A Leap into the Unknown: The June 2014 Fairfax-Ipsos Poll records a swing from the Left into Undecided Territory

[This post is still a work in progress. I'll add bits and pieces as I go along]


[For the more detailed Fairfax/Stuff-Ipsos Poll breakdowns - either scroll down to bottom of blog and click on my earlier post 'Fairfax-Ipsos Poll - February, May and June 2014' or simply click this link... http://sub-z-p.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/fairfax-ipsos-poll-february-2014.html    I certainly know which of these two options I'd choose if I was in your shoes]

[For a plethora of shots of the Faroes, the Norwegian Fjords and the Lofoten Islands click this link with a great deal of gusto....  http://sub-z-p.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/to-north-places-id-like-to-visit-during.html  ]

[And, for my first post, 'Beware the Polls of March' scroll to bottom of blog or click this link http://sub-z-p.blogspot.co.nz/2014_04_01_archive.html ]


Introduction

Well, the headlines said it all, didn't they ?: 'Poll shows Labour's Support Plummeting' (Fairfax/Dom Post), 'Labour looks in serious disarray' (Herald on Sunday), 'Labour Smashed in Latest Poll' (NBR), 'Labour hits 23%' (Kiwiblog), 'The Clock is ticking after latest Poll Disaster' (Whaleoil), and  simply 'Good Grief' (Dim Post) - to name just a few. All reactions to the Mid-June Fairfax/Stuff-Ipsos Poll bomb-shell that suggested National was soaring to unprecedented  heights, while Labour support - already moribund - had just taken a 6 point nose-dive,  the Party plummeting towards the sort of disastrous territory occupied by the Nats in 2002.

For Fairfax's Andrea Vance, the poll confirmed that - "After a wave of dismal results" - "Cunliffe is now facing electoral humiliation." Writing in the Dominion Post a few days later, Duncan Garner argued Labour is "a train wreck under David Cunliffe and Labour MPs are grumpy, nervous, and wondering what they may be doing for a crust after September 20...After this week's horrors he looks unelectable as the next prime minister". "Could Labour", Garner asked, "be on track to record its worst-ever election defeat ?". His conclusion: "Yes". The Herald on Sunday thought Labour's poll result "abysmal", while the NBR called it "dire". At the Right-Wing end of the local Blogosphere, David Farrar on Kiwiblog highlighted the fact that the poll was conducted before the Dong Liu affair - "God knows", Farrar concluded, "where (Labour's poll ratings) would be today, except to say they seem well place (sic) to beat National's record of 21% in 2002".  Not to be outdone, Farrar's fellow National-aligned blogger, Cameron Slater (Whaleoil) suggested that after the latest Fairfax-Ipsos, "Cunliffe may as well jump off the cliff rather than be pushed by his angry caucus".

Even some in more progressive circles, like senior journalist and commentator, Gordon Campbell, agreed that "Labour is headed for catastrophe of the sort that befell National in 2002". While for the Dim Post's Danyl MacLaughlin, the Fairfax poll may have been "a bit of an outlier" but it still confirmed his strong conviction that "...lots of Labour voters...freaked out by Internet/Mana" were "switching to National.", thus apparently almost guaranteeing the latter "an historic victory". Elsewhere, the poll has been described as "a major blow", "very grim reading" and "a real disaster" for Labour  while, at the same time, helping to trigger another round of speculation regarding a possible leadership coup (though the general consensus in the MSM and blogosphere was that this was unlikely to happen).

There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning.


First, the Poll clearly was an outlier, bordering on rogue status. As the tables immediately below show, the results of the June 2014 Fairfax/Stuff-Ipsos clearly clash quite violently with other polls taken around the same time.



Roy Morgan                       Fairfax/Stuff-Ipsos                3 News Reid         Early June (2-15)                     Mid June (14-17)                           Late June (19-25)

Nat    49.5  (down 3)               Nat   56.5  (up 8.9)                         Nat   49.7 (down 0.6)  
Lab    28.0  (down 1)               Lab   23.2  (down 6.3)                   Lab   27.3 (down 2.2)
Green    12.0  (up 3)               Green   11.9  (down 0.8)                Green   12.7 (up 2.5)   
NZF    4  (down 0.5)                NZF   3.2  (down 0.5)                    NZF   3.6 (down 2.0)
Maori    1  (down 0.5)            Maori   0.7  (down 1.2)                   Maori   1.5 (up 0.9)
IMP    2.5  (up 1.5)                 IMP   1.2  (up 0.1)                          IMP   1.8 (up 1.0)
Act    0.5  (down 0.5)              Act   0.7  (down 0.2)                       Act   0.4 (down 0.1)
UF    0  ( = )                            UF   0  (down 0.1)                           UF   0 ( = )
Con   1.5  (up 0.5)                   Con   0.9  (down 0.7)                      Con   2.8 (up 0.5)

L+G    40.0  (up 2)                   L+G   35.1  (down 7.1)                    L+G   40.0 (up 0.3)

Right   52.5  (down 3.5)            Right    58.8  (up 6.7)                      Right   54.4 (up 0.7)
Left      42.5  (up 3.5)                Left    36.3  (down 7.0)                    Left   41.8 (up 1.3)



Nat 7.0 points higher in Fairfax compared to RM                       Herald-Digipoll
Lab 4.8 points lower in Fairfax compared to RM                         Early-Mid June (6-15)
L+G 4.9 points lower in Fairfax compared to RM                         
Right 6.3 points higher in Fairfax compared to RM                     Nat   50.4 (down 0.4)
Left 6.2 points lower in Fairfax compared to RM                        Lab   30.5 (up 1.0)
                                                                                                      Green  10.7 (down 2.4)
Nat 6.8 points higher in Fairfax compared to 3 News                   NZF   3.6 ( = )
Lab 4.1 points lower in Fairfax compared to 3 News                    Maori   0.8 (up 0.6)
L+G 4.9 points lower in Fairfax compared to 3 News                   IMP   1.4 (up 1.3)
Right 4.4 points higher in Fairfax compared to 3 News                 Act   0.7 (down 0.1)
Left 5.5 points lower in Fairfax compared to 3 News                    UF   0.1 (up 0.1)
                                                                                                        Con                                                                                                                                         Nat 6.1 points higher in Fairfax compared to HD                         L+G   41.2 (down 1.4)
Lab 7.3 points lower in Fairfax compared to HD
L+G 6.1 points lower in Fairfax compared to HD                          Right   53.5 (up 0.4)
Right 5.3 points higher in Fairfax compared to HD                        Left   42.6 (down 0.1)
Left 6.3 points lower in Fairfax compared to HD

You can see that the Fairfax-Ipsos recorded National support 6 or 7 points higher  (and the broader Right Bloc anywhere from 4.4 to 6.3 points higher) than the three polls taken immediately before or after (this, of course, includes the 3 News Reid Research Poll which, unlike the Fairfax, was carried out during the most aggressive, intense and potentially damaging phase of the so-called Liu "scandal"). Labour's rating, meanwhile, was anywhere between 4 and 7 points lower in the Fairfax compared to the other three polls, with combined Labour+Green support 5 to 6 points lower and the Left Bloc as a whole also around 6 points lower.

Although less important, given differing time-lag effects, we might also note the quite striking contrast in support movement. In the June Fairfax, the Nats enjoy a massive 9 point swing, whereas the Party is slightly down in the other three polls (perhaps more than slightly in the Roy Morgan). Similarly, the Right Bloc as a whole are on the receiving end of a hefty 7 point swing in the Fairfax, but are either down or only very slightly up in the other three. Meanwhile, Labour (down 6 points), Lab+Green combined (down 7 points) and the Left Bloc as a whole (also down 7) plunge heavily in the Fairfax and yet they're either slightly up or only mildly down in the other three polls.

Click on Read More for (1) the Left-to-Undecided swing recorded in the latest Fairfax-Ipsos, (2) the difference in Party Support when we re-calculate as a proportion of the entire sample for the last 3 Fairfax-Ipsos Polls, (3) the Change of Government mood for the last 3 Fairfax-Ipsos, (4) a comparison of Party Support and Change of Government mood for each demographic, and (5) a demographic breakdown of the changing proportion of Undecideds for the last 3 Fairfax-Ipsos Polls.

(Most of this involves statistics, I still have more written analysis to complete)

The Ides of Epsom

2011 Epsom vote


Act   Party-Vote 3% (939 votes),   Candidate-Vote 44% (15,835)

Nat   Party-Vote 65% (23,725),   Candidate-Vote 38% (13,574)

Lab   Party-Vote 16% (5,716),   Candidate-Vote 10% (3,751)

Green   Party-Vote 12% (4,424),   Candidate-Vote  6% (2,160)



2011 Split-Vote

(To read: Act received 939 Party-Votes in Epsom in 2011, 80% of those 939 Act voters (751 voters) cast their Candidate-Vote for Banks, 14% (131) cast their Candidate-Vote for Goldsmith etc)

Party-Vote.............................Candidate-Vote

Act 939.......Banks (Act) 80% (751 votes),     Goldsmith (Nat) 14% (131),  
Parker (Lab) 1% (6),     Hay (Green) 0% (4)

Nat 23,725.......Banks (Act) 60% (14,268),     Goldsmith (Nat) 34% (8,126),    
Parker (Lab) 1% (185),     Hay (Green) 2% (498)

Lab 5,716.......Banks (Act) 5% (267),     Goldsmith (Nat) 35% (2028),            
Parker (Lab) 47% (2,705),     Hay (Green) 7% (414)

Green 4,424.......Banks (Act) 4% (184),     Goldsmith (Nat) 54% (2,401),   
Parker (Lab) 13% (582),     Hay (Green) 25% (1092)


So, at the 2011 Election, Banks (Act) (15,835 votes) had a majority over Goldsmith (Nat) (13,574) of 2261 votes.

35% of Labour voters and 54% of Green voters cast their Candidate-Vote for Goldsmith in 2011 (most, no doubt, strategically).

Just needs, for instance, another 10% of Labour voters (45%), another 10% of Green voters (64%) and another 6% of National voters (40%) to Candidate-Vote Goldsmith and Act will be defeated in Epsom. National voters, however, are really the key here and it's not necessarily going to be all that easy to shift them.  We need to remember that even in the wake of the various scandals that enveloped Act before the 2011 Election,  60% of Epsom Nats were still prepared to hold their nose and cast their Candidate-Vote for Banks.

Still, worth a go, eh.

To the North: Places I'd like to visit during our next trip to the UK (2015)

This Blog's devoted, first and foremost, to public opinion. Specifically, Opinion Poll analysis and the geography of the vote. But just now and then I'll indulge myself. This happens to be one of those occasions.

Hoping to make a few side-trips to the following places during our trip to the UK next year:

(1) The Faroe Islands (Half-way between the Shetlands and Iceland)

Click on Read more for shots of Norwegian Fjords and the Lofoten Islands

Fairfax-Ipsos Poll - February, May and June 2014 (Demographic/Geographic Breakdowns)

[Update: These are the demographics for the February, May and June 2014 Fairfax-Ipsos Polls. The May breakdowns only became available once the June Poll was released. The post was written well before the June Poll came out]

A few days ago on The Standard's 'Polity: Meanwhile in Bomber-land' (3 June), regular commenter Blue Leopard indicated he was interested to see demographic breakdowns of Party Support from recent Opinion Polls.

Here's one example. These are breakdowns from the second-to-last Fairfax Ipsos Poll (February 2014). Unfortunately, Fairfax haven't made available similar data for their latest (May 2014) Poll.

When I have time, I'll post the demographic bases for (1) some earlier Fairfax Ipsos  polls from 2013 and from (2) a number of Herald-Digi polls also from 2013. There's clearly a kind of hit-and-miss quality to the way a number of media organisations present their poll data. Sometimes elaborate and very impressive graphics with detailed information, othertimes next to nothing, bordering on zero, zilch, not a sausage !

But there's another interesting dimension to the data (below) - a facet that ties-in with the phenomena I intend to analyse in my next post (prompted by some recent questions from The Standard regular Colonial Viper). As I explained briefly on Open Mike (15/05/2014), the "Mood for a Change of Government" question (asked in recent Fairfax Ipsos polls) is really the elephant-in-the-room as far as Tracy Watkins and Vern Small's analyses are concerned. Last year, this measurement suggested those wanting to see a change of government (50%) outnumbered respondents who were happy with the present government (43%) by 7 points. More recently, the mood has become relatively evenly split (February 2014: Change Govt  47%, Keep Govt 48%), (May 2014: Change Govt 46%, Keep Govt 48%).

And yet, at one and the same time, National and the Right Bloc almost always lead the Left by a sizeable margin in Fairfax's Party Vote results - poll after poll. In the poll where desire to change the government was 7 points ahead, for instance, the Right actually led the Left by 52% to 45% in party support and even if you were to add NZ First to the Left Bloc - that's still a 52/47% split. Fast forward to February this year and, while respondents are evenly divided on a change of government, the Right is 11 points and 9 points ahead of the Left in February and May respectively.

How can this be ?  The answer is: those who are either Undecided on the Party Vote or indicate they're unlikely to vote at the up-coming Election are excluded from the Poll's Party Support results, but not - and this is crucial - from the "Change of Government" results. Do the math and you'll find that in every one of Fairfax's recent polls - the number of Undecideds who favour a Left-leaning Government massively outnumbers those who support the status quo. All of which suggests that an important chunk of Left support is systematically excluded from the poll results, which, in turn, suggests voters are being misinformed about the true state of public opinion. In the Dominion Post report on the February Poll, for instance, Vern Small tells readers: "The Poll suggests Labour has a lot of ground to make up on National in convincing voters it has a better economic plan", while Tracy Watkins (in an adjoining article) echoes this with: "Labour clearly still has its work cut out winning the argument that a change of government won't put that (the Country moving in the right direction) at risk ". Immediately after reading this analysis, my eyes moved to the Fairfax Poll graphics straight above these articles and what did I see ? - Time for a change of Government ? and then a graphic showing: Yes 47.3%   No 48.0%. And I thought to myself: "So not really all that much ground to make up after all."

And this crucial exclusion of Left-leaning voters is by no means confined to the Fairfax Ipsos Poll results. Appears to happen in a number of Polls (as I'll show in the up-coming Post). And that, in turn, probably partly explains why the National and broader Right vote has been so over-stated in polls over recent years - relative to the share of support they actually receive at the subsequent Election (although I don't think it's the only reason).

Anyway, here are the breakdowns from the February Fairfax Ipsos. The stronger support for the Left among Women and Younger Voters is a pretty consistent trend over at least the last decade or so.

And to see what a difference inclusion of all respondents (ie including the Undecided and likely non-voters) in the 'Change of Government' question makes (compared to the 'Party Support' figures where they're excluded) - compare the Strongest-to-Weakest stats (ie Lab+Green Lead over Nat) at the bottom of the Party Support table with the Strongest-to-Weakest stats following the Change of Government table (ie Yes Lead over No). In terms of Party Support, the Labour + Greens figure outstrips National in only 3 demographics, whereas Yes - Change Government leads No, Keep Present Government in as many as 6 demographics...




Fairfax-Ipsos Poll

(1) February 2014

(A) Party Support

Male    Nat 54   Lab 25   Green 9    (Lab+Green 34)   Base 404

Female  Nat 46   Lab 38   Green 11   (Lab+Green 49)   Base 441


18-29   Nat 41   Lab 35   Green 13   (Lab+Green 48)   Base 136

30-44   Nat 46   Lab 38   Green 11   (Lab+Green 49)   Base 210

45-64   Nat 53   Lab 28   Green 10   (Lab+Green 38)   Base 318

65 +   Nat 56   Lab 28   Green 7   (Lab+Green 35)   Base 181


Auckland   Nat 50   Lab 35   Green 7   (Lab+Green 42)   Base 275

Upper NI   Nat 50   Lab 28   Green 9   (Lab+Green 37)   Base 169

Wellington   Nat 47   Lab 31   Green 15   (Lab+Green 46)   Base 101

Lower NI   Nat 51   Lab 37   Green 5   (Lab+Green 42)   Base 97

Canterbury  Nat 48   Lab 30   Green 12   (Lab+Green 42)   Base 122

SI   Nat 49   Lab 27   Green 19   (Lab+Green 46)    Base 81




Strongest to Weakest Lab+Green Lead over Nat

18-29    Lab+Green 48    Nat 41     (+ 7)

Female   Lab+Green 49   Nat 46     (+ 3)

30-44    Lab+Green 49    Nat 46    (+ 3)

Wellington    Lab+Green 46    Nat 47    (- 1)

SI      Lab+Green 46    Nat 49     (- 3)

Canterbury   Lab+Green 42    Nat 48     (- 6)

Auckland    Lab+Green 42    Nat 50     (- 8)

Lower NI    Lab+Green 42    Nat 51     (- 9)

Upper NI    Lab+Green 37    Nat 50     (- 13)

45-64    Lab+Green 38    Nat 53     (- 15)

Male    Lab+Green 34    Nat 54     (- 20)

65 +    Lab+Green 35    Nat 56     (- 21)






(B) Time for a Change of Government ?

Male   No 54   Yes 41   DK 5   Base 492

Female   No 43   Yes 53   DK 4   Base 526


18-29   No 40   Yes 53   DK 7   Base 199

30-44   No 41   Yes 54   DK 5   Base 258

45-64   No 54   Yes 42   DK 4   Base 358

65 +     No 56   Yes 41   DK 3   Base 203


Auckland   No 48   Yes 47   DK 5   Base 336

Upper NI   No 46   Yes 48   DK 6   Base 200

Wellington   No 48   Yes 50   DK 2   Base 112

Lower NI   No 46   Yes 52   DK 3   Base 122

Canterbury   No 52   Yes 44   DK 5   Base 140

SI                 No 49   Yes 45   DK 7   Base 108




Strongest to Weakest Yes Lead over No

30-44    Yes 54    No 41     (+ 13)

18-29    Yes 53    No 40     (+ 13)

Female    Yes 53    No 43    (+ 10)

Lower NI    Yes 52    No 46     (+ 6)

Wellington    Yes 50    No 48     (+ 2)

Upper NI    Yes 48    No 46     (+ 2)

Auckland    Yes 47     No 48     (- 1)

SI    Yes 45    No 49     (- 4)

Canterbury    Yes 44    No 52     (- 8)

45-64    Yes 42    No 54     (- 12)

Male    Yes 41    No 54     (- 13)

65 +    Yes 41    No 56     (- 15)



Note: Based on the little map accompanying the Fairfax Ipsos Poll graphics in a 2013 report, it looks like:

- Auckland = covers the City of Auckland (formerly Greater Auckland) + a swathe of Marsden / Kiapara in the north and Counties-Manakau in the south. So not just metro Auckland.

- Upper NI = the rest of the upper NI (the northern two=thirds of Northland, Waikato, Gisborne, Bay of Plenty).

- Wellington = not just Greater Wellington but also rural Horowhenua and Wairarapa.

- Lower NI = Taranaki, Hawkes Bay, the central NI and Palmerston North and Manawatu.

- Canterbury = all of Canterbury Province + the southern half of Marlborough

- SI = the rest of the SI


Click on Read More for the full demographic breakdowns of the May and June Fairfax-Ipsos Polls

Beware the Polls of March

Note: This Post is unfinished. Aiming for an in-depth analysis, but find I now don't quite have the time available to do it justice. So I've temporarily abandoned it about a third of the way through. I may well come back and finish it off at a later date assuming I have enough spare time. But by all means have a read - you should get the gist of my central argument  - swordfish.



How did so many of New Zealand's leading political journalists and bloggers manage to get the latest round of Opinion Polls so hopelessly wrong ?

And did this profound misreading of public opinion - reaching a crescendo around late March/early April - create a bandwagon effect partly responsible for the swing back to the Right in the latest Roy Morgan ?

It speaks volumes about the current state of political journalism in this Country that in the very week  that new guidelines on the reporting of opinion polls were released, leading journalists continued to grossly misinform the voting public about the latest trends in party support.

Despite four consecutive opinion polls in March revealing a clear swing away from National and the broader political Right  (with the percentage point gap between Left and Right Blocs almost halving), most mainstream political journalists remained stuck in a kind of timewarp: continuing to repeat the February narrative of a "soaring" National Party, "defying political gravity" and "able to govern alone". All of which was starkly contrasted with a "luckless" Labour Party sinking ever deeper into the mire.

From mid-March to mid-April, as successive polls began to confirm: (1) a significant fall in National and Right Bloc support, (2) a somewhat milder lift in Left Bloc support, and (3) a Labour Party remaining pretty much where it had been throughout the previous 8 weeks (on a steady 31% average), the mainstream media was busy suggesting the polar opposite. Labour's support was apparently "slipping", "sliding", "dipping", "dropping", "eroding", "trending down", "going backwards", had "taken a dive", was "unappetising", "morale-sapping", "woeful", "in the doldrums" and "plumbing the depths". As a result of this alleged downturn, the Party's tide  remained "well and truly out", so much so that it had "a mountain to climb before September." Overall, according to the media consensus, if there was a core dynamic underpinning the March polls it was that they were "bad news for Labour" (a phrase finding favour with more than one commentator over this period).

National's poll ratings, meanwhile, were almost always cast in either positive or neutral terms, despite the seemingly obvious loss of support. Well after the comparatively poor results started coming in, a number of senior journalists were still insisting it was all "more good news for National." The Party was apparently maintaining "a commanding lead", was "riding high in the polls", had "a big lead over Labour", "a chasm", "too big a gap to bridge", "a one-sided affair", enjoyed "stunning poll ratings", was "going up", "climbing", "going forwards", was "looking strong and confident" - indeed was "in rampant form" - and continued to be "on target for a clear majority." The Government, we were told, suffered "precious little breadth or depth of anger", indeed they were "enjoying something of a second honeymoon with the voters." Clearly, the public were "sticking to the devil they know" and "not wanting to mess with success."

The Oravida and Te Kohanga Reo sagas had certainly "not dented" National support, had "done nothing to harm Key's and National's popularity", and "hadn't affected National at all." Labour's efforts to stoke these scandals had "demonstrably failed" and caused "little damage", with the Party unable to "drag down National's popularity." As the Nats continued to take a rather conspicuous hit in the polls, journalists and bloggers insisted the Party was "widely regarded as competent and clever" and continued to have "that vice-like grip on the centre voters." The poll trend, we were assured, was "in National's favour", so much so that "life on Planet Key couldn't be rosier."

Certainly there were a few exceptions (discussed below) to all of this gross misinterpretation (bordering at times on hagiography). Exceptions that multiplied after the release of the fourth consecutive bad poll for National on April 3. Even after that point, however, far too many in the media and blogosphere remained blind to the obvious swing in public opinion and to the fact that this trend had been manifest for a number of weeks.

In this post, I want to take a forensic approach in order to clarify the precise mechanics of how and why so many in the media got things so badly wrong. And towards the end, I'll ask if the swing to the Right recorded in the latest Roy Morgan is the corollary of a relentless media narrative that saw National wrongly cast as the "stunning" winner - and Labour the "woeful" loser - of the battle for public popularity in March. Did the media's misplaced cheerleading create what political scientists would call a bandwagon or snowball effect ?

Poll Trends of February and March

No one, as far as I know, has firmly established (in solid numbers) the poll trends of the last 3 months. Anecdotal evidence suggests many journalists and others in the commetariat rely largely on National-aligned blogger, David Farrar, to do their number-crunching for them. Farrar is certainly happy to oblige when the numbers favour National. When they don't, however, I would suggest his number-crunching often borders on obfuscation.

More analysis here. Details of Farrar's problematic analysis of poll trends etc

(Note to anyone who's managed to get this far: I set out some of my criticisms of David Farrar's recent monthly poll analyses (Kiwiblog) in a comment I made on The Standard here.......... http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-31052014/#comment-822766)




Table 1   Monthly Poll Averages (2014)
(Gap =  (1) Nat/Lab (2) Right/Left )

January     Nat 45 Right Bloc 49  Lab 33  Left Bloc 46  NZ First  5  Gap  (1) 12  (2) 3
                                                                                                                 

February     Nat 50  Right Bloc 53 Lab 31 Left Bloc 42  NZ First  4   Gap  (1) 19  (2) 11
                                                                                                                   

Diff                          + 5                     + 4             - 2                       - 4              -1

March      Nat 45  Right Bloc 50  Lab 31  Left Bloc 44  NZ First  5   Gap (1) 14  (2) 6
                                                                                                                

Diff                    - 5               - 3              =          + 2              + 1




More analysis here. Summary/Overview of Monthly Poll Averages.




Table 2     Individual Polls (2014)
(Gap = (1) Nat/Lab (2) Right/Left) 

February (5 Consecutive Polls Feb-Early March)

Fairfax         Nat 49  Right Bloc 53  Lab 32  Left Bloc 42 NZ First 4

Roy Morgan      Nat 48   Right Bloc 51   Lab 30  Left Bloc 43  NZ First  6

One News          Nat 51  Right Bloc 54  Lab 34  Left Bloc 42  NZ First 3

Roy Morgan      Nat  49  Right Bloc 54   Lab  31  Left Bloc 42  NZ First  5

Herald-Digi          Nat 51  Right Bloc 53  Lab 30  Left Bloc 43  NZ First 4

February                        50             53                       31                     42                4
Average


March (4 Consecutive Polls Early-Late March)

Roy Morgan         Nat 46  Right Bloc 50  Lab 32  Left Bloc 46  NZ First  4

One News        Nat  47   Right Bloc 50   Lab  31  Left Bloc  42   NZ First 7

3 News          Nat 46   Right Bloc 51   Lab  31  Left Bloc 44   NZ First 5

Roy Morgan      Nat  43   Right Bloc 48    Lab  32   Left Bloc 46  NZ First  6

March                  45                        50                 31                       44                      5
Average


More analysis here. Summary of Individual Poll trends.

Overview of MSM's analysis of February Poll trends (4-6 paragraphs)

Overview of MSM's gross misinterpretation of March Poll trends and the way they employed a contrasting methodology (relative to their February approach). In each case, the methodology underlying their analysis favoured National. In February, the method of analysis was legitimate and rightly highlighted the swing to National and the Right. In March the highly restrictive mode of analysis chosen by leading journalists was illegitimate, resulting in a significant silence on / downplaying of National and the Right Bloc's clear decline and the Left Bloc's partial revival.

Outline my theories on how they got things so wrong:

- The Echo effect

- The Time-lag effect

- The Media Exclusive effect

- The Partisan effect.

Analyse Early March Roy Morgan, then Late March One News, then Late March 3 News.

We've seen, then, that the Late March 3 News Reid Research Poll confirmed the trends highlighted in the previous two polls (Early March Roy Morgan and Late March One News). Support for National and the Right Bloc clearly fell relative to their average over the 5 consecutive polls of February - early March, while Labour remained steady and the Left Bloc and (to a somewhat lesser extent) NZ First were up. Clearly, the Oravida and Te Kohanga Reo scandals had taken a toll.

So, how did TV3 interpret the results ? Announcing the 3 News Reid Research Poll on the 30 March 6pm bulletin, Gower told viewers: "National are up to 45.9%, but Labour are down - quite a bit more actually - to 31.2% - down 2.3. The Left Bloc slipping, the Greens they are down 1.2 as well...National and its support partners would have a clear majority. The Left though would not get close - 56 seats - they don't have a shot on that."

All of which, according to Gower, meant the Oravida scandal "has done nothing to harm Mr Key's popularity" (Gower quotes Key to the effect that 'It's been a bad few weeks for National but no impact). Cunliffe, Gower concludes, "got no traction from Mr Key's woes whatsoever. In fact, it is the opposite." Cunliffe's "troubles with the trust" have him "going backwards." Conversely, "the Oravida saga has simply not dented Mr Key. He is going forwards" and continues to have a "vice-like grip on the centre voters." Overall, "Labour and Mr Cunliffe are going in the wrong direction." (Gower also posted an on-line article on the 3 News website headlined 'Poll, National Up despite Oravida saga').

3 News followed up this core report on the following day's 6pm News (and on their website) with 'What's keeping National high in the Polls ?'. According to the on-line version, "The latest 3 News Reid Research Poll has more good news for National and bad news for Labour...So after five-and-a-half years as the Government, what is keeping National riding high in the polls ?" In the 6pm bulletin, News anchor Michael Wilson introduces the item by asking Gower: "Now National's riding high isn't it ?...not quite as high as the Herald Poll...but our Poll's still showing a rise for National." Gower: "Yeah, National going up...And that is a pretty astonishing result given that during the polling period Key was on the back foot almost the entire time over the Oravida controversy with Judith Collins and all those other connections. But it hasn't affected National at all !" The explanation, according to Gower, was pretty simple: "Voters obviously see things like Oravida as a bit of a distraction. The economy - as you know, Michael - is picking up and people are pretty happy with the way the National government is going."