Maori voters supporting National

June 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm by David Farrar

Today’s Fairfax poll is fascinating – now for the main result which is barely changed from May (27% gap closes to 24% gap), but the ethnic breakdown.

Now the number of respondents will be very small (around 15% of 1,100 respondents would be around 165 respondents only) but even with that it is unprecedented that Labour is almost in third place with voters. They have on 39%, Party on 22% and Labour also on 22%. Labour ir normally way way ahead of National amongst voters.

A sample of 165 has a margin of error of 7.8%. Large, but when the parties have a 17% gap, still arguably significant enough to say National leads amongst Maori voters.

I have just calculated the probablity that on those results National is in fact ahead of Labour amongst Maori voters, and it is 99.79%. So that certainly is significant.

It would be interesting to know how it differs between Maori on the general roll and on the Maori roll.

18 Responses to “Maori voters supporting National”

  1. ghostwhowalks3 (387 comments) says:

    You mean to say the result is Poll plunge for national !

    Good to see you have finally abandoned your stance of not commenting on individual polls

    [DPF: You’ve been trolling all day. 20 demerits. My stance is of course unchanged. I commented on this one due to the Maori voter result. I did not comment on Roy Morgan (also out today) as that had nothing special]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. francis (643 comments) says:


    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. side show bob (3,476 comments) says:

    Maori voters are no different then any other voters. They know a dog when they see it and the Limbo’s are doing a mighty fine impression of being mongrels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. PhilBest (4,978 comments) says:

    Wow!!!!!!! Lesson for John Key in this: Target those Maori seats, bro, and change the whole fabric of Parliament this time round, hopefully for good……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ross Miller (1,762 comments) says:

    Ghostie … you call it as you like. Whatever rings your bell old chap (or chapette). But to me the really interesting side bar to the main Poll result was that 75% of those polled were unlikely or very unlikely to change their vote c/w 18% who were likely or very likely to change theirs. And drilling down further we find of those likely to switch allegiance 20% were Labour c/w only 14% of National.

    Further knashing of teeth in the Beehive methinks while I suggest that you Ghostie take a quick trip to the Liquor store for solace before Helen shuts them down … and we all know that banning brothels stopped prostitution so she is really onto a winner there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. getstaffed (8,230 comments) says:

    SSB – exactly. And an obviously increasing number of NZers know that slicing up a shrinking economic pie (while Labours rulling elite plunder the little that remains) does not make for a bright future.

    DPF – Excellent decision re GWW. Hope you are enjoying the UK

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ross Miller (1,762 comments) says:

    Thank you Francis for your 1.40 link. The results … In mid June 2008, the latest Roy Morgan New Zealand Poll shows that overall National Party support was 52.5% (up 2%), Labour Party 31.5% (down 0.5%), Greens 7% (steady), NZ First 4% (unchanged), Maori Party 2% (down 1%), ACT NZ 2% (up 0.5%) and United Future 0.5% (down 0.5%).

    So Ghostie and in light of your 1.35 just how would you describe this result????????

    Its trends guys, look at the trends, and for Labour its bad getting worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Lee C (2,993 comments) says:

    oh the irony GWW has posted two salient points today and he gets demerits on this of all days.
    Oh well, shit happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Murray (8,822 comments) says:

    Yes thats right you dickhead, National have “plunged” to 54%.

    Whatever John Key is paying you to troll here have him double it ghostwhowanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. tim barclay (611 comments) says:

    The Labour Party is heading towards the status of a small debating society. I hope the National Party which is the true party of Government in NZ smashes the Labour Party permanently from ever holding political power ever again in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Adolf Fiinkensein (3,638 comments) says:

    This disastrous result for Labour was inevitable from the day Clark created the Maori Party by buggering off to talk to a sheep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. stephen (4,011 comments) says:

    the true party of Government in NZ

    Its ar-wah DEStiny! Hallelujah! Seems like the same thing happened in 2002…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    I have to say, I hope there is no such thing as a true party of government in New Zealand. It’s an almost utopian view, or idealist. There will never be a true governing party of New Zealand, as no one party can ever hope to represent a large majority of all the people. As well as this, the composition and needs of society change (so too does the composition of parties, I admit) and with changes in composition and needs come changes in views, which change faster than party views change, because ideology acts as a blinker. And that’s a good thing. It means there are competing views which challenge for what is effectively a market share, and this should encourage efficiency of policy-making.

    Labour’s policy has not changed fast enough, and many of its policies have been poor, because of its ideological blinkers, and as such, it has not met the challenges of changes to society, not necessarily in its composition, but in its needs, with the current economic climate weighing heavily on many people. As such, Labour’s policy has become poor for what is probably a majority of people, although not a large majority, meaning it is likely that National will get in this election. By a majority of people, I mean Labour’s policy has offended enough people on the ideological margins (those who do not habitually vote Labour for the sake of voting Labour, but vote based to some degree on policy, or what is perceieved as policy-failure by those in government) for a swing favouring the National party to occur.

    It would be extremely interesting to see how the poll results differ between the Maori and the general role. I, for one, would love to see the Maori seats abolished, as I believe they are undemocratic because they distort the composition of Parliament, and give people on the Maori role a vote with what is effectively a heavier weighting. Many Maoris are also on the general role, so this also diminishes the intended impact of the Maori seats, I would think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    The Maori seats are there simply because they are a necessity.

    The language that looks past this apparently inconvenient fact is from an opinion that natural power is about physical strength. This is a notion of the foolhardy and effectively ignorant. Under such ground our primary calculations are focused on what could constitute the abuse of power and legally we are dictated to this by our function in legislation. It is inefficient against being aware that there are other kids of power that hold as much effect to disaffect as any domain in physicality. Emotional or psychological might not cover what we don’t yet know. What we might not know is that people are more aware of those who exercise this kind of power than we are seeminglt consciencely aware. If we are aware that someone would exercise/manipulate in this kind of power, whether emotional psychological ‘or other’ then we appear to stay away from challenging its progress. Why? Fear is the answer. Our protected freedom of speech is like opportunity to vent but until there is a direct challenge that sets itself apart from the darwinian approach: that which refuses to be moved under darwinian force will clearly be strong, powerful and survive.

    It is no longer that the strong will fight the strong: but by manipulating with love you can redirect a future.

    What hasn’t been actioned in New Zealand is an authority that can calculate its energy reasonably and fairly within the high constraints of an abuse of power (in its simplest form labelled emotional). Strength is employed through resource and resource predominantly requires capital. Yet the power that would compete with a manipulation with love has no requirement for capital. Its pool of resource is intangible. You won’t find this in parliament as it has developed in New Zealand off the Westminster system. You will find it, however, in tikanga Maori. Tikanga Maori is not about capital nor is it about self. It models the evolution of the indigenous peoples all over the world. So use it, even if you are not strong enough to embrace it. Use it while staying strong observing human nature and the separation of gender as if the Maori seats were in the same manner, a demand requiring full respect where the capacities of the power/parties are still unlimited.

    With Law and Order being a primary focus in the elections; any inability (if) of National to concede that an effective judicial system that is integrated with marae as accessible to every New Zealand citizen can better cope with the growing and pending problem, as well as merge inconsistencies of such a massive magnitude between the peoples of this land, (tangata whenua and sovereign party) will further retard the nation’s natural demand to development and growth. The community based embedment between the two major parties will immediately alleviate the necessity to build at extraordinary and unnecessary cost a new prison. Additionally it would provide a new measure under which to calculate the value and importance of the Maori seats. Labour have the advantage to take this issue ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    I disagree with you fundamentally. I don’t believe they are a necessity. Maori seats are racially divisive. They set Maori apart from all other New Zealanders, and my stepmother, who is a Maori, stayed off the roll for precisely that reason, believing that they stand for pittance representation given to Maori, and that Maori, in this day and age, did not require them, as they would be represented well-enough in the polictical spectrum without them. She does not believe parties should be drawn along racial lines, or that Maoris should be allocated seats just because they are Maori. Government has to do what is best for all, while protecting the rights of minorities.

    I say protect, rather than promote, because the Maori seats, rather than protect, in fact promote the rights of one people over others. And you know what? Many Maoris disagree with the seats and the people who are in these seats. The people who are in these seats are not particularly representative of all Maori, appearing instead to represent a small subset of radical Maori, who have chosen a core set of values and stated they are Maori values, without considering that they do not represent anywhere near the entirety of Maoridom (a minority of minorities). And no one really can. If you want to take it back to the 19th century, the tribes were just that: tribes. They were not united. As such, they had differing core values.

    And yes, my stepmother knows her tribal lineage. I don’t know it, but she does, and in fact, that’s part of the reason I know her views on the Maori seats, as at the last election when enrolling, there was a question about her tribal lineage, which she duly listed. She was then put on the Maori roll automatically. She had to request multiple times that she be put on the general roll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Your reply fully discounting my view is established when you contest its value with your value; being fundamental. I do not believe that this is what you have written although an extension of your view from this point forward will match knowldege and the ‘value’ of objective principle: your description of the relativity of the Maori seats to in within authoritative power, for my opinion, is broadly of a system and its inadequacies. I do not believe that my statement of the necessity of the seats argued one way or another. A necessity is fundamental. I do not fundamentally disagree with what you say and in honesty I have spent little time with the logistical values of how much mana should be placed to the seats. I suggest, however in a more broad as consistent reply if you don’t have the seats you have civil war.

    In presenting the argument of the 19th century and expanding time, as you have (likened to an authority of jurisdiction within the High Court rules) you engage the same and causal necessities to my comment on the Maori seats. To further my view I require reference to the Declaration of Independence 1835, compared to your knowledge of the relationship of Maori at that time and in remedy applying the rules broadening time as if within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Are you familiar with the Declaration?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    With reference to the declaration, are you suggesting I look at the United Tribes? I believe they gave a statement to the effect that there could not be an expectation that any chief would be subservient to the United Tribes, implying to me, at least, that the tribes were not really united, but, ahh, that the United Tribes was a pragmatic alliance to come to agreement on some issues. (I also believe the declaration was not particularly influential at the time, although it probably served as a precursor to the treaty.) But my knowledge of the declaration is not that great, so I suspect I’ve missed what you were getting at.

    I don’t discount your view. I expanded upon the whys of my view. The concept of Maori seats goes against some of the base principles I believe in (hence the term fundamental being used. Our beliefs are likely too far apart to be reconciled.), so I don’t expect your view to change my belief. That said, I don’t expect to change your belief either. I don’t think I can come up with absoutes to refute you, but I don’t think you can come up with absolutes to refute me.

    Oh, I wouldn’t expect a civil war, because I think leaders on both sides would be pragmatic enough to realise it would serve nobody, and I also doubt there would be enough support. I would suspect the leaders who would talk of going to war for the Maori seats would be all talk, and no action. Most people have relatively comfortable lives in Western Democracies. As such, most have an aversion to war based on principles, because wars are uncertain, and they have too much to lose, so I don’t see many taking up arms, other than those who care deeply. Given the political apathy in this country, the alienation of many average Maori from tribal leadership, and ambivalence of a proportion of Maori to the seats; those who care deeply enough to go to war for this particular principle would likely be small.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    In reply to your first paragraph, you should read the document it is most engaging. Once you have it conceptualised you will reunderstand its importance. The issue you raise about its importance at the time is a new arguemtn that I have not had progressed to this date yet the document itself deals with the issue. It is bound in this ability to bridge time. A point I have not progressed earlier in any writing as I can remember is that the document was fundamental to the Treaty. Without it there was nothing to cede from. My suprise, relavent to your point in regards to its importance was that Busby (its author) was apparently berated for its conception. I can understand the frustration of the cololonisers where what they wanted primarily to be the indigenous peoples but to dismiss their own responsibility to International law by condemming a negotiation with other humans at that late stage in civilisation is simply apalling. The Declaration of Independence in my advanced argument as it builds through this year is that the Declaration of Independence 1835 as it was written and as it was ceded is the Treaty of Waitangi. The arguemtn I will progress is that without question the English version of the/those document/s was not ceded as according to its own established constiution.

    Answering the second paragraph serves more as housework than free and effective debate. In your view fundamental means your base principles. In my view I am suggesting that your view is constructed to: ‘a view’ and not to the foundation of that view which must surely be objectivity for constructive debate. This raises the question of: is the need for debate ‘fun’ or is their another purpose which is to determine truth? This opens the ground for the word political, even though I am not vertain of its source. You recognise the paradigm later without supporting your own argument by using the word absolute. Because you use this frame (which serves as a modernisation of the severely idle phrase of ‘agree to disagree’) you cast yourself into the realm of the objective. That said, my previous post should be reengaged where I further suggest you read now the Declaration. It is important in regrounding your values in the absolute.

    Your third paragraph clearly suggests (and as you have stated your absense of knowledge on the DOI) that you have some more knowledge to gain relevant to championing an argument around the Maori seats. At this point I suggest that you hold on further subjective expression until the fact is extended to the constitution and the thereby as I continue to argue in the absolute, ‘present’ necessity (as they stand) of the Maori seats.

    Benjamin Easton.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote