UMR’s Mood of the Nation
UMR sent out on Friday their latest Mood of the Nation (not online yet) – an excellent read with lots of info.
The above graph is their annual averages for each party since 1991. The recovery since 2003 for National is quite startling.
They also show their party vote support for each month in 2007.
This helps explain why Trevor Mallard finally apologised to Erin Leigh.
They also measure net favourability ratings for each leader. I’ll give for each what they started and ended the year on.
- Helen Clark from +26% to +15%
- John Key from+15% to +42%
- Winston Peters from -17% to +3%
- Peter Dunne from -4% to -8%
- Jeanette Fitzsimons from +15% to -1%
- Tariana Turia from -19% to -25%
- Rodney Hide from +1% to +4%
- Pita Sharples from +20% to +1%
So Key and Peters the big movers up, and Fitzsimons, Clark and Sharples the big movers down.
Some interesting results on social issues also:
- 78% say sex between unmarried adults is morally acceptable (hell, I thought it would be even higher than that, but in US it is only 59%)
- 74% say a baby outside marriage is okay (54% in US)
- 60% are okay with homosexual relations (47% in US)
- 55% are okay with abortion (40% in US)
- Only 9% say unfaithfulness in marriage is acceptable (6% in US)
- 75% say divorce is okay (65%)
- 49% say gambling is morally acceptable (63%)
- 42% support the death penalty (66%)
- 65% support embryo stem cell research (64%)
- 54% support medical testing on animals (59%)
- 10% are okay with polygamy (8%)
- 9% support human cloning (11%) and 27% animal cloning (36%)
Most results are no surprise. I thought NZ would be higher than 60% on homosexual relations and abortion. Mind you this is a poll on personal morality, not on legality.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“NZ a morally bankrupt nation – news at 11″.
So, it isn’t the Govts fault after all that NZ is in the mess we are in – it is because of the amorality of a majority of its citizens.
No surprise there.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
So, National’s upswing began under Don Brash?
[DPF: Definitely]
February 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
The support for capital punishment is a bit alarming. Do you have the questions that were asked, David? And is there a figure for those opposed?
A Colmar Brunton poll in 2004 had support for the death penalty at 28pc (the lowest of any poll ever taken on the subject) with 67pc opposed.
I am curious whether the much higher UMR figure reflects the questions asked or a change in public opinion.
[DPF: "Next, I’m going to read you a list of issues. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. How about the death penalty." 42% said it was morally acceptable]
February 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
If I were to sum up the mood of the country in one word I would use ‘angry’.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Winston Peters did pretty well! Why did they measure two Maori Party people? Are they co-leaders?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Yes.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:23 am
spose i could’ve just got off my arse and checked myself…
February 4th, 2008 at 11:26 am
10% for polygamy? Didn’t know Big Love had had such an impact
February 4th, 2008 at 11:27 am
The overall support for the leaders probably isn’t too relevant except for the two major party leaders. In the case of the minor party leaders they can be polarising figures, with strong disapproval ratings, but still do OK as long as they keep their key support base (which can even be strengthened by a leader who is disliked by figures that the supporters dislike).
February 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Big Love has turned me from the notion of polygamy. Full stop. SHit one is bad enough….
February 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am
The social issues is very interesting and confirms the liberalism, indeed it might be said licentiousness, of many New Zealanders.
We overwhelmingly disagree with unfaithfulness in marriage, yet we support homosexuality, abortion, sex outside of marriage and sex before marriage. However the issues are all interlinked. Marriage is part of God’s plan for our lives. Those having sex outside of marriage are outside of the way that we were designed to be. Support for all those other issues undermine marriage.
We don’t want our spouses to be unfaithful — yet we elect a government that makes prostitution legal and that introduces the novelty of men marrying men and women marrying women in all but name.
Given the disastrous way that New Zealand is going — murders and rapes etc etc — isn’t it time that we had a rethink of how liberal we are? Perhaps our forebears knew more about human nature than we give them credit for?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:46 am
It’s obvious we can’t use the moniker “GodZone” for NZ any more.
Where did it come from anyway? And was it ever an appropriate name?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Wow it’s amazing reading the reactions of a couple of people here. While I take a conservative position on some of these issues with regard to my personal morality, overall I was horrified at what a stuffy, repressive country New Zealand still remains.
I am glad people like Scott have such an honorable code of morality for themselves, but imposing morality from above is not the way to create a decent society. Indeed, it is more immoral than anything consenting adults may do with their own bodies.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Poneke meet Scott, Scott could probably introduce you to a few other Destiny Churchers who would be more than happy to explain to you where the opposition to gay marriage and support for the death penalty come from.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Wasn’t it transposed from God’s Own? As in God’s Own Country?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Scott:
If Liberalism is defined as “personal choice, no matter what the consequences, be they to self, society, or others”, then I would say that your use of the term licentiousness is indeed a more apt one to use.
The universal law of “sowing and reaping” is once again affirmed for all, whether they choose to believe it or not.
History seems to indicate that a licentious society is the prelude to a revolution that tips the scales – absence of said revolution usually means the implosion of the society.
Be interesting to see if NZ gets the former, or the latter?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
BlairM: Your comment implies your own double standard – by telling Scott that he shouldn’t impose his morality onto others – you impose your own onto him, or more to the point, your personal values.
Morality and Personal Values are not the same – morality assumes an external accountability; personal values are simply “what feels right for me”. The former is unchanging; the latter moves with the wind.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Scott, I don’t think ex-marital sex is to blame for all social ills. Hidden amongst DPF’s data is an interesting point that “only” 49% think gambling is OK, so on this issue at least, Kiwis show more sense than money-crazed Americans.
Not wishing to minimise the responsibility of each person for their own actions, but other factors surely affect the incidence of crime and the growth of a social underclass. Fraud, bureaucracy, disinformation, and social injustice are amongst the systemic evils whereby the powerless are bullied into submission, and some resort to lashing out.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
DPF: “Next, I’m going to read you a list of issues. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. How about the death penalty.” 42% said it was morally acceptable
Thank you for that. Phew. That means there has not been a jump in support since 2004 from 28pc to 42 pc, as the questions were completely different.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Um Scott, its nice to trot out the “Marriage is Gods plan” line, but the majority have long since rejected the 10 commandments as law. No law, no sin, no problem!
Making or re-establishing moral laws creates the problem of creating “sin” as far as the nation state is concerned, but not what individuals still consider to be “sin”. Even if people did accept the new laws as moral laws they could not follow them – as it would be too exciting to breaking them! Such is human nature and why the 10 commandments were a failure, despite them being in themselves a good thing. As a christian I would expect you to understand the problems with the law (Paul covers this in Romans 7 although its pretty heavy stuff). Essentially even people (Paul cites himself in this) who accept moral laws find themselves, even if willing, unable to follow them. Fortunately he goes on in Ch 8 and shows there is hope.
As far as trying to create an unwilling moral people – it would be easier to scale Everest. You simply cannot impose moral laws on people and not expect them to fail. They merely identify a problem (label what is “sin”), they do not solve it.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
LeeC said “Big Love has turned me from the notion of polygamy. Full stop. SHit one is bad enough….”
Lee – you know the penalty for bigamy eh? Two mothers-in-law!
February 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“42% support the death penalty (66%)”
“Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong.”
That’s interesting and needs followup. Do 42% support the death penalty or do 42% think it’s morally acceptable. There is a big difference. I would answer “yes” to the above question but if asked do I support the death penalty the answer would be no.
[DPF: I used support as shorthand. The correct full wording is the one I supplied]
February 4th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
That’s interesting and needs followup. Do 42% support the death penalty or do 42% think it’s morally acceptable.
Well it is clear from the question that 42pc thought it morally acceptable.
The last poll on whether it should be imposed was in 2004 when it had 28pc support, well down on previous such polls over the years.
I suppose some people could oppose it from a legal position but believe it to be morally acceptable. Not me, though. No to both.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
John Key from+15% to +42%
No wonder a certain bitterness seeps in around the political blogosphere.
While some fall on Key with knives and play political games, Key’s support multiplies…
February 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Ruth – while your general point might be true, you should differentiate between support for Key and a favourability rating. I’d probably give him a favourable rating, but I’m never going to vote for him.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
BeShakey – “I’d probably give him a favourable rating, but I’m never going to vote for him.”
Go in, admit it you will be voting for him, because it is the only way to ‘ethically cleanse’ Labour for the next push….
February 4th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Maybe if I knew what ‘ethically cleanse’ meant
February 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
It’s like ethnic cleansing, except you cleanse those with ethics. Should be a pretty short list given the current state of Labour.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
49% say gambling is morally acceptable
Makes the tax cut for the racing industry in 2006 loom a bit suspect. Hardly the “meaningful tax cut that will benefit the entire economy” as Winston First claimed.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
My guess would be that the gambling concerns were primarily about pokies and some of the less savoury aspects of the casino industry, rather than horse racing.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
BeShakey
It’s good to get your opinion – however gambling is gambling. Tax cuts for horse racing (and not for income tax) are a clear signal that gambling is to be encouraged and productive work is to be discouraged.
Labour party policy (under the banner of Winston First)… as you would expect – who wants workers in NZ…. they just bitch about paying tax.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Ahem. In 1996 we got NZF to a position ahead of Labour in one major poll (can’t recall which one now damnit) – 29 percent to 25 or 26 percent I seem to recall. So I don’t know why UMR’s graph doesn’t come close to reflecting this – 18% is well below that figure.
The purpose of mentioning this (aside from blowing my own trumpet
) is that the graph would look better if it showed that at one sorry point in their existence Labour even dropped below a third party.
Aside from that, what jumps out at me is that despite the promise of MMP, third parties have never really fired in NZ. Closest to a sustained level of support in excess of 5% have been the Greens, with Act a close second.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Rex
Third parties will take off in a big way when people finally realise that giving both of their votes to a major party (because the major parties request that via their campaigns of “two ticks [party-name-here]“) is voting for an FPP style of govt.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
burt – I don’t know enough about the details of gambling taxation to comment on whether the level is set appropriately, but the NZF proposal was that horse racing should be taxed at the same rate as other gambling. I can’t see the problem with that in itself (it was also National policy from memory).
I don’t find your claim that that change is the death knell for productive work to be very plausible. Besides which, an income tax cut from the taxation lost would be minuscule – I’m not going to work extra hours because my total weekly pay has gone up by a few dollars (likely less).
February 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
burt – I agree that’s the problem. I’m not sure they’ll “finally realise” though. That’d mean their taking the time to figure out how our electoral system works. They clearly didn’t do it when they voted in the referendum for MMP (or they’d be vote splitting now, over a decade later) or the smaller parties wouldn’t be so small. But we can always hope, I guess…
February 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I find the drop for Fitzsimmons the most puzzling. I can’t recall what she’s done to make herself less popular amongst those who’d previously liked her.
Anyone got a theory?
February 4th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Rex, seeing you’re here:
# PhilBest Says:
February 1st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Suck on this, Roger Nome.
Theodore Dalrymple: “The frivolity of evil”.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html
I suggest that people tend to be both POOR, AND CRIMINALS, for similar reasons, rather than there being a causative relationship BETWEEN those two things. Plain LACK OF VALUES.
Rex Widerstrom Says:
February 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Thanks for reinforcing the “anyone who’s not a bleeding heart socialists hates the poor” stereotype there, PhilBest.
Despite a university education and what I’m told is an impressive CV, and a work ethic that’s even been remarked on in print, I’ve endured prolonged periods of unemployment.
I can recall scratching through the pockets of all the jackets hung in my wardrobe of a morning to see if I could pull together enough change to be able to send one of the kids to the dairy for bread and milk or whether we’d have to settle for one or the other.
Then there was the time the “justice” system we’re debating here led to my being dumped out of prison onto the street of a country where I knew no one, had no job and no home, with $110 in my pocket.
So I’ve been poor, but I’ve never been a criminal. Okay, to be honest at one point I was so poor I jumped the back fence of a pub and stole the wooden beer crates to take home and “furnish” my unfurnished apartment.
But I’ve never robbed or assaulted anyone Phil. And as is the case, when I’ve been down on my luck I’ve known people in similar circumstances. None of them did anything worse than pinch a loaf of bread or bottle of milk (when such things were delivered to the mailbox) either.
I’ve also been assaulted a number of times. Usually by someone who was clearly able to afford drugs and / or booze, a pair of brand name shoes and a brand name cap and shirt, or on a few occasions by young thugs in suits on the way home from a night on the turps.
So kindly stick your stereotypes back where they came from.
# PhilBest Says:
February 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Rex Widerstrom, sorry, you have a point, and you might not believe how acquainted I am with the sort of circumstances you describe.
I did not mean to say, and have never believed, that “all poor people are criminals”, which is what YOU have taken out of it. I DO mean to say that MOST CRIMINALS are ALSO POOR, BECAUSE OF LACK OF VALUES, which is a different thing.
YOU are not a criminal, and neither have you REMAINED on the bones of your backside, expecting handouts for the rest of your life for doing nothing, precisely BECAUSE of your VALUES. (And neither have I, because of mine).
I am sorry I have been absent for so long and couldn’t make this clarifying comment earlier on this thread. I disappear for long periods at a time because of working for a living, same as you.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Please do look at Theodore Dalrymple, “The Frivolity of Evil”, linked above. It has a lot to do with the erosion of traditional morality by secular liberals, and the consequences.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I would go on to add to my comments above, Rex Widerstrom, that to have not stooped to crime because you were poor, is an illustration of the value of our values. There would have been plenty of people ready to make excuses for you had you tossed those values overboard, AND taught your kids that society owes them free lunches and the odd possession to which they can help themselves should they feel like it. And as much free love and procreation as they can get, for which, again, society via the State and taxation, will pick up the tab.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Heck PhilBest, I want to respond but I can see Principal Farrar getting out his ruler for a good knuckle-rapping for thread jacking for the both of us… :-/
I know poor people who’ve resorted to non violent crime (petty theft (from shops not other people), prostitution, a bit of benefit fraud (getting round the ridiculous restrictions on earning more than a pittance, so as to turn a casual job into a full time one while proving themselves, not to go on indefinitely bludging, and so on)).
They’ve got good values too, and I still count those I know as friends. I’ve pinched milk and bread from letterboxes as well as the beer crates I mentioned before (and I still feel bad about it) because the alternative was to starve.
But I take your point. Perhaps we can summarise our agreement as: “Most criminals are poor, but most of the poor are not criminals”. You just seem to define criminality a little more strictly than I do
And I will read Dalrymple. With a name like that, how could I not?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I was surprised by the gambling figures.
Kiwis do not seem to realise that buying a residential rental that is yielding 3% net of expenses, is a straight punt on the possible future capital gains. It is not an investment. It is a gamble.
Fixing your mortgage interest rate is a gamble that interest rates will rise in the near future.
Floating your mortgage interest rate is a gamble that interest rates will fall in the near future.
Life is a gamble, and anybody who is against gambling will believe the people at Helengrad.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
PhilBest that was a very powerful article. It is these occasions that blogs really mean something. Dark times are a head if we don’t make a change.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:28 am
David, if 40% are not okay with homosexual relations does that make them homophobes? If a couple of homosexual want sodomise each other that is their business. If they want to adopt child that is society’s concern.
The best interest of children should come ahead of the interest of militant homosexuals. This will no doubt draw nonsensical comments how children would be better off with a loving homosexual couple that a violent heterosexual couple.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Thanks Rex and kiki.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am
I too would highly recommend anyone to read that PhilBest’s link. Very thought provoking. Cuts through all the PC rubbish and states the facts.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Excuse my poor grammar above! My fingers are typing faster than my mind is working.