The Dim-Post

June 17, 2014

June polls

Filed under: Politics,polls — danylmc @ 9:01 am

Updated the tracking poll to include the Herald digi-poll and last Roy Morgan poll, both of which are ‘bad for the left’. Bias corrected version below. Non bias corrected over the break.

What jumps out at me here is the comparison with the last election. Labour are trending down, just like last time – but now their votes are (mostly) going to National, not the Greens. Which makes sense to me: we have no idea what National plans to do in its third term, but that lack of vision is still preferable to being governed by a collection of left-wing parties who all hate each other but want to run the country together.

junepollb

Junepoll

53 Comments »

  1. The graph shows what a brilliant idea it turned out (for National) for Labour to replace Shearer with Cunliffe in September 2013.

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — June 17, 2014 @ 9:11 am

  2. Masterstroke. No doubt about it.

    Comment by Geoff Kloogh — June 17, 2014 @ 9:17 am

  3. The graph shows what a brilliant idea it turned out (for National) for Labour to replace Shearer with Cunliffe in September 2013.

    I’ve been thinking about that a bit. I wonder if one of the big mistakes Cunliffe made was sacking Julian Robins for no rational reason. Everyone seemed to think he was doing a great job turning Shearer’s comms around. But Cunliffe got rid of him, took two months to find a replacement – his cousin – who didn’t start the new job for another two months and sounds like he’s been a disaster. Making pointless, critical mistakes that have major long term negative consequences isn’t really a quality you want in the Prime Minister.

    Comment by danylmc — June 17, 2014 @ 9:20 am

  4. The herald’s poll on the story kinda sums up sentiment (most thinking Labour is a basket case). Green’s policy has been pretty solid the last couple weeks, but given the polling period is 4 months long, any gains from that would likely not have had much of an impact. This is actually something the model doesn’t really take into account – all the contribution for the last 4 months is concentrated at the end of the period in the model. For short polling periods (Roy Morgan etc.) this isn’t too bad, but when you poll a thousand people over a 4 month window, you really only have an average centered 2 months ago. I doubt it’ll make all that much difference, but perhaps centering the polls might be a more informative measurement of voter intent?

    Comment by lefty — June 17, 2014 @ 9:27 am

  5. My bad: Looks like I made it to the wrong herald story – polling was since June 6, so quite current after all. Thus, model will probably be reasonable.

    Comment by lefty — June 17, 2014 @ 9:29 am

  6. My read of the graphs is that the bias correction seems to mainly result in votes shifting from National to NZ First, but makes little difference to Labour or the Greens. Am I reading correctly? I’m somewhat hopeful that NZ First will cease to exist after the election, so at this point my views on how accurate or otherwise the polls around NZ First are probably hopelessly biased. I certainly find it hard to believe that 8.2% of NZers could be that stupid.

    Comment by PaulL — June 17, 2014 @ 9:52 am

  7. “I’ve been thinking about that a bit. I wonder if one of the big mistakes Cunliffe made was sacking Julian Robins for no rational reason.”

    I’ve only ever seen one spin doctor make a major positive change to their boss. That was former Dom Post journalist Helen Bain who for a short time was John Tamihere’s press advisor. She made an intelligent but incoherent man consistently coherent for the first time. Tamihere had always been erratic and relied too much on his biography for progress rather than his actual deeds or thoughts. As soon as she left it was back to messy, incoherent and, eventually, stupid. Mike Munro improved Helen Clark’s interaction with the media and Richard Griffin did the same for Jim Bolger but neither had to achieve the transformation that Tamihere required. Labour also seem to be far more reliant on advisors than National, with the wheels falling off if the right people are not in place. Perhaps they are less instinctive or authentic in their approach to politics because they come from such a narrow slice of the world.

    Shearer was an authentic doofus. While he might fuck up nobody really disliked him – apart perhaps from the more left wing members of his own party. Managing him is all about accentuating the positive and eliminating the more appealing parts of his persona. The problem with managing Cunliffe is that he appears to be whatever the next audience wants him to be and is clearly inauthentic and incapable of an instinctive reaction to anything. You could manage him as a tough, ambitious bastard who will get the job done, I suppose, which is as close to the truth as we are likely to get but I think neither he nor his party would be comfortable with that. Other options? Getting him to stand down in favour of his wife might be a start……

    Comment by Tinakori — June 17, 2014 @ 10:09 am

  8. “unappealing!”

    Comment by Tinakori — June 17, 2014 @ 10:10 am

  9. Within 24 hours the poll are going to be the least of David Cunliffes problems.
    Keep an eye on the herald website, we are about to see pledge card theft relegated to second place as the biggest labour funding scandal.

    Comment by Barnsley Bill — June 17, 2014 @ 10:21 am

  10. Shearer was an authentic doofus.

    He certainly came across that way. I think one of his big problems was that he hired an imbecile – Pagani – as his senior adviser. The story I heard is that Pagani wanted Shearer to sound ‘authentic’ so he was never briefed or given lines before media appearances. Every other politician does this, for sound reasons, so Shearer just looked like an idiot. But the public didn’t seem to mind – as we see in the graph.

    Comment by danylmc — June 17, 2014 @ 10:33 am

  11. >but now their votes are (mostly) going to National, not the Greens.

    You can’t make even a vaguely sound inference like that based on this data, which doesn’t track who changed their vote (or refusal to vote), or what they changed it from or to. The best you can do is make up a story.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — June 17, 2014 @ 10:48 am

  12. Shearer came across quite well in the tv interview in the weekend. He didn’t have the self-consciousness that Cunliffe has.

    Cunliffe just appears to have an inflated view of himself and his strategic skills. He was an ok member of the Clark team.

    (similarly with Harré who would have been unlikely to have had a parliamentary carrier if it wasn’t for Jim Anderton)

    Comment by NeilM — June 17, 2014 @ 10:48 am

  13. The awful choice, on silly laws, magical thinking alert, waiarki, on the logic behind a strategic loss, inequality mmp internet-mana conservates. Some interesting/good reading but a few months out from an election the stories are in the margins with not a lot on policy as the one party state is polling near 80%. On the interweb Whale Oil, KB & the Standard play out liverpool vs manchester.

    Comment by Simon — June 17, 2014 @ 10:56 am

  14. “Keep an eye on the herald website, we are about to see pledge card theft relegated to second place as the biggest labour funding scandal.”

    Sounds exciting!

    Will it be even bigger than the carnage in political and media circles that Whale said was about to be unleashed when Collins went mad in an i/v? More to come. Always. It’s like waiting for godot

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — June 17, 2014 @ 10:58 am

  15. Misled.
    By neo-liberals with hollow heads
    The electrorate will see
    How dismissive they be
    of David and his amazing duvet

    Lie with him
    under the covers
    Let’s live like brothers
    Comrades
    Wealth distribution is the way
    I think friedman was gay
    Fuck you roger.

    Comment by The Ghost of Sanctuary — June 17, 2014 @ 11:47 am

  16. Maybe with revolutions in Saudi and Pakistan, oil at $300 a barrel and China no longer importing milk, it’ll be a good three years to have National in government.

    Comment by richdrich — June 17, 2014 @ 12:20 pm

  17. People want stories. What story is Labour telling? I legitimately have no idea. However, they do have a conference coming up in about two weeks – if they fluff the opportunity to establish a clear and easily understood election narrative then, they (and the other opposition parties depending on Labour) have no chance. Time will have run out.

    It has to be simple and understandable so that people with very little information about politics, like the average voter and the average political journalist, know what is being said. Last cycle the Greens had ‘kids, rivers, jobs’ as their message, and it appears to be ‘kids, climate, and something as yet unreleased’ this time around. Labour’s appeared to simply be ‘opposition’, which is very good if your pitch to voters is that you’d like to be the opposition. I trust they’ve learned at least this much in three years.

    Comment by George — June 17, 2014 @ 12:32 pm

  18. t has to be simple and understandable so that people with very little information about politics, like the average voter and the average political journalist, know what is being said.

    My impression is that ‘housing affordability’ is what they’re going with. That’s fine as a narrative, but I’m not convinced there are enough voters that care enough to tick Labour on the basis of it.

    Comment by Phil — June 17, 2014 @ 12:49 pm

  19. >but I’m not convinced there are enough voters that care enough to tick Labour on the basis of it.

    Even if there are enough who care, I’m not convinced that Labour’s solutions will convince enough of them.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — June 17, 2014 @ 1:05 pm

  20. My impression is that ‘housing affordability’ is what they’re going with. That’s fine as a narrative, but I’m not convinced there are enough voters that care enough to tick Labour on the basis of it.

    Housing is important in Auckland and Christchurch (together half of NZ’s population), and among 25-40 year old voters. That’s a fair chunk of the population. If interest rates increase before September then they get another small chunk (this is much less certain). Showing a convincing solution and appearing strong and confident enough to implement it will make a difference among these voters. The Greens have very similar policies in housing, but unless they make them a key plank, this will be Labour’s issue to own.

    Comment by George — June 17, 2014 @ 1:32 pm

  21. “we have no idea what National plans to do in its third term, but that lack of vision is still preferable to being governed by a collection of left-wing parties who all hate each other but want to run the country together.”

    Is that an endorsement, Danyl?

    Also, I note that you’re now telling us that the public had no problem with Shearer. That wasn’t your line at the time.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — June 17, 2014 @ 2:33 pm

  22. Essentially, we are governed by the likes of Allan Hubbard or David Ross. All very plausible until someone kicks a corner away, then it all comes unravelled fast..

    Comment by richdrich — June 17, 2014 @ 2:44 pm

  23. I note that you’re now telling us that the public had no problem with Shearer. That wasn’t your line at the time.

    Like I’ve said the other dozen or so times you’ve pointed that out, looks like I was wrong.

    Comment by danylmc — June 17, 2014 @ 2:52 pm

  24. Housing affordability is a hugely important issue – to the parents (and grandparents?) of people who can’t afford a house as well as the people who can’t afford a house. It’s just that so far Labour’s policy on it has been ‘limit immigration’, which will hugely damage their Pacific Islander vote, as well as coming across as icky to many of their core supporters. And it probably won’t work.

    I’m reduced to taking comfort in the fact that at least John Key isn’t Tony Abbott – that’s how depressing it is here on the left.

    Comment by helenalex — June 17, 2014 @ 4:07 pm

  25. “I think one of his big problems was that he hired an imbecile – Pagani – as his senior adviser. The story I heard is that Pagani wanted Shearer to sound ‘authentic’ so he was never briefed or given lines before media appearances. Every other politician does this, for sound reasons, so Shearer just looked like an idiot.”

    Does it spoil the story if I say it isn’t true? The bit about the advice, not the bit about the imbecile adviser.

    I think it’s highly unlikely anyone gave him that advice but can’t be sure because I had *nothing* to do with David Shearer’s media advice or what he did to prepare for interviews. Never even knew when they were on. So I didn’t tell him not to prepare, and wouldn’t have. Didn’t tell him what to say or not to say for any media interview I can ever recall. And anyway I pretty much stopped working for him in early 2012, so if it was all my bad advice things should have come together much better from then.

    Comment by John Pagani — June 17, 2014 @ 5:18 pm

  26. >Like I’ve said the other dozen or so times you’ve pointed that out, looks like I was wrong.

    You might have been wrong that Cunliffe would cause a big turnaround, but that doesn’t mean getting rid of Shearer was wrong. He could have been just as bad, or worse. They needed to try something, otherwise the grassroots opposition that was constantly griping about not getting Cunliffe were never going to let it go. At least Cunliffe is a slightly left wing politician, and could make some inroads into cutting the deadwood out if the election is lost.

    >Which makes sense to me: we have no idea what National plans to do in its third term, but that lack of vision is still preferable to being governed by a collection of left-wing parties who all hate each other but want to run the country together.

    Is this what you believe or are you just vocalizing what you think the vox-pop is at the moment?

    Let’s face it, in NZ history, it is quite unusual to knock a government out after only 2 terms. It’s a lot to ask, to expect, to act like somehow Labour is nothing but incompetent because they don’t look like they’re going to pull off something that’s happened only a couple of times in NZ history since the 30s.

    If they do win, it will actually be against the odds. 3 terms is both the median and the mode score for number of terms in office per government.

    I still want them to win, but NZ is a country in which it’s just unlikely – the incumbent has to basically fuck everything up, betraying their core support, as the 3rd Labour govt did. Key has not done this. It could be a sign of the opposition working quite well that he didn’t do more serious shit. Essentially he watched the polls carefully and took a conservative approach to everything except his one hobby horse, the sale of a bunch of assets. Labour is forced to propose genuine alternative. To do this they needed at least the chance of an alternative vision, which the ABC camp will never allow.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — June 17, 2014 @ 5:47 pm

  27. ” it is quite unusual to knock a government out after only 2 terms. It’s a lot to ask, to expect, to act like somehow Labour is nothing but incompetent because they don’t look like they’re going to pull off something that’s happened only a couple of times in NZ history since the 30s.”

    Depressingly – it is very rare for a Labour govt to last 3 terms – Only twice (and the last one barely) have they lasted 3 terms. They only lasted 2 terms in the 80’s by outflanking National to an insane extent on the right. The rest are 1 term wonders. National is the Natural Party of Government.

    Comment by Leopold — June 17, 2014 @ 6:38 pm

  28. At least Cunliffe is a slightly left wing politician, and could make some inroads into cutting the deadwood out if the election is lost.

    Odds on Cunliffe remaining leader and thus being in a position to “cut the deadwood out” if Labour loses this election?

    3 terms is both the median and the mode score for number of terms in office per government.

    Can we trust the data series when FPP allowed National to remain in government in both ’78 and ’81 with less total votes than Labour?

    Comment by Flashing Light — June 17, 2014 @ 7:06 pm

  29. >Only twice (and the last one barely) have they lasted 3 terms

    Well the first time they lasted 3 terms it was because they lasted 4 terms. So Labour’s mode is actually one term, and their median is 2. National’s median and mode are both 3. Which is what we’re facing here. So when you say it’s rare, it’s happened 2 out of 5 times in their history…that’s not that rare.

    >Can we trust the data series when FPP allowed National to remain in government in both ’78 and ’81 with less total votes than Labour?

    Well, under MMP, so far, there have only been 3 term governments. If the Nats lose this election, it will be their first ever term less than 3 since they began as a party. It’s certainly too early to pick a clear pattern with 2 and a half data points, but they’re not contradicting the pattern yet.

    >Odds on Cunliffe remaining leader and thus being in a position to “cut the deadwood out” if Labour loses this election?

    Well their only other MMP era PM did it. Clark lost an election. Don’t forget also that quite a few of these bodies are getting old. They might not actually want to stick around until 2017.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — June 17, 2014 @ 8:56 pm

  30. richdrich: For that matter, we’re governed by the housing bubble.

    Comment by DeepRed (@DeepRed6502) — June 17, 2014 @ 10:00 pm

  31. Imagining what the 78 and 81 elections would have been like under MMP is a fascinating exercise, although ultimately unanswerable, because it depends on a lot of imponderables, such as who Social Credit would go into coalition with.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — June 17, 2014 @ 10:07 pm

  32. Housing affordability is an interesting plank to stand on. In concept a lot of people care about housing affordability – all the parents, grand parents, first home buyers etc. But it’s also susceptible to a substantial campaign pointing out that making houses affordable is another way of saying that we’d like to devalue most NZers largest asset. In the privacy of the voting booth, how many NZers will really vote for their own house to reduce in value?

    Comment by PaulL — June 17, 2014 @ 10:15 pm

  33. What I’d like to see is those same charts but with Roy Morgan removed.

    They aren’t a member of the Market Research Society of New Zealand and I think only members data should be included in the charts. At the very least it would be interesting to see what it looks like without their data.

    Comment by whaleoil — June 17, 2014 @ 10:39 pm

  34. PaulL: TL;DR: the NZ housing bubble has grown too big to fail, just like farm subsidies in the US/EU/Japan. Which is why it’d most likely take a genuine cataclysm outside politics to force through change, like what happened in Iceland a few years ago, or the US housing bubble collapsing under its own weight with a little help from the sub-prime market.

    Comment by DeepRed (@DeepRed6502) — June 17, 2014 @ 11:15 pm

  35. To add, what happened in Iceland and the US also involved toxic bank debts.

    Comment by DeepRed (@DeepRed6502) — June 17, 2014 @ 11:18 pm

  36. Yes, but also note that US prices are back up substantially, and our friends in Phoenix I think recently passed the previous high – i.e. I think prices there are higher than before the crash. Having said that, Phoenix was one of the less overpriced bits of the USA. Supply and demand are ultimately the drivers of price. We can change supply by allowing more subdivision. We can change demand by changing the number of people in NZ (somewhat hard really, despite publicity otherwise), or by changing people’s expectations about what sort of house they want (i.e. reduce demand for quarter acre blocks and increase demands for apartments). Ultimately one of the great things about NZ is the ability to live on a quarter acre block – we’re not a country where (many? most?) people want to live in apartments or row houses or any of the many high density housing options. Our planning rules and “compact cities” are attempting to changing that behaviour, and the high prices for quarter acre blocks are the market signal that if you can’t afford that high price, then you need to get an apartment instead. The nimbyism that is blocking apartment building is a substantial flaw in that densification story.

    Comment by PaulL — June 18, 2014 @ 3:35 am

  37. Hey Danyl, over at Homepaddock the ‘political story of the day’ is about you and Bob Jones agreeing.

    Comment by RBG — June 18, 2014 @ 7:31 am

  38. “… preferable to being governed by a collection of left-wing parties who all hate each other but want to run the country together…”

    Yet again Danyl appears to be as weak minded as a rural fishmongers wife when it comes to being told what to think by a media obsessed by a FPP narrative. Danyl is one of the first people to attack Labour for failing to adapt to the realities of MMP and the need for a coalition with the Greens, and the first to repeat the National parties talking points about a fractured opposition when Labour’s supporters accept that they will have to work with others. Perhaps it IS best for Labour to sit this election out, and wait for the Nat’s and the Green’s support to ebb away so they can form a strong government. After all, a strong hand is all the media and Danyl seem to understand.

    Comment by Sanctuary — June 18, 2014 @ 7:52 am

  39. It’s actually under “left and right agree”

    Comment by RBG — June 18, 2014 @ 8:54 am

  40. Previous comment related to the one I made earlier (which is stuck in moderation). about Homepaddock blog reporting that Danyl and Bob Jones agree. Interesting to hear what you think of that Danyl

    Comment by RBG — June 18, 2014 @ 8:56 am

  41. >After all, a strong hand is all the media and Danyl seem to understand.

    The most agreement I’ll give you here is that it would help if Danyl clarified whether that statement is his personal reasoning, or what he believes the reasoning that will drive the election to be.

    It’s such a naked statement of ridiculous unconsidered apathy, that I believe it to be the latter. I also disagree with it – I don’t think that’s what’s going to be the crucial driver. It will only be the crucial driver for an apathetic subset of the population. Admittedly this subset is swing-voter heavy. But I’m not so sure swing voters are going to make or break this election. It looks more to me like National and Labour are ranging in their natural support levels, and it’s what everyone else does that is going to decide who rules. In particular, the people who are undecided, a very large group, about whom we have very little information.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — June 18, 2014 @ 10:06 am

  42. Len Brown and an assorted Labour-lite coalition has driven up the price of Auckland property year after year after year. Labour targeting housing affordability is going to be a hard sell in Auckland.

    Comment by unaha-closp — June 18, 2014 @ 12:10 pm

  43. “… that I believe it to be the latter…”

    I suppose we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Comment by Sanctuary — June 18, 2014 @ 12:44 pm

  44. Pascals Bookie..
    There ya go. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276510
    Boom.
    Now wait for the 100k bottle of wine to drop

    Comment by Barnsley Bill — June 18, 2014 @ 1:02 pm

  45. I see John Armstrong is already furiously masturbating in public over the thought of Cunliffe resigning.. 2003 was 11 years ago, is that the best the National party has?

    Disclaimer: I don’t vote labour

    Comment by Rob — June 18, 2014 @ 1:15 pm

  46. They have had the letter for weeks. Cunliffe has been asked questions every day for a week. He is a clown.

    Comment by Barnsley Bill — June 18, 2014 @ 1:31 pm

  47. It might be awhile ago but running a campaign based on scandal really does require the moral high ground.

    Whatever meaassge Labour has has been lost in the fog of their relentless negativity and personal attacks on Key. Who just happens to be very popular.

    Good thing they didn’t go for Jones, they’d could have been in trouble.

    Comment by NeilM — June 18, 2014 @ 1:34 pm

  48. The moment I saw the Herald this morning I thought “Barnsley Bill, you motherf*cker”
    🙂

    Comment by SHG — June 18, 2014 @ 1:40 pm

  49. Happy to help you through your early morning shower ritual.

    Comment by Barnsley Bill — June 18, 2014 @ 1:50 pm

  50. The question you need to ask is when a tired broken part time mildly right wing blogger from the Far North knew about the letter why didn’t the masters of the universe in Cunliffes war room know? He has been poofingered by his Caucus, a couple of ex MP’s, Mike Williams and auntie Helen stepping in to give fatty Robertson the job.
    If he tries to bluff this out tomorrows big reveal will finish it.
    Back to the mansion for roast peacock tonight Mr Cunliffe. http://www.seek.co.nz

    Comment by Barnsley Bill — June 18, 2014 @ 1:54 pm

  51. PaulL: Especially when many of those NIMBYs happen to support weakening the Resource Management Act… as long as it suits themselves.

    Public Address: The Ides Of Epsom
    TransportBlog: ACT Party spokespeople tragically born missing sense of irony

    Comment by DeepRed (@DeepRed6502) — June 18, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

  52. A coalition between Labour and the Greens is one thing, and could potentially work well. A coalition between Labour, the Greens, NZ First, AND Mana Internet… not so much.

    Comment by helenalex — June 19, 2014 @ 8:44 am

  53. >A coalition between Labour, the Greens, NZ First, AND Mana Internet… not so much.

    Sounds as complicated as a coalition between National, ACT, UF and the Maori Party. Oh, hang on…..

    Comment by Ben Wilson — June 19, 2014 @ 10:03 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: