Kiwiblog

Real Clear Politics publish polls of polls, averaging all the different polls out there.

They report today, that for the very first time Obama’s negatives are greater than his positives in their average of the polls.

47.3% say they approve of the job he is doing and 47.8% disapprove.

If healthcare passes, I expect he will get a lift from that, even though it is controversial. Being ineffectual is worse than being unpopular, when you hold the most powerful job in the world.

Labour yesterday announced a formal position on mobile termination rates:

The Government should put consumers first and regulate mobile termination rates to keep call costs down, Labour spokesperson for communications and IT Clare Curran said today.

“High mobile termination rates are a barrier to entry for new players in the market, which leads to less competition and higher prices,” Clare Curran said.

“While Vodafone and Telecom have now offered to lower termination rates by around 80 per cent, it still does not go far enough to reduce the major issues for new entrants.

I think it is a good thing that Labour have learnt from their mistakes, when they did a deal with the two telcos in 2007, rather than accept the advice to regulate.

Slightly amused that their formal policy stance comes just days after Clare had a whack at Matthew Hooton for implying Labour support the Drop the Rate, Mate campaign.

The Drop the Rate, Mate campaign also yesterday released their submission to the Minister, including some research done by Curia of 400 mobile phone users. Key findings were:

• Only 18% of respondents wanted the Government to accept the binding promises of Telecom and Vodafone, while 78% wanted the Government to regulate
• 79% agreed that Telecom and Vodafone are overcharging New Zealanders
• 85% agreed with the proposition that it should cost the same to call someone on a different network, as to call someone on your own network

The full results are here – EXCELTIUM MOBILE PHONE RESULTS MARCH 2010 PUBLIC.

Chris Barton in the Herald is not shy with his opinion of what the Government should do:

So far, you have to say, Joyce has played with an exceedingly straight bat. But it won’t be easy negotiating the quagmire of a split recommendation by Commerce Commissioners on mobile termination rates. Two argue for putting heads in the sand while one voice of reason says enough is enough – Vodafone and Telecom have had more than enough time to sort this out and have, time and again, shown they can’t be trusted.

Joyce will be familiar with the sordid last-minute deal stitched together between new mobile entrant 2degrees and Vodafone last year. While the public isn’t allowed to know about this venality, anyone who cares to can find it online (search under “NZ Cellphone racket”). It shows that Vodafone will move if it has a gun to its head. Joyce will also be familiar with www.droptherate.org.nz and www.fibretothedoor.co.nz – two campaigning websites where the public is helping the minister make up his mind.

Go there at once.

What fed-up consumers want minister, is Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry. For some of us, it’s so bad, we don’t just want Clint to pull out his .44 Magnum and ask whether the punk feels lucky. With Telecom and Vodafone, we want him to pull the trigger.

The challenge for the Minister, is how quickly can a regulated price be established, if he chooses to regulate. The undertakings would take place more quickly. However the likely regulated price would see prices by 2011 drop further, and remain lower.

Just sent out the monthly newsletter summarising the public polls in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the US and the UK. The summary:

February saw four political polls – a Roy Morgan poll, a TVNZ poll, a TV3 poll and a NZ Herald poll.

The average of the public polls has National 22% ahead of Labour and able to govern alone. The gap in January was also 22%.

Australia sees Labor’s federal lead decline to 13% with Roy Morgan and 4% with Newspoll. In the states Labor leads in South Australia and the Greens look likely to hold the balance of power in Tasmania.

In the United States Barack Obama has a net positive rating of 3%, the same as January and in the generic congressional poll, the Republicans are tied with the Democrats.

In the UK, the polls have continued to improve for Labour and the average has the Conservatives only 5% ahead, which is projected to give Labour more seats than the Conservatives.

In Canada the Conservatives are only 2% ahead of the Liberals, a big drop from a 9% lead in December.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail and you can subscribe to it here.

I attended on Wednesday night the launch of “Key to Victory” which is the normal post election campaign review book edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel Roberts.

I find these books so fascinating, I was even reading it during the speeches!

Bryce Edwards has reviewed (h/t iPredict Blog) a chapter by Shaun McGirr and Rob Salmond on what sources of information best predicted the election outcome. Was it an individual poll, the iPredict markets or the polls of polls.

The amount invested in iPredict was considerable:

• $64,500 was traded over the likely nature of ‘the Maori Party’s post-election relationship with National’
• $25,800 was traded over the Wellington Central battle between Grant Robertson and Stephen Franks
• $132,100 was traded over whether ‘there will be a National prime minister after the 2008 election’
• $413,000 in total was invested in election-related predictions

And how did iPredict do”

So, how accurate was iPredict in 2008? McGirr and Salmond conclude that although iPredict overestimated the eventual support for both Labour and National, it was more accurate any individual polling company.

And the individual polls:

In reality in 2008, McGirr and Salmond found this to be the case – with Colmar Brunton and DigiPoll exaggerating public support for National, and Roy Morgan exaggerating support for Labour (p.264).

So which polling companies were most accurate and inaccurate? McGirr and Salmond say that TV3’s TNS poll was the best (as it was in 2005 as well), and Fairfax’s Neilson pool was the poorest.

The TV3 poll is the one that currently shows a 27% gap! Mind you they are now with Reid Research, so there may be a different methodology used now.

Then they look at the polls of polls published by three outlets – NZPA, Rob (at 08 Wire) and myself (at curiablog).

In addition to the five opinion polls, some observers attempted to average out the idiosyncratic errors of the individual polls by aggregating them into a “poll-of-polls” using different methods. The New Zealand Press Association simply took the average of the estimates of the six most recent polls, while The New Zealand Herald took the average of the last four polls. Two blog-based polls-of-polls – one run by David Farrar of New Zealand’s premier political blog Kiwiblog, and one hosted at a smaller blog [run by author Rob Salmond] called 08wire – weighted more recent polls with larger sample sizes more heavily (p.257).

And how did the poll of polls do?

McGirr and Salmond say that ‘Poll-of-polls consistently performed well during the 2008 campaign, outperforming most of the opinion polls and the prediction markets’ (p.270). They therefore advocate that both the media and public should pay much more attention to this highly accurate source of political information.

Tis has prompted me to update the poll of polls widget, which is below.

Salmond ranks the different outlets for their accuracy to the final result. In order they were:

1. NZ Herald poll of polls 6.1 (error from result)
2. NZPA poll of polls 6.8
3. Curiablog poll of polls 8.1
4. TV3/TNS poll 9.6
5. 08 wire poll of polls 13.6
6. iPredict 15.7
7. TVNZ/Colmar Brunton poll 16.8
8. NZ Herald/Digipoll poll 19.8
9. Roy Morgan poll 20.8
10. Fairfax/Neilsen poll 29.6
11. NZ Political Stockmarket 109.5

The NZ Political Stockmarket used virtual money, so it shows what a difference real money can make.

The authors conclude that media outlets should not just report the individual poll results when they commission a poll, but also publish regular info on a poll of polls and on iPredict.

Incidentally I will probably review and tweak the curiablog methodology a bit when I have some spare time.

Over at Curiablog, I have blogged the results of a poll done last week of 1,200 Aucklanders on the Auckland Mayoralty.

It is very rare to have a dead tie between two candidates, but that is what we got – of the 85% of respondents who had a preference between John Banks and Len Brown, they got 50.0% each.

Banks, who is the client who commissioned the poll, has a small 4.4% lead when we ask Aucklanders unprompted who their preference for Mayor is. He gets 42.5% to 38.1% for Brown. Bob Harvey is at 7.2% and Stephen Tindall at 4.8%.

But in the second question, when asked if it is a choice between John Banks and Len Brown, they are dead even. This is a change from the previous poll in September when Brown was almost 10% ahead of Banks.

It looks like it will be a very interesting contest!

The Press reports:

Labour plans to launch a nationwide bus-campaign protest against the proposed GST increase.

The Opposition has recorded a slight increase in support in the latest polls, but National is still well in front as it welcomes poll results as support for a GST rise.

Prime Minister John Key says they show “there is support for an increase in GST where it’s accompanied by a reduction in taxes”.

However, Labour leader Phil Goff was yesterday cautiously optimistic about the new polls indicating he was making up some ground on the National Government.

Hmmn. Two polls were out yesterday. TVNZ had the gap at 20% and TV3 at 26.7% which is an average gap of 23.4%. Their previous polls had gaps of 22% and 24.4% which was an average gap of 23.2%.

So in fact the gap between National and Labour increased by an average 0.2% in the only two polls taken post the GST announcement. Not quite making up ground.

Goff said he planned to take MPs on a bus trip from Auckland to Dunedin during the two-week parliamentary recess.

“Nobody voted for an increase in GST,” Goff said.

That is not true. Phil did. He voted to bring GST in at 10% and he voted to increase it to 12.5%.So does anyone think he is being sincere with his opposition to this increase?

The NZ Herald reports that Phil Goff as closed the gap in the latest poll.

He is now only 0.2% behind Helen Clark as Preferred Prime Minister.

Kiwi Poll Guy blogs:

One of the major goals of this site is to try and predict election results based on recent relevant political polling. This is intended to include not just the total number of seats won by each party, but also viable coalition possibilities and electorate level results.

Today I present the simulation results at the candidate level, including probabilities for each major or minor party candidate to be elected to parliament by either winning an electorate or being selected off their party list.

So what are the odds he calculates? Note that these are based purely on probability calculations based on poll data, and don’t take into account local circumstances such as popularity of a local MP. And the probabilities below are of them holding their electorate seats – not whether or not they would also come in on the list.

His probabilities are:

100% chance of retaining seats

• National – Key, English, Brownlee, Power, Smith N, Ryall, Collins, Williamson, Tolley, McCully, Smith L, Mapp, Guy, Tisch, Wong, Carter J, Heatley, Hutchison, Ardern, Goudie, Roy, Coleman, Tremain, Borrows, Foss, Peachey, Goodhew, Dean, Auchinvole, Bennett D, King, Hayes, Bridges, Upston, McClay, Macindoe, Kaye
• Labour – King, Sio, Shearer, Hawkins
• Maori – Turia, Sharples, Harawira, Flavell

90% to 99% chance of retaining seats

• National – Bennett P 98%, Young 96%
• Labour – Goff 95%, Carter C 97%, Dalziel 97%, Anderton 98%, Robertson R 97%, Curran 93%
• ACT – Hide 95%

50% to 89% chance of retaining seats

• National – Lotu-Iiga 87%,
• Labour – Horomira 76%, Hodgson 86%, Cunliffe 65%, Mahuta 62%, Laban 74%,
• United Future – Dunne 73%
• Maori – Katene 60%

Under 50% chance of retaining seats

• Labour – Dyson 19%, Mallard 37%, Cosgrove 4%, Hipkins 24%, Burns 25%, Robertson G 9%, Lees-Galloway 10%,

Now as I said, this is a straight probability calculation based on current polls showing National more than 20% ahead of Labour on the party vote, and applying that to the electorate vote. Kiwi Poll Guy also works out the probability of each MP and Candidate coming in as a List MP, based on teh 2008 lists.

The probabilities are not predictions. For example I would give Grant Robertson a far higher chance than 9% of retaining his seat – but that is based not on a uniform swing to National, but local knowledge of the Wellington Central seat.

As we get closer to the election, and we also get electorate polling data into the mix, I’ll be checking Kiwi Poll Guy’s numbers more and more often.

Populus polled the UK on climate change in early November 2009, before Climategate, and again in early February 2010.

The findings, and the changes from November to February are:

• 75% (-8%) agree global warming is happening
• 34% (-16%) of that 75% agree it is an established scientific fact that climate change is largely man-made
• 50% (+11%) say man-made global warming is a widespread theory but has not been conclusively proved
• 14% (+5%) say man-made climate change is environmentalist propaganda with little or no evidence

Now to look at these numbers as shares of the total population, they are:

1. 25% (+8%) say there is no global warming
2. 11% (+4%) say there is global warming but it is natural
3. 38% (+6%) say there is global warming but it has not been conclusively proven it is man-made, however that is the widespread theory
4. 26% (-16%) say that there is global warming and it is an established scientific fact it is largely man-made

So this shows the magnitude of the changes. Those who say it is a fact we have man-made global warming has dropped from 42% to 26%. That is a relative decline of almost 40%, so one in three people who believed global warming is definitely man-made have changed their minds.

UPDATE: This Blunt cartoon seems topical

The Herald reports:

Like it: 73 per cent
Hate it: 14 per cent

This is a Nielsen online poll of Herald readers. Not as reliable as a phone poll, but I doubt the results would change a lot if it was.

The key findings:

Those in favour of national standards:

YES – 73.2%
NO – 13.8%
DON’T KNOW – 13%

Do you understand how the new system works?

FULLY – 11.9%
PARTIALLY – 61.8%
NOT AT ALL – 26.2%

The effect of national standards on your child:

GOOD – 53.9%
BAD – 36.5%
NONE – 9.5%

Will standards create school ‘league tables’ for parents to plan their child’s schooling?

YES – 56.3%
NO – 17.1%
DON’T KNOW – 26.6%

Would that be a bad thing?

YES – 38.8%
NO – 47.9%
DON’T KNOW – 13.4%

John Roughan also writes:

This week the New Zealand Educational Institute, the union that protects these people’s jobs, has put a bus on the road to oppose new national standards of reading, writing and maths that would be tested and the results reported in a way everyone could understand.

It is the last bit the NZEI really hates. Schools already test kids constantly for their own purposes but they are not supposed to share the results with parents. They’ll provide your child’s test scores if you know to ask but they’d rather you didn’t.

Roughan correctly ascertains that this is a battle about reporting, not about testing. Should parents get told how well their kids are doing in clear language? Labour and the unions say no.

All of this is anathema to educational theorists and the teachers’ unions that want us to believe no school is better than any other, no teacher weaker than any other, and no child fails in the system they control.

And they do control it. State education is a law unto itself. Industries are normally answerable either to voluntary paying customers or to elected governments depending on how they are financed.

The NZEI seems to think the only role for the Government is to shut up and pay the salaries of their members.

Matthew Hooton’s Exceltium has just put out a newsletter (EQ Summer 2010) focusing on the Foreshore & Seabed issue.It is a very interesting analysis of the extensive background to the issue, and some of the risks the Government faces. It is a complex area.

My firm, Curia, did some polling of New Zealanders on the issues around the Foreshore & Seabed, and Matthew talks about some of the interesting findings:

There is evidence of considerable public goodwill towards resolving the foreshore and seabed issue in a sensible way. According to the Curia polling carried out for Exceltium, 64% of the public support a reconsideration of the Act, including 54% of those who voted Labour in 2008, 69% of women and a massive 72% of those who voted National. This is despite 44% of the public saying they are happy with the ways things are now, with only 39% disagreeing with this proposition.

So most Labour and National voters support a reconsideration, but some also say they’re pretty happy with the status quo.

Neither main party’s handling of the issue in the mid 2000s now scores well among the public. There is strong agreement that Labour handled the issue poorly, with 46% saying its handling was “poor” or “very poor”, and only 16% prepared to say it was handled “well” or “very well”. In contrast to what polls suggested at the time, more people (36%) now claim to have disagreed with Dr Brash’s Orewa speech than those who say they agreed with it (25%). Remarkably, only 12% of National voters in 2008 now say they “strongly agreed” with their former leader’s speech. These figures suggest a degree of revisionism by voters about their own opinions in 2004.

I was surprised at how much opinion has changed over the five years. To some degree I think this is because of the media constantly referring to the Orewa speech in such negative terms.

As many as 70% of respondents to the Curia poll say they are “not at all informed” or only “a little informed” about the issues around the Act. Just 8% say they are “highly informed”. This is confirmed by the fact that 36% of New Zealanders believe that less than 10% of the coastline is currently owned privately and only 20% of people believe more than 20% of the coastline is in private hands. In fact, about 30% of the coastline is currently owned privately.

The unbroken Queens Chain is more myth than reality.

Of propositions tested by Curia, overwhelmingly the public agreed most strongly with the statement “the Government should ensure equal access to the foreshore and seabed for everyone”. As many as 59% of people strongly agreed with this proposition with another 27% somewhat agreeing. Just 6% disagreed. Access overwhelmed even ownership as an issue with 62% agreeing with the statement “I don’t mind who owns the foreshore and seabed, so long as I can access the beach whenever I want to.” Consistent with this, 59% say “private owners of coastal areas shouldn’t be allowed to exclude the public from using the area.”

Access is not the only issue, but for most Kiwis the biggest issue. They want more access, not less.

Second only to agreement with the proposition about equal access was agreement with the statement “the Government should not pass a law to remove the right of any group of New Zealanders to take a claim to court.” As many as 62% of New Zealanders agreed with that statement – 30% strongly agreeing – and only 21% disagreed. Half the population
agree with the statement “the courts are the right place to decide who owns the foreshore and seabed” with only 31% disagreeing.

That was 3:1 against the Government removing the right to take a claim to court.

“Special rights ” for Maori opposed but “custo mary rig hts ” ok

In contrast with the view that the courts are the best place to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue, 48% of respondents to the Curia poll agree the Act was “too generous” to Maori as it gave them “special rights”. It is not clear what the public defines as “special” because 53% of the population appears to agree the law should provide for local Maori to undertake customary activities on beaches where continuity of use since 1840 can be proved.

It is interesting how some people say they are against “special rights” but they are for “customary rights” when it is explained what these are.

What was also very interesting (to me anyway) is that some people said they both agreed the Foreshore & Seabed Act was unfair to Maori as it took away their right to go to court, but also that the FSA was too generous to Maori as it gave them special rights.

Now some of this may just be the way the questions are worded – they were designed to see how people respond to the issue being framed that way. But in fact, in my opinion, it is quite valid to have a view that the FSA was both unfair to Maori and too generous to Maori.

I’ve blogged on this before, but it comes down to the difference between depth and breadth.

In my opinion the FSA was unfair to Maori as it legislated away their chance to test in court their claims to foreshore usage, right down to the possibility of gaining title in some areas. This was unlikely, but it was possible. And if the law is that title exists, then that has to be negotiated away or compensated.

But while the FSA reduced the depth to which a claim could go, it increased the breadth. It made it much easier for a wider range of Iwi and Hapu to claim rights over a greater area of foreshore & seabed than the Court of Appeal decision would have probably allowed.

Now some in Labour claimed their FSA gave more to Maori than they would have got in court. Parekura Horomia said this in a debate with Derek Fox. Fox’s response was that may be the case, but they would the precedent of legislating away the right to go to court, in return for a unilateral “gifting” of rights is a bad one.

It will be interesting to see what proposals emerge from the Government. Exceltium strongly advocate that the matter should return to the courts. It is a pity that Labour in 2004 did not appeal to the Privy Council, rather than legislate, so we would have had the benefit of a definitive legal ruling from our (then) highest court.

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the full results of a poll of 1,002 Maori respondents. There are 685 from the Maori roll and 317 from the General Roll.

The most news worthy aspect is that that majority of Maori who are voting Labour do not believe Phil Goff is the best person to lead the Labour Party. Only 36% of Maori Labour voters say he is the best person to lead Labour and 48% say he is not. Now again – that is from Labour voters only, not all Maori, so is a pretty damning result.

We see this again, with the poll of all Maori voters on whether or not they think Phil Goff provides good leadership on Maori issues – only 18% (less than one in five) agree and 59% disagree.

Preferred PM is also pretty dismal. Goff is in 5th place at 4.6% (and remember this is amongst a constituency who used to be the strongest Labour had) and amongst Maori on the Maori roll he is even below Hone Harawira as Preferred PM!

Finally in terms of the party vote, there is bad and good news for Labour. Amongst the 68% of Maori on the Maori roll, Labour has fallen from 50% at the last election to 32%. Labour are at 51% amongst Maori on the general roll, which is up from a November Marae Digipoll.

Overall the Maori Party lead Labour by 0.4% on the party vote. On the Maori Roll, they lead by 20%, which compares to the 2008 election when Labour beat the Maori Party by 21% on the party vote.

If the electorate vote follows the party vote (and historically the Maori Party do far better on the electorate vote than the party vote) then Labour is at serious risk of losing their two remaining seats, rather than winning all seven seats as Shane Jones claims he will do.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

A new assessment by the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report has moved a dozen more Democratic seats in the House into the vulnerable column. Now, 58 Democratic-held seats are “in play” compared to just 14 Republican-held seats.

And in the latest blow to President Barack Obama’s Democrats, Beau Biden, attorney general of Delaware, abandoned plans to run for the Senate seat that his father Vice-President Joe Biden occupied for 36 years until 2008.

The younger Mr Biden, 40, who recently served in Iraq as a US army lawyer, was until recently thought to be certain to run. But with the Obama-Biden administration’s popularity plummeting, his name could have been a liability rather than an asset in November.

His decision makes Representative Mike Castle, a Republican, the overwhelming favourite to take the seat. …

Republicans need to win 10 Democratic-held seats out of the 16 up for grabs in November to win a majority of 51 to 49 votes in the Senate. For the first time, Republican strategists are beginning to believe it might be possible.

Until the primaries are done, it is too difficult to predict House seats. But could they retake the Senate? They now have 41 seats. What does Five Thirty Eight say are the chances of GOP pickups for various seats:

1. North Dakota 99%
2. Nevada 76%
3. Delaware 75%
4. Arkansas 73%
5. Pennsylvania 72%
6. Colorado 70%
7. Illinois 51%
8. Indiana 48%
9. California 21%
10. Wisconsin 16%
11. New York 13%

So there is a pretty decent chance the Republicans could gain eight seats and get to 49 seats (assuming they lose none, and it is probably they won’t). But gaining a 50th and 51st seat looks hard on the surface. If Joe Lieberman decided to give his support to the GOP instead of the Democrats, then they only need 50 seats. So can they do it?

Well yes, depending on the primaries. The averages quoted above are based on an average of how polls show various candidates doing in match ups. If the GOP go with the most popular candidates, their chances are better in the last three seats.

California is hard to win, regardless of GOP candidates – Carly Fiorina is assessed with a 19% chance and Tom Campbell with 28%.

But in Wisconsion, former Governor Tommy Thompson is given a 45% chance of winning against the Democrat’s Feingold.

And in New York, former Governor George Pataki is given odds ranging from 50% to 74% depending on who the Democratic candidate is.

So if Thompson and Pataki win the primaries, then a GOP majority in the Senate is possible. However there is a long way to go, and possible does not mean probable.

This should be displayed in every newsroom.

Hat Tip: The Standard

A very interesting survey done in November by UMR of 1,000 adult NZers about morality on the Internet. I blog most of the findings below. It is important to remember this is a poll of all NZers, not just of Internet users.

Respondents were asked about eight activities and if they thought they were morally acceptable or morally wrong, regardless of legality. Morally acceptable percentages are

1. A single person using Internet dating 82%
2. A single person flirting online 69%
3. A single person watching porn online 41%
4. Watching copyrighted TV online via Youtube 31%
5. A married person watching porn online without spousal knowledge 21%
6. Downloading copyrighted music for free 18%
7. Downloading copyrighted movies for free 13%
8. Married person flirting online without spousal knowledge 6%

I think the first three are morally acceptable, but the last four are not. No 4 depends a bit on context – if that is the only way to see a TV show in your country, I don’t think it is morally unacceptable.

I’m am amazed that some people think it is morally unacceptable to use Internet dating if single.

Men in all eight categories are more likely to say something is morally acceptable. The biggest difference is with a single person watching porn online – 56% of men say morally acceptable and only 26% of women.

Age difference also pronounced. 59% of under 30s say pron watching is fine for singles, while only 17% of over 60s agree.

Also og interest is 47% of respondents said they have downloaded music files even though only 18% say it is morally acceptable.

UMR have published a 42 page mood of the nation report. I have summarised it at curiablog. I found the graph below fascinating:

The overall mood for the year was the most positive since records begun. What I find remarkable is that this happened during the world’s worse recession for 70 years, and increasing unemployment and record deficits.

Compare that to 1991 when the direction was an average -34% and in 2008 it was +41%. Now this did shrink in December to +29%, but still remarkable.

I now have a copy of the full TV3 poll results, and have blogged them at curiablog.

This Blunt cartoon is in line with most of the media analysis.

However while the poll certainly shows movements of some significance, I think most of the commentary has been somewhat over-excited – especially tying it to the nationhood speech. The poll is more about a drop in support for National and John Key (and over two months) than a payoff from the nationhood speech for Phil Goff. A few things to look at:

1. The 24.4% gap between National and Labour is greater than the November One News poll and the mid and late November Morgan polls. TV3’s last poll was in mid October so the comparison is over a two month period.
2. The previous gap of 60% to 27% was unlikely to remain – you can only go down from there.
3. Goff as Preferred PM at 8.0% is still below the 9.1% he got in April 2009
4. Goff’s net approval rating has actually dropped from -3.7% to -8.4%
5. Of the eight leadership characteristics they ask about, Goff dropped on three, stayed the same on two and increased on three

Now this doesn’t mean it was good news for National. The poll is not so much about Labour or Goff going up – it was about National and Key dropping over the last two months (not last two weeks). Changes for Key are:

1. Down 5.8% as Preferred PM
2. Down 9.4% those saying Key doing a good job (but still high at 73%)

This reflects I think the unpopularity (on both the left and right) of elements of the ETS, and coverage of other unpopular issues (perks, Hone Harawira saga).

So again while the poll does show some significant movement, most of the media are analysing it wrongly in showing a “pay off” for Phil Goff for his nationhood speech. The poll is quite consistent with the mid to late November polls in other media, and the two month gap makes it unsafe to tie to one more recent event.

This graph puts the polls in context. This TV3 poll was in fact better than the three previous polls in November, so the average gas has increased.

The November 2009 public polls newsletter from Curia went out this morning. You can subscribe to get it by e-mail here.

The most interesting results this month are from overseas. Obama continues to decline, the Conservatives lead in the UK has shrunk, and Abbott has dented Rudd’s lead in Australia.

Kiwi Poll Guy applies his maths to the current poll ratings, to project how many electorate seats each party could expect – based on overall poll ratings.

Currently National has 41 seats, Labour 21, Maori 5 and one each to ACT, United and Progressive.

KPG projects:

• National 50
• Labour 12
• ACT 1
• Maori 5 – 6
• Progressive 1
• United 1 (58% chance of retaining Ohariu)

Now these are of course mathematical calculations, and do not take into account individual issues and people in each seat.

I recommend people subscribe to KPG, if you are a devoted poll watcher.

Nine months into his term, I thought I’d take another look at Obama’s ratings compared to other US Presidents. Gallup has polling data back to WWII. At Day 270 the approval ratings were:

1. George W Bush 89% (post 9/11)
2. John Kennedy 77%
3. Lyndon Johnson 74%
4. George H W Bush 68%
5. Dwight Eisenhower 65%
6. Harry Truman 63%
7. Ronald Reagan 56%
8. Richard Nixon 56%
9. Jimmy Carter 54%
10. Barack Obama 50%
11. Bill Clinton 47%
12. Gerald Ford 40%

Clinton of course won a second term, but Carter did not. Clinton abandoned healthcare reform and moved to the centre. Will Obama?

Further to my blog earlier this morning, the kind people at Marae have sent me a breakdown of some of their poll results, by roll. This allows an easier comparison to election results.

You can view the episode on their website, including a discussion between host Shane Taurima and John Key.

First the party vote results for the 700 respondents on the Maori roll (compared to actual election results):

1. Maori Party 62% (+33%)
2. Labour 23% (-27%)
3. National 11% (+3%)
4. Greens 2% (-2%)
5. NZ First 2% (-5%)

That is a decimation for Labour. Their party vote has more than halved amongst Maori on the Maori roll. Some of that will be losing Clark.

Then the party vote results for the 300 Maori respondents on the General roll:

1. National 42%
2. Labour 33%
3. Maori Party 16%
4. Greens 6%
5. NZ First 3%

Now this is unprecedented as far as I know – National to be outpolling Labour amongst Maori voters on the general roll.

The 2008 data has not yet been published but the NZ election study in 2005 had Maori on the general roll supporting Labour at 54%, and National at 17%.

So from the 2005 election, Labour has gone from 37% ahead of National amongst Maori on the general roll, to 9% behind.

And then if we take the overall sample of all Maori (both rolls) we have:

1. Maori Party 48% (+27% from 2005)
2. Labour 26% (-28%)
3. National 20% (+11%)
4. Greens 3% (-2%)
5. NZ First 2% (-7%)

Again I can’t compare to 2008 as there is no public poll data about how Maori on the general roll voted.  But the combined effect is clear – Labour at half the level they were in 2005, and both National and Maori Party at around double where they were.

Also interesting to see the breakdown by roll for John Key. He gets 26% Preferred PM amongst Maori roll respondents and 39% amongst Maori on the general roll. Goff is at 4% on Maori roll and 5% General roll.

In terms of approval of Key’s performance as PM, there is little variation. Maori on the Maori roll give him a net approval (yes over no) of 17% and Maori on the General roll a net approval of 24%.

I have not yet viewed the episode myself, but I think John Key will be very proud of such historic results, despite being a “white motherfucker”

I’ve blogged at Curiablog, the details of a Marae Digipoll. It has 700 voters from the Maori roll, and 300 from the general roll (but of Maori descent).

There’s several fascinating aspects to it.

1. Party Vote is Maori Party 48%, Labour 26% and National 20%. Now in the 2008 election, in the Maori seats, the party vote was Maori Party 29%, Labour 50% and National 7%. Now this can’t be directly compared due to inclusion of general roll voters (I have asked if there is a breakdown) but regardless that a big boost upwards for the Maori Party and National.
2. Maori Party at 57% on electorate vote. Will this hold up for them to win the sixth and seventh seat off Labour?
3. John Key at seven times the support of Phil Goff as Preferred PM. This is a National Party leader. Goff is in 5th place amongst Maori.
4. Approval of John Key is at 55% amongst Maori.
5. In terms of most effective Maori MP, the top Labour MP (Parekura Horomia)  is at 3%, in 5th place.
6. While 68% of Maori Party supporters back the decision to go into Government with National, most want them to be in Cabinet – not Ministers outside Cabinet.

I’ve said for some time that Labour’s strategy of attacking the Maori Party is a strategic blunder. This poll confirms it, in my opinion.

There were four public polls in October – two Morgans, a Herald poll and a TV3 poll. Their average sees a 28% gap between National and Labour – a post election high.

The full monthly newsletter summarising public polls in NZ, Australia, US, UK and Canada has just gone out. Interested readers can subscribe to it at http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter.

The HoS reports:

The Labour leadership is embroiled in a murky polling operation run by a senior MP who has instructed volunteers to deliberately deceive people about their identities and the reason for their calls.

The polls were being run from Parliamentary offices by former Cabinet minister Rick Barker, who has admitted instructing staff to use false names and claim they were calling from a company that no longer exists. …

Details of the polling emerged after a volunteer involved approached the Herald on Sunday claiming the practice was “unethical”.

The volunteer, who is a Green Party member, said it was run by Barker and, when the volunteer participated, took place in Barker’s office at Parliament on October 14.

The volunteer said Barker instructed all the helpers, including a Parliamentary staffer, to say they worked for a non-existent company called “Data Research”, and to not disclose that they were really working for the Labour Party.

A search at the companies office for the former Data Research finds the company, when registered, had two directors – a Robert Bateman Allen and a Trevor Colin Mallard. Now nothing wrong with that – in fact the problem arguably is that they did not keep the company registered, while using its name.

Labour Party president Andrew Little last night said all polling was out of Phil Goff’s Leader’s Budget. Little said he knew nothing about the operation. “It would concern me very deeply,” he said.

This surprises me. In no way doubting Andrew’s word that he knew nothing – just surprised that the parliamentary wing would keep their polling operation secret from the President.

Barker, when questioned, initially said: “I don’t know what you’re talking about”. When provided with details, including dates, Barker said he would call back.

Two hours later, Barker rang and admitted he had encouraged the use of false names by callers.

Wow, Barker lied to the media. That gives him a real credibility problem. I doubt it was a memory problem, as the phoning took place just ten days ago.

Labour whip Darren Hughes, who sits on the party’s leadership council, said he was aware of the polling. He said Barker had spearheaded three polls.

But Hughes defended the use of false names and for callers to not identify that they were representing the Labour Party.

“The name of Data Research was used to get as close to a scientific result as you could, to not influence results because of the way that people feel about a particular party.”

What a mess. The party president says he knows nothing about is, and is deeply concerned. Rick Barker lies, saying he knows nothing about it, until flushed out. And Darren says it is all okay.

Now I will back Darren up on one point. If a party is conducting a poll themselves, they don’t want to use their own party’s name because it does influence the responses, and you do want it scientific.

However as I said, the preferable way to deal with this is to have an actual company registered like Data Access, so you can legally say you are polling on behalf of that company.

He said the use of false names in polling was common: “I’m sure that half the people try to sell us things on telemarketing aren’t giving us their real names.”

Here I disagree. Of course callers should use their real names. They don’t have to give out their surname and home address, but why wouldn’t they use their real first names?

A spokesman for Goff said the leader of the opposition was not available to answer questions, but he had consulted members of the leadership council and been told the method of polling carried out by Barker was a mistake. “It won’t happen again.”

So the President knew nothing, the MP whose office was used lied about it, the whip defended it and the leader said it was a mistake and won’t happen again!

I think Labour need to work on their internal communications and messaging!

Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said the details of Barker’s polling operation raised serious questions and could breach the Privacy Act.

I imagine Commissioner Shroff’s concerns would be over what happens to the individual responses. Does Labour destroy the individual responses once they have summarised the results, or do they enter in the responses against their electoral roll database to assist with voter targeting? If they do undertake the latter, that would be a very serious breach of the Privacy Act.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff says National is still enjoying a honeymoon with the public after a new poll showed it had double the support of his party.

TV3’s poll of 1000 voters last night put the National Government’s support at an exceptionally high 59.9 per cent compared to Labour’s 27.2 per cent.

A honeymoon is defined as:

any new relationship characterized by an initial period of harmony and goodwill

Now the media have run multiple stories since May declaring the honeymoon over. There has been a Ministerial resignation, a tax cut cancelling budget, MP investigations, tensions with confidence and supply partners, the Auckland Super City, Maori Seats, rising unemployment etc etc.

Mr Goff said the poll covered a recess period when it was hard for Labour to get publicity and before recent controversies over rugby broadcasting and ACC.

The recess can be a factor, but hell you are talking 2% or 3% on a 33% gap. The poll included coverage up to last Wednesday which covered pretty much all the worst of the rugby broadcasting fiasco, and a fair bit of the well signalled ACC changes. Sure it didn’t cover the failure to have the numbers in the house, but Labour are deluding themselves if they think one single issue is going to change things much – the public don’t follow House issues anywhere like we do.

“This is a new government, it’s in its first year of government, they still have the appearance of being fresh, of being people-friendly. We know from experience that the gloss wears off,” Mr Goff told Radio New Zealand.

It has been 11 months since the election. If you compare to other first term Governments, you have:

June 85 – Govt behind by 2%
Sep 91 – Govt behind by 20%
Oct 00 – Govt behind by 4%
Oct 09 – Govt ahead by 33%

Anyone see the problem in Phil’s theory?

“It’s a difficult stage of the political cycle for the Labour Party, we don’t get exuberant about high polls we don’t get deeply depressed about low polls.

Here is their fundamental problem? They think it is just a stage. They think all Labour has to do is wait for people to realise their mistake.

Perhaps Phil could explain why after 11 months in the job, he can barely make half the support level of someone who is no longer even in politics, and now lives in the United States. Is that also just a stage of the cycle?