, Claudette Hauiti, Phil Heatley, Gareth Hughes (replaced by Catherine Delahunty), Raymond Huo, Moana Mackey, Eugenie Sage, Maryan Street and Andrew Williams.

         Granted, Labour not supporting Catherine Delahunty’s bill through the committee stage was stupid, but the issue here is that the bill would essentially mean a huge investment that the owners are unlikely to make or the closure of the Kawarau mill. Labour’s committee members have unfortunately chosen jobs over people’s health and the environment.

         However the committee doesn’t include David Shearer or his so-called tight five does it?
         • bad12 4.1.2.1.1

           20 August 2013 at 11:35 am

           Yes Kawarau and Kinlieth, the latter pouring 1000’s of liters of black water daily into the Waikato River which Aucklander’s later go on to drink are two of the larger thorn’s which will have to be addressed at some point in the future,

           The equation being Jobs V enviromental destruction, the question then being what is the commercial viability of both Kawarau and Kinlieth into the future,

           National having set the precedent with it’s 30 million bailout of the Tiwai Point Smelter dare i suggest that the next Labour/Green/Mana Government need look to putting up the monies necessary to ‘fully treat’ the waste water from both these ‘mills’ befor it is allowed to be discharged into our waterways,

           What’s the real cost of doing this, 100-200 million, small change when considered against the wasted resources being poured into roads of No Significance by the present Government. we cannot claim ‘clean green’ status unless we are willing to make it so…
           • grumpy 4.1.2.1.1.1

             20 August 2013 at 12:30 pm

             A future Labour Greens government would be very interesting and throw up a lot of deals being done by Labour with National, just to keep the country going.

             The question will be – how would the Greens react to that?
             • Draco T Bastard …

               20 August 2013 at 1:07 pm

               throw up a lot of deals being done by Labour with National

               I hope so, it would be the fastest way possible for Labour to become a minor party.

               just to keep the country going.

               Except that it won’t. All it would do would be to enrich the already rich and make a lot of people even poorer – just as the neo-liberal paradigm has done over the last few decades.
           • Jackal 4.1.2.1.1.2

             20 August 2013 at 8:15 pm

             Attn mods, you might want to move this discussion into open mike?

             bad12

             …dare i suggest that the next Labour/Green/Mana Government need look to putting up the monies necessary to ‘fully treat’ the waste water from both these ‘mills’ befor it is allowed to be discharged into our waterways,

             What’s the real cost of doing this, 100-200 million,

             Unfortunately there are no quick fixes here, being that the dangerous chemicals in the bleaching process are all difficult to remove from the vast amounts of water pulp and paper mills use. In fact there is no way to ‘fully treat’ such waste that I’m aware of and the mutagenic and genotoxic compounds in such discharge aren’t going away anytime soon.

             Kinleith Mill has a consent allowing for wastewater of up to 165000 m3 per day, of which it was originally expected that up to 155000m3/d may be discharged to the Kopakorahi Stream and 10000 m3/d to the Waituna Stream. NZ is currently receiving around 10c for every tonne of waste Kinleith produces. However the cost to clean up a tonne of toxic waste would easily exceed this minuscule reimbursement.

             With an estimated total of 10,060,000 tonnes of effluent discharge from pulp and paper mills into NZ waterways each year, I think your estimate of $100 to 200 million all up is on the very low side. I would suggest that $100 to $200 million would be the per anum cost and that’s before we even look at cleaning up any historic contamination. Unfortunately that cost would make many if not all of these outdated operations financially unviable.

             we cannot claim ‘clean green’ status unless we are willing to make it so…

             I totally agree, which is why we should stop such obviously false advertising.
5. Sanctuary 5

   20 August 2013 at 8:55 am

   Dollars to donuts National’s incessant polling picked up the same trend as this poll. It would explain Key’s sudden decision to appear on Campbell live and to try and take personal control of the agenda of the GCSB debate.
6. Sable 6

   20 August 2013 at 9:31 am

   I don’t trust polls that use small samples but I do hope based on the Campbell Live spy law poll that people are smart enough to see through National and give them bums rush this election.
7. Colonial Viper 7

   20 August 2013 at 10:16 am

   As I said to McFlock when the 29% poll came out – this is just further proof that Labour is bouncing around a ~32%-33% true support level. You can expect some poll results dotted around there, some around 30% and some around 35%.

   What would really help with judging the Roy Morgan – knowing the % of undecideds. It is annoying that they don’t reveal that and it is a crucial figure.

   The prospect of a Government with 1/3 Green Ministers looks good eh?

   Looks like a lot of ABCs won’t even get a look into Cabinet because the seats will be taken by the Greens.
   • bad12 7.1

     20 August 2013 at 10:51 am

     i tend to agree with you on the size of the Labour core vote, we have to remember that as the Party’s to the right and beside National in the center have polled less to the point of non-existence on a regular basis it will be more likely National with the poster boy of the moment as Prime Minister who are judged to have ‘picked up’ most of that vote,

     Duck,dive and dodge has not worked for National over the GCSB and we can well imagine some serious head scratching going on amidst the denizens of the Beehives 9th floor as what seemed to them as a simple rejigging of Legislation to make the illegal legal as far as spying on it’s citizens goes has turned into the cluster-f**k of monumental proportions,

     It’s not as if that making of the illegal legal with a quick piece of Legislative or Regulatory change is anything new to this lot who’s silver spoons barely quiver when They are caught out reaching beyond the Law with their actions and intentions,

     If the GCSB legislation, as i believe it will, is to be the defining moment, the high tide mark for this particular abysmal government then we will see a far more critical mass media,(excepting the Herald and other fixated Jonolists), leading up to November 2014 only too willing to throw up the spying Legislation and uproar emanating over snapper quota as reasons to not vote for the incumbent shower only to willing to rain on the shrinking parade of freedom,

     i would suggest that the slippery slope of inevitable electoral defeat began for this government months ago and the dead cat has been given a number of bounces via the ‘rights’ willingness to manipulate certain ‘public images’ in an attempt to manipulate the wavering,

     The more ‘supportive’ polls of this government in the future will be a good read from here to the election as i believe that any slide in support in such ‘supportive organs’ will inevitably be magnified by the electorates actions on voting day…
   • Rogue Trooper 7.2

     20 August 2013 at 11:08 am

     if,…….there is a God soldier, if.
     • bad12 7.2.1

       20 August 2013 at 11:20 am

       LOLZ, i waver on that question, weekly i waver, but down at my basest level of human form i once took ‘a trip’ and truly saw…
       • Rogue Trooper 7.2.1.1

         20 August 2013 at 11:41 am

         Tales of My Landlord : 3rd Series 😉
         anyway, appears you have the inspiration.
   • McFlock 7.3

     20 August 2013 at 12:08 pm

     And I think that assuming a constant level of support that is independent of political events means that any political activity is a waste of time.

     Alternatively, a sustained and somewhat desperate (towards the end) attack by garner and gower did cause a dip in the polls for Labour, although it failed to achieve its objective (a challenge against Shearer as a distraction from National’s fuckwittedness and as a nice winter horse race for the pundittierie and commentariat).

     Whether that dip is over is another matter – one poll result does not make a recovery, and the quicker ground is gained then the quicker it can be lost. I would be surprised if a 5 point gain was followed by another gain of any significance.
     • Colonial Viper 7.3.1

       20 August 2013 at 8:19 pm

       My assumption of a true level of support around 32%-33% doesn’t say that the number won’t move around depending on what is happening in any given month. It just says that it will tend back to that level of support over time.

       Can that “true level of support” be shifted over the long term? Certainly, not denying that at all.
       • McFlock 7.3.1.1

         21 August 2013 at 12:27 pm

         lol
         so the “true level of support” can shift both monthly and in the longer term.

         Sounds to me like estimating a “true level of support” based on multiple 2-3weekly poll results is just so much marsh gas.
8. Disraeli Gladstone 8

   20 August 2013 at 10:22 am

   Using the Nate Silver / Anthony Wells approach to polling, I’m suggesting we’re probably seeing National at 45-46%, Labour 32-33% and Greens at 12-13%.

   So really, it’s all to play for, people. National and Labour+Green are in a dead heat.

   … we’re going to end up with Winston as Kingmaker again, aren’t we?
   • bad12 8.1

     20 August 2013 at 11:14 am

     Not necessarily Winston and NZFirst as the ‘kingmaker’ in the next Parliament, what may be the making or breaking of the next Labour lead Government could well be the Mana Party and Hone Harawira,

     Electoral support for the Maori party has all but collapsed and a 1/3 to a 1/2 of the Maori Party’s previous support crossing over with their votes to the Mana Party would see Mana with another MP in the 2015 Parliament off of it’s list entitlement,

     Mana’s Annette Sykes, should She stand again in the Waiariki electorate needs 1940 of the votes from the incumbent Maori Party MP who’s support base has all but evaporated to gain Mana a 3rd MP in the next Parliament,

     It’s interesting to see Labour Leader David Shearer expounding Neanderthalic first past the post politics with His speech after the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election that Labour will be going ‘hard out’ to win back all the Maori electorates at the 2014 election,

     The point being that Labour would do far better to in effect ‘concede’ the Te Tai Tokerau and Waiariki electorates to Mana as doing so would ensure the ‘Left’ 2 more seats in the next Parliament while Labour ‘winning’ both those electorate seats would see that Party making no numerical gains in MP numbers and ‘the Left’ as a Parliamentary Bloc with 2 less seats,

     It would take real ‘Leadership’ from within Labour to ‘see’ this and i doubt that the Party mired in the past of neanderthalic first past the post politics has that leadership capable of first ‘seeing’ the situation for what it is under MMP and second be willing to take the necessary steps to build that coalition of Party’s necessary to give ‘the left’ that out-right victory in 2014 that this country so desperately needs…
     • Watching 8.1.1

       20 August 2013 at 11:39 am

       Bad12, could you explain the logic behind your numbers.

       You are saying that Mana will take a percentage of the MP 1.5% to give them enough votes for two seats – this will be filled by 1 electorate & 1 list seat. Then you also say that Annette Sykes wins a second electorate seat & doesn’t this mean she takes up Mana’s second seat so that they now have 2 electorate & 0 list seat under their entitlement .

       If the above happens then doesn’t Mana now need to increase its list vote double what you suggest to get a List seat.
       • Lanthanide 8.1.1.1

         20 August 2013 at 11:56 am

         bad12 has made similarly incorrect mathematical claims in the past. I think he doesn’t understand how it works.
         • bad12 8.1.1.1.1

           20 August 2013 at 12:30 pm

           L, Feel free to list these incorrect mathematical claims that i have made in the past…or…
           • Lanthanide 8.1.1.1.1.1

             20 August 2013 at 12:53 pm

             http://thestandard.org.nz/winston-peters-king-maker/#comment-667901
             and again in
             http://thestandard.org.nz/winston-peters-king-maker/#comment-668106

             In those comment you suggest Mana will have 3 seats in parliament, from them winning Sykes’ seat and from gaining 0.2% of the party vote to 1.2% to gain another list seat. But as we explain, 1.2% party vote + 2 electorate seats = 2 seats, not 3.
           • Akldnut 8.1.1.1.1.2

             20 August 2013 at 2:12 pm

             Ba12 “It’s interesting to see Labour Leader David Shearer expounding Neanderthalic first past the post politics with his speech after the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election that Labour will be going ‘hard out’ to win back all the Maori electorates at the 2014 election”

             Strange that you perceive this as Neanderthalic politics when Mana did exactly the same in Waitakere last election and the greens did this in all other seats notably Central Christchurch in 2008 elections.

             Pot…Kettle……

             Perhaps Mana should run a programe in Waiariki to re-educate voters on how to fill in their ballots and chase the 1000 odd that voted incorrectly. And with the decline in MP base support Mana would romp in or barring that Sykes could step aside and leave it for Labour.

             Swings both ways.
       • bad12 8.1.1.2

         20 August 2013 at 12:18 pm

         Yep, happy to say i have the electorate V party list MP’s equation wrong in that comment, Mana would have to win something like 3% of the Party vote plus win both Waiariki and Te Tai Tokerau to gain 3 seats in the next Parliament,

         A hard ask but not impossible…
         • alwyn 8.1.1.2.1

           20 August 2013 at 2:56 pm

           Sorry but that is still wrong.
           If they got 3% of the party vote they would get, almost certainly, 4 seats in Parliament, provided that they won a single electorate seat. They do not have to win two electorate seats as winning one qualifies them to have additional list seats even though they don’t get to the 5% threshold..
           In 2008 ACT got a total of 5 seats (1 electorate and 4 list) by getting 3.65% of the vote. That is the closest I found to 3% to illustrate the point. The exact cutoff for list seats depends on the exact number of wasted votes.
           • bad12 8.1.1.2.1.1

             20 August 2013 at 3:46 pm

             alwyn, aaaah mathematical pain, i will definitely take your word for it, will try and hunt out the MMP calculator later, i think there is one on the Electoral Commissions website,

             But in the meantime, just for arguments sake,

             What % of the Party vote would the Mana Party need for 1 list MP if that Party won both the Te Tai Tokerau and Waiariki electorate seats in 2014???,

             Taking into account what TRP is saying that 1.3% of the Party vote would simply be cancelled out by the winning of the 2nd electorate seat???…
             • alwyn …

               20 August 2013 at 7:03 pm

               On the 2011 results the last seat went to National with a quotient of 9048 votes.
               Assuming the same pattern in the next election the Mana party would have to get just over 5 times that figure, or about 46,000 votes. That would be about 2.1% of the votes cast.
               That would give them 1 electorate seat and 2 list seats or 2 electorate seats and 1 list seat.
               No electorate seats? No list seats as they would be below the 5% threshold.
               There is an explanation of the Saint Lague formula and how it works at
               http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011 in the Statistics section.
               Bloody awful thing to follow.
               • bad12 …

                 20 August 2013 at 7:21 pm

                 LOLZ, thanks for that, while you have been there i have been having my little neuron sack seriously twisted over at the Electoral Commissions calculator, which sounds about as easy to try and calculate a forward look at ‘might be’ results as where you have looked,

                 The most i could figure from that little piece of education was that on 2011 results Mana need another 6000 votes to be sure of a list seat along with Hone Harawira retaining Te Tai Tokerau…
                 • alwyn …

                   21 August 2013 at 10:03 am

                   I have tried it to. I thought your number was a bit high as my calculation says that a bit over 3 * 9048 should be enough.
                   I put in a Mana vote of 27,500 (about 3,300 more than they got) and that gives them a total of 2 seats. As one expects (see my comment about National getting the last seat above) National drops to 58.
                   That calculator is horrible, isn’t it. It took me 3 goes to get it right. The first time I had National vote at only one tenth, the second time I missed out the Maori party winning any electoral seats and the THIRD time I managed to get the numbers in properly.
                   It says you can change the numbers by using the back button but it doesn’t work. It just gives you a new blank sheet.
                 • alwyn …

                   21 August 2013 at 1:20 pm

                   A final, very last word on this, just in case you see it.
                   I have done the numbers exactly and proved them on that calculator.
                   Assuming that every party except Mana gor the actual number of votes that they did in 2011 the critical number of votes for Mana to get a second seat would be worked out as follows.
                   The last persom to get in was the 59th National MP with a quotient of 1058636/117
                   Mana, to get a second seat, would have to get more than 3 times this number, which works out as 27,144.512
                   Thus at 27144 votes they get one 1 seat and National get 59.
                   At 27145 votes they get 2 seats and National drop to 58.
                   If you are really keen you can put the numbers into that calculator and check this.
                   Alternatively, if you have any sense you can take my word for it.
                   Since Mana actually got 24,168 votes they were 2977 votes short.
     • Te Reo Putake 8.1.2

       20 August 2013 at 11:42 am

       Bad, I don’t think wanting to win all the Maori seats is a reflection of FPP thinking. Electorate seats are just as important under MMP and I still get annoyed at the naivety of the left voters who wasted their electorate vote on a minor party, enabling the likes of Bennett and Kaye to win the seats. If you don’t think having a tory as your local MP is a problem, you are clearly not a beneficiary or part of the working poor needing assistance from the local electorate office.

       And I don’t see how your maths works; the left have the same number of seats whoever wins them. The only improvement on that is if Mana only win one seat and gain a second, overhang, seat by getting a party vote above 1.3% ( I think that’s the threshold?). If Sykes wins a second seat for Mana, that covers the overhang, so they still only have 2 MPs and the left total is unchanged.

       Having said that, I do stand to be corrected if I’ve misunderstood the overhang effect. It’s not an issue for the party I support, so I haven’t given it much thought.
       • Lanthanide 8.1.2.1

         20 August 2013 at 12:00 pm

         An overhang is when a party wins more electorate seats than it’s party vote would enable them too, eg Maori Party has an overhang because they won 3 electorate seats, but their share of the party vote should only entitle them to 2.

         A party that wins 1 electorate and then has enough party vote for 1 additional list seat does not create an overhang.

         A party that wins 1 electorate but not enough party vote to support 1 seat (eg, United Future in 2014, although in 2011 I think they got enough party vote for 1 seat) would create an overhang.

         A party that wins enough party vote for 10 list seats, but only has 9 or fewer list candidates on their list, would create an underhang. For example the Bill & Ben party had only 2 list candidates, so had they won 3 seats worth (including 1 electorate to avoid the 5% threshold), they would have had an underhang by 1.
       • bad12 8.1.2.2

         20 August 2013 at 12:09 pm

         OK put aside the list MP for the moment, i see what you are saying regarding having 2 electorate MP’s V the % of party vote gained and you might be right with your point there,

         However, i believe you are wrong when you consider the 2 seats Waiariki and Te Tai Tokerau against Labours % of the Party vote,

         Lets use the current Roy Morgan as our point of reference, should Labour gain 34% of the Party vote plus win the 2 electorates, Waiariki and Te Tai Tokerau, Labour will first have to count the electorate seats won and then add to it’s MP’s the number which takes its MP’s to 34% of the House,

         Should Mana win both those electorates, Te Tai Tonga and Waiariki, Labour will still end up with the same number of MP’s in the House as it would have if it,Labour, had won those 2 electorates, 34%,

         As Mana already hold Te Tai Tokerau this scenario would give the ‘left’ an extra seat in the House, that of Waiariki which neither Labour or Mana currently hold,

         This scenario is Labour win Waiariki +34% of party vote= 34% of seats, if Mana win= 2 seats+Labour with 34% of seats= i extra seat in left bloc…
         • Lanthanide 8.1.2.2.1

           20 August 2013 at 12:57 pm

           You overcomplicate it.

           It’s as simple as: electorate seat won by Maori Party, who are “right leaning”, vs electorate seat won by Mana, who are on the left.

           Labour has nothing to do with it.
           • bad12 8.1.2.2.1.1

             20 August 2013 at 4:21 pm

             Nope you over-simplify, the Maori Party and in particular Tariana Turia are center left leaning with the codicil that Turia despises the Labour Party which is the sole reason for that Party’s coalition with the present National Government,

             The fact that you are blind to the actual numbers is possibly a matter for you to take up with your optician or other professional,

             Labour should they win both the Te Tai Tokerau and Waiariki electoral seats and then find themselves with no gains in actual seat numbers in the House will have had everything to do with ‘it’,

             MMP is a matter of building coalitions, Labour as the perceived biggest player in any left bloc coalition should be focused on the building process not just as a matter of convenience after an election but constructively doing so during the electoral cycle between elections,

             If MMP has shown us one thing it is that smaller coalition partners are always first to be punished by the electorate for the perceived sins of supporting the major bloc of that coalition,

             Labour then need to be always looking for ways in which support for likely coalition partners can be bolstered…
       • bad12 8.1.2.3

         20 August 2013 at 4:43 pm

         TRP, No No No, ”electoral seats are just as important under MMP”, No No No that is simply a hangover of thinking from FFP elections,

         The only time electoral seats are more important, in terms of forming a Government, than the % of Party vote is in the unlikely situation where Labour could win more electorate seats than it’s proportion of the Party Vote would have given them,

         S**t i lived in Bill from Dipton’s electorate for a couple of years and s did that while a beneficiary and it made no difference to me,

         If Labour are so concerned about the plight of the electorates where there is a Tory incumbent they only need a higly visible Labour Party office in that electorate with a direct line to a ‘buddy MP’s office’ at the Parliament, which could handle issues which only an MP could be said to be able to sort out,

         ”The left have the same number of seats no matter who wins them, No No No, more FFP thinking, consider this, Labour have a cup of tea with Hone and Annette Sykes in the the Waiariki electorate, Sykes wins, Labour would then have their 34% of MP’s plus 2 Mana Party MPs in the House,

         Should however Labour win the Waiariki electorate they will have exactly the same 34% of MP’s in the House but only 1 Mana Party vote in support in the House…
         • Te Reo Putake 8.1.2.3.1

           20 August 2013 at 7:44 pm

           Yes yes yes, Bad. I gave the reason why electorate seats are important, but I guess you are “clearly not a beneficiary or part of the working poor needing assistance from the local electorate office.”

           And as for te mana, unless Hone holds the balance of power, they’re irrelevent. Hone’s hardly likely to vote down left legislation, is he? So his vote is effectively on board already.
           • bad12 8.1.2.3.1.1

             20 August 2013 at 7:57 pm

             Yes TRP keep up with such arrogance and Labour will find itself right where it is now in terms of Governance,

             So you think that Labour will just throw Mana a bone as National does to the Maori Party and Mana will roll over for a tummy tickle do you,

             You and Labour are in for a big surprise…

             PS, and as far as Labour caring for the plight of beneficiaries, fucking save the crocodile tears, Labour from Douglas’s taxation of beneficiaries to the abysmal Clark’s decision to exclude beneficiaries from Working for Families to the Shearer beneficiary bashing speech have shown all beneficiaries that Labour couldn’t give a big fat one about them,

             That’s a pattern of beneficiary bashing as bad if not worse than the equally shitty record of National…
             • Te Reo Putake …

               20 August 2013 at 8:43 pm

               Yeah, and your attitude enables Paula Bennett and her Tory ilk. I’ll keep my ‘arrogance’ over your ignorance any day, Bad. Like it or not, life is better for beneficiaries under a left government generally and your electorate voting to assist the election of tory MP’s does not help them a jot.

               Hone knows this wider truth, which is why he will, if re-elected, support most of what the next Government does, even if he is not part of that Government.
               • bad12 …

                 21 August 2013 at 4:11 pm

                 LOLZ, TRP, you have convinced me of one thing at least, that being that my Party vote will be going to Mana in 2014 and my electorate vote to Russell Norman, thanks,

                 That’s an amazing little quibble you have put up there, ”life for a beneficiary is better under Labour than National”,

                 What a grand reason to vote for Labour, ”vote Labour a Party that doesn’t put the boot into beneficiaries as hard as what National does”,

                 The rest of your little rant is pretty much low brow stuff, do your knuckles scrape when you perambulate,

                 Everything i have said in this post has been to do with the Maori electorates none of which are likely to ever vote for the nonexistent National candidates, and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to concede that i am correct when i state that in 2014 should Labour win the Waiariki electorate ‘the left’ in the next Parliament will be down 1 vote is laughable but sad,

                 Now that’s what i call enabling a National Government…
       • QoT 8.1.2.4

         20 August 2013 at 10:31 pm

         the naivety of the left voters

         Because they must be stupid, it’s not like they might be rejecting the anointed Labour candidate for good reasons of their own.
   • burt 8.2

     20 August 2013 at 11:21 am

     I don’t think Winston can be called the king maker. Any leader who relies on Winston to achieve power at any price could hardly be called a King !

     Perhaps we could call him the “sell out maker” – You can’t call somebody a leader when they require the support of such corrupt self serving people to “lead”. They are a sell out – not a leader.
     • bad12 8.2.1

       20 August 2013 at 11:49 am

       That’s about as pathetic a comment i would expect from the shrinking wing-nut brigade of commenters here at the Standard,

       Are you talking about the Winston who was pilloried in the Parliament and the media for having ‘taken’ a free fish dinner from the Veller brothers,

       Forgotten in the smooch fest tongue’n’groove tango surrounding the current Slippery little Shyster we have as Prime Minister is the small fact that immediately after His election He was more than happy to take a ‘free ride’ in a Veller brother’s helicopter from Hamilton to Auckland so anything you accuse Peters of has simply been magnified by the current incumbent in a ‘winner takes all’ thumbing of the nose at the electorate…
       • burt 8.2.1.1

         20 August 2013 at 2:32 pm

         OK, so Winston isn’t (in your opinion) as bad as Key… Well it’s just awesome that being accountable under the law is in your world treated like a kid caught stealing biscuits – You can shout and point at someone else and say they did it too….

         God forbid we judge Peters according to the ethics and the standards we expect from MPs – wow just let him do what he wants because you think somebody else is worse….

         Grow up – most kids learn by the time they get to high school that pointing and shouting “they did it too” isn’t going to get them out of trouble – baby brain partisan hacks don’t seem to learn this lesson when they are in their self serving justification mode for their own team.
         • bad12 8.2.1.1.1

           20 August 2013 at 4:00 pm

           Your latest little snivel of a comment is simply more of the wing-nut habit of putting words into a commenters mouth that they have neither uttered nor intended by the contents of a previous comment,

           Utter Bullshit in other words, if Winston Peters actions in accepting a free meal from the Veller brothers was as you wing-nuts put it corruption then your golden boy Slippery the Prime Minister has displayed as much if not more corruption and hypocrisy by at a later date accepting from the Veller brothers a free helicopter ride,

           Apply the same words in your last paragraph above to your own attitude…
9. Aotearoean 9

   20 August 2013 at 10:33 am

   Rumour has it that Winnie the Poo has bought a new set of clothes!!1
10. Core_Labour_Voter (Tory troll) 10

    20 August 2013 at 10:41 am

    Why do you guys think this poll is not accurate enough? I think the GCSB and Snapper quota issue has taken its toll and people are coming back in droves to Labour and Greens. We should all be publishing these poll results all over the place.
    • karol 10.1

      20 August 2013 at 10:45 am

      It does match John Campbell’s claim that Nat’s polling showed Key was taking a hit over the GCSB Bill and hence Key turning up on Campbell Live.
      • Akldnut 10.1.1

        20 August 2013 at 11:02 am

        Yeah I would feel a lot better if TV3 kept the issue alive (get inside voters heads) by plastering it over their news bulletins for the next week or so.
        • rod 10.1.1.1

          20 August 2013 at 5:02 pm

          I think you’ve got more chance of being struck by lightning, than that happening.
11. Sanctuary 11

    20 August 2013 at 11:13 am

    Question – when was the last poll that showed Labour and the Greens both up at National’s expense?
    • karol 11.1

      20 August 2013 at 11:15 am

      July-Aug 2012
    • Bunji 11.2

      20 August 2013 at 11:32 am

      Both up? usually one or ‘tother.
      But for Roy Morgan: early April 2013, early March 2013…

      But this is a biggie. Mssive swing – probably a big outlier to the right to a small outlier to the left… that’s why it’s important to have lots of polls (that only Roy Morgan does), so you can see the trend.
      Interesting no press release from Roy Morgan – guess they’re a bit obsessed over Oz election at the mo.
      And obviously no breathless comment from our media. No Press Release = they didn’t hear about it…
      • karol 11.2.1

        20 August 2013 at 11:57 am

        March-April 2013 was a very slight rise by both Labour and Greens – Labour up 1.0; Greens up 0.5.
12. Te Reo Putake 12

    20 August 2013 at 3:03 pm

    New Roy Morgan’s out and its a doozy! Lab/Green 48, Nats 44.

    http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5113-new-zealand-voting-intention-august-2013-201308200137

    If a National Election were held now the latest NZ Roy Morgan Poll shows that a Labour/ Greens alliance would win.

    The latest NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating is virtually unchanged at 128 (down 0.5%) with 58% (down 0.5%) of New Zealanders saying New Zealand is ‘heading in the right direction’ compared to 30% (unchanged) that say New Zealand is ‘heading in the wrong direction’.

    Gary Morgan says:

    “Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll contains good news for the Opposition Labour (34%, up 5%) and Greens (14%, up 4%) – now at their highest level of combined support in four months since early April 2013. The Greens have jumped to their highest level of support in a year since August 2012.

    “The huge swings in support come as the contentious GCSB (Government Communications Security Bureau) ‘Spying’ Bill is heavily debated in Parliament. The Bill, which will increase the Government’s powers of surveillance over all New Zealand citizens, has faced strong opposition in Parliament. Prime Minister John Key has insisted on the importance of passage of the bill in the fight against terrorism claiming there are people living in New Zealand who had been trained by Al-Qaeda.

    “Opposition to the bill is not just inside Parliament, with the Law Society saying there are ‘fundamental flaws in the GCSB Bill’ that minor adjustments insisted on by Independent MP Peter Dunne for his support do not alter.”
    • Colonial Viper 12.1

      20 August 2013 at 5:11 pm

      New Roy Morgan’s out and its a doozy! Lab/Green 48, Nats 44.

      it’s a solid result, but reinforces a Labour true level of 32% or 33% +/- 3%.
      • Te Reo Putake 12.1.1

        20 August 2013 at 7:46 pm

        Spooky how it lines up with the compendium result that forms the basis of this post, eh?
        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1

          21 August 2013 at 10:02 am

          Mate the longer this goes on the more twilight zone it seems.
13. amirite 13

    20 August 2013 at 5:35 pm

    I now expect the coordinated attack by the MSM on Shearer and his snapper in an attempt to hike up Nats’ ratings.
14. tracey 14

    20 August 2013 at 5:37 pm

    You can’t call somebody a leader when they require the support of such corrupt self serving people to “lead”. They are a sell out – not a leader.

    welll said burt… key is being propped up by banks isnt he?
15. Grantoc 15

    21 August 2013 at 9:55 am

    There are polls and there are polls.

    Today’s Fairfax poll contradicts yesterday’s Morgan poll, showing National still in a commanding position and Labour still hovering in that zone just above 30%.

    Interestingly, the Greens in the Fairfax poll come in quite a bit lower too. Perhaps their voter support is quite volatile.

    So what to make of it all? Probably that nothing much has changed actually. National is still pretty dominant. Labour is not getting any traction. The Greens jump around a bit. NZ First may or may not be a player. This seems to be a pretty solid pattern looking back at all the polls over the last 18 mnts or so.
    • lprent 15.1

      21 August 2013 at 10:00 am

      So what to make of it all?

      That it is a poll by a different company and using a different methodology? A poll taken every two months or so has little credibility for looking at trends compared to one taken every two weeks.

      I notice you didn’t put in the delta’s from the previous poll by the same company. Nor did you state when this poll and the previous one from the same company were taken. Why is that?

      It is interesting reading what unthinking fools think about polls… Bit tedious though as they all seem to make the same moronic mistakes.
      • Grantoc 15.1.1

        21 August 2013 at 10:31 am

        Imprent

        I don’t agree that because a poll is taken only every 2 months compared with a poll taken every two weeks that it lacks credibility with regards to picking up trends. If it was a one off poll, you could argue that, but like other regular pollsters, the Fairfax poll has been around for a long time.

        Besides what actually is important is methodological rigour; especially around question design, statistical analysis etc. I’m not in a position to say whether the Morgan poll is superior in this regard than the Fairfax poll, or the other way around.

        Also important for getting a real handle on the trends is to combine the results from all relevant polls and see what that says about patterns.
        • lprent 15.1.1.1

          21 August 2013 at 3:44 pm

          Have a *close* look at the variability of the Roy Morgan polls every two weeks. Then consider that every other poll has exactly the same kinds of statistical variability. RM literally bounces around by ~ +/- 4% from a mean for the two main parties.

          So in the last poll there was 7% decrease in National’s support compared to a similar increase in the previous poll. Still roughly within the statistical but on the extremes of it. If you look over a series of 4 for a two month period, then lo and behold – you can actually see the overall trend without the statistical variability screwing it up.

          But a poll that comes out every two months has exactly the same level of variability – but you can’t really see it…

          Remember that what the polling companies are sampling isn’t really the overall voting population. It is a subset that represents the population that they are sampling from that is meant to represent the overall population. Factors like them calling people on phones makes a hell of a different. Incidentally that is why you can’t rely on the actual percentages – because they don’t reflect the population that will actually vote.

          Trends and rough percentages are all that you can rely upon. Methodology on a single question that amounts to “If the election was held today, which party would you vote for” is largely irrelevant (because that is what they are reporting on). But making sure that the population you are sampling in is consistent. The frequency you take the polls in also helps as it is part of the methodology – it helps to even out the inconsistencies in method and to highlight the natural variability.

          If you look at the news organisations polls you can see a remarkable consistency. They look to be designed to have enough change to make a good news story each time…

          Now consider that some dork (yourself for instance) will look at a single point reflecting one of those extremes every two months and start the usual pontification about “what it all means”. If you are really silly you’ll compare the values between two different polling companies for extra meaningless waffle.

          combine the results from all relevant polls

          Yeah right. There are 4 polls that happen about every 2 months. Then there is one poll that happens every 2 weeks.

          What do you think weights the combined poll results the most? The 4 polls from a single companies sampling method or the 4 polls from from 4 separate companies sampling methods.

          Bearing in mind the RM has been consistently closest to the actual results over the last 3 elections, and without having the abrupt changes in angle that the others show at election time as their previously undisclosed undecided population “makes up their mind” – which would you look at?.

          If the other polls weren’t all pulling National upwards and the minor parties downwards mid-term (which is what they do), then a composite would be useful. But you really need a *lot* more polls and competitive polling companies to make it viable. The polls in the US or even aussie tend to be more accurate as composite polls simply because there are polls coming out every few days. Here our population of polls is so low that a single shyster company can drag them anywhere.

          As I said before – people who haven’t thought about polls say the same daft things over and over again without *thinking*
          • Grantoc 15.1.1.1.1

            22 August 2013 at 9:44 am

            All very interesting Iprent. But your elaborate defence of the validity of one poll over the rest doesn’t stack up.

            Have you heard of Nate Silver? He is the statistician, who amongst other things precisely predicted the outcome of the last US presidential election – calling each state accurately. He blogs for the New York Times.

            How did he do this? By analysing at all of the polling data from every available poll in each State and drawing conclusions that led to his ability to make accurate predictions.

            Interetsingly he was attacked by the Republicans because, they, like you, wanted desperately to believe that their ‘pet’ polls were more accurate and better than all others.

            Check him out Iprent. he has more credibility as far as I’m concerned on polling and how they work and what they mean than you do.
16. Brett Dale 16

    21 August 2013 at 11:43 am

    Lol, lets speak about trends.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS