Wrong data analysis of ‘teal vote’ support for the Greens

*/With the possibility of a Blue-Green party being raised again questions are being asked about whether there might be  enough voter support for another environmental party.

However the wrong questions are being asked – of ‘current Green voters’, and those who voted Green last election. They strongly prefer red over blue, or Labour over National.

Stuff: ‘Teal’ vote within Green Party minuscule, data suggests

Data suggests the supposed “teal” section of National-leaning Green voters is tiny.

But data from the New Zealand Election Study, a long-running scientific analysis of voter behaviour, suggests the overwhelming majority of current Green voters lean left.

The study consists of a survey of 3445 respondents following the election, who are asked a huge variety of questions. Their votes are validated and the results weighted to the wider voting public.

Fully 84.42 per cent of those who party voted Green said they would prefer Labour to lead the Government. Just under a tenth (8.47 per cent) picked National while 5.02 per cent said they didn’t know and 2.09 per cent said they didn’t want either party to lead.

Furthermore, these voters overwhelmingly rated themselves as left-of-centre politically – far more than Labour voters did.

Roughly three quarters (74.63 per cent) of Green voters rated themselves as left-of-centre on a ten point scale. Another fifth (20.1 per cent) either “didn’t know” or put themselves in the centre. Just 5.26 per cent rated themselves as right of centre.

This compared to just over half (50.58 per cent) of Labour voters who rated themselves as left-of-centre.

But there were only 6.27% of voters who chose Greens in the 2017 election. This was well down on the 10.7% who voted green in 2014, and much lower than up to 15% they were getting in polls two years ago. That’s a lot of potential voters who could consider an alternative environmental party.

There could easily be voters who chose National, Labour or NZ First last election. Or people who didn’t vote because they didn’t like any of the parties on offer.

The best way of determining possible levels of Blue-green party support is to poll everyone and ask them, and not limiting the data analysis to dedicated Green party voters.

And the only way of knowing for sure is to stand in the next election, and see what all voters indicate their preference.

Leave a comment

23 Comments

  1. Mother

     /  30th January 2019

    When I think of this teal option I don’t think in terms of right and left. I think in terms of a party independent of any other, and whom follow environment issues through with positive action while still encouraging free enterprise.

    I know how frustrated farmers feel for example when they are labelled as environment wreckers. Most consider themselves as the most genuine of greens. In this instance they mean pure green environmentally, not silly green socially.

    A teal party doesn’t need to be compared with right leanings or left leanings. They can be a moderate party of their own identity.

    It seems hard to grasp for some because people like to have a label for everything – they get fearful if they can’t immediately find a box to fit that new idea into.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  30th January 2019

      “Most consider themselves as the most genuine of greens”
      Still a significant minority – normally older males- dont have a green bone in their body.

      A Teal party is being arranged as a glove puppet by and for national party. Sure the Greens have a socialist left component, but whats wrong with that. They are very clear about their social justice leanings.

      Its absurd to think that – especially last election- people who voted Green wanted a more centrist position on non green issues.
      With Ardern , Labours vote went up , not nationals as some voters left the Greens

      2014 Election , with a historical low labour – but not as low as nationals in 2002- the Green- labour- NZ First vote still was 45%
      Non parliament parties was 6%

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  30th January 2019

        There are many on the right who take environmental issues very seriously. Even Cam Slater is a big Forrest and Bird advocate and campaigns on issues like 1080.
        While National has made strides in environmental policy areas, it has usually been as a sop, or in conjunction with other party wishes.
        The question is, are there 5% or more of the population who like right-wing perspectives, but don’t vote National because they are not clean and green enough.
        These people wouldn’t consider a vote for the Greens as they are communists in drag and have loopy MP’s like Marama and Golriz completely undoing the good brought in by the likes of Chloe Swarbrick.
        It is a shame it is being associated with “as a tag on to National”, because, as Kennedy Graham said; what is needed is a centrist environmental party that can work with both sides to ensure enduring policy gains can be made that survive any change of Government..

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  30th January 2019

          “Cam Slater is a big Forrest and Bird advocate and campaigns on issues like 1080.”

          really ? I thought that was Lusk writing under the whaeloil tag back when everything including the paid for stuff was called Whaleoil.

          Its no point just parroting existing national party soft green policies and calling them environmental justice.
          Climate Change is the hard rock for any national party to accept.
          Im probably to the right of national on the climate change bogey, doesnt mean Il vote for them

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  30th January 2019

          Slater a big Forest and Bird advocate
          https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/09/forest-and-bird-hypocrisy/

          Time for your morning reality check Duck

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  30th January 2019

            Disagreement on an issue isn’t the same as disagreement with the organisation as a whole. However I’m not going to defend any of Slaters rantings. It was simply an example.
            Blue Greens are a group who do exist and who are currently not represented other than through National who have competing interests to deal with as well.
            Who knows if it will work, but there is a strong case to be made that the current NZ Greens have been hi-jacked by social justice crusaders and the environment has fallen well down their list of priorities.
            Vernon Tava has been excommunicated by the left, but he speaks well and should be able to string sentences together in a coherent manner to put forward his case if the party does get traction.
            In the end – the voters will decide.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  30th January 2019

              Slater comes from the hard right of national/Act continuum. If it moves …shoot it, and if it doesnt bulldoze it instead.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  30th January 2019

              HFD: Slater/Lusk’s opposition to the use of 1080 is nothing to do with having loving feelz for the trees and the birdies; it’s simply that 1080 kills deer. I’ve known a lot of hunters and I would say that very few of them give a flying fuck about conservation. Maintaining sizeable populations of deer on DOC land to placate the hunting lobby has been devastating for our native flora and fauna.

      • Mother

         /  30th January 2019

        “A Teal party is being arranged as a glove puppet by and for national party.”

        I doubt that very much. Some National voters are fed up with them. It’s more likely that this Teal group will work independently. It’s a positive move.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  30th January 2019

          Blue Greens is a brand name used by National already.
          It doesnt have a hope , as no doubt it will be well funded by nationals donors, the public at large are good at seeing fakes during election time.
          Why doesnt national do the obvious , have stronger green policies . Angela Mekel has done it in Germany and some states have Green- CDU governments as well as others are SPD-Green

          Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  30th January 2019

    Blue/Green= Cyan.

    CPF=Cyan Popular Front.

    Reply
  3. Griff.

     /  30th January 2019

    We see the centralist greens represented by the change in support when that idiotic green co leader woman opened her mouth just before the last election
    It collapsed by as much as 11 % as centrist environmentally aware voters bailed the party.
    Far left members like her and slappy Sue Bradford has always made a green party vote untenable for many environmentally aware voters
    A true centralist environmental party could maintain around 10% support over the long term taking voted from the Greens, Labour and National.
    The problem with the present concept is being seen as a manufactured friend for national no mates.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  30th January 2019

      Green party hasnt changed its left wing policies much from 2014 when it got 12% or so. Its not hidden.
      As Green went down labours went up, not national. So they are left wing voters anyway
      Where do you get this non aligned 10% green friendly idea.

      Reply
      • Griff.

         /  30th January 2019

        Yeh whatever dukes
        I am an right wing liberal voter and would fully support an actual green party shewn of the far lefty nonsense .
        Many including our host pg would vote the same.
        I know its hard when you live in lala Land rejecting science due to massive amounts of DK.
        Climate change is the most pressing issue facing humanity the worlds scientific organizations say without action it could be an existential threat to our civilizations very existence.

        THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

        The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk.

        http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  30th January 2019

          massive amounts of DK ? I suppose you mean CO2.
          Its actually trace amounts. They only get the numbers they want in climate models by saying the H2O will increase ‘massively’. Thats by far and away the bogey man to scare the mugs like you who believe science is some sort of theology to be enforced on unbelievers… bell book and candle

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  30th January 2019

            Griff , he he really knew anything about Science would remember this on

            ” Johannes Fibiger was awarded the 1926 Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his purported discovery of a parasite that caused cancer.”

            Too funny. Even though Nobels will referred to discoveries the ‘previous year’, clangers like that mean they wait a long time to weed out the ‘discredited science’

            Reply
          • Griff.

             /  30th January 2019

            ROFL
            Go breath on a mirror.
            See the condensation form on the mirror? That is because the cooler mirror causes water vapor to condense into droplets. Stick your clothes in a dryer turn it on. A dryer heats the air then blows it though the clothiers to dry them because heating the air allows it to carry more moisture.
            The relationship between temperature and the amount of moisture air can carry is so basic that any one with half a functioning brain cell knows of it.
            Yet here you are denying such basic physics. Every 1C of temperature rise results in the ability of air to hold 7% more moisture. An increase in atmospheric water vapor has been measured to be happening just as we expect it to.

            Science is our best understanding of reality..
            If you deny science as basic as you just did you are living in lala land.

            Then you resort to the usual conspiracy gibbering that always underlays denial because it is the only way you can justify your world view when pressed.
            Whacko shite that just gets laughed at because it really is cuckoo crazy talk.
            The religion is yours because your rejection science is based only on ignorance and your faith science is wrong not on any evidence.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  30th January 2019

              Whats the rise in temperature from a doubling of CO2 ?
              No one knows , but lots of guesses

              As for your high school level experiments with the bunsen burner and water…. all good but on a global scale unfortunately the ‘atmosphere’ can work in different ways in heat transfer.

              Doesnt change the reality of H2O being far more significant than its bitsy CO2 at 400 parts per million.
              Cant scare people with H2O is the problem but plug it into climate models ( not the weather models which give maybe a weeks accuracy and then go all over the place after that)

  4. NOEL

     /  30th January 2019

    ” Or people who didn’t vote because they didn’t like any of the parties on offer.”
    Since the election I’ve come across a number with that view.
    Time to have that identified on the voting papers instead of been invalid.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  30th January 2019

      Surely they can find one that they could live with.

      People who don’t vote have no right to whinge about the government. If they can’t get off their lazy arses and go to a polling booth, they can’t whine when the party they don’t like gets in.

      Reply
  5. NOEL

     /  30th January 2019

    Nah these are people who don’t believe any of political promises are what they want and put a blank paper in the box.To be treated as an invalid paper along with those who draw a penis on them.

    Reply
  6. PDB

     /  30th January 2019

    No worries, the Green party are already totally focused on the environment…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s