- Date published:
6:31 pm, March 30th, 2014 - 189 comments
Categories: Media - Tags: colmar brunton, political polls, reid research
Two new polls have just been released and to be frank the results are not bad. TV3 Reid Research has National at 45.9%, up slightly on the last poll result which seemed low, Labour on 31.2%, the Greens on 11.2% and NZ First on 4.9%. The poll historically over reports National’s support so if I was them I would be worried.
One News Colmar Brunton’s results are similar, National is on 47% apparently down 4, Labour 31% down 3, the Greens 11% up 3, and NZ First 7%.
The results may be similar but Paddy Gower interprets the Reid Research result as vindication for National whereas the Colmar Brunton result suggests that National has shed 4% to NZ First.
Mediawatch this morning had interesting comments on polling, on the need not to ascribe slight changes to be evidence of the electorate passing judgment on an individual incident (e.g. Judith Collins), and comment was made on how National’s support tended to be overrepresented in polls. With 20% of people not having landlines I agree.
These results suggest that the election is closer than the media would let us think it is.
The only way the left is going to win is if you guys manage to confuse enough of the plebs with your tales of woe, doom and other assorted bits of bull shit.
It’s going to be hard going though,I don’t think Kiwis are as dumb as you think they are, there really is quite a positive buzz out there in NZ and you can thank John Key for that, the guy is working his arse off to make NZ a better country and anyone with more than one brain cell can see that and really admires the man for that.
So BM how do you feel with these results for National? And do you agree that National’s support tends to be overstated?
“I don’t think Kiwis are as dumb as you think they are”
The only ones who think this are Nact, you can tell that by the shit that comes from their mouths that they expect everyone to believe.
Micky – while you are commenting on National’s rating, the real concern is about Labour’s share. It is 31 in both polls and leader David is 8-9%. Both are going down. I think trying to find dirt on National MPs or ministers are not working and it is time Labour bring some bold policies to differentiate and articulate a vision.
Agree completely. It’s election year, time to stop playing the opposition games and start demonstrating why you should be brought in to govern.
take a peek at some fpp voting percentages, sometimes we were a 3 party country
Disagree. So you think national ministers feathering their own nests at tax payers expense should just be ignored because it doesn’t suit you Neutral _Voter? it seems no one had to dig very deep to find dirt on national, they exposed that themselves, and lying about it only made it even worse.
So BM from the tone of your comment ….let me guess…You are going to vote Labour?Go on BM we know you really want to..come out of the political closet
Why would any one want to vote Labour, you’d have to be a complete idiot.
For the vast majority of people the country is fair rocking there’s so much growth and change going on it’s unreal.
NZ is right there on the cusp of really really prosperous times, voting Labour in would just completely fuck things up and I just hope people are smart enough to see the opportunities that are ahead and stick with National at least for the next term or two.
So BM was John Key responsible for the Christchurch earthquakes and the global financial crisis? I am sure he was not responsible for one of these events although his ilk had a major part to play in the other.
And are you pleased that Cullen and Clark paid off all the debt so that we could have the current splurge on the country’s credit card?
With the greatest respect, I wouldn’t describe the past couple of terms as a “splurge”. Quite the opposite, seems that a majority of govt effort has been in cutting govt costs and seeking better efficiencies (whether or not those have been realised is another discussion).
I don’t see how the govt books would have been any better with Labour at the wheel. If I’m honest, my perception of current party priorities would indicate a much worse situation in terms of debt.
view from the centre of what? you forgot the 60bn debt (and climbing) and the tax take dropping or the last few mobths
at least you didnt say you used to vote labour and then have to come back and say nit was in the 80s.
And your point is what?
That “splurge” is a perfectly good description of voluntarily cutting one’s own revenue and making up the difference by borrowing, although “incompetence” might be a better one?
The IMF got the memo that slashing government spending depresses the economy. You were asleep perhaps?
that he doesnt get the point makes me wonder if his surname isEnglish
I assume you’re referring to the asset sales program, and yes I do agree that I have wondered if it stacks up economically (forget arguments driven by ideology). I’ve seen plenty of narrow arguments one way or the other, but nothing that states how much money was made, what the overall costs were (incl loss of income from dividends), and after how many years will it take for any benefits from a reduction in debt be overtaken by the accumulated loss of income.
In the short term though, like over the past couple of years, you can’t tell me that additional borrowing has been necessary due to asset sales (or maybe you can). Quite the opposite given the money made far exceeds the short-term costs and loss of income.
Really? Try here to start your research.
Bzzt! Wrong! I was referring to tax (aka “revenue”) and spending cuts – you know, the spending (aka “government costs”) cuts you cited in your original comment. Hence the “slashing government spending” part of my comment.
And yes, asset sales were incompetent too.
“And are you pleased that Cullen and Clark paid off all the debt so that we could have the current splurge on the country’s credit card?”
Hahaha, thats so wrong its made me laugh.
The older 2008 becomes, the greater clark’s crumbling empire was.
We still had debt at the end of her elections.
Yes we had less government debt, but private debt skyrocketed under her reign. Correlation?
As for our borrowing, you seem to think National’s policy is to borrow and spend as much as possible.
Its been nothing of the sort, you seem to be thinking of Labour’s policies, back when they actually HAD policies.
National was about reducing crown expenses slowly, and letting the economy recover naturally, while minimizing crown borrowing.
Labour was about borrow and spending to revitalize the depressed economy.
Seems National picked correctly, we now have a strong growing economy, and are likely to hit a surplus within a year or two.
Australia which went with their labour policy of spending to revitalize their economy is now looking at $47 billion deficit for the coming year, and dealing with about 0.8% gdp growth, compared to our 3% growth.
I dont’ plan on checking the responses. My post stands by itself, and I only ever get ad-hom attacks, and leftwings circle jerking one another to prove me wrong by consensus, rather then facts. (As can be seen with responces to BM, or anyone who defies the leftwing mantra)
Like I said, crown debt was paid off. If Helen and Michael had stopped individuals from borrowing ludicrous amounts of money then there would have been hell to pay. So are you advocating that Helen and Michael should have defloated the dollars and applied currency restrictions? Regulated the banks’ ability to lend?
Good luck with that.
As for National’s policies well debt has gone from less than 10 billion to over 80 billion in a short time. Growth has slowed.
Don’t check if you like. I am just surprised how many RWNJs insist that they know best but then refuse to debate the details …
‘So are you advocating that Helen and Michael should have defloated the dollars and applied currency restrictions? Regulated the banks’ ability to lend?
Good luck with that.’
Actually, that would have been helpful, and the latter would not have even been difficult politically. I remember many people during that period dismayed at the rate of house price inflation, and the tales of 110% mortgages and so on. Those on six figure salaries like politicians probably didn’t notice (although they should have noticed the wage pressures).
We would not be in such a fix with housing affordability if we regulated the banks’ ability to lend during the boom years.
You seem to imply the job of politicians is to appease the financial sector.
You say 80 Billion, can you help me and show how National have obtained this debt over a short period, also what is a short period, 2 years 5 years, would be interested too see the results, as you say no one wants too debate the facts, so please tell?
[lprent: Pretty obvious how they got it. They borrowed it over the last 5 years.
If you want the detail then dig into the treasury reports about debt from this place downwards. A combination of falling revenues and increased costs.
Are you really as thick, gormless and ineffectual enough to not be able to do a simple google search as your comment appears to indicate. A simple search for “nz government debt” popped these up in the first 10 results.
Mickey was slightly off. Nz Government debt’s low point was about 15 billion in 2007, and peaked at just over 79 billion in 2012. Last year they managed to ‘decrease’ it to just under 78 billion, but only because of asset sales. Which of course meant that the governments nett debt increased by more than 5 billion because they made such a arse of selling their assets at bargain basement values. Only a moron like Bill English would sell nett revenue generating assets at the bottom of the market.
Try again to convince me that you are in fact a thinking human. So far you look like some kind of code written in basica. ]
Why would anyone want to try and help you understand B.M? Seems like a waste of energy to me
Help me understand?.
Christ, it’s the numpties on this site that need the sing songs and picture books, not me.
Could I borrow your John Keys join the dots picture book that doubles as a political manifesto and your National sing along c.d. I need something to fuel the fire
Beneath you eh?
it is indeed unreal.
BM. Must be those synthetics your on – puts you right out there on planet key
For the vast majority of people the country is fair rocking there’s so much growth and change going on it’s unreal.
NZ is right there on the cusp of really really prosperous times, voting Labour in would just completely fuck things up…
It’s pretty stupid to ascribe economic performance to the government, but what the hell – if you want to be that stupid, then looking at NZ’s economic performance over the last two governments we can say that Labour does a better job than National by a huge margin.
Big difference is before we were just coat tailing it.
Now everyone else is still in the doldrums while we’re fair rocking along, that you can put down to John Key and National.
Earthquake rebuild and milk powder prices, you Bellman fool.
Now everyone else is still in the doldrums while we’re fair rocking along, that you can put down to John Key and National.
I can? Rather than putting it down to facts like our banks are Australian and didn’t collapse, the previous government paid down our public debt, milk prices are high and there’s huge expenditure on the Christchurch rebuild, I should put it down to John Key and National? Do you have some reasons to offer, or is it just an article of faith?
Of course you can put it down to John Key and National!
1) Key was part of the idiots that ruined the global economy in the first place, which allowed for something to be “fixed”
2) National has sold our souls to china to ensure our milk powder is sold there and destroyed all environmental protections and worker protection to ensure that our milk industry looks positive
This makes the economy appear “rocking” and it is for the top 1-10%, who are now doing there best to convince the next 50-60% that they too can have the same opportunities and share in the wealth so that they are distracted from the cries of woe from the bottom 30-50% who have been absolutely screwed over by this government and are now vilified by the top 10% to further their own agendas to take all the wealth.
So yes, the current state of affairs is all National’s fault, and they should reap the rewards that they deserve later in the year. (Hint, i am thinking more Bastille day)
by vast majority you dont mean the 50% of kiwis earning under $22 per hour?
those on pensions in auckland struggling to love and be warm after rent is paid?
You are already living on planet Key. There are a lot of us in NZ that see him as a devious currency trader who has bought off a blinkered, self serving middle class. He has deceived the country over the GCSb. Sold state assets in a garage sale that has not dented his blown out deficit. Surrounded himself with low rate toadies like John banks (currently facing electoral fraud charges) and Peter Dunne to hold his majority. Lied about a consensus on MMP, ignoring a citizens referendum in the process. Yes, we all love the bloke
Looking at the poll results for preferred PM – there seem to be a lot of people who like Planet Key.
Not not so many liking the idea of Planet Labour.
18% undecided. Wow. That’s getting close to one in five people don’t know who they’re going to vote for. Has it ever been as high as that before?
How long are we going to have to wait until Labour really get their ball rolling, announce central economic policies and convert all these people?
it may even make p20 of the herald, if the editor is feeling generous
Which would matter if this were a presidential election. Not quite so much in a parliamentary election, where you’re voting for a party, not a person…
Both the party- and leader-in-waiting are crucial.
The excitement was palpable right after the outcome of the leadership contest with the emphasis on TARA and the temperature felt like it was going hot up.
But then came TINA on the super age increase (yet another elitist kind of policy along the lines of we-know-better, we-know-what-is-good-for-you and we-know-you-don’t-like-it-but-we’re-going-to-do-it-to-you-anyway’ from the same old Labour, said a work mate), the loss of momentum in the run-up to what should have been a big bang before Christmas (blame Len Brown for filling up the news … and also a still new team of key staff being formed around the Leader?) … and what else? …
Oh, while fresh from yesterday’s nationwide demo, Labour needs to sort out the messaging on TPPA. Sitting on the fence of wait-and-see-the-text-that-needs-to-be-released-at-least-two-weeks-before-signing-the-agreement would better suit a somnambulistic campaign.
Who said the poll results are true James? maybe there are more people who are fed up and hate living on planet key than you care to admit.
Ill go with the good ‘ol *citation needed with you.
I can site many, many, many polls from a variety of polling companies to back up my argument.
Well its just cold comfort to the likes of you to cling to polls that are fickle at best. Polls are flawed and unreliable and they were certainly wrong as the 2011 election results showed James.
So nothing from you other than saying polls are unreliable. Cool story bro.
err, poem cited the 2011 election results (which differed wildly from the polls) as evidence to support his statement that polls are unreliable.
I can understand why you’d want to dismiss it, but it works better if you at least pretend to address the point made.
It was just a good example felix. and what point was that? how a right winger like James clings to fickle polls? They certainly cry foul the loudest when the polls swing the other way dont they? Its ridiculous to take polls as gospel, the only one that really matters is election day. Until then its just conjecture an supposition.
I think you may have misread me. I was trying to explain your excellent point to our mutual and slow-witted friend James.
I asked you who said the polls are true James, and all I got from you was a line that you have the backing of many many polls from a variety of polling companies, well thats not very convincing. Knock yourself and prove it then.
Misread your last sentence, Sincere apologies felix !!
one thing to consider is the difference between polls between elections and the election results. someone, swordfish(?) has done and posted a table showing national has polled 4-7% lower on election day compared to polls.
yes Tracey I remember reading that. Polls are not very reliable and are fickle at best !!!
and yet… despite the popularity trumpetted widely by the right of the pm, when you combine green and labour votes in the polls its going to be very close.
[Too far comment deleted – MS]
Cancerman that is an extremely anti-semitic comment, and phrasing it as a question makes it no less so.
That’s a disgraceful, anti-semitic connection to make.Incredibly offensive.
What the fuck is going on with you and why do you think it’s ok to share these shitty thoughts with us?
I’m sorry but the attacks on John Key being a “devious banker” I believe are just dog whistle attacks and you are correct are unacceptable anti semitism. That is may point.
So somebody said “devious bankers” and you immediately assumed they were talking about jews.
You’re the racist dogwhistler, mate. Everyone else is disgusted.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
We really mean ‘devious bankers’ when we say ‘devious bankers’.
I’m sorry but the attacks on John Key being a “devious banker” I believe are just dog whistle attacks and you are correct are unacceptable anti semitism. That is my point.
Fool. John Key is a banking lapdog scumbag. Any religious alignment is completely irrelevant bumf. Your ability to join the dots should have been left at kindergarten.
are you saying all bankers and currency traders are jewish? citation needed.
my bank manager is tangatawhenua.
Nah he’s saying all the devious ones are.
The use of “devious bankers” or underhanded lender is a common stereotype used to frame Jews. You wanted more to back up my claims that “bankers” are used to infer jew then follow the link.
Now for everyone to deny that this hasn’t been a historical tactic is to lie. To say that you didn’t mean to infer that link maybe be true but in that case prehaps you should be more careful and thoughtful in your attacks on John Key, because to me them seem extremely racist.
You’re the only one who made the link.
You’re the racist.
Yes your absolutely right. I’m the only one who made the link even though there is a whole wiki page on it and years of history. Yes someone who supports John Key is also a raving anti semite. Your quite right.
I know racism when I see it and I think I have made myself more than clear.
“Yes your absolutely right. I’m the only one who made the link even though there is a whole wiki page on it and years of history.”
No, dipshit. You’re the only one who made the link to that history in the context of the comment you pretended to be outraged about.
“Yes someone who supports John Key is also a raving anti semite.”
Yep. Why not? Oh that’s right, because you’re trying to define him for the purpose of an argument by an aspect of his public persona that no-one else seems to either notice or give a shit about.
Fact: He’s devious.
Fact: He’s a currency trader.
Bullshit: We’re not allowed to mention those two facts in the same sentence because occasionally, when it suits him (and he’s not busy claiming to be a christian and/or an atheist), he claims a family connection to an ancient middle-eastern religion which carries a few stereotypes about what Key actually does in real life.
“I know racism when I see it and I think I have made myself more than clear.”
Yes you have. Crystal.
He didn’t lie about the lack of consensus on MMP reform, he just implied it was the opposition that opposed for some reason, when it was National and Act that opposed the changes because it would mean they would not be able to do their dirty backroom deals anymore.
Oh also ignoring referendum is ok because Labour did it first, even if it was really National that ignored the pro-child beating referendum.
BM, kudos for acknowledging the possibility of a Labour led victory. I know that must have been quite the dead rat for you. And Bravo! for the optimistic description of Key’s work habits. You may be the only Kiwi that thinks Key works anything like hard; ‘relaxed’ might describe it better. And how quaint that you think his meagre efforts are devoted to making NZ a better country. That’s so sweet! So very devoted.
I was in Hamilton yesterday to support the anti TPPA rally and while I was in the Garden Centre a young woman handed me a home printed flyer. Here is some of what it had to say:
Volunteer Community Organisation
Non profit non government organisation made up of volunteer workers who feel a community responsibility
The people we seek out to help are those who are in need of support from their community. Some of them have fallen through the mental health act, some are elderly, some are young runaways, some have no stable income, and some are on housing waiting lists. This is not an ideal situation for anyone. It is a failure in our system.
As a community we want to make a difference
We want to make things better, with a warm meal and some extra clothing and bedding we hope to give the foundation blocks for a better outlook on life. ….
Our Primary functions
1. To locate food and then feed the poor and homeless at 6.30 pm every evening from monday to sunday (currently we are feeding around 60-70 people on an average night)
2 to find and distribute clothing and bedding
3 fund raise for these activities.
This is in your major city BM – the result of the ” brighter future”
What are you doing about it?
Kia ora Macro.
Any chance of a copy?
on its way
BM just sees something like this happening in his region and assumes everyone is raking in the wealth..
he sees that and believes if key stays in power one day, one day, if he keeps working hard…
“John Key working his arse off to make NZ a better country”… Dear christ BM, listen to yourself you sycophantic lunatic..
We need better wingnuts..
if you were a racehorse youd need blinkers to stay on track and not be frightened by those around you.
Either way you intepret it, Labour is fucked. You are talking shit, you will not see the light of day come 2014 election.
Interesting comment John. You seem to be a first time commenter. What has made you want to share your wisdom?
A bad case of a mal-functioning bowel might have had ‘john’ joining us tonight micky…
He had to share it because it was going to overflow his brain. brilliant right wing insight, with intellect like that working for them the left really is buggered.
But you on the other hand will need Winston first. Ha, ha!
If by fucked, you mean will have to cut a deal with the Greens and probably Winston First then yes, I guess they are fucked. But then by that logic every government since 1996 was fucked, which to my mind is an excellent way to describe the current situation.
I cant quite get the well thought out political point you are trying to make.Could you dumb it down a bit further for me please?
Heh! Better rightie spammers required, I reckon.
After careful analysis, I think this is what John was trying to say Ecosse_Maidy
Whether you look at it from above or from underneath Labour is having a bit of the old ‘how’s your father’. Somebody isn’t happy about it and that person isn’t going to see the dawn come the 2104 election. John doesn’t say so, but I presume its because that someone will still be asleep.
It would be interesting to have a poll on 1.)who lies to the pollsters at every opportunity… 2.)or lies to suit themselves…. 3.)or deliberately lies to skew the results ….and 4.) how many refuse to answer pollsters
I guess such a poll would be rather difficult if not impossible to carry out…smirk…and I guess it significantly affects the polls
1.)…after all pollstering is a business…you should be paid for your opinion…why give them something for free?
2.) who knows who paid for the poll?…it might be the party you hate the most ( and do you really want to help them with your opinion?)
3.)…with John Key and the GCSB listeneing in one can not be too careful what one says……lol..it may be used against you in the future .
…as Jim Bolger said …something along these lines …. “Bugger the Pollsters” …and “BUgger the Polls”
…and I might add …..bugger statistics on who is going to vote what
Colmar Brunton undecideds jumped 5% points to 18%. This suggests that a few people had their preferences shaken and considering the time that the poll was taken I think this is more reason for Key to be concerned.
And year, bugger the pollsters. The trouble is that when they become the story analysis of policy and what the country needs disappears.
Not quite ,the undecided were 13% , 5% refused to state who they were voting for.
undecideds jumping 5% points to 18%, yeah . . . interesting times
You make poor assumptions.
You assume that the jump from 5% to 18% are all Nats.
Could just as well be Labour / Green voters who are happy with the direction of the country and dont want Cunliffe as PM.
Green voters who are happy with the way the National Party is ruining the country. That seems infinitely likely. Almost a certainty. Full of juicy truthiness.
national tends to get 4-7% less vote on election day compared to the polls and today greens/labour combined are verand gower interprets it as good news for national.y very close to national…
Its a pity Chooky that we didn’t get to see exactly what questions ‘the pollsters’ asked of the respondents,
There are many ways of prepping respondents by asking them a series of questions which portray a political party in a negative light to the respondent befor their actual voting choices are sought,
Even the Herald’s John Armstrong pointed out in one column,(sorry havn’t got a link), that He knew of one ‘poll’ that does exactly that…
yes the biggest risk is that people believe the polls ( the statistics) and think the election is already decided…. and then on that basis decide not to vote
….so polls are actually a marketing tool for political parties…and a dangerous one
Chooky, agree with your analysis 100%, that’s the elephant in the room, and, hopefully Labour/Green have a lot more feet on the ground this election which will serve to somewhat balance the books against such ‘created’ bias/negativism…
BM going by your comments one would think the National Party planned that earthquake in Christchurch…Given that that is what is propelling the growth figures in this country.Now I know John Key thinks he’s god almighty..however I don’t think his power has extended to that level as yet.
P.S BM are you and John related from the same…small gene pool?
Although there is a youtube video of him stating twice that the earthquake was man made?!?!?!
Christchurch earthquake driving growth? Hmmm so is all of Fonterra’s milk production coming from Canterbury – I don’t think so.
All the other primary industry showing elevated exports and manufacturing expanding for 18 months in a row – are they all based in Christchurch? No
Christchurch rebuild is part of it but not the whole – crap news for the doom and gloom lefties around but ya gotta face the facts that NZ inc is starting to hum.
Yep milk prices are good, or were at least last year. And Key is responsible for this how?
Probably not at all micky however Key is still going to get some political benefit from it – man it sucks to be a leftie this year….
It seems that every RWNJ when making a comment must express perfect optimism in the result and under no circumstances should they express any doubt …
Hmmm pot calling the kettle black.
Your whole post here is doing exactly this. A couple of polls come out and the results aren’t great reading for Labour. (Esp preferred PM) You then mutter and mumble your way through the post and come to a conclusion that the two polls show that the election is going be closer than anyone thinks.
Perfect example of extreme optimism in the face of the results and no expression of doubt….
The trouble is mickey is this exactly same paradigm of faith in the leadership/parties of the left which was also evident before the 2008 & 2011 elections. It shut down proper and pragmatic debate on the left and the resulting election results were somewhat of a shock to the leftie faithful.
As has been said many times, ‘doing the same thing and expecting different results is on definition of insanity.’
Will it change after Sept 2014? Probably not.
Come on Jimmy. We have had months of how National can rule on its own and now a couple of polls that favour National show that it is well short.
Dress it us as much as you want. National now has to find mates. And if it sheds any more support according to these figures it is vulnerable. And it is probably 3% points shy of this result so its only option is Winston.
Good luck with that.
Milk prices may be good, but look at this from the Financial Times:
Fonterra profits sour as those of China Mengniu Dairy jump
By Jamie Smyth in Canberra and Reuters
The diverging fortunes of Asia-Pacific’s dairy groups came into the spotlight on Wednesday when New Zealand’s Fonterra reported a halving in first-half profits, while China Mengniu Dairy said 2013 profit jumped by a quarter year-on-year.
Fonterra, the world’s biggest milk supplier, reported a 53 per cent dive in interim profits in spite of record-high global milk prices and surging demand, as the New Zealand co-operative struggled to contain costs amid a shortage of milk processing capacity.
I hate to break the news to you Jimmy but National are absolutely stuffed in Ch-Ch. Read what ever you like into Nz polls but their complete and utter balls up of the Ch-Ch rebuild means they are going to get dealt to in Ch-Ch. I don’t know how that will play out nationally but in this town their brand is utterly and totally stuffed.
Which is anathema to a news industry that requires immediate and dramatic action to preseve ratings.
Captain cock- up has had a shocker, 8% that is lower than Shearer. Labours smear campaign has bitten them in the arse.
This will be the right wing line. Never mind that National cannot rule on its own account, lets attack the leadership statistics. David’s current leadership ratings puts him ahead of Helen Clark at the same time of her career …
So another six years in opposition and then PM?,
You have not answered my earlier question.
National is now well short of a majority and it has no mates. How is it going to succeed? And 6 years? Please …
Why do RWNJs have complete and utter confidence in future events when the reality is that anything can happen?
Basically this election boils down to the workers vs the bludgers.
Clark did a tremendous amount of damage to the country but I have faith in NZ that there’s still enough productive people left here who can see the big picture to get National over the line.
National, the only sane choice.
You still have not answered my question. You have posted a statement that is culturally deeply insensitive to the trade union movement and to the Party responsible to the Social Security system.
You also have a stupid comment about Helen that completely lacks any sort of analysis or understanding of the complexities involved.
You then post a comment that the Soviet Union would be proud of.
How about answering my question. National is now well short of a majority and has no mates.
Why do RWNJs have complete and utter confidence in future events when the reality is that anything can happen?
What, she became labour leader in 1993 and was elected PM in1999?
Cunliffe is very similar to Clark in the fact that he’s not really a people person and it will take a long time for the public to warm to him.
I’d say six years would be about right.
You are not answering my question.
To repeat … National is now well short of a majority and has no mates.
Why do RWNJs have complete and utter confidence in future events when the reality is that anything can happen?
Ok Micky, I’ll have a crack. national has the most popular leader and prime minister in generations. Everything is going well for National and has caalition partners in Dunne and act. Act have reinvented themselves and could be good for over 1.2%.
Winston is the interesting one. At 69 and with a life time of smoking and drinking catching up this is possibly his last crack. Winston will not want to play third fiddle to Cunliffe and the greens when he has the chance to play second fiddle to John key. Winston will want his legacy to be remembered as helping a stable government instead of destroying three governments. Winston understands that a government made up of labour MPs many of whom are lightweight , together with inexperienced and far left Parties of the greens and even mana/ internet party is a disaster waiting to happen. I think therefore it is labour and he greens who have little electoral choices in delivering a stable government to NZ. Especially when labour have a deeply unpopular leader with only 8% support of he public.
well, ACT have the incest vote, so that might get them to 1.2%.
Seriously, you reckon BM’s crowing comes from key getting the support of Peters?
Doesn’t surround like anything to crow about to me.
the issue is that despite having a very popular leader they arecpolling 45-48%. an issue because historically election day votes for national are 4-7% below their polling.
the right make a mistake if they view this as nats versus labour. its nats versus greens/labour. that co,bination is very close to nationals polling despite the very popular mr key.
Not sure what a RWNJ is but anyway..
Yes anything could happen. With the election nearly 6 months away Labour and Greens could well win and form government. However, currently, that seems much less likely than National being returned.
The Prime Minister is immensely popular. The economy is booming. Labour’s recent policy announcements have fallen flat.
National does have coalition options. ACT is likely to get 2 seats. Plus P Dunne.
Nothing is a certainty. Labour/Greens currently have about a 25% chance of winning.
One guide to keep an eye on is Centrebet. Betting markets provide extremely reliable indicators of election outcomes.
And the current Centrebet odds say it all right now.
One factor that you just don’t get is that the reason the Government is so popular is that it is a Centre-Left government. That is what New Zealanders want and that is what they now have. That leaves Labour and the Greens only two choices – a move to the Left (Plan A – what you see now) or a coalition with National. That could be on the cards if they lose both the 2014 and 2017 elections.
So spin all you like. The odds right now heavily favour a return of the Government.
people with money to waste on gambling think national will win?
Big fucking surprise. People with money to waste thought Louis VI was popular, too. The nice thing about democracy is that the comeuppance that always follows hubris is a bit more civilised these days.
labour + greens = national
dunne + epsom = national
hone = labour
mp = national (or political oblivion)
nz first = whoever gives winston the ministerial post he wants
national election day % usually lower than polling
25% chance sounds very low for someone trying to be all rational and analytical about it all…
dont forget match fixing 😉
because this one uses slater as his prophet
[quote]Basically this election boils down to the workers vs the bludgers.[/quote]
Yes, you are completely right, this election will be down to the bludgers who think wealth is everything and their privileged is a ‘god’ given right, v the workers who are struggling through this ‘brighter future’ and ‘rockstar economy’ and wonder when the good times will come to them.
By good times you mean more benefit/WFF money?
Also if you want to quote something you need to do it like this
Nah, BM, you’re mistaken. With so many more unemployed since 2008, National is spending far more on benefits than Labour did.
Smear campaign you say?
south Auckland land lines no longer exist in terms of contacting people
Why? What happened to South Auckland landlines?
They can’t afford them anymore because the “brighter future” promised by national is for other people, not the workers according to NAct’s policies and so called leadership
“They can’t afford them anymore because the “brighter future” promised by national is for other people, not the workers according to NAct’s policies and so called leadership”
Can’t afford a land line, Bollocks. These people have cell phones so they don’t need a landline.
Funny how they all can afford sky tv.
Yeah Sth Auckland people all have sky tv. That’s just a fact.
Hey Pete, can you check that for me please? It sounds legit but I’m just not totally convinced.
For some reason, the TV3 poll has graphics that give the Conservatives seats in the house (one gives them two, the other 3). This seems odd, unless the assumption is being made that they will be gifted an electorate seat.
That was the assumption Gower was making on 3News last night – managed to turn the Nats from a losing position to a comfortable majority by assuming multiple seats for the Conservatives and ACT.
shifty is like a pimple that is coming to a head and when it pops then goodbyeee national.
In the Colmar Brunton poll, only 767 people expressed a counted party preference (out of 1003) – figures are in the downloadable report. That compares with between 820 and 862 in the previous five Colmar Brunton polls.
That fleshes out the growth in the ‘undecided/refused’ percentage. If correct, fluidity is starting to appear. That would be consistent with another point made by an academic on Mediawatch today. The party in the lead at the start of the year tends to have a reduction in its support by the time of the election.
Yep. During the Collins Parata Adams weeks from hell I would think that the increase in undecideds/did not declare from 13% to 18% is very significant.
The trouble with the media/blog debate is that responses are expected to be instantaneous. My strong impression is that it is a gradual withering of enthusiasm and support and then anything is possible.
oh dear, not another three more years of National. No, no, no. Australia is looking good…
Have you seen who they elected in at the last election? Makes Aussie a less attractive option… maybe England
Based on recent polls including the two today, my estimate/calculation is that if an election was held today, the party votes would be close to the following figures:
Please do not pay much attention to my figures as it is based on calculations and not actual polling, but not from wishful thinking either.
I have based my calculations taking into consideration the actual election results in previous elections compared to the various published polls just prior to the elections.
I hope you agree that all these media polls differ quite widely from one to the other, even respecting the margin of error. These media polls are extrapolated from a small sample of about 700 to 900 compared to the millions of actual votes and yet undecideds.
What I am estimating is logically done, purely out of my own interest. I may be completely wrong of course. I am hoping my figures will be pretty good. Time will tell. Fingers crossed.
If I am far wrong, you could say, in the words of Mr Jim Bolger, ‘Bugger the pollsters’ to find some solace for disappointment!
I am always amused that when people,look at the polls leading up the election and use that to make a calculation on election support they do so on the basis of national sport dropping away but don’t acknowledge that labour support also dropped away. In fact it dropped away in 2011 to give labour their worst Election Day support ever.
really? What was the last average or individual poll result for national compared to their actual ballot result, and the same for labour?
National over-rated before the election by a couple of percent in the last polls before the election, while 2/3 of those polls undercounted labour (including one 4% undecount).
So assuming that polls in general over-rate national and under-rate Labour seems pretty fair.
Fair enough. I do remember he whole cup of tea saga ( non event beat up that it was) suddenly giving Winston a lift. I am certain thatNational will run a very tight ship this time around and ensure that there is nothing of a repeat. Still at this point I am very comfortable where the Nats are sitting. It is the left that are in trouble. And their policies when released will be subject to detailed scrutiny. The left won’t be able to promise spend and hope. Here will be no assets sales, and the economy is doing great.
While on the left I am struggling to see what policy will be the much needed game changer. And the left desperately need their game changer. As my mate slater says, there have been plenty of game change policies and all have fallen flat. And what is better from my perspective is that like it is not 92% of the population do not want Cunliffe as PM. How is he going to climb that mountain?
Meh. He doesn’t have to.
Really, his party only need to get a few more points in the campaign, and greens remain constant, and winston isn’t even needed. And that’s assuming that the polls don’t consistently under-report labour and over-report national.
The last two elections of lab5 saw labour run full terms ingovernment after getting 41% of the vote.
National can’t even dream to do the same, and there’s many an oravida/novapay between now and september…
Monty your statement is simply not true. Take a look at the graphs Karol has posted at the bottom of this thread. Labour’s election night result in 2011 (while not ideal) was either at or above what they were polling across all major polls in the last days of the campaign. National’s support meanwhile was up to 5% lower on the day than polls suggested. It seems to me that this overstatement of National’s support has been consistent across all major polls since the mid 2000s at least.
I think that the reason why National’s poll support gets shown exaggerated while Labour’s get shown lower is due to the somewhat faulty polling methodology where they are simply unable to get a ‘true’ random sample. The methodology tends to leave out, in the words of Key, the ‘underclass’ disproportionately.
NZ First is the kingmaker again. Nothing new so far.
What has to be a concern is the very noticeable slide in David Cunliffe’s standing as preferred pm. With the trend to more presidential style campaigning (which probably became more obvious in the second Clark term) a leader polling this low should be of great concern within the labour party.
As for the rest of the poll results – who really knows this far out. All it will take is some gaffe, faux pas or scandal to move the result significantly either way.
It’s a shocker of a poll, the wrong leader was picked and that is clear. Labour has been languishing at this level for 6 years and it’s solution is lurch further left ! It’s insanity. The party needs to stop thinking social media is a representative sample, it needs a wholesale cleanout, all new candidates should have at least 10 years work in the private sector…is there not a tradesman anywhere in NZ who wants to be a candidate ? No freezing worker, baggage handler, road worker, secretary, barista…look at the recently announced candidates for FFS they look like Tim Barnett is sorting out a guest list for a dinner party.
Winston is catching up on Cunliffe in the preferred Prime Minister ratings.
As much as I don’t like him, Winston’s grin would be pretty infectious if he rated higher for one poll.
I know there’s a lot of talk about how Helen Clark had similar poll ratings when she was Leader of the Opposition. I don’t think that’s a great fall back, though. Parliamentary politics has become more presidential in recent years. It’s probably one of the biggest rising problems in parliamentary democracy that we’re putting too much stock on the “Prime Minister”. New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Canada: the Cult of the Leader is becoming far more important than it was in the 1990s.
I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with Cunliffe’s ratings if I was him or Matt McCarten. I think they need to get him some good policies and make sure the delivery doesn’t go belly up. Leave attacking the slime of National to some of the old guard.
Yes Labour come out against the TPPA and stop perching on the fence. Still the Rockstar economy also includes Fonterra profits halved by polluting milk with DCD and exporting it to Sri Lanka. Our current rulers are just plain careless, without the earthquake the optimists would be struggling to praise the govt. power prices up interest rates up houses out of reach for first home buyers. A paradise by anyone’s definition. 18% is a huge jump in undecideds. Add in Mr Dotcom and this going to be the weirdest election campaign ever.
Stuff’s spin on the topic mentions that Key is on 42% as preferred PM. How long has his support been lower than that of National?
I’m not totally sure OAB but I think 42% for Key represents quite a big drop in the PM preferred stakes from recent polls which had him around 48/49% (which in itself is a big drop from the 55 plus percent he’s been polling over much of his tenure as PM)? A much bigger drop than Cunliffe has had in the preferred PM polling but funnily enough none of the commentators have mentioned that fact.
Yeah that’s my impression too.
Obviously BM, Jimmie, John et al have absolutely nothing to worry about 😈
I did some checking for you:
ALL the following figures are based on the Colmar Brunton polls:
 On 3 Nov 2011, just before the general election,
Key Preferred PM rating was quite high at 56%
This week’s Mr Key’s rating is 42%
That is a DROP of 14 points or 25%.
 On 3 Nov 2011, just before the general election,
The National Party support was also 56%
This week’s National support is 47%
That is a DROP of 9 points or 17%
 From the time Cunliffe took over as leader in Sept 2013, his preferred PM rating has dropped from 12% to 8% which is a drop of 4 points or 33% while the drop from Feb’s 10% to this week’s 8% is a drop of 2 points or 20%
Labour party support has dropped from 34% (both when he took over as well as last month, to 31% now, which is a DROP of 3 points or 9%.
You can see these figures and much more of interest to you at these two excellent pages:
Some interesting comparisons, from the Colmar Brunton site. Must be exciting the Nats no end:
Graph showing CB One News polls, party vote Feb 2011- Oct 2013.
Tables comparing 2011 election results and polls by various companies just preceding the election.
The polls are another part if nact spin to keep sheeple away from voting by suggesting its a dunne deal, worked well in 2011 so here we go again.
engineered numbers dressed up as news requiring your attention, its PR from nacts little helpers.
Perhaps if the blogs (and MSM) paid less attention to the polls rather than breathlessly spinning them for all their worth every couple of weeks they’d be consigned to where they belong.
It would be good if all political polls (i.e who are you going to vote for) were banned for the period of 6-9 months leading into an election then we wouldn’t have to put up with this drivel and people could concentrate on policies and what’s going on in the country instead.
Nah. Have polls but only on policies.
Dim-post “Bias corrected aggregated poll of polls” is up now, I’m not liking the direction of those trend lines myself but am not going to call Cunliffe a failure yet. It’s still a long time till September.
I personally think Danyl’s adjustments for bias are a bit simplistic, but they do serve as a rough proxy.
Graph basically means Winston would be kingmaker again. I don’t know how I feel about that.
A bit of advice for David Cunliffe so far as preferred leader is concerned.
If he is trying for a “1” in the polls, it is not the same as “number 1” in the polls. 🙂
I always wondered what happened to Comical Ali 🙂 but seriously keep up the good fight Micky
Nice to see all the little wingnuts running around lighting fires, don’t mention the unable to govern alone, no mates, leaders popularity slump situation they’re in. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.
Keep spinning little tops 😆
“don’t mention the unable to govern alone, no mates”
Peter Dunne, Act, Maori Party
“leaders popularity slump situation they’re in”
So does that make John Key only 8 times as popular as Cunliffe?
You also might like to check out the trend here:
Omly a tory includes toadies who rely on patronage in a list of their “mates”.
what’s that black line down the bottom of the chart?
NZ1? They’re less friendly to asset sales that Maori Party.
You reckon Epsom will vote for Jamie Unclecousin? That the MP will win a seat?
And where are National going to get the other 58 seats they’ll need then? 😆
National won 59 seats last time so its not impossible for National to win 58 this time especially as Cunliffes dragging Labour down to English 2002 election levels
[lprent: Hey puckwit. Should we believe these numbers any more than your estimates about how many would turn up on the TPP protests? I notice you appear to be ignoring that comment.
The Herald said there were several thousand at Auckland. Should I ban you for 18 weeks? Or are you a gutless wonder who can’t stand behind their words as well as being a pathetic dickhead about numbers.
Just commenting. ]
Do tell, how were National doing in the polls to get 59 seats?
[“don’t mention the unable to govern alone, no mates”
Peter Dunne, Act, Maori Party]
They are no mates!
They are just political parasites and lousy leeches sucking from Key’s bum.
A seats still a seat no matter who holds it
If these polls are matched in the election result, the next government will be Labour/NZ1st with the Greens on confidence and supply.
So let’s hope they’re overstating Winston’s support.
How would this work – how would you stop an Aussie based company (Ray Morgan) from calling from Oz and publishing the results on their Aussie based website. This becomes news and can be then be reported on the NZ based news services.
The issue with reading polls as stated by many others is that a particular poll maybe be bias or slanted and the % numbers don’t reflect what is really happening. However, a trend within a particular poll can tell a different story. If say the Ray Morgan poll design & polling methods have a built in bias, then that bias will be built in for every poll Ray Morgan runs. If Coy A is polling the same group each time (doesn’t do land lines) then sure the % for a party maybe skewed but the movement in that % number is tellling
‘It would be good if all political polls (i.e who are you going to vote for) were banned for the period of 6-9 months leading into an election
I am not sure about that as I like to know where my vote would be the most effective.
e.g. i like party X.
If it was polling 4.8 I would give it my list vote to try to get it over the line.
If it was about 4% or below I would problem look to anther for my list vote.
The general approach of the political left is that allowing the masses to have information is bad, and it is better for the central committee to make decisions for them.
The general approach of the political right is that drowning the masses in misleading and selective information is good, and it is better for the spin doctors to make their minds up for them.
Sorry, Matthew, but that was irresistible. 🙂
Ha! That’s pretty funny Matthew, coming from a supporter of John Key’s govt, a govt has centralised decision-making at every possible turn.
The Ak Supercity centralised all local govt decisions for the most populous area of NZ.
The overriding of regional govt in Canterbury (the second most populous) put all regional decision making in the hands of central government in Wellington.
Steven Joyce’s new Ministry Of Everything pulled several disparate ministries, no more intrinsically related than any other ministries you could name, into one huge centralised superministry.
The direct govt intervention – from the innermost circle of cabinet – in South Canterbury finance, in Sky City, in The Hobbit, in Oravida, all speak to a govt dedicated to centralised decision making.
You may think some or all of these examples are just good ideas, or even necessary responses, but whether you agree with them or not they all demonstrate the same mentality, the same solution to a variety of questions.
John Key’s govt is central committee govt in a big govt way.
If I recall, Matthew was extremely supportive of the central planning approach in Christchurch and thought other cities should be begging the same treatment from central government (and complain if they didn’t get it).
Apparently, those decisions were just so right that they deserved to be imposed on people.
sad, but true
How about, either instead of or in addition to, banning news organisations or companies like Roy Morgan polling the public on their voting plans, we ban all political parties from doing private polling? By this I mean that they cannot poll the public on what they think of particular policies or a particular wording for their policies.
Parties would have to present policies on what they genuinely believe, rather than simply announce finely tuned spiels on what words appeal to the voting public.
Let us learn what the people wanting to rule us really think are things that should be done, not simply waffle what they think will get us to vote for them and which they can then ignore if they gain power and happen to end up in power.
That would get rid of the “yeah nah” type of approach and the mad flip-flopping of announcements based on what their latest focus group says is popular today.
I realise it is impossible but wouldn’t it be nice to get politicians who can simply announce, without equivocation, that “this is what I believe and what I will do”. If you approve of it vote for me. If what I think is different to your views vote for someone else.
Some parties could even go to the extent of posting relatively detailed policy proposals on their websites. Oh how I wish someone were doing that here.
Yep, let’s ban people from doing things. Always a good solution.
well, no it’s not always a good solution, but sometimes it can be.
Thank you for providing input that is as incorrect as it is vague.
This might be difficult to grasp if you think there’s no such thing as society, but bear with me Matthew it’s only a couple of sentences.
The idea is to ban stuff that has been shown to diminish the common good. alwyn has identified that the whole notion of secret polling is probably not serving the common good at all and is probably detrimental to our democracy.
If you disagree because you think he’s wrong, and that secret polling is beneficial to the common good, then you could argue the point.
But I don’t think you disagree with that part at all.
Good idea, let’s start with banning killing and injuring others, and maybe move on to banning theft as well. Wait, that’s already been done. Which just goes to show in some cases banning stuff can be justified and it is a good idea. Thanks for showing the paucity of your depth of thought, Matthew.
alwyn that would be a wonderful state of affairs. We could call it democracy.
Crank belch parp !