pn985. A Non-significant Poll Result is an Insignficant result or No Result at all

The latest 1NewsVerian (was 1NewsKantar Public) poll conducted between the 8th to the 13th of July showed National with  35% party support, down  2 from the previous poll in May, Labour with  33% down  2, Act with 12%  up 1, and the Greens with 10%  up  3. 

This result would see National/Act able to form a government with 61 parliamentary seats with Labour/Greens/Te Pati Māori with 59 seats —  a very close result. 

 Varian noted that the result is a snapshot in time and not a prediction.  

On the whole Varian are excellent pollsters who fully reveal their methodology (see attached) for the full report) but I have some issues with the poll and its conclusions which I will explain later.

Events around the time of the poll that could have influenced the result included National's announcement that gang membership would be an aggravating factor in sentencing, and Labour announcing the results of a market study on banking. There were a string of Labour negatives including Michael Wood's resignation, Kiri Allen's non-disclosure of interests, Jan Tiretti not correcting incorrect statement, and two positives — the PM's trade deals with China and the European Union, though these came too late to influence all of these polled.

So what can we take from the poll which had a sampling error of ±3.1% for results around 50% and ±1.9% for results between 10-20%? The answer is very little. Most results were less than the required sampling error. 

They were also "weighted", i.e., increased or decreased in number for age, gender, region, ethnic identification and education level so that the sample resembled that of the voting age population as a whole. 

Add to this, the results were rounded so National's 33% could have been  34.6 and Labour's  33 33.4, a difference of 1.2: hardly a sufficient margin to make any  call.  

 Also, 12%, labelled undecided voters, didn't know or refused to say how they cast their Party vote.  These 120 people of the 1,000 polled were excluded in the results.

The poll asked those polled for their "preferred Prime Minister." Hipkins had 24% down 1% on May,Luxon 20% up 2 and Act's Seymour 7% unchanged.Twenty others received some support, none more than 2% and 39% were other, don't know, none and refused.  I'm unsure why this question is asked. Afterall, we never vote for Prime Minister. The winning party decides who that shall be.

I'm unsure also why, with an MMP system that gives us all two votes, the one for party and the other for electorate candidates, Verian only asks for the party vote. 

Many people, including myself, use their electoral vote to vote for one party and the party or "list" vote to vote for another party. 

The inclusion of this question would make for greater accuracy and could greatly change the poll results.

-- ACW

pn951. Why National Never Annnounes Any Details ...on what it would do if it were Government

 

On National’s Fraught Journey Back To The Centre

Monday, 16 January 2023.
Article by : Gordon Campbell in Scoop https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2301/S00012/on-nationals-fraught-journey-back-to-the-centre.htm (My editing-- ACW)

Ever since Christopher Luxon became leader, National has adopted a “small target” strategy. This consists of offering nothing to distract the media from its focus on the government’s shortcomings and the public’s discontent with its performance.

In particular, the strategy involves releasing no policy alternatives whose own failings might then be picked apart, and become the story. It assumes the media will largely shrug and accept the stonewalling on policy and move on. Here’s how the comms experts define how the strategy should be used by corporates facing unwelcome media scrutiny:

… There's barely a story that doesn't pass. They all do. So I think it's really important- if you're able - to implement ‘small target’ to put off the press, so they go and chase another element of the story, they go and chase another organisation or the regulator or whatever it is. [If] you can satisfy [the media] that that's all you're going to say and it's going to be minimal, they will probably report that. That's boring, so they're gonna go chase a different aspect of [the story].

Works like a charm. So here we are in election year, over 12 months after National changed leaders and we still have no idea what – for example- Luxon’s alternative (if any) to Three Waters would look like, or even what is the ballpark size of his promised tax cut package. Nor do we have any inkling of how National would pay for said tax package, what infrastructure spending he would prioritise, what debt levels he would accept, and what services Luxon would cut to make it all affordable etc.etc. In a similar vein, the impact of what Luxon has said on superannuation lies decades in the future. His key social policy – “social investment” – is a holdover from the Bill English era, with no clues as to how Luxon would address the failings detected in it at the time.

Proposed Capital Gains Tax: Slammed by National, Applauded by Others

Sir Michael Cullen pn273

The Tax Working Group report was supported by eight and opposed by three of its 11 members. The political leanings of the former, with the exception of one Greens supporter, are not known; the latter are business leaders.

The first thing to note about the Tax Working  Group headed by Sir Michael Cullen is that its report comprises recommendations, and the second that the recommendations will be considered by Government and, in due course, by Parliament. Nothing is set in concrete at this stage.

National is Holding Us to Ransom on Climate Change Outlook

Lisa McLaren in Stuff.  OPINION: 

pn222

I believe it is high time for the National Party to retire their climate villain persona. US president Donald Trump has already taken that position on the global stage so it's time for National to bow out gracefully.

Let me be clear – if we get an insufficient draft Zero Carbon Bill ... it will be because the National Party is using the futures of all Kiwis as a political football. An ego-driven, point scoring game.