Roy Morgan – shows the Nats have been targeting the wrong place

98 comments on “Roy Morgan – shows the Nats have been targeting the wrong place ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ovid 1

   15 September 2017 at 11:08 pm

   It just feels so great have a real, genuine shot at a change of government. The past 9 years have felt so suffocating.
   • Frida 1.1

     16 September 2017 at 8:26 am

     Exactly how I feel.
     • Doogs 1.1.1

       16 September 2017 at 8:56 am

       Yep, if those lying bastards get back it’ll be either emigration or hara kiri for me. Another 3 fraught tears of arrogance and sneering would be more than I could stand.

       Aux armes citoyens! Let’s do this!
2. boggis the cat 2

   15 September 2017 at 11:18 pm

   Again, check the trend here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2017

   This supports the trend of National continuing to slowly bleed support while Labour gains fast. (Interestingly, the Greens are stable here. I am not sure if that is accurate.)

   Now look at the polls as a whole. Newshub / Reid Research sticks out as being badly out of step (as does Newsroom-SSI). I would guess that National is toast, and a Labour-Green coalition is pending.
   • lprent 2.1

     15 September 2017 at 11:21 pm

     With Greens it is Labour bleeding support from the likes of me. Turei spoke for anyone who has dealt with the punitive and disgusting National idea about how WINZ should operate.

     And National was concerned with frigging water taxes. Which all of us, except apparently Farmers, have always paid.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       15 September 2017 at 11:37 pm

       And National was concerned with frigging water taxes. Which all of us, except apparently Farmers, have always paid.

       QFT

       Most of us seem to realise that we need to pay for the services rendered to us. National voters don’t.
     • Carolyn_nth 2.1.2

       16 September 2017 at 8:45 am

       And, according to a RNZ fact check (via industry stats), not all dairy farmers use water for irrigation.

       Dairy New Zealand disputed the figures, saying it would cost affected farmers – those who irrigate – about $45,000 each on average each year.

       However, the calculations it provided to RNZ showed that out of a total of 12,000 dairy farms, only about 2000 – or one in six – were irrigated.

       Irrigation accounted for 97 percent of all water used on dairy farms, DairyNZ said.

       Using those figures, the remaining three percent of water used would cost each dairy farm a few hundred dollars in water tax each year.
       • Andre 2.1.2.1

         16 September 2017 at 11:15 am

         A dairy cow needs around 80 litres/day drinking water. Assume that’s year round, then that’s around 30 cubic metres annually per cow. 60 cents water tax per cow per year if you’re just extracting water for the cows and don’t need to irrigate to grow feed for the cows.
       • Pat 2.1.2.2

         16 September 2017 at 9:24 pm

         some numbers for consideration….

         A Canterbury irrigation scheme which has a supply contract to users at the following rate

         230 l/s for 18 minutes per week per hectare…or $4.96 p/h per week @ .02c levy per 1000 l

         Mean size Canterbury farm is 370 hectares and irrigation season can run from early Sept to early May (or up to 34 weeks, though less is typical)

         so $4.96 x 370 x 34 =$62,396
         • McFlock 2.1.2.2.1

           16 September 2017 at 9:44 pm

           Which illustrates the problem nicely.

           At the moment, we’re subsidising farmers who want to do stuff the land won’t support. We’re tolerating the drain on aquifers and the river flow problems and other negative externalities of unsustainable farming. As soon as we charge a token amount to ameliorate those externalities, suddenly olives or sheep look like better prospects because in that climate dairy farming is not sustainable.

           That’s for those farms that need to irrigate all their land for the full 34 weeks, of course.
           • Pat 2.1.2.2.1.1

             16 September 2017 at 9:58 pm

             I can assure you returns from olives or even sheep do not support land prices of $50,000p/h, however i posted the numbers to inject a little realism into the debate….and it is granted that Canterbury has the largest uptake of irrigation in the country and those land prices have been achieved on the back of irrigation….and by the way the irrigation scheme described was created between the 1930s and 1960s by the MoW and has been in operation since that time, albeit with a different delivery system.
             • Psycho Milt …

               16 September 2017 at 10:01 pm

               Land prices are based on the prospects for capital gain, rather than productive capacity of the land. Whether you’re growing grass or olives on it is of less relevance than what the property market’s doing.
               • Pat …

                 16 September 2017 at 10:15 pm

                 “Land prices are based on the prospects for capital gain”

                 Even if that were true (which I dispute but it is of no importance in this debate) the ability to purchase that land is determined by the ability to borrow against return …and at the moment to service that price its dairy or dairy support and a m/s payout above $6…pretty much nothing else can.
             • McFlock …

               16 September 2017 at 10:02 pm

               But the land costs that much because of the subsidised dairy returns, no?

               It just reminds me of some farmers in Aus complaining about drought, hadn’t rained in years, yadda yadda, that’s why they needed all the water from the murray river headwaters or something.

               They were trying to grow watermelons in the desert, and expected sympathy and other people’s water.
     • ianmac 2.1.3

       16 September 2017 at 9:26 am

       This guy puts up a case against taxing water but my hesitation is that he was the CEO of Irrigation NZ.

       Jacinda has said often that there would be consultation with users.
       David Parker said this morning that only 1 in 6 would be affected.

       Heiler writes:
       “Tackling our legacy problems of reduced environmental quality needs a cooperative effort from all concerned and a move away from adversarial and costly legal and regulatory processes. These will not work. They have not worked to date…
       …Drop the proposed water tax and re-instate the LAWF with bi-partisan support.”

       Dr Terry Heiler is an engineer, a former CEO of Irrigation New Zealand
       https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/12/47420/the-problem-with-taxing-water
     • Andrea 2.1.4

       16 September 2017 at 3:37 pm

       “spoke for anyone who has dealt with the punitive and disgusting National idea about how WINZ should operate. ”

       Well, actually, no.

       Nine years – and so little done. She’s no Sue Bradford.
       • blacksand 2.1.4.1

         16 September 2017 at 9:05 pm

         You’re joking right? How much do you suppose Sue Bradford would have achieved from the opposition benches?
       • weka 2.1.4.2

         16 September 2017 at 9:10 pm

         The middle classes are finally talking about welfare in meaningful ways for the first time in 30 years. That’s massive. Just as with climate change and water and transport, the Greens have lead the way and effected change in NZ without even being in government yet. Very cool.
       • Psycho Milt 2.1.4.3

         16 September 2017 at 9:55 pm

         Nine years – and so little done.

         It’s almost like she wasn’t in government or something. National needs better talking points.
     • JC 2.1.5

       16 September 2017 at 10:25 pm

       Metiria Turei, …, also spoke. “She thanked supporters for their compassion and kindness towards her when she confessed to lying to WINZ about her circumstances so she could receive more money for herself and her young daughter.

       “We have a welfare system in this country that is broken … and it punishes people simply because they need some help, And she said the Green Party was the only party which was taking poverty seriously.”

       Actress Robyn Malcolm, who is known for her role on the television programme Outrageous Fortune, also addressed the crowd.

       ”She told them to vote not for themselves, but for the people who needed the most support.”

       http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/339564/turei-tells-green-s-poverty-rally-welfare-system-broken

       As opposed to this…

       ”The National Party denies exaggerating the impact of Labour’s proposed water tax on farmers, even though industry body Dairy New Zealand’s figures show just one in six farms would be affected.”

       http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/339561/english-denies-exaggerating-water-tax-s-impact

       Is there another choice … F..K the Polls
   • McFlock 2.2

     15 September 2017 at 11:50 pm

     I suspect what Roy Morgan didn’t see was a dip in green popularity after the tory hit job. But it was short lived and they’ve recovered the lost ground.
     • boggis the cat 2.2.1

       16 September 2017 at 12:02 am

       Yes, that could be so.

       I was reviewing the 2014 polling to try to make sense of the Newshub / Reid Research results. Either they are onto something, or they’re well off target.

       Polling was generally crap in the UK election, and also exceedingly balls-up with the US Presidential vote. It would be unfortunate if we were to follow them over the ‘inaccurate polling’ cliff.
       • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1

         16 September 2017 at 12:12 am

         I was reviewing the 2014 polling to try to make sense of the Newshub / Reid Research results. Either they are onto something, or they’re well off target.

         Chances are that they’re trying to lead people to the result that they desire. It’s why I want reporting of such polling results banned.
       • red-blooded 2.2.1.2

         16 September 2017 at 7:53 am

         Let’s remember that the “inaccurate polling cliff” in the US election was reading the public mood (percentages) accurately – they just have a shitty Electoral College system stuck in a previous century and the pollsters seemed oblivious to that.
         • DoublePlusGood 2.2.1.2.1

           16 September 2017 at 10:09 am

           Yes- though I think their main problem was not more closely polling the midwest states, or they’d have captured that they were swinging to trump.
         • boggis the cat 2.2.1.2.2

           16 September 2017 at 5:31 pm

           Most polling had Clinton well ahead of Trump, and most pollsters were asserting that she would easily win. A lot of people didn’t turn out to vote for her in States where the count was close, allowing Trump to sneak in on alesser vote total.

           George W Bush ‘won’ in the same manner against Al Gore in 2000, so that makes two out of five US Presidential elections so far this century going to the candidate with the fewer votes.
           • Phil 2.2.1.2.2.1

             18 September 2017 at 1:53 pm

             FACT ATTACK!

             Most polling had Clinton well ahead of Trump,
             Polling for the national-level popular vote had Clinton ahead of Trump by roughly 4 points. She beat Trump by 2.1 points. That’s well within a reasonable margin of error.

             and most pollsters were asserting that she would easily win.
             No, that’s simply not accurate. Most polling companies correctly highlighted that Clinton’s vote was not well distributed; she outperformed Obama in a lot of ruby-red and sapphire-blue states but underperformed Obama in purple swing states. Sadly, the media pundits stuck their fingers in their ears and ignored a lot of good polling data that was showing the election to be close.

             A lot of people didn’t turn out to vote for her in States where the count was close, allowing Trump to sneak in on a lesser vote total.
             129.8m people voted in 2016, compared to 126.8m in 2012.
             • boggis the cat …

               19 September 2017 at 12:03 am

               Even fivethirtyeight.com had Clinton a clear favourite to beat Trump (and beat him significantly):
               https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
               Oh, and note the uptick in support for Clinton registering in the few days immediately prior to the vote.

               The polling data broken out by State also suggested that Clinton should hold the Mid-West. Refer to the page linked above.

               Voter turnout recovered to 2008 levels. However, turnout was lower in Democratic leaning parts of Michigan, for example, and this effect swung these States to Trump:
               http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/see_how_every_michigan_county.html
               • Phil …

                 19 September 2017 at 12:55 pm

                 Even fivethirtyeight.com had Clinton a clear favourite to beat Trump (and beat him significantly):
                 71% probability of victory doesn’t meet my definition of ‘clear favourite’, and it it shouldn’t meet yours either. If the All Blacks ran onto the field with a 71% chance of victory each time they played, and you were shocked to see them lose one-in-four or one-in-three of their games, that shock is entirely a problem with your mental model of understanding, not the probability model.

                 and beat him significantly
                 538 had Clinton beating Trump in the popular vote by 3.9 points, which is well within the margin of error to the actual result (2.1 points).

                 Had Clinton won by 3.9 points, it would not be a ‘significant’ victory in any meaningful sense of the word – it would rank as about the 15th narrowest presidential popular vote margin, of the 49 presidential elections held.

                 The polling data broken out by State also suggested that Clinton should hold the Mid-West.
                 See above re: mental model.

                 However, turnout was lower in Democratic leaning parts of Michigan, for example, and this effect swung these States to Trump:
                 Modelling demographic turnout, in polling data, is hard. Still, the best way to model it seems to be the previous presidential election turnout (at least as a starting point). It’s clear now polling models overstated turnout of black voters which, with the benefit of hindsight, is sort of obvious when you don’t have a black candidate on the ballot.

                 That’s EXACTLY WHY 538 didn’t predict the race as a blowout – because they understood that a lot of variables drive turnout for different demographic groups and there’s only so much a polling firm can do. The media and public generally don’t understand this, and overstate the level of certainty that a polling result gives.
                 • boggis the cat …

                   19 September 2017 at 10:39 pm

                   71% probability of victory doesn’t meet my definition of ‘clear favourite’

                   Better than two-thirds probability is better than 2:1. Your definition is incorrect.

                   Throughout the election, our forecast models have consistently come to two conclusions. First, that Hillary Clinton was more likely than not to become the next president. And second, that the range of possible Electoral College outcomes — including the chance of a Donald Trump victory, but also a Clinton landslide that could see her winning states such as Arizona — was comparatively wide.

                   That remains our outlook today in our final forecast of the year. Clinton is a 71 percent favorite to win the election according to our polls-only model and a 72 percent favorite according to our polls-plus model. (The models are essentially the same at this point, so they show about the same forecast.) This reflects a meaningful improvement for Clinton in the past 48 hours as the news cycle has taken a final half-twist in her favor. Her chances have increased from about 65 percent.
                   …
                   Despite what you might think, we haven’t been trying to scare anyone with these updates. The goal of a probabilistic model is not to provide deterministic predictions (“Clinton will win Wisconsin”) but instead to provide an assessment of probabilities and risks. In 2012, the risks to to Obama were lower than was commonly acknowledged, because of the low number of undecided voters and his unusually robust polling in swing states. In 2016, just the opposite is true: There are lots of undecideds, and Clinton’s polling leads are somewhat thin in swing states. Nonetheless, Clinton is probably going to win, and she could win by a big margin.
                   http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

                   It’s clear now polling models overstated turnout of black voters which, with the benefit of hindsight, is sort of obvious when you don’t have a black candidate on the ballot.

                   Citation?

                   That’s EXACTLY WHY 538 didn’t predict the race as a blowout –

                   No, fivethirtyeight predicted that Clinton would likely win under most scenarios, hence their headline for the above:
                   Final Election Update: There’s A Wide Range Of Outcomes, And Most Of Them Come Up Clinton

                   because they understood that a lot of variables drive turnout for different demographic groups

                   The high level of undecided voters was the main concern to fivethirtyeight, not black voters choosing not to vote because the candidate wasn’t black (which is an interesting claim).

                   and there’s only so much a polling firm can do. The media and public generally don’t understand this, and overstate the level of certainty that a polling result gives.

                   I was concerned that Trump might win, and that concern turned out to be valid. Polling was deficient for many reasons in that election, but the main problem was two lousy candidates and voters having to choose whom to vote against.

                   The main web pages are still up if you want to review the fivethirtyeight take on this. This is their main polling aggregation:
                   https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

                   RealClear Politics was better than fivethirtyeight:
                   https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
           • Phil 2.2.1.2.2.2

             18 September 2017 at 2:14 pm

             George W Bush ‘won’ in the same manner against Al Gore in 2000,
             Like Trump, Bush and his campaign team clearly played the Electoral college ‘game’ better than Clinton or Gore. So what?

             so that makes two out of five US Presidential elections so far this century going to the candidate with the fewer votes.
             … and the time before 2000 when the popular vote and electoral college split? 1888. Since 1788, there have been five instances of a popular/electoral vote split. Two in the last 5 doesn’t make a trend when you account for the longer timeseries.
             • boggis the cat …

               19 September 2017 at 12:08 am

               The “so what” is that the US is not a democracy, and sometimes this becomes obvious.

               Something to note here, too, is that it appears that the Clintons inspire a higher third-party vote. So much for ‘third way’ neo-liberal ‘triangulation’.

               https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
               • Phil …

                 19 September 2017 at 1:15 pm

                 The “so what” is that the US is not a democracy, and sometimes this becomes obvious.

                 The US should, absolutely ,reform its electoral system. But that doesn’t make it ‘not a democracy’ in the broad sense of the word. Is the UK not a democracy because, occasionally, the FPP system causes similar popular vs electorate vote differences? Was New Zealand not a democracy when our FPP system did the same thing? Did we suddenly become a democracy when we moved to MMP, even though the 5% threshold still leaves plenty of voters entirely unrepresented in parliament?

                 There are a lot of problems with modern elections, electoral systems, and the influence of special interests. But calling the US ‘not a democracy’ is intellectually lazy and completely misses critical issues.

                 Something to note here, too, is that it appears that the Clintons inspire a higher third-party vote. So much for ‘third way’ neo-liberal ‘triangulation’.
                 You’ve completely ignored the historical context and a myriad of socio-economic factors that give rise to third party candidates to … what?
                 Get a cheap shot in at the Clinton’s? Show you don’t like capitalism on this left-leaning website?
                 Your comment doesn’t stand up against statistical rigor or even a basic understanding of political history.
                 • boggis the cat …

                   19 September 2017 at 10:07 pm

                   The US should, absolutely ,reform its electoral system. But that doesn’t make it ‘not a democracy’ in the broad sense of the word.

                   If your vote doesn’t count, then it is not a democracy. When the choices available to the voter are constrained by an elite, then it is not a democracy. Constant voter purges and other official attempts to prevent certain groups of citizens from voting is not democracy.

                   Is the UK not a democracy because, occasionally, the FPP system causes similar popular vs electorate vote differences?

                   No, the UK is not a democracy. (Even if you ignore royal prerogative.)

                   Was New Zealand not a democracy when our FPP system did the same thing? Did we suddenly become a democracy when we moved to MMP, even though the 5% threshold still leaves plenty of voters entirely unrepresented in parliament?

                   New Zealand isn’t a democracy: but it is closer to a democracy than the UK, and much closer than the US.

                   But calling the US ‘not a democracy’ is intellectually lazy and completely misses critical issues.

                   Not being a democracy when your national myth and basis for conducting international relations is predicated on this claim is the most critical issue. Installing better systems in countries that are subjugated suggests that this isn’t due to lack of awareness.

                   The elites prefer that the US is undemocratic. The ‘founding fathers’ of the US were opposed to democracy, and created a system based around their concept of a republic.

                   This isn’t an accidental situation.

                   You’ve completely ignored the historical context and a myriad of socio-economic factors that give rise to third party candidates to … what?

                   Shitty candidates. A de-facto requirement to choose from one of two evils. The reaction of a segment of the populace to fake democracy.

                   But in this case: mostly the unpalatable candidates. Hilary Clinton was so reviled that she lost to Trump. Poor choice for a candidate.

                   Get a cheap shot in at the Clinton’s?

                   There seems to be a correlation between having neo-liberal candidates and resort to third party options.

                   The Clintons are, indeed, horrible in many aspects, however. You can have a cry about that if you want: but that won’t make them any less horrible, and Trump still won the Presidency in large part because of that horribleness.

                   Show you don’t like capitalism on this left-leaning website?

                   I wouldn’t conflate the graft of the Clintons (and many of their peers) with capitalism.

                   Also, I am an anarcho-communist (or Christian anarchist), and this website seems pretty centrist to me.

                   Your comment doesn’t stand up against statistical rigor or even a basic understanding of political history.

                   You should write a strongly-worded letter to the editor. The lack of ‘statistical rigour’ is clearly an outrage in the comments section of a website…

                   Your commentary comes across as attempting to demonstrate some form of intellectual superiority. This may be why you are trying to excuse the brokenness of these ‘democratic’ systems: do you view yourself as one of the elite?
   • lurgee 2.3

     16 September 2017 at 9:38 am

     This supports the trend of National continuing to slowly bleed support while Labour gains fast. (Interestingly, the Greens are stable here. I am not sure if that is accurate.)

     The trend in Britain earlier in the year was that Labour were going to get buried and the Conservtives would gain a hundred seats. Didn’t quite work out like that, and only one and a half pollsters managed to get it right.

     We’re down to margin of error / variability stuff in too many places to make any sort of worthwhile predictions.

     But bear in mind, NZ First usually score better than they poll. If that happens, the crucial question is, where does it come from? Disgruntled Nat supporters or unhappy Labour voters? My concern is that a lot of Labour support is very soft – it wasn’t there six week ago, after all – and might switch back and forth a bit.
     • boggis the cat 2.3.1

       16 September 2017 at 5:38 pm

       Without knowing where support is coming from we can only speculate. TOP has probably stripped away some ‘soft’ National support (although the damage is small), and it appears that the Greens have lost a lot of support — to Labour, one would assume.

       NZ First may fall away if there doesn’t look to be a likelihood of being in control of choosing government. The latest poll here, from Horizon Research, puts NZ First on 9.8%, and Labour effectively tied with National: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2017

       (They have ACT on 1.5%, though, which seems unlikely.)
     • Phil 2.3.2

       19 September 2017 at 1:23 pm

       The trend in Britain earlier in the year was that Labour were going to get buried and the Conservtives would gain a hundred seats. Didn’t quite work out like that, and only one and a half pollsters managed to get it right.

       What are you talking about? That narrative would only be true if you paid no attention to any poll taken after the election date was announced, a full seven weeks before the election. Polling clearly picked up Labour’s surge in the polls as May’s campaign lurched from one disaster to another.
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   15 September 2017 at 11:45 pm

   But National looks like they are up shit creek (without a paddle or even boat) with some morons in charge (who are desperately telling people that there’s a boat just to the Right).

   FTFY
4. Ed 4

   15 September 2017 at 11:48 pm

   The left must avoid complacency at all costs.
   • Incognito 4.1

     16 September 2017 at 12:13 am

     Complacency is anathema to eternal vigilance.
     • In Vino 4.1.1

       16 September 2017 at 11:36 am

       How about eternally vigilant complacency for the short term?
       • Incognito 4.1.1.1

         16 September 2017 at 12:35 pm

         Is that a pseudo-paradox or a quasi-oxymoron?
5. WILD KATIPO 5

   16 September 2017 at 12:30 am

   … ” But National looks like they are up shit creek with some morons in charge ” …

   🙂

   Looks pretty obvious,… the Double Dippers second ignominious defeat.

   Couldn’t have happened to a more corrupt govt.

   Wise choice, New Zealand.
   • Hanswurst 5.1

     16 September 2017 at 1:56 am

     Couldn’t have happened to a more corrupt govt.

     Yes it could: the Key administration 2008 – 2016
     • WILD KATIPO 5.1.1

       16 September 2017 at 2:55 am

       Damn… was going to say but deleted it !!!

       You win a chocolate fish !!!
       • Incognito 5.1.1.1

         16 September 2017 at 12:36 pm

         It’s the thought that counts.
     • Strategos 5.1.2

       16 September 2017 at 1:55 pm

       Nine whole years under that swifty two-shoes ! Could it be ? It was not the NZ I grew up in.
6. Patricia Bremner 6

   16 September 2017 at 3:02 am

   Let’s do this!!! Let’s turf them out!!!! Singing in the rain, hap hap happy again.
   • The decrypter 6.1

     16 September 2017 at 8:22 am

     Yep PB, agree. Years ago the mad magazine had skit of a man walking among tall buildings and he started singing “just singing in the rain as a few drops fell and then as more and more fell he was roaring it out singing happily away arms out stretched . The next view drawn went to the top of a skyscraper above him and there were contestants in a row at the edge in front of a big banner saying “World spitting completion.”–Hope that’s not us!!
     • ianmac 6.1.1

       16 September 2017 at 9:29 am

       Very clever decrypter. Very Apt.
   • cleangreen 6.2

     16 September 2017 at 1:14 pm

     Let’s turf them out!!!!

     Singing ‘in a leaky boat’?
7. ScottGN 7

   16 September 2017 at 6:52 am

   Māori Party is only about 0.2% short of the party vote to get a 3rd seat (2 electorate and 1 list) on those projections. National would lose 1 seat.
8. Sanctuary 8

   16 September 2017 at 7:38 am

   Meanwhile the constant tacka tacka tacka drumbeat of negative opinion from yesterday’s generation continues…

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11922858

   The sooner Jacinda wins and there is generational change away from all these useless, past it old men like Armstrong, Soper and Ralston the better.
   • Ross 8.1

     16 September 2017 at 7:58 am

     I thought Armstrong had retired…unfortunately it doesn’t seem so.
     • Tracey 8.1.1

       16 September 2017 at 11:11 am

       He did, for health reasons but has come back for the campaign
     • mary_a 8.1.2

       16 September 2017 at 3:56 pm

       Ross @ (8.1) … NZH digging up decaying old corpses now to spread lies and sew doubt … Armstrong, the other Prebble! Wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the putrid remains of arch traitor Roger Douglas dug up in a last ditch attempt to rescue Natz, later in the week!

       It’s as pathetic as it is sad.
   • Bearded Git 8.2

     16 September 2017 at 8:46 am

     Armstrong always shows his National colours in the end-I have never forgotten the lies he told about Cunliffe-propaganda not journalism-that he apologised for later, effectively admitting guilt.

     He fails to say in this article that if the Nats were not telling lies about Labour’s tax policy and if the Nats, like Labour and the Greens, wanted a fair tax policy, then Labour would not have had to delay CGT.

     This is not journalism because there is no balance-his masters have told him what they want him to say.

     But it’s not working!! The latest Colmar and Morgan polls indicate a Labour/Green government is on. I have friends who have already tactically voted Green to make sure the excellent James, Marama, Julie-Anne etc will be back.
     • tracey 8.2.1

       16 September 2017 at 11:14 am

       The 5 year bright line is still on the table isnt it? As for Armstrong, like National, hopefully he is only preaching to the converted.

       Did he mention the 11.5m Saudi lie at all? Has anybody? Is Joyce and English being hounded with “did you know the lie?” If they say no ” how could you not as Finance Minister and strategist?”
   • Muttonbird 8.3

     16 September 2017 at 9:05 am

     Stupid old bastard appears to be arguing against himself.
   • Siobhan 8.4

     16 September 2017 at 9:40 am

     Its funny that Jacinda is being framed as a ‘generational change’.
     For sure she is younger, but stats for youth enrolment are still flatlining, there has been no ‘Youthquake’ Corbyn style.

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/96539927/More-people-already-enrolled-to-vote-than-for-the-2014-election
     • Incognito 8.4.1

       16 September 2017 at 12:40 pm

       Maybe he (Armstrong?) was referring more to a political generation rather than to an age-related generation? The two are linked, of course, but not the exact same thing IMO.
     • lurgee 8.4.2

       16 September 2017 at 5:53 pm

       Corbyn had two years and a very effective organisation (Momentum) at his disposal. Jacinda Ardern has nothing but being Jacinda Ardern. She’s managed to do a lot more than I anticipated. I thought her sudden elevation might get Labour to the right side of 30%, not 40%!

       Though that in itself is a worry, as the sudden surge of support can run out just as quickly. Assuming Labour don’t get to form a government, and she retains the leadership, she probably won’t have the same aura of newness, energy and excitement as she does now, and find it harder to reproduce the effect.

       Though Labour might have sorted out their tax policy by then …
       • Incognito 8.4.2.1

         16 September 2017 at 6:02 pm

         Corbyn stared danger & defeat in the eye …
     • Psycho Milt 8.4.3

       16 September 2017 at 9:58 pm

       For sure she is younger, but stats for youth enrolment are still flatlining…

       Yeah, she’s rubbish, isn’t she? A whole month into the job and still yet to walk on water…
   • mary_a 8.5

     16 September 2017 at 9:51 am

     Sanctuary @ (8) … yep Joyce and NZH got wind of the latest RM poll and rolled Armstrong out in the middle of the night, to spin more BS, before going to publication.

     Hilarious really, resorting to old has been right wing hacks Prebble and Armstrong to spread the dirt now, demonstrates just how desperate Joyce and his motley Natz are.

     A good poll result for Labour/Greens. However we can’t sit back and take this one for granted. We have to work for the cause right up until the last minute when the election closes.

     Watch this week as the game gets really filthy and foul, courtesy of Joyce!
     • cleangreen 8.5.1

       16 September 2017 at 1:17 pm

       1000% MaryA – you win a chocolate fish today for this.

       Wild Katipo’s giving them out today.
       • mary_a 8.5.1.1

         16 September 2017 at 4:01 pm

         Thanks Cleangreen @ (8.5.1) Yum 🙂
   • Tom Joad 8.6

     16 September 2017 at 10:10 am

     And dear old Fran is displaying “faux” concern that Labour are not ruling out CGT on business and farms even being considered as a possibility by the Working Group.

     Listen again Fran, the tax proposals from the Working Group will not be implemented until after 2020 election. I repeat after the 2020 election.

     The Working Group will release those proposals prior to that 2020 election and then you and everybody else can base who they vote for (in 2020) on those proposed changes. I hope that clears things up for you although, I hate to be blunt, but it really is quite simple.
   • Kat 8.7

     16 September 2017 at 11:06 am

     The left needs a mainstream media publication to balance against the H. Something Gareth Morgan could spend a few of his spare millions on if he is really serious with his political aspirations.
     • reason 8.7.1

       16 September 2017 at 4:58 pm

       +100 Kat

       To really change the political landscape we need a better informed population ….

       Our news media generally does a dismal job and presents a pro right wing bias … often our news is counter-factual … The Opposite of the truth

       If citizens were better informed about the problems facing us … and research or examples of solutions to our problems were reported on and gained common knowledge ….

       Then voters could cast their votes from a position of knowledge …. as opposed to ignorance.

       An informative news service could perhaps offer the biggest change to the political landscape for Gareth Morgan….. and a more productive use of his resources

       An uninformed population is how National gets New Zealanders to vote against their own best interests ….
9. greg 9

   16 September 2017 at 7:44 am

   animals lash out when cornered thats what national are doing the last stand of a morally bankrupt government
10. Thinkerr 10

    16 September 2017 at 7:46 am

    Im hoping some of the people who labelled themselves National supporters for the research polls might choose to stay home on election day.

    Surely, not everyone is so dyed-in-the-wool that they would vote for what’s starting to come out as the Shon Key deals we on the left have come to suspect over the past 9 years.
11. cleangreen 11

    16 September 2017 at 8:38 am

    Im hoping some of the people who labelled themselves National supporters for the research polls might choose to vote for NZ First now that we know the National Government have arranged for a chinese spy to infiltrate our government now to possibly ‘rig’ our election?

    Surely National folks dont want to be aligned to this type of corruption do they?

    I have several National suporters and they are fair minded people and damn good kiwis but dont want us to be manipulated by China!!!.

    I woke up to realise now that this NZ MP Jian Yang may be family of Yang Enterprises in USA who are snarled up in a voting fraud hacking case and is he trying this here now?

    See these clips and the testomony about ‘Yang Enterprises.

    Certainly he may be connected?

    See these ‘Clint’ Eugene Curtis testimony given in court over activities of – Yang Enterprises election fraud.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7R1_ixtlyc

    NZ MP Jian Yang – is he related to this family Yang Enterprises computer intelligence company carrying out voting fraud in USA?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7R1_ixtlyc

    http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/florida_election_stolen.html

    (2017/05/15 17:15) The Newest Breaking News … for global hacking waveWashington PostPutin Blames … of the young developer Jian-Yang’s octopus …
    • lurgee 11.1

      16 September 2017 at 5:55 pm

      Given Yang is a common family name in China, you’re stretching a bit too much for polite company.

      Find some evidence of a connection before speculating like that.
12. DSpare 12

    16 September 2017 at 9:07 am

    There is also this Horizon poll out today:

    Among those who are registered, have made up their minds and will definitely vote, National has 38.5% support.Labour has 38.2%.New Zealand First has 9.8%, the Green Party 7.7%.

    https://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/477/main-partie

    They are also claiming that because ACT is on 1.4% it; “would have two MPs and enable a National-New Zealand First-ACT coalition”. Which seems unlikely even though mathmatically possible. I have no idea what the margin or error is down there, but it wouldn’t take many tenths of a percent drop to push ACT below the two MP threshold (plus Seymour isn’t guaranteed to win Epsom).

    The main conclusion I’ve reached from political polling this election is; the only reliable result is that each polling company’s different methods will produce different results. Only a week to go till we can assess them against reality.
13. Tracey 13

    16 September 2017 at 9:37 am

    Corin Dann just cannot let tax go. Ardern needs to go all out on Health this week. Without private health insurance our aging population is stuffed if Health services keep spiralling. At 1400 a month for premiums if over 70 most wil need public health
    • Andrea 13.1

      16 September 2017 at 3:45 pm

      “At 1400 a month for premiums” – the near-entire amount of pension for the month.

      Wonder if they’d let the oldies camp for free in tents around the hospitals? Soup kitchens. Free funerals. Bingo halls with food as the prize of the day. Oh, grand times are coming.
      • Tracey 13.1.1

        17 September 2017 at 8:34 am

        I am assuming over 80% of the nation cannot afford that in retirement.
14. ianmac 14

    16 September 2017 at 9:39 am

    “Only a week to go till we can assess them against reality.”

    Trouble is DSpare that even then reliability is not a sure thing. People make up their mind on the way to the booth so the final decision can swing either way – again.
    • Incognito 14.1

      16 September 2017 at 12:43 pm

      This^
      • DSpare 14.1.1

        16 September 2017 at 1:38 pm

        Undecided voters who make up their mind on the day will never be captured by any poll. The problem is even greater now with the amount of early voting during a period while polls are still being conducted and published.

        Still, given the wide variation between poll results, it will be interesting to see which have completely blown their credibility. Comparing their predictions to the election results is the only way to do that. Of course, there are specials too – and no poll captures the overseas vote that I know of. The final count won’t be in for nearly a month!
        • Incognito 14.1.1.1

          16 September 2017 at 5:58 pm

          Hi DSpare,

          I don’t quite understand why you think that undecided voters who make up their mind on the day will never be captured by any poll. Similarly, some voters may be wavering and not be influenced by any poll either? This may be a small proportion of the total number of voters and possibly have a negligible effect on the final result; is that what you mean?

          Polls are predictions for something that has not yet happened and has no fixed outcome till all votes and special votes have counted and recounted and declared final; it’s a little bit like predicting next week’s Lotto numbers (with much better but not absolutely dead-certain odds). I hope I am stating the bloody obvious here.
          • DSpare 14.1.1.1.1

            17 September 2017 at 8:19 am

            Incognito
            I was mainly replying to ianmac’s comment (which you seemed to be in agreement with); “People make up their mind on the way to the booth so the final decision can swing either way”. But I did get pretty rambly. Hopefully political polls have better accuracy than guessing the lotto numbers, but at the moment they are so far apart that; one, or more, will be demonstrated to be outside margin of error wrong in their predictions.
            • Incognito 14.1.1.1.1.1

              17 September 2017 at 11:33 am

              🙂
15. cleangreen 15

    16 September 2017 at 9:49 am

    Complete story of wang enterprises rigging of the US Elections.

    Uncounted – Clint Curtis: Million Dollar Programmer

    ‘UNCOUNTEDTHEMOVIE ‘

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tjnuG-l6g
16. cleangreen 16

    16 September 2017 at 10:01 am

    TV3 Nation is interupted at 20minutes into the hour long event now. 16/9/17 at 9.58am.

    Was it a fire evacuation warning or other?
    • lurgee 16.1

      16 September 2017 at 10:04 am

      Fire alarm or the start of the revolution?
      • lurgee 16.1.1

        16 September 2017 at 10:12 am

        Patrick Gower is leering at me from the screen again. Alas, it appears the forces of reaction have – on this occasion – suppressed the Great Revolt of the Proletarians. Never fear, comrades! There will be many battles in the Great War of Liberation. Some defeats are inevitable, for the enemy is strong! But ultimate victory is assured.

        Our children will grow up knowing Paddy Gower only as a figure in history books, a bleak warning of the Horrors of Capitalism!
        • tracey 16.1.1.1

          16 September 2017 at 11:16 am

          LOL
17. Bearded Git 17

    16 September 2017 at 11:16 am

    Stuff’s poll of polls has the Greens safe now.

    Nat 42.4
    Lab 40.4
    Gre 7.0
    NZF 6.0

    If the MP gets 1.5% and a seat this would be enough for a Lab/Gr/MP government even with the (possibly rogue) Reid research poll included in the results above.

    interesting here is the trouble NZF is in. The trajectory for Winston is all down with his awful campaign. The Greens campaign , especially on social media, has been excellent. They have very strong clear policies, hence the recovery.

    Of course Winnie may win Northland again, but 4%, if they sink that low, would only be 5 seats.
    • mickysavage 17.1

      16 September 2017 at 11:18 am

      And no Shane Jones …
      • weka 17.1.1

        16 September 2017 at 11:38 am

        that’s a lovely thought.
    • weka 17.2

      16 September 2017 at 11:38 am

      “Stuff’s poll of polls has the Greens safe now.”

      I think it’s likely but not a given that the Greens will stay in parliament, not because of the polls but because Jeanette Fitzsimons believes so 😉

      But we need to be careful here to not be complacent. Doubly important now to get the left vote out and to get a strong Green vote in particular to make it a progressive govt.
    • swordfish 17.3

      16 September 2017 at 12:16 pm

      Stuff’s poll of polls has the Greens safe now …
      very strong clear policies, hence the recovery

      Best not get too complacent … odds mildly in Greens favour but they’re by no means out of the woods yet.

      (1) Roy Morgan – Greens 9%

      Last 2 RMs @ previous Elections vs Greens Election Result

      2014 Election 10.7 …… Last RM 13.5 ….. 2nd Last RM 16
      2011 Election 11.06 …. Last RM 14.5 ….. 2nd Last RM 13
      2008 Election 6.72 …… Last RM 10 … .… 2nd Last RM 11.5
      2005 Election 5.3 … …. Last RM 7.5 … … 2nd Last RM 7.5

      ie history of overstating Green support

      (2) & Bear in mind RM’ is not the most recent Poll

      Roy Morgan sample over a longer period (typically 2 weeks) and there’s almost always an unusually long delay between the end of their fieldwork and release, compared to other Pollsters.

      Sampling mid-points for latest Polls
      RM 4 Sep
      RR 8 Sep
      CB 11 Sep

      Latest CB …… Green = 7%
      Latest RR …… Green = 4.9%
      • DSpare 17.3.1

        16 September 2017 at 1:32 pm

        swordfish
        Yes; RM is not the most hasty of polls, but it does have the huge advantage of being done every month whether there is an election or not. It seems to follow that; the influence of other polls in the poll of polls is greater at election time when they are conducted much more frequently (especially Reid Research). Since, as you point out; RM has a history of overstating Green support, this results in GP support seeming to drop during election campaigns, as the number of CB&RR results swamp the predominantly RM baseline.

        There doesn’t really seem to be a solution to this, except the RM using methods which are more accurate for minor parties (which may not be their priority). A moratorium on poll publishing after writ day – or at least during the early voting period, appeals to me, but there would be problems with that too.

        This site has some nice graphs that you can adjust the parameters on, which is easier than staring at long spreadsheets of political poll results:

        https://www.andrewchen.nz/polls
      • Bearded Git 17.3.2

        16 September 2017 at 2:05 pm

        UMR Green 7% . That Reid poll an outlier

        But you are right anything can happen. a couple of people I know have already tactically voted Green (rather than Labour-I did hassle them)
    • cleangreen 17.4

      16 September 2017 at 1:36 pm

      Inbox today folks from Horizon.

      Greens & NZ First both safe.

      https://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/477/main-partie

      HORIZONPOLL – INCORPORATING SHAPENZ

      New result: Labour and National in dead heat
      Saturday 16th September 2017
      Research Results
      Main parties in dead heat
      16 Sep 17
      Credit: Radio NZ

      Nothing between the main parties with 8 days to go …
      National and Labour are almost dead even in the latest Horizon party vote poll.

      Among those who are registered, have made up their minds and will definitely vote, National has 38.5%support.

      Labour has 38.2%.

      New Zealand First has 9.8%, the Green Party 7.7%.

      If this level of support is achieved by NZ First then it will be able to decide which main party governs.

      ACT has 1.4% which could also be significant in deciding which main party governs. If ACT’s leader wins the Epsom electorate, on these results ACT would have two MPs and enable a National-New Zealand First-ACT coalition.

      Alternatively, on these results a Labour-Green-NZ First coalition could govern.

      The poll of 846 registered voters was taken between September 9 and 14.

      It is weighted by age, gender and region to ensure it represents the New Zealand adult population at the last census. At a 95% confidence level, the maximum margin of error for the decided voter sample is +/- 3.4%.

      The result mirrors poll of polls results showing the main parties in a close race in the last week of the election campaign.

      Expected and preferred coalition leader

      Overall, 59% of decided voters are expecting Labour to lead a coalition government if one is needed. 41% expect National would lead it.

      Asked who they would prefer to lead a coalition, 53% say Labour, 47% National.

      Voting by gender and age

      Women are a significant driver of Labour’s support in this poll and since the change to Jacinda Ardern as leader.
      42% of women voters support Labour, 33% National.

      National is stronger among men: 44% to 34% for Labour.

      By age, Labour’s strongest support is coming from those aged 18-34.

      52% of definite voters aged 18-24 support, Labour, 25% National.

      47% of those aged 25-34 support Labour, 32% National.

      The parties each have 32% of those aged 35-44 years.

      National has more support among those aged 45+.

      Among those 65+ National has 52%, Labour 29%.

      Seats

      Assuming the Maori Party and ACT each win one electorate seat, these results would give parties this number of seats in Parliament:

      ACT 2
      Green Party 10
      Labour 47
      Maori Party 1
      National 48
      NZ First 12

      The survey complies with Research Association New Zealand’s political polling code.

      A Roy Morgan poll published on September 15 also finds the parties neck and neck.
      The National Business Review covers the Horizon poll and radio interview here.

      Your comments are welcome at Horizon’s Facebook page.

      For further information, please contact Grant McInman, Manager, Horizon Research, e-mail gmcinman@horizonresearch.co.nz, telephone +64 21 0762040
    • NewsFlash 17.5

      16 September 2017 at 2:48 pm

      Poll has National on 42.4 because of use of Mondays Bullshit poll in making up the averages, Imo, the results for National and Labour were transposed in that poll, deliberately, last weekend, Bill’s campaign attendance was dismal.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS