Kiwiblog

In my blog at Stuff, I look at the latest Roy Morgan poll, and ask if National is now the underdog?

Roy Morgan have their first poll since the election out.

They say it shows little change for the major parties:

• National 47%
• Labour 27.5%
• Greens 14.5%
• NZ First 5.0%
• Maori Party 1.5%
• Mana 1.0%
• ACT 0.5%
• United 0.5%

To me it shows how things remain close. Labour, Greens and NZ First combined are 47% – same as National.

However the right direction indicator has gone up from 49.5% to 60.5% and wrong direction down from 31% to 28%.

Family First have released the results of some polling done amongst 16 to 21 year old New Zealanders by Curia. The summary is:

When asked “Do you think sex education in schools should teach values, abstinence and consequences such as pregnancy, or just teach safe sex?” only 19% supported just the ‘safe sex’ message currently being taught in schools, with one in three (34%) wanting ‘values, abstinence, and consequences such as pregnancy’ taught instead, and a further 42% asking for a combination of both – especially amongst older teens. The support for just the ‘safe sex’ message dropped even lower for the older teens. …

When asked “Provided it won’t put the girl in physical danger, should parents be told if their school-age daughter is pregnant and considering getting an abortion?” 59% of young respondents thought the parents should be told. 34% disagreed. More young men than women agreed, but both had majority agreement.

When asked “Do you believe an unborn child or foetus has a right to be born?” 56% of youth respondents said they believed an unborn child or foetus has a right to be born. Slightly more young women than young men agreed – 58% to 55%. Those aged 15 to 17 were strongest in support – 66%.

It was intriguing that young women were slightly more supportive than young men of there being a right to be born for an unborn child or foetus.

The parental notification results may surprise some, but thinking about it it is normal that most young people would expect to talk to parents about any unplanned pregnancy. The question did not specifically say “Should the law require parents to be told …” but at a minimum it makes clear that a majority thought parental notification should occur.

Note that of course the results do not necessarily represent my personal views.

I blogged on Friday the final polls by the five public telephone pollsters and the final poll by Horizon. A fuller analysis will be done once we get final results, but for now I’ll do a quick analysis of how each pollster did for each party.

Note that this is not comparing apples and apples entirely. Those pollsters whose final poll was earlier in the election period naturally do not pick up what happens in the final few days. And there are other factors at work such as sample sizes. So this is not about saying who is “best” and “worst” but just a quick look at were they broadly in the right ballpark for the various parties.

This shows the actual result, and the (absolute) difference between the final poll for that pollster and the final result. Where the difference was greater than 1.5%, I have highlighted them in red.

This is just one of several ways to analyse it. One can also total up the differences for each pollster. Also you can count how many had a result within the margin of error for that poll. I’ll comment on each poll result.

Roy Morgan

They were the pollster that got NZ First closest. They had National and Greens too high and Labour too low. They did not record results for the Conservative Party at all, but otherwise were pretty good.

Fairfax Research International

National significantly too high, but Labour pretty accurate. Undershot NZ First and did not report on Conservatives. Other Minors within range.

3 News Reid Research

Like everyone had National too high (but within margin of error) and like most had the Greens too high. All other minor parties within 1.5% except NZ First whom they had at half what they got.

One News Colmar Brunton

Overall seemed to get things closest. National 2% too high and NZ First 2.6% too low, all others less than a 1% variance.

NZ Herald Digipoll

Also did well. National too high and NZ First too low, but did have them over 5%. Slightly more variance with the minor parties but none greater than 1.5%.

Horizon Poll

Of the nine significant parties, Horizon only got two of them within 1.5% – the Maori Party and United Future parties. They were the least accurate with National (14.2% out), NZ First (4.1% out), ACT (1.7% out) and Mana (1.8% out). They also had Conservatives at close to double what they actually got.

Very amusingly, Horizon are boasting how they consider their poll to have been highly accurate. It staggers me how anyone can put out a poll which had National only 5% ahead of Labour and then could claim it was “close to forecast” when the actual result was a gap of 21%.

My Stuff column is on how the election outcome is not settled. I conclude:

So I don’t regard the outcome of the election tomorrow as settled. Certainly National is in a much better position than Labour. But under MMP, even a 23-point lead in the polls does not guarantee you government.

My message to all Stuff readers is to make sure you vote. Do not think the outcome of this election and the identity of the next government is settled. No matter who you support, make sure you have you say and cast a vote today or tomorrow.

Talking of voting, what is the weather forecast for tomorrow?

Roy Morgan released a poll overnight, which some may have missed. I’ve blogged details at Curiablog.

One aspect of the poll makes me a bit doubtful of its salience – those who say the country is heading in the right direction dropped 11% from last week. That is a huge drop for one week, and suggests to me the sample may be over-represeted with “grumpies”. But we will see tomorrow.

What is interesting is the seat projections on their poll:

If all parties hold their current seats, it is:

• National 60
• Labour 29
• Green 18
• ACT 2
• Maori 4
• United Future 1
• Mana 1
• NZ First 8
• Total 123

If Banks does not win Epsom and Dunne does not win Ohairu, it is:

• National 62
• Labour 30
• Green 18
• Maori 4
• Mana 1
• NZ First 8
• Total 123

In this scenario National just has to drop one further seat and it can not form Government, as the Maori Party holds the balance of power.

Phil Goff could almost form Government on 23.5% of the vote if he does deals with Greens, NZ First, Maori and Mana parties.

It would be a good result for Phil Goff as he keeps his job. Not so good for his colleagues though as on this poll, Labour would lose 13 MPs, but get to form Government.

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.

The final Fairfax Research International poll is at Stuff. I’ve done full results at curiablog.

National is up 1.5% from their last poll, Labour effectively unchanged, Greens down a bit and NZ First at 4.0%. Obviously a very positive result. A caution thought. The level of undecided voters is relatively high at 15.6%, so where they end up can change things significantly. The poll covers the period from Thursday to Monday. I would not take this poll as any reason for complacency over the outcome. Turnout is crucial.

What would a Parliament look like on this poll result, assuming no electorates change hands except Wigram going to Labour.

National

69 seats would have National with 41 electorate MPs and 28 list MPs. All 63 electorate candidates would get elected via the electorate or the list. On top of the 63 electorate candidates, list only candidates Lockwood Smith, Steven Joyce, Jian Yang, Alfred Ngaro, Heather Tanner and Denise Krum would also make it.

Labour

Labour would get reduced to 33 seats from 43. With 22 electorates, this gives them 11 list MPs which would be David Parker, Maryan Street, Sue Moroney, Charles Chauvel, Jacinda Ardern, Andrew Little, Shane Jones, Darien Fenton, Moana Mackey, Rajen Prasad, and Raymond Huo.

Andrew Little would be the only new List MP. Current MPs who would be gone are Carol Beaumont, Kelvin Davis, Carmel Sepuloni, Rick Barker, Stuart Nash and Steve Chadwick

If Labour pick up electorates such as Te Tai Tonga and WCT, then Prasad and Huo would miss out on the list. Likeiwse if Labour lose Rimutaka and Palmie, then Hipkins and Lees-Galloway are gone and Beaumont and Davis would make it in.

Greens

Their caucus would go from nine to 15, with eight new MPs.

They would get in all current MPs plus Eugenie Sage, Jan Logie, Steffan Browning, Denise Roche, Holly Walker, Julie-Anne Genther, Moho Mathers and James Shaw.

Maori Party

On this poll their party vote would only entitle them to one seat, so if they retain all four electorates, an overhang of three seats.

ACT

On this poll (and it is only one poll), John Banks would be the only MP if he wins Epsom.

Mana

On this poll Hone Harawira would be the sole MP.

United Future

Their party vote is too low to be “entitled” to a List MP, so if Peter Dunne wins he would be an overhang MP (which actually helps National)

Parliament would have 124 seats, so 63 would be needed for a Government to have confidence and supply.

Te Karere have just released their Te Tai Tonga poll, which I have blogged in full at Curiablog.

Many had been picking it as a seat that Labour may win with Rino Tirikatene standing for then. However this poll of 400 voters has him 11% behind Rahui Katene.

The Maori seats are difficult to poll, so this poll is not gospel, but it will be a big blow for Labour if they fail to win this seat. On the plus side it means one of their List MPs will survive if they do lose it.

Rob Salmond at Pundit looks at the polls, and linear projection of where the parties may end up on election night, being:

• National 50.8%
• Labour 24.8%
• Greens 14.6%
• NZ First 3.8%

He comments further:

Using the analysis above, we project that New Zealand First will get 3.8% of the vote. We can also project with 95% confidence that the party will get between 2.3% and 5.2% of the vote. Importantly, we project that there is only a 4% probability New Zealand First will get more than five percent of the vote.

We project that National will get an absolute majority of the vote, but a pretty small one (50.8%). Based on this analysis, we think there is a 74% chance that National will get over 50% of the vote.

Of course this is all based on the trend of the last few weeks continuing in the last week, and it may not continue if events get in the way.

I am staggered (but not surprised) that the SST devotes its front page to the results of the Horizon poll, despite the fact that its results are miles out of line with every other pollster, and that certain parties and activists openly recruit their supporters to sign up for the Horizon poll, as it is an Internet panel poll.

Even worse, the SST doesn’t even disclose that the Horizon poll is not a phone poll, but an Internet panel poll.

The spreadsheet above compares the Horizon poll to the weighted average of the five main pollsters. The differences are huge and massive. The SST would know this. Yet they still made this poll their front page, without even disclosing the difference in methodology.

Even worse the SST (at least online) doesn’t disclose the actual percentages for the big parties. I assume this is deliberate because they know if they said National is on 35% only, everyone would laugh.

Incidentially the HoS had a poll done this week over four days by Key Research. Their results are National 55.6%, Labour 26.2%, Green 11.3%, NZ First 3.6%. That is pretty close to the other five pollsters, but again shows how vastly different the Horizon results are.

Roy Morgan have just released their latest poll. Labour drop to a record low of 24.5%, National stay at 53% and NZ First drops to 3.0%.

Normally there is a week delay between a RM poll ending and the release of results. However this one goes right up until yesterday. It covers a 12 days period so around half is before and after the tape incident.

In the sidebar is the latest weighted average of the public polls (only counting the latest poll per pollster). National is projected to be on 65 seats and Labour 34. That means their caucus reducing by a quarter. Their average poll rating is 26.5% so really for Labour a good result now would be 30%.

NZ First on the five polls is 3.2%, but people will be looking for the first poll done entirely after his showboating.

For now I have assumed that ACT wins Epsom. The latest One News poll had Banks 11% behind Goldsmith but I am reminded that no public poll has ever shown ACT winning Epsom and they have won it twice before. However if you assume ACT do not make it, then National and the Greens will gain one seat each.

There were three polls out last night and this morning. The table below shows the date and time weighted average of the polls.

The first set of figures is averaging the results of the last polls by every public pollsters – One News, 3 News, NZ Herald, Fairfax, Roy Morgan.

The second set of figures is the average just for the three polls released last night or this morning, being One News, 3 News and the NZ Herald.

On this average, you need 62 seats to govern.

My Herald column looks at what happens if Winston decides again.

This means that Winston Peters will decide who gets to be Prime Minister of New Zealand for the third time out of six MMP elections. In 1996 he chose Jim Bolger over Helen Clark, in 2005 he chose Helen Clark over Don Brash and if he holds the balance of power in 2011, make no mistake he will choose Phil Goff over John Key, and there will be a Government that can only pass a law if it can get the Greens, Winston, Hone, and the Maori Party to all agree to it.

And imagine the blowout in spending and debt!

Again polls have shown a certain reluctance for National voters to tactically vote for ACT. I speak often to many National supporters in Epsom. To a person, they all want National to have a coalition partner to the right (economically) of National. The debate is whether ACT in its crippled state is worth saving, or whether you do the humane thing and put it to sleep with some electoral euthanasia, allowing a new party to arise phoenix like from the ashes.

The prospect of Winston Peters installing Phil Goff as Prime Minister should be sufficient to resolve that debate. If they do not vote for John Banks, then a change of Government becomes significantly more likely.

Epsom voters now have a clear choice.

MMP is perfect for demagogues such as Peters. He selects who will be on his party list, and they become MPs based on his personal popularity, despite the fact 99% of New Zealanders could not tell you who the top six candidates on his list are. Their loyalty is purely to him, not to the New Zealand public.

STV will still deliver broadly proportional results, but candidates will have to actually be someone whom voters rank high enough with their ballots, to elect to Parliament. This should result in a significant improvement of the quality of candidates, if there is no backdoor through a party list.

I will blog more fully next week on the merits of STV.

KB reader Nik has sent in an updated version of his graph measuring the difference between the average of polls released in the two days before an election, and the actual results. His changes are based on reader comments.

You can see that the difference have been fairly minor – generally within 1.5% each way. National and Greens tend to do worse than the polls show by around 1% to 1.5%.

Despite what Winston claims, the polls for the last two elections have had him within 0.5%. In fact in 2005 his result was slightly less than the polls.

I’ve blogged at Curiablog, the results of tonight’s 3 News poll. Nats up, Lab down, Greens up, ACT down.

The weighted average of the five public polls released this week is:

• National 52.6%, 67 seats
• Labour 27.8%, 35 seats
• Green 11.1%, 14 seats
• NZ First 3,2%, 0 seats
• Maori 1.5%, 3 seats (1 overhang)
• ACT 1.1%, 1 seat
• Mana 0.7%, 1 seat
• United 0.4%, 1 seat (overhang)

There is no doubt NZ First has increased its support. It usually does when they get in the news, and ironically as much as Winston loves to pretend there is a media conspiracy against him, they in fact give him and NZ First far more publicity (but not scrutiny) than other parties polling at his level.

So they are up in the polls, but are they on the verge of 5% as Roy Morgan had them? No, or not yet, in my opinion.

Roy Morgan often has had NZ First higher than the other polls. They had them at 4.5% in May 2011, 5% in April 2011, 5.5% in Jan 2011, 4.5% in Sep 2010, 4.5% in Aug 2010, and prior to the last election had them twice at 6.5% in July and Aug 2008.

As always, I recommend looking at the average of the polls. This had them at 2.2% in October and rising to 3.1% in November. So as I said an increase, but still around 50,000 votes short of 5%.

The Press reports:

Waimakariri Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove faces a crushing defeat as a new poll shows his National rival, Kate Wilkinson, has opened up a huge lead in the seat.

A Fairfax Media-Research International snap poll in the seat put Wilkinson on 53.9 per cent of decided voters against 36 per cent for Cosgrove. The only consolation for Cosgrove is that the poll of 250 voters had a margin of error of 6.2 per cent and a high proportion of undecided voters – 23.5 per cent.

The poll also showed a huge lead for National of 71.9 per cent to Labour’s 17.4 per cent.

That compares with 2008 when National won the party vote in the seat by 49.4 per cent to 33.9 per cent for Labour.

Paul Epplett of Research International said his best explanation for the huge shift in support was related to the earthquake and polling on that had been positive for National.

This will worry Labour greatly, to be 18% behind in a seat they currently hold. Having said that, the party vote figures look a bit extreme to me, so I wouldn’t take the exact margin as gospel.

But what will be worrying Labour, is if one seat they hold now has them 18% behind, what about the others? Their next most marginal seats are Rimutaka, Christchurch Central, Palmerston North, Wellington Central, New Lynn, Hutt South and Te Atatu.

UPDATE: Whale has a post pointing out that the woman in the advertisements Cosgrove is running who says “Why I’m voting for Clayton Cosgrove” is not even registered to vote in Waimakariri – she is on the Te Tai Tonga roll. He couldn’t even find someone from his electorate to endorse him so he got a union official

The Dom Post reports:

The Fairfax Media-Research International mini poll shows the UnitedFuture leader, who has held the north Wellington seat for the past 27 years, could be ousted by Labour’s Charles Chauvel.

It put Mr Dunne on 37.4 per cent, less than two points ahead of Labour’s Charles Chauvel on 35.6.

National’s Katrina Shanks is a distant third on 19 per cent and the Greens candidate Gareth Hughes registered just 1.4 per cent.

A massive 34.6 per cent of voters were undecided.

The poll, conducted on Wednesday night, surveyed 163 voters and has a margin of error of 7 per cent.

Research International spokesman Paul Epplett said that means the race for Ohariu is too close to call.

Definitely too close too call. The probability that Dunne is in fact ahead of Chauvel is only 61%. Add onto that the 35% undecided, and either Dunne or Chauvel can win.

What will be interesting to see is if the 19% voting Shanks, now vote tactically.

At Stuff I blog on who would be in and out of Parliament based on the average of the polls this week:

If National gains 65 seats, they will gain many new MPs. Highly placed candidates Jian Yang, Paul Goldsmith and Alfred Ngaro were always going to make it in, as were electorate candidates Simon O’Connor, Maggie Barry, Ian McKelvie, Mark Mitchell, Mark Sabin and Scott Simpson. Joining them would be candidates Paul Foster-Bell, Claudette Hauiti, Jo Hayes and Leonie Hapeta.

This would give National its most ethnically diverse caucus ever. They would have 11 Maori MPs, three Asian MPs and two Pacific MPs. They would also have a record 18 female MPs (but their proportion of the caucus would be unchanged).

What people may find amusing is I made a typo in the original, and it read “give National its most ethically diverse caucus”

I’ve blogged details of the latest One News Colmar Brunton poll at curiablog.

Labour have dropped to 28%. There are 16 days to go. I expect this will increase their Key Derangement Syndrome and they will try and blame him for the Pike River deaths, as one left wing blog tried to do today.

David Winter at The Atavism blogs on how different pollsters vary from the average of all the polls, to see which ones have a polling bias. I wouldn’t use the term bias, as that is a loaded word, but it is useful to see the variation. The better comparison will be after the election, against the actual results. However it is still interesting to see this graph:

David’s conclusion is:

It seems TV3 tends to get National a little higher and Labour a little lower than the rest of the pollsters, and perhaps the Herald goes the other way. I think trying to gain anything more meaningful than that from these results is probably the statistical equivalent of reading tea leaves, but feel free to stare at the graph and confirm your own political biases!

As I said, am looking forward to comparing after the election.

The graph below was not done by me, but e-mailed to me by a friend, so I can’t vouch 100% for it, but I took a quick look at the data and it looks right to me.

The graph compares the average of the polls published just prior to a general election with the actual result. It shows that the polls on average have been consistently close to the actual result for the last three elections. Not perfect, but generally within 1.5%.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is a fairly good indicator.

Stuff reports:

National is looking unstoppable on its way to a historic outright election win as Labour plunges in a Fairfax Media-Research International Poll.

The poll has National on 52.5 per cent, and Labour sliding to 25.9 per cent, 17 days from the election.

Labour would lose 10 seats if those results were repeated on election night, while National would get nine extra seats, and bring in a slew of new faces.

The Green Party has profited most from Labour’s slump, rising to 12.6 per cent in today’s poll – which would give it seven more seats in Parliament and nine new faces because of retirements.

Labour have dropped 5.4% since their last poll, taking them halfway to the 21% National got in 2002. The poll covers the disaster of a debate for Goff last week, but would not cover Labour’s pledge to give beneficiaries with a dependent child an extra $70/week.

What is interesting is that Labour are now at only twice the support of the Greens. In 2008 they got five times as many votes.

On this poll Labour gets 33 seats. They could well win 24 electorates, which if so means only nine list MPs. This means they would lose Rajen Prasad, Raymond Huo, Carol Beaumont, Kelvin Davis, Carmel Sepuloni, Rick Barker, Stuart Nash and Steve Chadwick.

At that level of party vote, Labour would also have to worry about some of its marginal seats. If Phil Twyford does not win Te Atatu, or Chris Hipkins loses Rimutaka, or Iain Lees-Galloway loses Palmerston North, then they would not come back in on the list as they are ranked too low. Instead Rajen Prasad would get back in.

A result on this poll would be bad enough, but if Labour loses another 3%, then Shane Jones and Andrew Little miss out, as well as Darien Fenton and Moana Mackey.

The Herald each election does a Mood of the Nation survey when they get reporters onto the street and interview around 500 people. I think this generally is a good initiative. They report that it is unscientific, but it allows them to use actual quotes from people to use in their stories. So long as they stress the survey is unscientific, and the focus is more on what people said rather than the numerical results, I think that is fine.

But you can take these street surveys too far. Off memory, in 2008 a street survey of 100 people was reported by the Herald with great prominence as showing Judith Tizard retaining her seat. She lost of course.

This time we have a street survey of just 47 people in Epsom, that generates a story. It says:

John Banks has some support in the wealthy suburb of Remuera, but is less popular on the liberal fringes of the Epsom electorate, according to a Herald street survey.

A poll of 47 Epsom voters yesterday found the National candidate ahead of Act’s Mr Banks by 22 votes to 20.

It is ridiculous to do a story on a street poll of 47. First of all, you have the sampling problem – that in fact it is a poll of people who happened to be out on a street – in no way random.

But even if you overlook the fact it is a street poll, the sample size is ridiculously low.  The margin of error is 14.7%!

I generally regard 300 as the minimum acceptable for an electorate poll. That gives a 5.8% margin of error. A sample of 47 is close to useless.