Latest Roy Morgan poll

July 1st, 2012 at 12:23 pm by David Farrar

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the latest Roy Morgan poll. National has now gone up 3.5% over the last two polls.

No tag for this post.

15 Responses to “Latest Roy Morgan poll”

  1. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,790 comments) says:

    When will they start to show figures for the Conservative party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Brian Smaller (3,983 comments) says:

    More rogue polls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Archer (170 comments) says:

    David, do you know on what basis Roy Morgan decides who will hold their electorate seats in regards to this poll?

    They have Act losing Epsom – which seems a bit odd as from the looks of their website people were asked “If a New Zealand Election were held today which party would receive your party vote?”, so I struggle to see how they decided who would win the Epsom electorate. I also note that despite someone at Roy Morgan deciding Act will lose Epsom (despite winning it every time they have set out to win it) they have Peter Dunne holding Ohariu, and Hone holding his.

    [DPF: If a polling company makes assumptions on electorat seats and reports their seat projections, Curiablog uses their assumption. If the polling company does not provide a seat projection, Curiablog (ie me) uses the electoral commission calculator. Electorate seat assumptions are the status quo *unless* a public poll has shown a change. In the case of Epsom, a public poll in May 2012 showed Banks's vote had collapsed to 10%, hence the assumption]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    National already hold Epsom. To call Banks anything other than a Nat in drag is outrageously decietful.

    He is more aligned to the so called Conservatives than being anywhere near ACT.

    Like Winston he is just a Nat on wolves clothes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. iMP (2,231 comments) says:

    Asset sales not such a big deal, then? Dang, was waiting to see what the End-of-Civilisation-As-We-Know-It looked like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (22,754 comments) says:

    iMP – they found a Mayan inscription that was an addendum to their last calendar saying that any sale of assets would confirm the cessation of civilisation this year. Or so Labour strategists still seem to think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    It is interesting, but not surprising, that asset sales have had no impact on National’s polling. Not surprising because:
    1) National wisely went to the election stating their intention of asset sales, so what they are doing now isn’t a shock, people are expecting it (if not entirely agreeing with it), and
    2) Labour are making outrageous statements along the lines that National are going to sell everything under the sun. It sounds desperate and I don’t think the public believes them.

    Now compare that to the teacher staffing cuts and the class size increases debacle where national’s polling DID drop. National and Labour did the exact opposite to points 1) and 2) above.
    National made NO mention of reducing teacher numbers and increasing class sizes before the election. In fact a promise was made that there would be no cuts to frontline staff, so a broken promise.
    Labour didn’t need to exaggerate, the damage was bad enough. They wisely make statements that they condone it and let Parata did herself further into a hole.

    So the moral of the story:
    1) State your position before the election regarding your intentions after you win the election. And don’t do the opposite!
    2) No surprises, especially something as drastic as increasing class sizes and cutting teaching programmes

    And perhaps a suggestion that John Key keeps Parata well away from the media and public during election year! Or as he did with Tolley, move her on before the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    this result for the Nats must be eating up the Labour/Gween groups .. oh well
    Time for the Govt to kick on and ignore the small insignificant protest groups

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Than (425 comments) says:

    So things are basically unchanged since the election.

    The wildcard remains NZ First. It’s heartening to see them consistently under 5% in the major polls… but then, they were before the election as well. I’m disappointed in John Key for backpeddling on his stance on Winston. WP was untrustworthy then, he’s still untrustworthy now, nothing has changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,790 comments) says:

    Than @ 6:45

    In what way has Mr Key back peddled?

    My understanding is he has not ruled out dealing with NZ First. I suspect you might find he will deal with NZ First but not Winston First.

    At this stage it is unclear whether alcohol or dementia will put paid to the charlatan. Judging by his recent performances in the house, it will be a close race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Than (425 comments) says:

    Adolf, it’s not a distinction that matters.

    Do you honestly think that, placed as kingmaker, an egotist like Winston would support a government without being personally given a ministerial position? If these polls held save for NZ First reaching 5%, John Key would have the choice of having Winston as a minister or 3 years in opposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. big bruv (13,217 comments) says:

    On this I think Hooten is right. We will see Winston get his old job back (with plenty of travel), he will get a knighthood and he will be promised a prime overseas posting at the end of his term.

    Is that worth keeping the Left out of power?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (10,618 comments) says:

    The cost of any deal is usually considered well worth it if the result is ministerial office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Than (425 comments) says:

    mikenmild, you are (unfortunately) correct. Helen Clark has proved this once. And now it looks like John Key would be willing to do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. KevinH (1,131 comments) says:

    Excerpts of a John Key interview with TVNZ Feb 2 2011:

    And he said he was ruling out going into coalition with Winston Peters, as he did in 2008.

    “If Winston Peters holds the balance of power, it will be a Phil Goff-led government,” Key said.

    Winston replied:

    However Peters claims National is jumping the gun and running scared and that’s why it has ruled out working with him if he is re-elected.

    The New Zealand First leader said it was usual to wait until people had voted to form a government, before making such decisions.

    “We usually wait until the people have voted to form a government. Unlike money traders and junk bond dealers we do not make deals until the event has actually taken place.”

    He said Key was “dead scared” New Zealand First would be around to stop him flogging off state owned assets or giving away the Foreshore and Seabed.

    In the same interview John Key predicted that New Zealand would win the World Cup which of course happened.
    The long and short of it is the Nat’s consider Winston and NZ First to be “toxic” and that any association with him would inevitably damage the Nat’s brand, therefore there won’t be a coalition with them in 2014.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.