The National Party would win in a landslide victory if an election was held now, according to the latest Roy Morgan opinion poll.
From support of just 42.5% two polls ago, National has now shot up to 52.5% support, including a full 7 percentage points gain in the latest poll.
This latest poll was conducted by telephone – both landline and mobile telephone, with a NZ wide cross-section of 849 electors from May 19 – June 1, 2014.
"If a National Election were held now the latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows that the result would be a landslide victory for the National Party and a third term for Prime Minister John Key," the Roy Morgan company said.
National's support, following its successful public selling of a Budget showing a return to surplus, is now at levels not seen since before the last election. Its actual election night showing in 2011 was just 47.31%, which was, of course sufficient to get it over the line and form a government.
The Greens and Labour combined are now at about their level of support in the last election. The two parties together mustered 38.5% in the latest Roy Morgan poll.
The Greens, however, went backwards at a rate of knots in the latest poll, plummeting to 9% support from 13.5% in the previous poll. The Greens's showing in the latest poll was its worst since September 2011 and puts it behind the 11.06% share of the vote it attracted in the election of November that year.
Labour edged back to 29% from 30.5%. It attracted 27.48% of the vote in the last election.
As if the news for the National Party was not good enough, support for its coalition partners also improved with the Maori Party 1.5% (up 0.5%), ACT NZ (1%, up 0.5%) and United Future 0% (unchanged). This poll was of course conducted before ACT MP John Banks was found guilty of filing a false electoral return.
Among other parties New Zealand First was on 4.5% (down 1.5%), the Mana Party 0.5% (down 0.5%), the Conservative Party of NZ 1% (unchanged) and the Internet Party is 0.5% (unchanged). There's no impact shown in this poll of the Mana-Internet Party deal and emergence of Laila Harre as the party leader, but it occurred at the end of the polling period.
Roy Morgan executive chairman Gary Morgan said the poll showed "a strong positive response to the predicted Budget Surplus of $372 million handed down by Finance Minister Bill English" and National had now "surged to a huge lead" over a potential Labour/ Greens alliance.
"The closer the election, it appears the less support there is for the main opposition parties, with support for Labour now stuck below the level that prompted the resignation of previous leader David Shearer for most of 2014.
"The initial surge provided by David Cunliffe has well and truly worn off."
57 Comments
"the poll showed "a strong positive response to the predicted Budget Surplus of $372 million "
off balance sheet debt, is still debt that needs to be repaid. Why does the media keep repeating this fiction that the government will run a surplus this year? The $375M of debt raised for motorway widening cancels out the 372M 'surplus'
If you had any basic understanding of generally accepted accounting principals you would see how basic an error you are making with your comment.
A surplus or deficit relates to operating income and expenditure. For businesses this is found on a profit and loss statement.
The purchase of assets relates to the balance sheet.
Think about it like this: Let's say you earn an income of $100k per annum and have $60k of household expenses per annum. Your surplus is $40k per annum. Now let's say you purchase a house for $400k and fund it entirely through debt. If you paid interest at 5% your additional household expenses would be $20k for the year. So your surplus in future will be reduced from $40k per annum to $20k per annum, but you have added both an asset (the house) and the debt (a liability) onto your balance sheet.
If we looked at it the way you have in your comment above, we would say that in purchasing the house you have had a deficit of $360k for the year. Which is of course nonsense.
O, superman. Be very careful when you launch into print over public-sector accounting.
Yes our public sector has had to mind the GAAP for 25-odd years now but that doesn't mean that there aren't still a few traps for young players. Nowhere more so than in the definition of a surplus.
The primary reason we even had a budget deficit in recent years was the write-down in market value of the NZSF. A write-down in the value of a non-operational asset that we aren't even drawing down from yet was enough for the government to declare a budget deficit. Likewise the rebound in investment values contributed to getting "back in black". Absolutely nothing to do with government operating receipts (taxes and charges etc) minus operating expenses.
Public sector "surpluses/deficits" are not the same as the bottom line in a P&L as they may well include capital movements.
yes i plead ignorance, i'm not an accountant.
So when the government raises taxes, this is counted as operating income? But when it spends that tax money building roads, this is counted as capex, producing an asset, and doesn't count as operating expenditure? Is that why this government is going mad on road-building, as every dollar spent on roads gets us a dollar closer to surplus?
Not an accountant either but I know enough to say that words have very precise meanings in this situation. To an accountant income is not revenue which in turn is not receipt.
It is safest to never use the word "income" when talking about public sector accounts. Individuals and businesses pay tax on income the government and councils don't. So they don't have income.
So, yes, taxes and rates can comprise both revenue to pay for operating costs and a capital contribution and it doesn't really matter from an accounting point of view - it's all revenue.
My favourite example is development contributions. They are classed as revenue even though they are the most pure capital contribution you will ever find and what they really do is create an off-balance sheet liability for a council that never turns up in the accounts.
I don't know if your example is a good one but it is almost certain that a wafer-thin surplus in election year contains some smoke and mirrors. And all our politicians are happy to cynically exploit the fact that the electorate cannot distinguish the fine points of accounting terms and assume that a 'surplus' means the same as it does at home. Even if it doesn't.
I cant help thinking RM is putting his own opinion in here based on not very much.
The huge change however is very interesting, even it the true value is half this you have to wonder just why Labour isnt seeing traction despite how bad the Govn is handling its own PR.
Also Im quite intrigued why all other parties dipped at the same time, I'd suspect this poll might be a bit off...
regards
How do polls vary so much? Just two polls ago the Nats were 10% below this figure, but I'm sure that people don't change their mind that quickly.
I want to see some sort of investigation into political polling in this country - headlines telling people that their favoured political party doesn't have a chance surely has an effect on voter turn out.
It means, 3 months from the election and Labour has yet to come up with any saucy policies! What they came up so far is more or less regurgitated stuffs that they dreamt of many years ago. National isn’t my favourite but Labour is no more than a bunch of Muppets, they need to clean out the old and brining in the new, young dynamic members.. the likes of Annette King, Trevor Mallard should really move on to better things!
Are you seriously defending Whyte's "Foreigner Fred" (the most substantial thing he has produced for ACT) as a triumph of being articulate and considered?
http://www.act.org.nz/?q=posts/allowing-kiwis-to-sell-their-homes-to-fo…
I suppose against previous party leaders, maybe. And his press stacks up well against the current party president.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/9854649/Kiwifruit-…
Don't worry Epsom, this time will be different, honest.
NZ is so naive and National is so desperate to allow rich immigrants that now Kim Dotcom is a national embarrassment for National and for the entire country:
He was convicted of several crimes, and received a suspended prison sentence in 1994 for computer fraud and data espionage, and another suspended prison sentence in 2003 for insider trading and embezzlement.[11]
In January 2012, the New Zealand Police placed him in custody in response to US charges of criminal copyright infringement in relation to his Megaupload website. Dotcom was accused of costing the entertainment industry $500 million through pirated content uploaded to his file-sharing site, which had 150 million registered users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case
The Greens have been visiting him. Mana & Alliance are so principled they can look through his past criminal convictions.
What a joke & embarassment for NZ. The Germans must be having a good laugh at us gullible, country yokels ...
To be fair, the entertainment industry's estimates of damage lost to piracy are, how shall we say, a little unlikely. If you add up all the various estimates of loss from the various sectors, I find it a little unlikely that, if there was no piracy, people would've spending more money than in the world on the industry's products.
I realize each sector goes "our estimates are legit, honest. it is everyone else [using the same kind of methodology] that is wrong"
MortgageBelt only half a page (noone cares for the mortgagebelt suburbs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_belt
... they'd care slightly more if you're in the Beltway , rather than the Mortgage Belt ... just shift suburbs .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway
Mr Dotcom has no credibility at all.One of the sites he operated was called MEGA PORN which iam sure will attract a lot of female voters to him watcing woman being degraded.His wife was a model for a mens magazine showing off her best bits and now he paying Pam Corkery to be a press agent for Laila Harre.Pam was going to open a male brothel but failed .YEP he's got credibility all right.
... getcha facts straight ! ... Banksy was found guilty of fraud , that was the judge's verdict ...
He has not been convicted ... ... sentence is to be passed on August 1 ... ... and he may ( repeat crucial word : " may " ) get off without being convicted...
... facts ... never leave home without them
regards
Historically the Courts have treated such professionals with a slap on the wrist with a wet tissue.
Rather than say that they should represent leadership qualities and hold themselves to higher standards than the common public plebian, The Courts seem to play a bit of old school cricket for their chums and say, oh your loss or image and perks is quite a significant loss lets take that into account.... (for the public the judge says..well you should of thought of that before you committed the crime, not my problem, ignorance is no defense )
Oh dear, you haven't heard his latest interview on RNZ this morning then?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2598638
Confused? He certainly was!
People voting for ACT, should be clear they are voting for lots of ability to block development with the Resource Management Act, especially when it comes to keeping development out of Epsom.
http://www.tv3.co.nz/tabid/3692/MCat/2910/Default.aspx
Paul Goldsmith, National's man in Epsom, could not attend the panel incase anyone thought he was campaigning for the seat.
Probably because anyone with a house will vote national, even more so with a rental property in the mix. Must be the best way to lose votes "We are going to tax you if you have worked hard and now own two properties".
Let’s all say it together - AUCKLAND isn't the only place in New Zealand.
I'm assuming whats happening here is that some of the more centralist Labour voters are showing concern at what make up of Govt the country's going to have if Nationla is not elected. Even although the y may not agree with everything national does, or the approach it takes, they're seeing an even worse situation in their eyes if its an alternate Govt. I think what going on out on the far left is undermining the chances of a change of Govt, not increasing it. Dotcom will probably get a letter of thanks from Key after the election I suspect. Thoughts ? these polls seem too extreme and volatile for me, but maybe that's what happening ?
I've never been an enthusiastic fan of polling - for a variety of reasons - it's the methodology
Theoretically the survey organisation randomly selects a sample of (say) 1000 respondents
The skill and randomness is supposed to provide reliable results with sample survey error rate of plus or minus x% accuracy
If an insight into changes in the mood of the populace which has been subjected to daily PR spin and daily media releases then in my opinion, what is required are the following
(a) A fixed sample of 250 of National supporters who are regularly surveyed
(b) A fixed sample of 250 of Labour supporters who are regularly surveyed
(c) A fixed sample of 250 other party or swinging non-aligned voters
(d) A randomly selected survey sample of 250 voters
The essential information will be in any changing mood within sections (a) and (b) and (c) and confirmed by (d)
Randomly selecting 1000 respondents every time is like a chook raffle - tells you little
How do the polls equate with this:?
*/
Labour leader David Cunliffe has taken his hardest line yet against immigrants, blaming them for rising house prices.
It follows a 3 News-Reid Research poll which shows almost two-thirds of voters say immigration should be restricted.
"It would take 80 percent of our housing supply just to accommodate this year's migrants - and National is doing nothing," says Mr Cunliffe.
The poll shows 62 percent of voters want tighter restrictions on immigration, while only 35 percent say leave it.
"I don't think taking away the welcome mat is the right thing to do," says Prime Minister John Key.
In the past year 71,210 immigrants arrived in New Zealand - the highest in 11 years.
"We reckon immigration should be at a steady moderate level - that's where our housing, our schools and our hospitals can cope," says Mr Cunliffe.
But it's Auckland's housing market where immigrants are really getting the blame.
"Barfoot & Thompson, top 25 agents - 24 are Asian, so who are they selling to?" says NZ First leader Winston Peters.
Unsurprisingly, 84 percent of NZ First voters want immigration restricted. Sixty-eight percent of Labour voters agree, along with 58 percent of Green Party voters.
Despite Mr Key being on the wrong side of public opinion, he won't budge.
"New Zealand is a country that has been built on migration. We've done very well out of it and I think we should be very cautious about taking knee-jerk steps," he says.
Look what is happening in Europe.
It could be that Labour and the left are (basically) where they are at in the U.K (Cunliffe one foot in and one foot out) and NZ First just hasn't articulated the sort of response to run the liberal gauntlet?
JH - I think the reason he got no traction from the immigrant comments was that although to NZers on the face of it immigration seems to be an easy solution to fix housing, when Cuncliffe raised the issue, it got some proper analysis and it soon became obvious to many including myself, that its returning NZers (who we can't stop), less of us leaving (who we can't kick out) Aussies coming (who we can't legally stop) and the family reunionificaiton (which labour won't want to be seen to change), plus we desperately need building industry workers (who we definitely can't get enough of)...short answer, to those that actually took notice, they realised it was more populists hot air, and dented creditability further suggesting more policy made on the hoof with miminal thought or research.
Where is this analysis please? All I have seen is a lot of Qs and no real answers. On top of that we only need a small % of immigrants, a small percentage of foreign specualtors and then a fairly small % of NZ speculators to drive up house prices. Take out some small %s and you may well solve the problem enough to make it a non-issue.
"plus we desperately need building industry workers (who we definitely can't get enough of)..."
I have friends who have gone to ChCh to get work...not enough for them in Wellington....and if there wasnt the EQ to repair from, they'd be leaving for OZ.
So I really wonder on that.
regards
Yes my point exactly Steven, where's the analysis when a politician suggests that he will reduce net immigration down to 5,000 -15,000 people - the answer is, incredibly, zero analysis (what else do they have to do with their time?), and people are waking up to the fact that these people want to run the country ?
Immigration policy changed in the 1990's; ever since those arguing against it were the bad guys (pilloried by National Labour Green and the liberal establishment).
Over at the Standard they are relieved that Cunliffes anti immigration stand was a beat up.
I think Cunliffe failed to turn the ship (of public perception) around. I don't think the public believe you can't control immigration.
[Quote]
After the period of very subdued population growth, New Zealand’s population growth accelerated rapidly from the early 1990s and, relative to other advanced economies, the pace remains strong. Public policy played a decisive part in the change - it is not just a
matter of the free exercise of individual New Zealanders’ preference (either through having more children, or choosing to stay rather than leave New Zealand).
Immigration policy was markedly reshaped and liberalised in the late 1980s and early 1990s61. In macroeconomic terms, the most important element of the change was the very substantial resulting increase in the net inflow of non-New Zealanders.
Figure 17 tells the story. The net outflow of New Zealand citizens fluctuates (with the New Zealand and foreign business cycle) but has been negative for several decades. The average annual outflow - around 0.6 per cent of the population over the last decade - is large by international standards. But it is now typically more than offset by the increasing number of net arrivals of non NZ citizens: from around 10000 in the period prior to the reforms, to something closer to 40000 per annum now. The difference makes a material macroeconomic difference; on average, for example, equivalent to around half New Zealand’s house-building in a normal year. As a share of population, the average net intake of non-New Zealanders is one of the largest anywhere; directly as a matter of policy choice. The net inflow of non New Zealand citizens has accounted for around 80 per cent of average population growth over the last two decades.[End of Quote]
P.33
The long-term level “misalignment” of the exchange rate:
Some perspectives on causes and consequences
Paper prepared for the Reserve Bank/Treasury exchange rate forum
Wellington
26 March 2013
Final version: 19 April 2013
Michael Reddell
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and.../seminars.../Mar2013/5200823.pdf
3 of the 4 biggest parties dipped, for the benefit of National who went up. Now I can accept that the rise is un-usually large and will probably correct somewhat, but still it was a bt of a jaw dropper.
Maybe its because enough of the swing voters have money in the game of property speculation, (or as a tax free capital gain fro retirement) that they dont want the status quo to change thankyou very much and certianly dont want the property ponzi scheme bubble popped.
So greed and fear.
In terms of the agents do they speak fluent mandarin? cantonese? If they do, well that will be very interesting....if they dont, well it just maybe hard work and nothing more.
regards
A lot of people must be very happy (thankyou) whereas the others just feel their vote doesn't make a difference. There is lots of fine analysis going on in the blogosphere about left- this, left- that, but I think that is irrelevant to most people.
........
How about the hedge city theory?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.