UMR has Len Brown ahead of Banks

Written By: - Date published: 1:45 pm, July 23rd, 2009 - 30 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, john banks, len brown, polls - Tags: , , ,

brown-small

Len Brown

UMR’s just released a poll showing Manukau mayor Len Brown as the preferred mayor of the Auckland Super City, slightly ahead of John Banks. The poll shows Brown on 35%, Banks on 34%, and 31% undecided.

They’ve also done a matchup between Banks and Auckland Regional Council chair Mike Lee. Banks left Lee in the dust with 35% to 18%.

Len Brown will be stoked, this really opens up the race. I’m strongly in favour of the idea of a series of democratic primaries pulling in the broader Left so we can unite behind one candidate. On these results Brown would have to be the early favourite.

UMR’s full analysis is here.

30 comments on “UMR has Len Brown ahead of Banks ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ari 1
    23 July 2009 at 2:16 pm

    “Democratic primaries”? Let me see, are we in america? No? Then that’s an oxymoron. Systems that rely on primaries reduce our choice of candidates and rely on similar “unite behind me or suffer” attitudes to FPP, which it seems like the posters here agree is a bad system. I can’t see why you’d want primaries when we could instead be looking for a voting system that is neither beneficial nor detrimental to “clones”, or rather, candidates that compete for similar constituencies.

    • Eddie 1.1
      23 July 2009 at 2:52 pm

      Because when you’re in an FPP system splitting the vote may give you “choice” of sorts, but it’s a fraud because the result will not reflect the preferences of the voters. There’s nothing democratic in letting a candidate win complete power on 30% of the vote.

      Primaries wouldn’t stop anyone from standing, they’d just be a way for the wider Left to say ‘we’re going to throw our combined strength behind this candidate’. The loser in a primary race could still stand, they’d just have no organisational backing behind them.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1
        23 July 2009 at 4:18 pm

        There’s nothing democratic in letting a candidate win complete power on 30% of the vote.

        That’s why we should have STV which, although not optimal, is still better than primaries IMO.

        • Ari 1.1.1.1
          23 July 2009 at 4:55 pm

          I still maintain that we should be going for a truly evaluative system like approval or range voting for single-seat contests like Mayor of Superauckland instead of settling for STV.

          • jarbury 1.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2009 at 7:56 pm

            I submitted asking for STV. So did a LOT of people.

            This is good news, Len Brown would make an awesome super city Mayor. Anything to slap down John Banks’ ego to be honest.

  2. MikeG 2
    23 July 2009 at 2:16 pm

    I’m no fan of Banks, but the subject line (and the lines being run by Radio NZ and the NZ Herald) overstate the result somewhat – the difference in polling between Brown and Banks is well within the margin of error.

  3. Zaphod Beeblebrox 3
    23 July 2009 at 2:53 pm

    Where was Bob?
    I would predict he will poll better against Banks than Brown. Did you notice that Banks had a nine point lead among the West respondents? This was I suspect the people who want to vote for Bob sitting it out rather than support Brown.
    If Len and Bob play their cards right (ie don’t take each other out), they may both do very well in October next year.

  4. ak 4
    23 July 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Excellent sign. Only certainty is that it’ll be a stark Left/Right clash and an important pointer to 2011; so sort out the Len/Bob thing quick and hit the ground with fury and troops to ensure a good turn out of the er Brown vote.

  5. StephenR 5
    23 July 2009 at 3:15 pm

    MikeG, it’s significant that in the story there is a reference to a poll taken earlier where Brown was waaaay behind.

  6. Deep Throat 6
    23 July 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Many people on the right will now reconsider their support for Banks because the conception that he is the leading candidate has now evaporated. Michael Barnett from the Auckland Chamber of Commerce must be thinking he has a shot now. Banks has been telling anyone who will listen that he has the Super City sown up and has been running the other possible candidates down. However I hear there is growing discontent on the right as to the best candidate. Many people now sense Banks just doesn’t have enough support across the city.

  7. MikeG 7
    23 July 2009 at 3:29 pm

    That’s right StephenR – therefore the headline should be something along the lines of “Brown closes gap on Banks”.

  8. StephenR 8
    23 July 2009 at 3:34 pm

    Banks has been telling anyone who will listen that he has the Super City sown up and has been running the other possible candidates down.

    Where? All i’ve seen lately is him saying how he wants lots of people running to make it competitive and how he respects the other mayors and just wants to give them all a great big hug!

    However I hear there is growing discontent on the right as to the best candidate. Many people now sense Banks just doesn’t have enough support across the city.

    Unsubstantiated rumours by an anonymous blog commenter, love it.

  9. StephenR 9
    23 July 2009 at 3:36 pm

    That’s right StephenR therefore the headline should be something along the lines of “Brown closes gap on Banks’.

    Well Brown’s strictly overtaken him, so depends how accurate one wants to be.

  10. gobsmacked 10
    23 July 2009 at 3:38 pm

    If the contest is between Banks (National) and Brown (Labour), I hope they – and the media – are open about their party affiliations.

    I’m more than happy to have genuinely independent candidates running for Mayor, but not the faux-parties of CitRats, etc. Especially when the super-sized electorates will inevitably require a revved-up party machine to campaign.

  11. MikeG 11
    23 July 2009 at 4:12 pm

    If you want to be accurate then read the statement about the margin of error for the poll – “The margin of error for sample size of 482 for a 50% figure at the ‘95% confidence level’ is ± 4.5%.”
    (Note that the moe at 34-35% is less than 4.5%, but certainly greater than 1%.)

    • snoozer 11.1
      23 July 2009 at 4:22 pm

      With that margin of error, it’s more likely that Brown is ahead of Banks than behind.

      You shouldn’t get so upset about the technicalities of a title, the fact is you’re upset about what the poll shows – that Banks has this far from sown up, I mean he’s the only one campaiging and he’s not winning.

      • MikeG 11.1.1
        23 July 2009 at 4:26 pm

        Read the first sentence of my first post – “I’m no fan of Banks” – I hope that Brown is ahead, but polls are only polls and there is a long way to go. We don’t even know who the candidates are!

  12. Tim Ellis 12
    23 July 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Interesting result. I’m not questioning UMR’s research, but I do wonder if the Labour Party commissioned the question in the omnibus poll, as UMR is Labour’s own polling company.

    • jarbury 12.1
      23 July 2009 at 8:09 pm

      You’re not questioning their research but….. oh hold on you are.

      • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1
        23 July 2009 at 8:48 pm

        No no , he said he wasn’t jarbury. He was just saying that he wonders if Labour commissioned the question. He presumably will tell us why he thinks this would be of any interest at all to anyone, seeing he is definatly not questioning UMR’s honesty. Which makes a change.

        “Labour’s own polling company” is not meant to imply anything at all either. Perfectly innocent use of colloquial language, Tim’s ever so sloppy and imprecise with words. If people get the wrong impression from the things he says, it mortifies him.

        • jarbury 12.1.1.1
          23 July 2009 at 9:29 pm

          No no , he said he wasn’t jarbury.

          He wouldn’t lie to us would he?

          • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2009 at 9:37 pm

            He would never be so blatantly dishonest jarbury. It would be beneath him.

        • Tim Ellis 12.1.1.2
          23 July 2009 at 10:01 pm

          Goodness me, PB, you are sensitive tonight.

          I am not questioning the quality of the research or the data. I am questioning who commissioned the question, because I think that is relevant. I don’t see UMR publishing a lot of its polling information. So either the publication of this information was just for publicity for UMR, or the person who commissioned the question wanted the information released.

          Given UMR’s historically strong links with the Labour Party, I think it is very useful information to have. If the poll had said, for example, that Mr Banks was fifty points ahead of Mr Brown and Mr Lee, then would UMR have published that information? Possibly not, if the Labour Party, or Mr Brown, or somebody associated with Mr Brown had commissioned the question.

          The data itself is superficially interesting, but I am interested in the motive for publishing it. The conclusion from the data is that Mr Brown would be a better candidate against Mr Banks than Mr Lee would be. Is it intended that this polling data is used to promote Mr Brown’s case for being the Labour candidate for Super Mayor?

          I think these are relevant questions, PB. Just as it is relevant if Mr Farrar publishes a poll that is commissioned by the National Party, or Family First.

          • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.2.1
            23 July 2009 at 10:31 pm

            I think you are the sensitive one Tim. You seem to think I questioned you. How odd. I merely wondered why you would think it interesting to know if Labour commissioned the poll.

            It turns out that once again you are questioning UMR’s honesty and ethics. Would it be so hard to simply say so from the outset, rather than just hint at this strange pointless skullduggery that you claim, without any evidence at all, may exist?

            • Tim Ellis 12.1.1.2.1.1
              23 July 2009 at 10:45 pm

              No, PB, your comment was riddled with sarcasm.

              I didn’t question the research, as jarbury suggested. I question if there is a political motive behind the question and its release. I also question if the information would have been released if it had not been favourable towards Len Brown over Mike Lee.

              I would think Mike Lee might be very annoyed if a poll question associated with the Labour Party was being used to spoil his chances for a tilt at the supermayoralty race.

            • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.2.1.2
              23 July 2009 at 10:53 pm

              The sarcasm you inferred turned out to be perfectly appropriate Tim. I was just following your lead.

              You are implying that UMR is acting in a dishonest way, without any evidence whatsoever.

              It’s the same bullshit smear that you ran in the linked thread. Why don’t you just get in touch with UMR and ask them if it interests you so much?

              Instead you just publicly question their integrity. To what end Tim? What is your motive here?

            • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.2.1.3
              23 July 2009 at 10:59 pm

              You seem to think that unless UMR say that a poll is commissioned by the Labour party, then it’s just natural to assume that it could be. As if they should have to tell us when a poll isn’t commissioned by Labour as well as when it is.

              Surely you see that this is stupid.

  13. Tim Ellis 13
    23 July 2009 at 11:05 pm

    PB, plenty of people question the quality of research that Mr Farrar does on behalf of his clients, even though he is upfront about his associations.

    In my view there is a clear political association between the Labour Party and UMR. A single question that forms a press release like this does raise questions.

    I am not questioning UMR’s research. I am questioning if there is a political motivation behind publicising it.

    • Pascal's bookie 13.1
      23 July 2009 at 11:14 pm

      I think you’re being paranoid. And the DPF thing isn’t actually apples and oranges as I explained in the other thread, unless you’ve got an example of someone alleging similar behavior to what you are suggesting?

  14. StephenR 14
    24 July 2009 at 8:16 am

    MikeG, you win, this time.