The summary of the polls
November 25th, 2011 at 7:27 am by David Farrar
This is a summary of the polls released this week. You can click on it for a larger version.
- The first five columns are the five main public polls.
- The simple average is just that – the mean of their results
- The weighted average is weighted by size and date. The full methodology is at Curiablog.Those polls which cover an earlier period are weighted slightly less. The fact this varies from the simple average shows there is some movement in the final days – National and Greens down a bit and Labour and NZ First up a bit
- The weighted seats is how many seats each party would have if that was an election result, assuming all electorate seats stay with the party that currently holds them (exception is Wigram going from Progressive to Labour)
- For comparison I have the final Horizon poll. The Horizon poll features regularly on Radio Live and on the front page of the Sunday Star-Times. Their published figures include 1.3% undecided which I have adjusted their results for, so like the other polls it is a percentage of decided voters. This allows a comparison to election results.
- I also have the seat projections based on the final Horizon poll.
- Under the weighted average there would be a centre-right Government of the only three parties pledged to support National.
- Under Horizon’s poll there would easily be a centre-left Government with the four centre-left parties having 67 seats.
- The Maori and Conservative parties have said they will go with either Labour or National so are shown in their own bloc
People should be aware of the commentary with the final NZ Herald poll:
Today’s poll also throws up a bizarre possible outcome – National winning more than 50 per cent of the party vote but still needing Act, the Maori Party or United Future to give it a majority in Parliament.
This could happen if today’s poll results were translated to votes.
The revival of New Zealand First – which National won’t deal with – could make the survival of Act crucial.
The Maori Party could be in the box seat to negotiate a confidence and supply agreement to give National a cushion of comfort if Act and United Future don’t make it.
The reason National could get a majority of party votes tomorrow but not a majority of seats in Parliament is the overhang factor.
If today’s poll figures were translated to votes, United Future, the Maori Party and Mana would get more electorate seats than their party vote entitlement.
When that happens, the size of Parliament expands beyond 120 seats, and the parties are allowed to keep the extra seats.
In this case, the “overhang” seats would take Parliament to 126 seats.
In that scenario, a Government would need 64 seats for a majority and in today’s poll, National would have 63 seats – based on the assumption that Act, Mana, United Future and the Maori Party will keep their electorate seats.
Only Act and United Future have pledged to support National.
MMP does not always deliver proportional results. As the Herald says, one could have National get over 50% of the votes, but lose power.
It is quite simple. If you want a National-led Government, party vote National. If you live in Ohariu you should vote for Peter Dunne or Winston may get to pick the Government. If you live in Epsom and want John Key to remain Prime Minister, you should vote for John Banks.
The Conservative Party have not said they will back National. Do not think a vote for them, or a vote for Craig, is a vote for John Key to remain Prime Minister.
It should not be assumed the Maori Party would back National if they hold the balance of power. They have more policy in common with Labour, and would be more likely to retain their seats in 2014 if they go with a centre-left Government.
Despite the fact the average of the polls show Phil Goff is leading Labour to their lowest ever vote share, the way MMP works means he can still emerge Prime Minister. National would never say yes to the huge spending demands that the Greens, and Winston would demand for supply and confidence.
People may also wish to think about how they will vote in the referendum, based on the scenario outlined by the NZ Herald that MMP could deliver government to Labour on 28%, even if National gets 51%. Do you want to lock MMP in as our electoral system for the next 50 years, or do you want to vote to have a referendum in 2014 pitting MMP against the most popular alternative?
Have a look at what John Key and Phil Goff are saying on the referendum, and decide for yourself.
UPDATE: The original version did not include the Roy Morgan poll released overnight. This is now included.
November 25th, 2011 at 7:40 am
DPF, that’s last week’s Roy Morgan Poll you have factored in. You’ve missed the one released overnight:
National has 49.5%, Labour 23.5%, Greens 14.5%, New Zealand First 6.5%, ACT 1.5%, United Future 0.5%, Maori Party 1%.
[DPF: Thanks will update]
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 7:44 am
As always DPF summarises the situation better than any of the MSM or so called ‘experts”
MMP MUST go. How the hell can you justify a party that doesnt win 72% of the vote governing with its leader as Prime Miniister whilst a party with 50% of the vote is Her Majestiys Loyal Opposition.
So a rag tag bunch of hopeless disparates gets to run the country……… into the ground.
As I have said here and elswhere any pollie or political party looking to borrow to spend in the current economic environment is totally irresponsible and condemning this and future generations to a life of poverty and misery.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 7:50 am
Winston Raymond Peters.
Reason #2,768 why we must get rid of MMP, this weekend.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 7:54 am
Horizon showing they are on the other side thereof?
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 7:59 am
Key gave Winston his opportunity with his silly stunt. This must be a bitter pill for some to swallow.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 8:13 am
“People may also wish to think about how they will vote in the referendum, based on the scenario outlined by the NZ Herald that MMP could deliver government to Labour on 28%, even if National gets 51%. ”
With respect, DPF, this is a really stupid thing for the NZ Herald to say – and for you to even repeat it is beneath you.
(1) Let’s imagine a Parliament with 126 seats (i.e. all the Maori/Mana/UF seats are “overhangs”, and ACT doesn’t get in), with National getting a bit below 51% of the party vote … that means they have 63 seats … one short of a majority.
(2) Now, for National to fail to get a majority under this circumstance:
- United Future has to refuse to back National in Government, despite Peter Dunne’s express statements that his entire reason for existence is to do so;
- The Maori Party has to refuse to back National in Government, despite the past 3 years of cooperation and its need to prove to its supporters that it can deliver for them;
- ALL of the parties other than National have to back Labour in Government.
(3) Now, if National REALLY can’t make a Government in this circumstance, they don’t deserve to govern irrespective of their support in the polls because they would have proven to be completely incompetent.
(4) So, there are some pretty good reasons not to vote MMP … including that you may think STV is a superior voting system. But this scenario simply is not one of them, and if you really are suggesting to people they base their referendum vote on it then shame on you.
[DPF: United Future will back National, but they may not make it back either. I am not at all sanguine that the Maori Party will. They did not choose National over Labour in 2008. They chose National over Opposition]
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 8:16 am
If you live in Epsom and want John Key to remain Prime Minister, you should vote for John Banks.
It would be great if Mr Key would have the good sense to state this publicly. If ACT fails to exist because Banks loses Epsom National will be struggling for a coalition partner in 2014. It may be the Conservative Party. It looks like many people will throw away their vote on then this election but National may decide to do a deal with them in 2014 if their is no ACT Party. Is this what Mr Key wants? If Key had not waited till the last minute to endorse ACT we would not have this problem
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 8:18 am
The latest Horizon poll is clearly silly. No way National has dropped 20%.
If Winston gets in then I agree with joana: It’s due to Key’s screwup with Banks. On a positive note this may move the public to ensure MMP is revised appropriately (i.e. threshold gone and/or electoral rule got rid of).
Be interesting to see whether the people of Epsom allow ACT back in.
If the Nats get 51% of the PV and don’t form a government (insanely unlikely) then it’s entirely because they’re not prepared to work with the other parties that voters support, not because of MMP: MMP would give them the option of forming a government either way.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 8:27 am
@joana – the media were always going to look for an angle (in their eyes) that would run against Key. Their motivation is simple in that they are dominated by left wing hacks who have abandoned any ethos relating to media balance in favour of slanting ‘stories / beat up pieces’ in favour of anything left. But despite many attempts, their best effort was something that was (a) illegal [to be verified in court] and (b) a non-event anyway. But the media clung to it – the irony being that it took traction away from Goff at a time he desperately needed some.
But Peters is venal, nasty, untrustworthy and a total blot on our political landscape. The thought that a geriatric, narcissistic fart with 5% support can hold this country to ransom AGAIN, should be anathema to the NZ voters.
He really needs to be kicked to touch by the electorate tomorrow because if he finds himself in the role of king maker again, there’ll be a stampede to departure lounges across the country.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 8:40 am
Lefty liberal, that’s BS, if a party that gets an absolute majority of the votes at 50.1%+ and cannot form a government then the system that caused it is the failure, in ths case MMP would prove itself to not be proportional because of overhangs. Nothing to do with National, all to do with MMP rules that broke down at the margins.
Vote to change mmp so at least we get to vote again when we know ow MMP might be improved.
Vote:Rather than give the polies a mandate to tinker.
November 25th, 2011 at 8:44 am
“Vote to change mmp so at least we get to vote again when we know ow MMP might be improved.
Rather than give the polies a mandate to tinker.”
But that won’t happen. MMP will only be reviewed if people vote to retain it at 2011. As for “give the polies a mandate to tinker” … who do you think will design and enact into law any alternative system to MMP? And if you fear that “the polies” will tinker when reviewing MMP, what do you think they will do when given a chance to put together an entirely new system?
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 8:45 am
I often wonder if ACT would have got further standing a total nobody as their Epsom candidate. A lot of people hate John Banks and I can see why the idea of voting for him would leave a sour taste.
Would they prefer the taste of a mighty Labour / Green / NZ first / Maori / Mana government?
John Key’s mistake was/is not saying what everyone wants to hear him say. Instead of “we are not necessarily not not opposite of unhappy if you vote strategically” he should simply say “Voting for John Banks helps put National in the strongest position” in plain English.
Normally he’s so good at coming across as genuine, but this election the spin doctors have clearly got to him and he sounds like any other bullshitting politician. Either that or he is preparing everything he says because he’s scared the rabid media will sensationalise an off-the-cuff statement (not sure where he would get that impression).
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Elaycee…..
Vote:Well said.
Morgan showing nats to 49.5 ? But Peters up to 6.5 ?
Lots of wiggle room there.
So… lets KISS (keep it simple stupid). I prefer the simple average to the esoteric weighted when one has a rapidly moving feast.
That shows:
Nats 51, LAB 26.3, GREEN 12.3, Maori 1.2, Peters 4.6, Act 1.3, Dunne .2, Harawira .8 , Conserv & Others 1.1 Missing in action, so to speak 1.1.
November 25th, 2011 at 8:53 am
Elaycee/Sadu,
Just so we’re clear … the ONLY reason ACT is in trouble in Epsom is because the leader of another party hasn’t been clear enough in telling his supporters that they should vote for its candidate? So, if ACT dies, it isn’t ACT’s fault in any way shape or form, it’s all that stupid John Key who didn’t tell the stupid Epsom people what they must do (because they are too stupid to know otherwise)?
It must be hard to be so smart and constantly be confronted with everyone else’s stupidity. Really, really hard.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 8:59 am
hmmmm…… as I predicted.
As ACT looks like it’s going to fall over at the electoral fence – the alternative coalition ally for National – Colin Craig’s Conservative Party is more strongly promoted in mainstream media?
Has anyone else asked Colin Craig the obvious question?
Given that Colin Craig is a millionaire property developer – does he and the Conservative Party support a Capital Gains Tax?
I asked Colin Craig this question directly at the Epsom candidates meeting on Tuesday 22 November 2011.
Colin Craig and the Conservative Party do NOT support a Capital Gains Tax (as currently promoted by the Labour Party).
Funny that.
I told Colin Craig to his face that my concern about the Conservative Party was that it was going to be the ‘Plan “B” coalition ally for National should the ACT vote collapse.
That is very much my concern.
The view of David Whitburn, Head of Auckland Property Investors Association, was clearly stated in the Herald on Sunday November 13 2011 article ” Biz leaders: policies that pass go”
“LEAST FAVOURED POLICY
Capital Gains Tax (Labour)”
How much support is the Conservative Party getting from property developers?
How genuine is the stated opposition of Colin Craig to ‘asset sales’?
As a fellow Auckland Mayoral candidate in 2010, when the issue of 35 year private water cservices ontracts was raised, I asked Colin Craig directly if he was opposed to private water services contracts.
Colin Craig was NOT opposed to private water services contracts.
Colin Craig supported shorter term private water services contracts – 5 year contracts as opposed to 35 year water services contracts.
Colin Craig claims that he and the Conservative Party are opposed to state asset sales.
How genuine is that opposition?
Or is Colin Craig’s stated opposition to state asset sales just a marketing ploy to get elected, in order to help provide a coalition for the National Party – which is also opposed to a Capital Gains Tax?
It’s a fair question – isn’t it?
Why am I the only one asking it?
Penny Bright
Vote:Independent Candidate for Epsom
http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz
November 25th, 2011 at 9:03 am
I think Farrar has dropped his veil of independence and is telling us to vote National. Anyone else pick that up?
I say principles matter more than tribal allegiances – Vote ACT!
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Is that the same penny bright (aka dumb!) photographed vandalising a National sign? (See Whale – its all in colour and clear enough to prosecute.)
Vote:If so, madam, please retire to the corner and don the dunce hat
November 25th, 2011 at 9:10 am
Penny do you think it is acceptable for a political candidate to break the law by defacing a National Party sign?
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2011/11/penny-bright-sign-vandal/#disqus_thread
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:16 am
AG, all very good points. But that’s where we are now, so let’s simply take reality as given.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:18 am
I think Farrar has dropped his veil of independence and is telling us to vote National. Anyone else pick that up?
David has clearly stated that voters should support Banks in Epsom and Dunne in Ohariu.
He has every right to suggest people vote National as I has to suggest people vote ACT.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Morning David
“The simple average is just that – the mean of their results”
Please clarify. Is it an average OR a mean? Can’t be both.
[DPF: Of course it can be. The average normally means the mean. It can sometimes mean the median, but mean is the more common usage for it.]
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:20 am
I find it difficult to see how you are not being deliberately misleading with this post. You know full well that an ACT-United Future-Maori Party-New Zealand First-Labour-Greens-Mana Government is impossible particularly when National would be 1 seat short of Government assuming they got 50%.
By stating “MMP could deliver government to Labour on 28%, even if National gets 51%.” I can only assume you are making a deliberately false statement, you have stated in your chart above that on 51% National would get 65 seats which would mean they would form a majority Government and you did this with the assumption of an overhang.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:23 am
It’s going to be a bloody interesting one….here are my predictions: ACT scrapes back, with Banks and Brash only; Colin Craig comes a respectable second in Rodney, and Conservative gets a very credible party vote for first time out; Winston First gets back….God help us all….
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:24 am
@ Chuck Bird
“He has every right to suggest people vote National as I has to suggest people vote ACT.”
Of course he does, I just find it amusing as DPF goes to great lengths to maintain a certain independence (or perhaps better stated as “detachment”) for most of the electoral cycle.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:33 am
“Colin Craig comes a respectable second in Rodney”
What do you base that on – push polling?
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:37 am
errr….. which ‘law’ have I broken?
Because I am being effectively censored by mainstream corporate media, I publicly announced at the Epsom candidates meeting on 22 November 2011 of my intention to do exactly that which I have done – written my message (which I have duly authorised) on to each piece of corflute which I have stapled on to (some) National and John Banks (ACT) hoardings, in order to help the public ‘cast an informed vote’.
I have checked out s 11A of the Summary Offences Act for myself, and am VERY happy to defend my actions in Court.
The photographs show very clearly how easy it was for National “B” (oops! ACT candidate John Banks) to remove these ‘piggy-backed’ messages from both his and National hoardings.
Minute perforations by staples hardly consititute ‘damage’ – in my considered opinion – but I’m VERY happy to test this in Court.
In fact – I rather look forward to so doing, if either John Banks or John Key are arguably silly enough to ‘trigger’ any complaint or legal proceedings.
I take FULL PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for what I have done – or otherwise I wouldn’t have acted in broad daylight, put my contact details on my corflute message or had my photo taken for the world to see.
If either of the two Johns believe that what I have written is defamatory – then let them ‘fill their boots’ and take me to Court, and sue me for defamation.
I look forward to THAT one.
It is not defamatory to tell the truth.
(It is also ‘not rash to take a calculated risk’
Poor John Banks – he was NOT happy when I encountered him yesterday in the wilds of Epsom.
(Check out the photos for yourself
Thanks Cameron!
You might care to check out information which gives some background and helps explains my actions on http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz
Penny Bright
Independent Candidate for Epsom
Campaigning against ‘white collar’ CRIME, CORRUPTION (and its root cause – PRIVATISATION) and ‘CORPORATE WELFARE’
‘Public Watchdog’ not toothless, gutless corporate ‘Lapdog’.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:40 am
AG says:- “the ONLY reason ACT is in trouble in Epsom…”
I don’t agree. It is one factor. Other possible factors are the esteem (or lack thereof) in which John Banks is held, and also voter cynicism/fatigue. Not to mention the sullied ACT brand itself.
edit: oops hope I didn’t miss irony…
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:43 am
@swan David Farrar only has the veil for those who are too lazy to find out he’s the co-chair of a policy advisory group for National. And their pollster.
@Chuck Bird Only poll that has been released for Rodney is the Research First one. I know there have been several polls carried out in Rodney, none have been released as it would reduce the impact of spin (which you are pushing) from Cameron Slater (Whale Oil), son of ex-National chair, John Slater.
The Conservative Party has said that they would first talk to the party with the most votes, they have not said they would go into coalition with anyone.
[DPF: I have not been the co-chair for many years]
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 9:52 am
Chuck: I base my view on a number of sources….widely differing ones. I think you may be a touch blinkered old chap….
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 10:00 am
@swan David Farrar only has the veil for those who are too lazy to find out he’s the co-chair of a policy advisory group for National. And their pollster.
I strongly disagree with David over his flakey liberal ideas but I have yet to find any reason to believe he is dishonest.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 10:02 am
Checked out the Conservative Party – did the questionaire – found I was conservative. So then checked out the policies. Very light on detail. Don’t agree with repealing smacking bill – although didn’t support its introduction. Don’t agree with raising drinking age to 21 – prefer split age. Then I checked out the candidates – well started to… very, very light on detail!!! So looked up Larry Baldock on Wikipedia because the name sounded familiar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Baldock
Vote Conservative? = Not me!!!
Plea to Don Brash – please pledge NOW that you will resign after the elections due to total lack of interest in your leadership so that ACT may have a decent leader for the next electoral cycle. Don is the reason why I would have to hold my nose to vote for ACT, and can understand the quandary the Epsom voters are in.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 10:12 am
“[DPF: United Future will back National, but they may not make it back either. I am not at all sanguine that the Maori Party will. They did not choose National over Labour in 2008. They chose National over Opposition]”
But if UF do not make it back in, the overhang becomes only 5 seats (Maori + Mana) and National’s 51% is then enough to govern alone.
As for the Maori Party’s choices … want to put some skin in this game? Because I say there is NO WAY they will opt to be just one part of a Labour/Green/NZ First/Mana block when there is the option of being the only way National can govern again … I’ll stake a year’s internet silence on it. You “not sanguine” enough to meet that bet (recognising, of course, that it likely is moot as National either will get enough to govern alone, or ACT will creep back in)?
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 10:13 am
@ Scott Chris: “edit: oops hope I didn’t miss irony…”
Sorry – should have sprinkled emoticons throughout it …!
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Publicwatchdog………You may not have committed wilful damage but you may have committed forgery by altering a document with intent it be acted upon as genuine, and yes I was surprised that such action wasn’t considered against the Green Criminals.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Shady. I Agree with your points. Especially brash is part of the problem, not the solution. Bring back David G, at least he cares and speaks coherently, (and learnt from his mistakes). Also would love Rodney to have 3 years fxing Waikato/Hamilton councils I Heard the Brash add the other day on Radio, sound like grandad telling 5 year olds hw he old is (in my day……)
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Those complaining about the failures of MMP really need to look at where those minor party votes would go if we were under a 2 party system. With the Greens, arguably the Maori party and Mana the left vote is split. If these parties were to dissolve today, in which direction would those supporters then cast their votes? The answer is ofcourse Labor.
Ofcourse, even as a lefty I realise that if National does get over 50% of the vote and still does not govern that will be a travesty for democracy. But I would suggest the rules for overhangs be more of a kicking point than MMP as a whole.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
AG – love your work. This article was scaremongering from DPF.
Vote:November 25th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Thanks for adding the Horizon Research data. Tomorrow nite it will be clear that Horizon Research has rocks in its head. I hope that some people man up:
Horizon Research accepting that their methodology is utterly screwed.
Vote:Sunday Star Times / Radio Live for peddling garbage polls as headline news items.