Final poll results – table

All five pollsters have released their final week results, with results narrowing.

Election 2014 final poll results

Notes:

  • Polls ask “If an election was held today who would you vote for?”, they don’t try to predict election day voting.
  • It is common for movements in support late in campaigns due to tactical voting and undecideds deciding.
  • If ACT and United Future win electorates they may add more to seats than their share of vote.
  • If the Maori Party hold all three seats they will get more than their vote share. If they hold two seats they will be about proportional to their party vote according to the poll average.
  • If Conservatives don’t make the 5% threshold the other parties will increase their % share of seats.
  • If Hone Harawira loses Te Tai Tokerau Internet-Mana will not get any seats and their party vote will be ‘wasted’.
  • In 2011 National got 47.31% and with ACT and United Future seats were just able to make a majority.

Most of this polling will have occurred before Monday night’s “The Moment of Truth” meeting. NZ Herald recorded before and after results:

With 60 per cent of the poll done by Monday night, when the event happened, National was polling at 47.8 per cent, down on last week, said DigiPoll general manager Nandan Modak. From Tuesday it jumped to 49.1 per cent.

But I asked Andrew from Colmar brunton if he’d seen any change and he responded:

Was looking the whole time, even during.

Impossible to tell if any impact, with any degree of certainly.

I saw no increase for National compared to first two days, but it’s not that simple, as party support differs by day normally.

- @Unimatrix_0

Colmar Brunton explain ‘margin of error”:

The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95% confidence level. This is the sampling error for a result around 50%. Results higher and lower than 50% have a smaller sampling error. For example, results around 10% and 5% have sampling errors of approximately ±1.9% points and ±1.4% points respectively, at the 95% confidence level.

See full final results – Final pre-election poll results

See also Coalition possibilities many and varied

Five polls – latest results

Stuff-IPSOS
September 11 (+/- from September 4)

  • National 52.8% (-1.4)
  • Labour 22.4% (-1.9)
  • Greens 13.0% (+0.1)
  • NZ First 4.4% (+0.8)
  • Conservative Party 3.6% (+1.2)
  • Internet-Mana 1.4% (+0.1)
  • Maori Party 1.0% (+0.7)
  • ACT Party 0.7% (+0.5)
  • UnitedFuture 0% (-0.1)

One News-Colmar Brunton
6-10 September 2014 (+/- from 30 August-3 September

  • National 46% (-4)
  • Labour 25% (-1)
  • Greens 14% (+3)
  • NZ First 7% (n/c)
  • Conservative Party 4% (+1)
  • Internet-Mana 1% (-1)
  • Maori Party 1% (+1)
  • ACT Party 1% (+1)
  • UnitedFuture 0% (n/c)

Rounded to nearest whole number.

NZ Herald-Digipoll
September 4-10

  • National 48.6% (-1.5)
  • Labour 24.6% (+0.8)
  • Greens 11.5% (+0.1)
  • NZ First 8.1% (+2.1)
  • Conservative Party 3.8% (no change)
  • Internet-Mana 2.3% (-1.2)
  • Maori Party 0.7% (+0.3)
  • ACT Party 0.3% (-0.1)
  • UnitedFuture 0% (-0.3)

3 News/Reid Research
September 2-8

  • National 46.7% (+0.3)
  • Labour 26.1% (+0.2)
  • Greens 13.5% (+0.4);
  • NZ First 5.9% (+0.1)
  • Conservatives 4.7% (+0.5)
  • Internet Mana 1.7% (no change)
  • Maori Party 1.3% (-0.7)
  • Act 0.3% (-0.3)
  • United Future 0.1% (no change)

Roy Morgan
August 18-31 2014

  • National 45% (-3)
  • Labour 26% (-1.5)
  • Greens 16% (+4.5)
  • Maori Party 0.5% (-0.5)
  • Act NZ 1% (+0.5%)
  • United Future 0% (-0.5)
  • NZ First 6% (-0.5)
  • Internet-Mana Party 1.0% (- 1.5)
  • Conservative Party 3.5% (+2.5)
  • Independent/ Others 1.0% (unchanged).

Rounded to nearest 0.5

Five Poll Summary

Polls are coming out thick and fast leading up to the election showing quite a bit of variability.

Here are the latest results for each party.

National

  • Roy Morgan 45% (-0.3)
  • 3 News/Reid Research 46.4% (+1.4)
  • Stuff/IPSOS 54.2% (+3.4)
  • NZ Herald/Digipoll 50.1% (-0.6)
  • One News/Colmar Brunton 50% (+2)

Labour

  • Roy Morgan 26% (-1.5)
  • 3 News/Reid Research 25.9% (-0.5)
  • Stuff/IPSOS 24.3% (-1.8)
  • NZ Herald/Digipoll 23.8% (-0.3)
  • One News/Colmar Brunton 26% (-2)

Greens

  • Roy Morgan 16% (+4.5)
  • 3 News/Reid Research 12.6% ()-0.9)
  • Stuff/IPSOS 12.9% (+1.1)
  • NZ Herald/Digipoll 11.4% (n/c)
  • One News/Colmar Brunton 11% (-1)

NZ First

  • Roy Morgan 6% (-0.5)
  • 3 News/Reid Research 5.8% (-0.5)
  • Stuff/IPSOS 3.6% (-0.4)
  • NZ Herald/Digipoll 6.0% (+1.0)
  • One News/Colmar Brunton 7% (+1)

Conservative Party

  • Roy Morgan 3.5% (+2.5)
  • 3 News/Reid Research 4.2% (-0.4)
  • Stuff/IPSOS 2.4% (-0.3)
  • NZ Herald/Digipoll 3.8% (+0.5)
  • One News/Colmar Brunton 3% (n/c)

Internet-Mana

  • Roy Morgan 1% (-1.5)
  • 3 News/Reid Research 1.7% (-0.4)
  • Stuff/IPSOS 1.3% (-0.9)
  • NZ Herald/Digipoll 3.5% (+0.1)
  • One News/Colmar Brunton 2% (n/c)

Maori Party

  • Roy Morgan 0.5% (-0.5)
  • 3 News/Reid Research 2.0 (+1.3)
  • Stuff/IPSOS 0.3% (-0.4)
  • NZ Herald/Digipoll 0.4% (-0.6)
  • One News/Colmar Brunton <0.5%

ACT Party

  • Roy Morgan 1% (+0.5)
  • 3 News/Reid Research 0.6% (+0.3)
  • Stuff/IPSOS 0.2% (-0.5)
  • NZ Herald/Digipoll 0.4% (+0.1)
  • One News/Colmar Brunton <0.5

UnitedFuture

  • Roy Morgan 0% (-0.5)
  • 3 News/Reid Research 0.1% (-0.3)
  • Stuff/IPSOS 0.1% (n/c)
  • NZ Herald/Digipoll 0.3% (+0.1)
  • One News/Colmar Brunton <0.5

Polling periods vary but are ordered oldest to latest.

Rounding:
- Roy Morgan rounds to the nearest 0.5
- One News/Colmar Brunton rounds to the nearest whole number so parties not included are <0.5%

Roy Morgan poll two weekly, the others are currently polling weekly.

Updated 5/8/14 with latest One News/Colmar poll.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three polls

There have been three polls in three days with some different movements and results showing that polls are indicative of current opinion only and can’t be taken as definitive election predictions – they ask people’s opinion if the election was held today and not how they might vote at the election.

  Stuff
IPSOS
NZ Herald
Digipoll
3 News
Reid Res.
Average
National            50.8            50.7            45.0            48.8
Labour            26.1            24.1            26.4            25.5
Greens            11.8            11.4            13.5            12.2
NZ First              4.0              5.0              6.3              5.1
Conservatives              2.7              3.3              4.6              3.5
Internet-Mana              2.2              3.4              2.1              2.6
Maori Party              0.7              1.0              0.7              0.8
ACT Party              0.7              0.3              0.3              0.4
UnitedFuture              0.1              0.2              0.4              0.2

Margins of error are about +/-3 for National but less for lower results see this table from Stats Chat:

Lower and upper ‘margin of error’ limits for a sample of size 1000 and the observed percentage, under the usual assumptions of independent sampling

Percentage lower upper
1 0.5 1.8
2 1.2 3.1
3 2.0 4.3
4 2.9 5.4
5 3.7 6.5
6 4.6 7.7
7 5.5 8.8
8 6.4 9.9
9 7.3 10.9
10 8.2 12.0
15 12.8 17.4
20 17.6 22.6
30 27.2 32.9
50 46.9 53.1

 

 

Excellent poll coverage from NZ Herald

NZ Herald (Audrey Young) poll coverage starkly contrasts with 3 News, giving clear results with good consideration of wider things like trends and polls from other sources in Digipoll: Minor parties surge as Labour sinks lower.

Summary of results:

The full party vote results compared with last week’s:

National 50.7 (up 0.7)
Labour 24.1 (down 1.1)
Greens 11.4 (down 2.3)
NZ First 5 (up 0.7)
Maori Party 1 (up 0.3)
Internet Mana 3.4 (up 1.3)
Conservatives 3.3 (up 0.7)
Act 0.3 (down 0.3)
United Future 0.2 (down 0.2)
PREFERRED PRIME MINISTER (compared with last week)
John Key 67.8 (up 3)
David Cunliffe 11.6 (down 2.8)
Winston Peters 8.2 (up 3.1)
Russel Norman 3.8 (up 0.3)

The poll of 750 eligible voters was conducted between August 21 and 27. The Party vote is of decided voters only and 7.9 per cent were undecided compared to 12.5 per cent last week.

This contrasts in some aspects with the 3 News/Reid Research poll yesterday – National, Labour down in 3 News poll  – which shows that a single poll can’t be taken as a definitive indication of an election outcome.

National are significantly higher and rising in this poll, and Labour are 2% lower and will be worried.

NZ First and Conservatives have risen but not as much, and Internet-Mana has jumped up potentially significantly.

Hacked data good, spied data bad

Few will sympathise with the exposure of the dirty agenda of Whale Oil and Cameron Slater, but there are wider implications from the illegal hacking of data used for a doubled barreled political hit job.

If it can happen to Whale Oil it could potentially happen to any blog – or newspaper.

Didn’t David Fisher at NZ Herald write against potential breaches of privacy through spy data? He seems to be less concerned about hacked data.

Minister’s staffer took part in blog.

The Herald was able to confirm the use of Mr Bryant’s ministerial computer through details obtained from an individual other than the hacker who also accessed information from Whale Oil during the Denial of Service attack.

In the file held by the Herald, hundreds of messages sent from people working on ministerial or government computers are linked to the servers and IP addresses from which they were posted. The file links those details with email addresses – including Mr Bryant’s.

That’s getting quite intrusive. I wonder how people on other blogs would feel if a media organisation or a private hacker or an unprincipled blogger were able to identify people who posted under pseudonyms.

Fisher refers to “people working on ministerial or government computers” – but Cameron Slater claims to have communicated much wider than that, including with Fisher and MPs and staff from other parties.

If this is correct Fisher is only highlighting selected illegal data, following Hager’s and the hackers’ target of just one party, National. Is Fisher going to out other politicians? Journalists? I highly doubt the latter.

Comparing GCSB surveillance to illegally hacked data is pertinent. Who would be worse to discover sensitive data, the GCSB, NZ Herald, Cameron Slater or an anonymous rogue political activist?

I presume we can’t rule out what happened to Whale Oil happening to other blogs. I’m very concerned about the precedent that this has set and where it could lead. I personally don’t care if people find out what I’ve been posting because it’s already in the open.

But others might be more uneasy. If they aren’t perhaps they should be.

The best advice for anonymous bloggers and commenters is to not post anything that you wouldn’t want made public by a hacker or newspaper.

The risks of trying to remain anonymous have been highlighted by this. While Whale Oil has been exposed and to some extent at least neutered (a good thing) the political blogosphere in New Zealand has been compromised.

It seems that the potential of the GCSB intercepting your data with a legal warrant is regarded as the pits, but hacking and outing is fair game in politics.

Hacked data good, legally intercepted data bad?

Multiple hackers?

David Fisher at NZ Herald implies that more than one person hacked Whale Oil in Minister’s staffer took part in blog.

The Herald was able to confirm the use of Mr Bryant’s ministerial computer through details obtained from an individual other than the hacker who also accessed information from Whale Oil during the Denial of Service attack.

Either there was one person who hacked Whale Oil or the person who hacked has shared the information they extracted (illegally).

And Nicky Hager claims he obtained the data that he used to write ‘Dirty Politics’ after hearing a rumour.

“I heard a rumour about someone who had some stuff,” says Hager, whose books on spies have generated contacts in IT circles.

If this is correct there must be a number of people who know about the hacking and who was involved.

If Hager “heard a rumour” and was then able to track down the hacker then journalists must surely be asking questions along the same lines to track down the hacker’s identity – if media want to do that.

Perhaps media like NZ Herald are more intent on sourcing illegally obtained data and outing the identities of people communicating with bloggers than discovering or publicising who hacked.

Dissecting the data makes good stories but legitimising political hacking sets a worrying precedent. Hacking data is like burgling data – a bit like Watergate.

I wonder how the Herald and David Fisher would feel if their communications with protected sources were hacked and outed?

Fishing for Whale data could catch a snag.

John Key statement against dirty politics

From NZ Herald:

“Look, at the end of the day this reflects badly on political and media culture in New Zealand.

“I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions Hager draws, and I denounce the illegal manner in which this private correspondence was stolen.

“There is, however, no denying that it exposes something most ordinary New Zealanders would disapprove of.

“I deplore the modus operandi of Slater and his associates. I’d like to think we’re better than that.

“I’m standing down Jason Ede from his new role in the National Party office pending a review of the way the Prime Minister’s office operates.

“We all have to examine and rethink the way we do business, and I invite leaders of other parties to similarly ask these questions about their own operations.”

That is exactly what I would expect from a responsible Prime Minister. Unfortunately that ‘quote’ was preceded by:

Bafflingly, John Key has chosen not to say anything like:

I’m baffled too, and very disappointed.

Source: Toby Manhire: Amid the dirt, here’s a glossary

 

Poll hits dirt, rewards clean

There can be many reasons for poll movements but whether by coincidence or not the parties most associated by dirty smear politics have all dropped in the latest NZ Herald poll, and parties not associated with dirt have gone up, especially the Greens.

Dirty parties:

  • National 50 (down 4.9)
  • Labour 25.2 (down 1.3)
  • NZ First 4.3 (down 0.3)

Clean parties:

  • Greens 13.7 (up 3.8)
  • Conservatives 2.6 (up 1.4)
  • Maori Party 0.7 (up 0.2)
  • Act 0.6 (up 0.6)
  • United Future 0.4 (up 0.4)

Others

  • Mana-Internet 2.1 (down 0.1)
  • Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis (down 0.1)

Having made that point poll to poll movements are not as important as trends.

Herlad poll trends Aug14

  • National’s last poll result may have been an outlier.
  • Labour continue to trend down.
  • Greens have surged but time will tell if it is temoporary or becomes a positive trend.

Herald poll trends small Aug14

  • Winston Peters has been struggling to sustain a profile in a very competitive media.
  • Conservatives will be hoping they are on the rise but 5% is a long way up from there.
  • Internet-Mana climbed initially but may be leveling off.
  • Maori, Act and United Future will be grateful for any scraps they can get.

The poll of 750 respondents was conducted between August 14 and 20 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 per cent. On the party vote questions 12.5 per cent were undecided.

Source: Greens spring in polls as National takes hit

NZ Herald leaning heavily towards ‘political pressure’

NZ Herald initiated the latest discussion on Kim Dotcom’s residency, releasing documents they obtained yesterday. They led this with Why our spy agency let Dotcom into New Zealand.

Prime Minister John Key must explain the “political pressure” government officials were under to process Kim Dotcom’s residency application, Labour says.

Documents declassified and released through the Official Information Act show the Security Intelligence Service tried to block Kim Dotcom’s residency application but dropped their objection 90 minutes after being told there was “political pressure” to let the tycoon into New Zealand.

There is a strong implication that ‘our spy agency’ let Dotcom get residency (he was already living here off and on) due to ‘political pressure’.

The article then quotes Labour’s Grant Robertson:

Labour’s Associate Security and Intelligence Spokesperson Grant Robertson said said Mr Key needed to explain the political involvement in the application.
“John Key has two important questions to answer, who was exerting political pressure on officials and why were they doing it.

“The Dotcom affair has always had the fingerprints of National Ministers on it, John Key must finally front up to New Zealanders and explain what he and his Ministers knew and what pressure they were applying.

The article then gives details of their investigation (by David Fisher, author of a book on Dotcom) and includes a number of official documents. It goes on to reiterate ‘political pressure:

The “political pressure” claim was made in October 2010 after the SIS blocked Dotcom’s residency application when it learned of the FBI’s criminal investigation into his Megaupload empire.

Well down the article a contradiction is included:

An earlier statement from Immigration NZ – provided by the SIS – said “it appears the government interest in the success of the [business migration] policy may have been misconstrued as political pressure”.

The statement appeared to be contradictory, saying so much time had passed “it is impossible to know whether this is an accurate reflection of comments that were made” while adding “INZ can state unequivocally that there was no political pressure”.

This pattern was repeated in Dotcom: Why wasn’t I blocked? While the article leads with…

Mogul claims residency checks set aside to lure him within FBI’s reach but government denies interference.

…it quotes Dotcom and then goes on to repeat:

“…political pressure to process this case”.

Well through the article it gives another side to the story:

Immigration NZ, which denies any “political pressure”, confirmed the six-month hold for those under investigation. But an Immigration spokesman said the agency “was not aware of any active investigation under way by the FBI” – only that he was a “person of interest”.

“It was decided that the information received did not meet the threshold to trigger a deferral of the residence application because of character concerns.”

Mr Coleman yesterday denied any political pressure, saying the decision was made by Immigration officials alone.

The decision document, obtained through the Official Information Act by the Herald, contains no mention of the FBI interest in Dotcom. It was signed off by an official and approved by his branch manager.

So both the Minister and Immigration NZ deny any political pressure was involved.

But the article closes promoting ‘political pressure’ again:

Labour MP Grant Robertson said he was sceptical about Immigration NZ’s denial of political pressure.

“I’m very concerned about the idea that the SIS magically decided the hold on the case no longer mattered 90 minutes after they heard about political pressure on Immigration NZ. And the fact INZ were told to talk to police and didn’t do it really defies belief.

The Herald has a separate article Dotcom case: Minister denies pressure on Immigration NZ.

Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman has denied putting pressure on Immigration New Zealand to accept Kim Dotcom’s residency application, but will not take questions on the subject.

He sent a short statement saying Immigration NZ had already issued a statement that “unequivocally that there was no political pressure regarding Mr Dotcom’s residence application”.

“The residency decision was made by Immigration New Zealand, not by me as Minister of Immigration.”

The head of Immigration was on Radio NZ late yesterday strongly denying political pressure was involved in the decision.

Stuff also cover this with Immigration boss rejects Dotcom residency claims.

The head of Immigration has rejected suggestions Kim Dotcom’s residency was approved as part of a United States move to make it easier to extradite him to face charges there.

Dotcom believes US authorities wanted to keep him here to make it easier to extradite him on internet piracy and copyright infringement charges. He has long claimed the Government was acting at the behest of the American film industry but has never offered proof.

But in an exclusive interview, Immigration chief executive Nigel Bickle said that from Immigration’s point of view he had seen no evidence of that and it was Dotcom’s advisers who had called for a fast decision in his case.

Bickle said then-immigration minister Jonathan Coleman had not been involved in the decision to grant Dotcom permanent residency, and the call was made by an official.

In 2010 the investor category Dotcom was applying under, requiring at least a $10m investment here, was a new policy. Ministers were interested in how it was going and were briefed weekly.

But in terms of Dotcom as an individual, Coleman had no involvement in the decision.

Bickle had told Coleman, under the ‘‘no surprises’’ policy, on October 28, 2010 after he had been informed Dotcom would be granted residency.

But it was not a decision that needed to go to the minister.

In an editorial today NZ Herald all the emphasis is on ‘political pressure’.

Documents declassified and released through the Official Information Act show the Security Intelligence Service tried to block Mr Dotcom’s residency application. It described him as a “bad but wealthy man” who was being investigated by the FBI for alleged copyright crimes. However, the SIS dropped its objection 90 minutes after being told there was “political pressure” to let the Megaupload mogul into New Zealand.

It does refer to Coleman.

Jonathan Coleman, the minister in 2010, denies there was political pressure. His signature was absent when residency was granted. Approval for Mr Dotcom was delegated by “special direction” to two Immigration NZ officials. But pressure comes in many forms.

There is no mention of Immigration NZ’s claim they didn’t think there was any pressure and they made the decision without the Minister being involved in the decision.

The editorial goes on:

Those damaged by the Dotcom wrecking ball can at least take comfort in the latest revelations hardly being to his advantage. More importantly, they argue persuasively that ministers should not be in a position where they can make decisions on residency or citizenship against the advice of officials. There is too great a danger of them bowing to popular opinion or acting in a manner that is not in the country’s best long-term interests.

Officials, in turn, should not be left to make such decisions. People and their circumstances vary, a feature that would be disregarded if rules had to be enforced rigidly. Additionally, officials are apt to read the political winds and anticipate their minister’s preference.

The editorial is headed Dotcom saga shows why independent judges best and closes with “An independent panel would be much more sensible” so it is obvious they have a clear preference but that doesn’t excuse slanting their coverage so much towards the claims of ‘political pressure’ while downplaying or omitting claims to the contrary.

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 240 other followers