Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Meanwhile back at the polls

77 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • steven crawford, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    I don’t think Labour distancing themselves from The Greens will solve the problem, I suspect that what needs to happen is for both the parties to establish what the coalition will look like and just how much influence each party will have on overall policy. But I doubt anyone is keen to do that.

    I’m a bit turned of by Labour’s unjustified sense of entitlement to govern. We can accept the polls are close enough to show the Labor party is going to have to form a coalition. And the reason Labour have to relay on coalition party’s, is because they squandered there support by doing things like shitting on the Maori electorate with the seabed and foreshore act, and by doing almost nothing to address our social inequality that means thousands of children live in poverty. And that is after the prior Labour Government that contained those scum bags that became the act party.

    Thats why I don’t get the point in all there arrogance. Maybe, Labour’s potential coalition partners are not what the middle voters are anxious about. Maybe, It’s actually the Labour party’s history. And I’m not talking about the same romantic history that Cunliffe keeps trying to sell.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Andrew Robertson,

    As you can see, there are a few gaps here and there.

    Pretty good start, though. Righteous work, sir.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10641 posts Report Reply

  • Euan Mason,

    If another couple of polls agree with this then Key may be tempted to use the Banks debacle as an excuse for an early election.

    Canterbury • Since Jul 2008 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch, in reply to Euan Mason,

    If another couple of polls agree with this then Key may be tempted to use the Banks debacle as an excuse for an early election.

    That's extremely unlikely. All of the mechanisms for an election have been set in place (by the Electoral Commission, parties, media, others) and we're just outside the regulated period of three months before the election. Such an action would make National look less like a worthy government, and would incur significant backlash.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Grant Taylor,

    The risk is that the hoopla from one small, rich party will get a good deal of attention and bring some welcome novelty

    The thing about all this that unsettles me the most is the demonstration provided by the Internet Party of how much campaign funding matters, even in NZ politics. Given all the hoopla in recent elections about campaign funding transparency etc, there seems to be fairly widespread nervousness about corruption - but the ability to openly 'buy' political influence in this way is also a worry, IMO, even when no corruption (as officially defined) is involved.

    I have no idea about how big Labour and National's respective campaign resources are and how these compare with those provided by Mr Dotcom but to my knowledge, no single individual has attempted to buy a political agenda in NZ in quite this way before. (Or was Alan Gibbs' relationship with ACT essentially the same?)

    It bothers me - but then, I am fairly bothered by professional sport too. So maybe it's just me.

    Auckland • Since Jul 2012 • 24 posts Report Reply

  • Pete George, in reply to Grant Taylor,

    The thing about all this that unsettles me the most is the demonstration provided by the Internet Party of how much campaign funding matters, even in NZ politics.

    Funding helps but it's not necessarily an election winner.

    Last election the Conservative Party spent $1.88 million, more than any other party other than National, to get 59,237 votes (2.65%) at $31 per vote.

    The Internet Party may double that spend but it will be remarkable if they double that vote. And if they do it will probably be at the expense of Labour and Greens and could reduce the chances of a left wing coalition.

    NZ First may be the deciding factor and it's well known they have a reluctance to work with Greens and may be less wiling to work with MANA, but it's not known whether Winston's visits to Dotcom have cemented a possible liason there or not. And as NZ First often picks up protest votes Internat-MANA may impact on their result too, potentially putting them into risky territory.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2011 • 139 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Grant Taylor,

    The Conservative party has one big bucket of money. I think it’s just that Mana/ Internet are getting up above there station that is pissing people of. I don’t see any particular problem with a political party that represent the underprivileged classes, having the money to hire researchers, policy analysts , legal experts and so on, as being damaging to democracy. How could it be?

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • Roger Lacey,

    I'm dismayed by the way the mainstream media use the prime minister as a political commentator and allow him to put his spin on other parties' policies without question.

    Whatakataka Bay Surf Club… • Since Apr 2008 • 148 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Roger Lacey,

    I’m dismayed by the way the mainstream media use the prime minister as a political commentator and allow him to put his spin on other parties’ policies without question.

    I feel similarly about how Jordan Williams is increasingly being used as a spokesperson for "all taxpayers", apparently by reason of naming his self-appointed-board-with-a-fan-club, which could never be legally registered as a union given its rules, as "the taxpayers union". Sadly it's just how things are working today.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1139 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to izogi,

    Williams is a classic rent-a-quote. He'll fire out inane press releases and respond to journalists' calls even when he doesn't know what he's talking about. His Tax Day release was so incoherent as to be bonkers.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Grant Taylor,

    no single individual has attempted to buy a political agenda in NZ in quite this way before

    Robert Jones

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Sacha,

    Robert Jones

    Good point.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Williams is a classic rent-a-quote. He’ll fire out inane press releases and respond to journalists’ calls even when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    True. I don't think I'd mind so much if he didn't purport to be speaking for me, and apparently for every person in NZ who pays tax, and then seemingly getting media credit for it. Is stinks of the same type of tactics Imperial Tobacco was using a few years ago when it created the "Association of Community Retailers", except the Herald was motivated enough to make a deal out of that one.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1139 posts Report Reply

  • Tinakori, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Jones was a guy who happened to be both a great communicator and wealthy and rode a wave of discontent to create a high profile for his NZ Party, a more incisive version of Winston or Jim Anderton (the last of whom he once described as his closest friend in politics to Anderton's protestations). Under FPP his victory was mostly a public relations one as his votes did not provide the margin of victory in enough electorates to tip the vote towards Labour. Labour won by their own efforts. KDC and HH are trying to combine two tiny political ripples into a wavelet. There is nothing like the discontent that surrounded National in 84 in any demographic.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2013 • 118 posts Report Reply

  • Deborah, in reply to Pete George,

    Mike Smith has now posted his follow-up. He begins:

    David Cunliffe badly needs a new stump speech. On Thursday in Whanganui I heard him depress a large and sympathetic audience for ten minutes with tales of national woe, then promise a positive campaign but give no details.

    I was in Whanganui last Thursday night too, and I thought that the crowd was enthusiastic and even inspired by David Cunliffe's speech. Maybe I was seeing what I want to see, but I think that explanation could very much apply to Mike Smith's report too.

    New Lynn • Since Nov 2006 • 1445 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    The way I see it, it seems the internet party is happily hacking the system,
    and with Mana have now created an open source Trojan Horse

    Stuxnet for electoral processes
    (actually that might be The Civilian Party)

    But no sleight of hand
    all above board, Trickster stuff
    Jones was Loki
    a wily Coyote

    and here comes
    the Maui Party

    changing times. ...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7889 posts Report Reply

  • martinb, in reply to izogi,

    I've thought- completely non-seriously- about starting a GST Taxpayers Union seeing as how we are not represented in the net tax figures. And how there are so many of us.

    Auckland • Since Jul 2010 • 203 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to martinb,

    I’m sure there’s a constituency out there for a Disenchanted Party
    but I suspect more votes would be attracted to a Social Party.

    (Meanwhile, those thinking of a Public Address Party would be well advised to consider the acronym carefully, regardless of the idea’s obvious merits.)

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1889 posts Report Reply

  • Mr Mark,

    "There's nothing in particular wrong with the company's methodology"

    The thing that really intrigues me about Roy Morgan is their unusually small proportion of Undecideds - consistently far lower relative to the other 4 public polls.

    I'm wondering if they follow Andrew's One News Clomar Brunton modus operandi in prompting those who are initially undecided on the Party Vote question (by asking a follow-up question along the lines of "Is there a Party you're more likely to vote for ?"). But the thing is, even then, Colmar Brunton still consistently record a far higher Undecided - and therefore excluded - sub-set than Roy Morgan.

    Perhaps, unlike Colmar Brunton , they (Roy Morgan) don't ask about intention-to-vote, and therefore don't exclude those unlikely to vote ?

    Wellington • Since Dec 2009 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Robertson, in reply to Mr Mark,

    Perhaps, unlike Colmar Brunton , they (Roy Morgan) don’t ask about intention-to-vote, and therefore don’t exclude those unlikely to vote ?

    It's very possible they don't filter on likelihood to vote, but I don't think that would make the difference because the % of undecideds in the CB poll is based on all eligible voters, not just those likely to vote.

    I don't see undecideds as a bad thing - it's an indication that the poll is sampling non-politically obsessed people.

    Wellington • Since Apr 2014 • 65 posts Report Reply

  • Pete George, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    As a point of anecdata, I had a conversation with an in-law who used to vote Labour but wouldn’t this time because he thought The Greens would then get to control the country.

    It isn’t the first time I have heard that. It’s an interesting and frustrating situation for both The Greens and Labour. What’s weird is people don’t seem to apply the same fear and distrust to the influence of The Maori Party and ACT over National.

    I think there is something strange going on out there particularly in the older (voting) public. It seems that there is very little acceptance that The Greens have shed their more extreme views and are now a much more serious party and hence more reasonable.

    I don’t think Labour distancing themselves from The Greens will solve the problem, I suspect that what needs to happen is for both the parties to establish what the coalition will look like and just how much influence each party will have on overall policy. But I doubt anyone is keen to do that.

    Greens seem to have been keen on doing that but Labour opted out.

    Greens have fluctuated between 9 and 15 in the polls, often through give and take with Labour's results. Greens have benefited from Labour's weaknesses and look a good bet to at least maintain last election's improved result (but they have tended to poll better than they achieve in elections).

    The next few polls should give us an idea of the impact of Internet-MANA who could take some Green support, but they also make the Greens look comparatively less scary - to many floating voters Labour+Greens doesn't look as risky as Labour+Greens+MANA+Internet.

    I think Greens have always had fairly widespread partial support, with many people being happy with a healthy Green voice in Parliament - but those some partial supporters are wary of too much Green say, especially on economic matters. As far as Greens are seen, environmentalist good, economist bad. So Greens through Norman pushing for wider credentials and especially promoting financial ambitions may attract some but it scares a lot more.

    What Greens might benefit most from is if the Labour vote collapses as it did for National in 2002. But that won't help the chances of a left leaning coalition.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2011 • 139 posts Report Reply

  • Mr Mark, in reply to Andrew Robertson,

    No, I certainly don't see Undecideds as a bad thing either.

    I'm really more interested in what methodology Roy Morgan use to end up with such an unusually low proportion.

    As far as likely non-voters go ( separate , of course, from undecideds, though partially overlapping), it would be nice if polling companies made their party support views known (albeit separately).

    I've argued here...http://sub-z-p.blogspot.co.nz/ that it's pretty clear from the Mood for Change of Government section of the Fairfax Media-Ipsos Polls that the Country is relatively evenly divided politically, but that a fairly hefty % of people who prefer a Labour-led Government are excluded from the party support figures either because their undecided or fairly or very unlikely to vote. _-Fairfax__ polls consistently show that a disproportionate number of the excluded do indeed want a change of government.

    I'd be interested to know if the same is true of those excluded from the Colmar Brunton because they said they were more likely than not to stay at home this election.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2009 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Robertson, in reply to Mr Mark,

    I’d be interested to know if the same is true of those excluded from the Colmar Brunton because they said they were more likely than not to stay at home this election.

    Those figures aren’t shown because the base for unlikely-to-vote(rs) is really small, especially after excluding the undecideds/refused to answer, which is high among those unlikely to vote. So those figures aren’t even close to being robust. If they were in the report, someone would almost certainly report “CB says this” – regardless of how many caveats and warnings were provided along with the results (I’ve seen this happen more times than I can count).

    In the last CB poll there was a likelihood to vote in the upcoming election question which I think does provide some of the analysis you’re interested in.

    I think the key point to remember though, is that point of a political poll is to measure party vote sentiment if an election was held at the time of the poll. Given that this is the purpose, a poll shouldn’t include those unlikely to vote in the results for party support.

    Wellington • Since Apr 2014 • 65 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    I wonder if Roy Morgan
    and Val Morgan are related?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7889 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I know one of them is dead.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2539 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.