Friday, 13 November 2015
Nurturing the Seeds of Distrust: Dirty Politics and the Public's Changing Perception of John Key's Leadership over the last four years
[Note: Danyl's latest offering at The Dim Post - in which he highlights John Key's popularity at the last Election via 2014 NZES data - has encouraged me to dig out and publish this half-finished Post from last year. Tragically, I've accumulated around 20 of these partly-completed but never published posts in draft form. Some I consciously abandoned as obsolete/overtaken by events, while others just withered on the vine as my attention and interest turned elsewhere. The preview date says Thursday 24 August 2014 - presumably the last time I modified the draft. That would be a couple of weeks after Hager's book came out in a blaze of publicity and three or so weeks before the 20 September Election]
The sudden eruption of the Dirty Politics scandal over the last two weeks has shocked many in the media and blogosphere into arguing that the doubts now surrounding John Key's honesty, integrity and character are entirely unprecedented. The underlying premise, often explicitly stated, but always at the very least implicit, is that, until now, Key has continued to enjoy absolutely stellar personal popularity ratings - ratings that supposedly haven't budged since he became Prime Minister.
It's a line of argument perhaps best exemplified by One News lead Political Reporter Corin Dann's suggestion a few days ago that: "It's created a doubt about the Prime Minister which wasn't there before" and (in the context of the Espiner interview) that Key "really, really struggled and I think everybody for the first time, well, the mask was pulled away...".
Note: Other examples / and Quotes of current orthodoxy on Key here.
In one very important sense they are, of course, correct. Nothing of this magnitude has hit Key before.
It would be a mistake, though, to assume that, up until the release of Dirty Politics, Key's image had remained entirely untarnished or that his popularity and broad support-base remained fully intact. The weight of polling evidence over recent years suggests that, in fact, Key's popularity reached an apex back in the middle-to-later stages of his first term and has been slowly but steadily eroding ever since. This is true both in terms of his leadership qualities and Preferred PM status.
I suspect, then, that these latest Nicky Hager and Whaledump revelations about Key and his entanglement in this long-running campaign of Dirty Politics (as unprecedented as they surely are) will simply accentuate underlying doubts that were already there in the minds of many voters. The question is: how decisive will the issue of honesty - as opposed to, say, competence - be in the voting booth ?
Preferred PM Status
For all the hyperbolic rhetoric over recent years about Key's alleged "unprecedented popularity", the fact is he's been on a downward trajectory in the Preferred PM stakes ever since the 2009-11 period. If we focus first on the two polling companies (One News Colmar-Brunton and 3 News Reid Research) that employ, as far as I'm concerned, the most appropriate methodology for this particular measurement, we find that, during his first term in Office (2009-11), the PM was consistently scoring in the late 40s to late 50s, and averaging 52% throughout this entire period (53% by 2011). In stark contrast, Key has, with few exceptions, been drifting in the late 30s to mid 40s since early-2012, averaging just 42% as Preferred PM, 11 points down on 2011.
True, he has enjoyed a slight revival over recent months, reaching the very lowest limits of his 2009-11 ratings in June this year (both Colmar-Brunton and Reid Research had him rising from 43% to 47%). But that's still well below his first term average. What's more, the most recent polls (even before Hager's revelations hit the bookshelves) suggest Key has been unable to retain that 'June Spring' mini-surge of support (he dropped back to 44% in the Mid-July 3 News Reid Research, remained there in Early-August and has now fallen to 41% in the latest 3 News poll. Meanwhile, the latest One News Colmar-Brunton has Key falling back to 45%). My guess ?: Key was the temporary beneficiary of a series of media attacks on Opposition Leader David Cunliffe's integrity, criticism that reached a crescendo around May/June of this year.
Here are the relevant 3 News Reid Research figures highlighting Key's Second Term decline as Preferred PM (2012-14), relative to his ratings in the First Term
(2009-11):
3 News Reid Research - Preferred PM (John Key)
2009 52, 51, 52, 56, 50,
2010 50, 49, 51,
2011 49, 52, 48, 51, 53, 55, 53, 50,
3 News Reid Research - Preferred PM (John Key)
2012 46, 44, 41, 43, 41, 37
2013 41, 38, 41, 42, 41,
2014 39, 43, 43, 47, 44, 44, 41,
And here are the One News Colmar-Brunton stats:
One News Colmar-Brunton - Preferred PM (John Key)
2009 51, 51, 51, 51, 50, 54,
2010 49, 48, 46, 45, 52,
2011 48, 55, 53, 54, 57, 59, 56, 55, 53, 52,
One News Colmar-Brunton - Preferred PM (John Key)
2012 48, 48, 45, 44, 42, 39,
2013 44, 39, 42, 41, 42, 43,
2014 43, 42, 43, 47, 48, 45,
Leadership Qualities
Mirroring Key's decline as Preferred PM, the uniquely detailed 3 News Reid Research Polls measuring various Leadership Qualities have revealed a slow but reasonably steady erosion of his broad standing among New Zealand voters over the last four years. For the purposes of this analysis, these leadership attributes can be divided into four groups: (1) Positive Attributes that continue to be measured by Reid Research in 2014, (2) Positive Attributes that Reid Research stopped measuring in 2013, (3) Negative Attributes that continue to be measured in 2014, (4) Negative Attributes that Reid Research stopped measuring in 2013.
3 News Reid Research - Leadership Attributes
(1) Positive Attributes still measured in 2014 (John Key)
High Point Now
More Honest mid 60s% early 40s%
Sound Judgement late 70s% late 60s%
Good in Crisis early 80s% late 60s%
Understands Econ early 80s% late 60s%
Capable Leader late 80s% late 70s%
3 News Reid Research - Leadership Attributes
(2) Positive Attributes discontinued in 2013 (John Key)
High Point Last Poll
Lots of Personality late 70s% early 60s%
Down to Earth late 70s% 60%
3 News Reid Research - Leadership Attributes
(3) Negative Attributes still measured in 2014 (John Key)
Low Point Now
Out of Touch early 30s% early 50s%
Talks Down early 20s% early 40s%
Narrow Minded under 20% early 40s%
3 News Reid Research - Leadership Attributes
(4) Negative Attributes discontinued in 2013 (John Key)
Low Point Last Poll
Style over Substance mid 30s% 50%
Too Inflexible early 20s% 40%
Once overwhelmingly positive towards Key, the New Zealand public have slowly
moved to a more conflicted position.
Note: More argument here. Possible importance of Key's determination on Asset Sales for the significant increase in Too Inflexible/Narrow Minded. Possible importance of growing concerns about Inequality for significant rise in Out of Touch measurement.
3 News Reid Research - August 2014
Does National's Election Campaign rely too heavily on the PM ?
Yes No Don't Know
All 68% 28% 4%
Nat Voters 48% No Data No Data
Valence Issues
A tentative word of caution, though.
Despite the slow but very real decline in his overall standing, John Key's ratings on some of the fundamental valence issues - capable leader / sound judgement / good in a crisis / understands the economic problems facing New Zealand - remain pretty high. Ten to fifteen points down from their apex a few years ago, but still pretty healthy.
Note: Table with results of past Polls suggesting National more trusted than Labour on the Economy here (Fairfax Research Poll July 2011: Best plan to fix the economy Nat 49% / Lab 17%. Colmar Brunton July 2011: Most trusted to manage the economy Nat 53% / Lab 24%. Herald-DigiPoll Oct 2009: Financial crisis handling by Key Government Good 78% / Poor 20%. Herald-DigiPoll Nov 2008: Which party would better handle New Zealand economy as the world faces a downturn Nat 50% / Lab 41%. Colmar Brunton Oct 2008: Blame for New Zealand's economic strife International Forces 35% / Clark Govt 14% / Both 49%. Colmar Brunton Oct 2008: Who do you most trust to manage the economy Key 48% / Clark 41%).
Note: Key's popularity revolves not so much around public perceptions of honesty as around perceptions of basic competence. His honesty ratings are down more than 20 percentage points since 2009. And yet the Nats have generally remained high in the polls. Why ? Might there be a section of National voters who are prepared to overlook their increasing doubts about Key's honesty / integrity and degree of pragmatism, flexibility and One Nation 'egalitarianism' because they still rate him as capable and decisive on leadership and economic management. So, holding their noses and pragmatically placing perceived economic / leadership competence above concerns about his personal integrity. In which case, campaigns built around his dishonesty / immersion in Dirty Politics may not resonate with softly-aligned Tories ? Or are soft Nats still the True-Believers ?
Monday, 10 August 2015
Hiroshima
As you'll almost certainly be aware (given the fairly extensive publicity), it's 70 years since the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Here's a snapshot of US and Japanese public opinion on the issue - both then and now.
(All Polls involve a representative sample from throughout the US or Japan, unless otherwise stated)
US Public Opinion - Then
(1) Gallup Poll (Aug 1945)
(Representative sample of 1000 Americans, conducted August 10-15 1945 - immediately after the bombing)
Question: Do you Approve or Disapprove of using the new atomic bomb on Japanese cities ?
Approve 85%
Disapprove 10%
No Opinion 5%
(Source suggests little variation of opinion among various demographics, although slightly higher Approval of the bombing among both Males and the University-Educated)
(2) National Opinion Research Centre Poll (Sep 1945)
Question: If you had been the one to decide whether or not to use the atomic bomb against Japan, which one of these things do you think you would have done ?
Wiped out as many Cities as possible 23%*
Bombed One City at a Time 44%**
(Combined=67%)
Bombed where there were No People 26%
Refused to Use 4%
Don't Know 2%
* Extreme Hawkish Position=Belief that US should have dropped atomic bombs on many Japanese cities
** Supports the action taken=Bombing Hiroshima and then Nagasaki
(3) Roper-Fortune Poll (Nov 1945)
Answers to Question One: (Wording of Question not given by Source)
We should have quickly used many more of the bombs before Japan had a chance to surrender 23%*
We should have used the two bombs on cities, just as we did 54%**
(Combined=77%)
We should have dropped one on some unpopulated region, to show the Japanese its power, and dropped the second one on a city only if they hadn't surrendered after the first one 14%
We should not have used any atomic bombs at all 5%
Don't Know 6%
* Extreme Hawkish Position=Belief that US should have dropped atomic bombs on many Japanese cities
** Supports the action taken=Bombing Hiroshima and then Nagasaki
(In contrast to the Gallup Poll of Aug 1945, the Roper-Fortune suggested the more Highly-Educated favoured more restraint in using the bomb, and that the Lowest Income group was the most hawkish with 30% favouring the 'many bombs' option. Black Americans constituted a major exception amongst the poor, being more dovish)
Answers to Question Two:
The Bombing Shortened the War by:
More than a year 18%
6 months to a year 36%
2 - 5 months 17%
1 month or less 10%
Did not shorten War 8%
Don't Know 11%
US Public Opinion - Now
Be aware that some of these Poll options are slanted - solidly grounded in a particular interpretation of the US rationale behind the atomic bombing. For example, the 1965 Harris Poll ("to save American lives"), one of the two Gallup Polls of 1995 ("to force Japan to surrender") and so on. These privilege the Truman Orthodoxy favoured by the Orthodox School of American scholars (atomic bombing was necessary to save the lives of American servicemen from what might have been a costly invasion / to force Japanese surrender) and ignore the other side of a very lively, on-going historiographical debate - namely, the Revisionist School that argues that US leaders were well aware that Japan was near defeat and surrender, that they hence simply dropped the bombs on a large civilian population for ulterior motives and that this constitutes a massive war crime / genocide / crime against humanity. Regardless of the accuracy of their claims, the Orthodox School has been criticised for viewing the bombing in narrow military terms, oblivious to the broader significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in human history.
The range of interpretations in terms of US motivations / rationale include: To avoid US casualties and force surrender (the Truman Orthodoxy), to revenge Pearl Harbour and Japanese atrocities against POWs, to intimidate the Soviets with an eye towards establishing America's post-war supremacy, to end the war with Japan before the Soviets entered (these last two constitute the Atomic Diplomacy thesis), to use the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a test lab for the new atomic weaponry (the Human Guinea-Pig Interpretation), traditional US anti-Asian racism (the Racial Interpretation) and so on. (although I should add that this doesn't even remotely do justice to the complexity of some of the theses put forward over the years).
(1) Harris Poll (1965)
US was Right to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to save American lives 70%
Regret it 17%
Don't Know 13%
(2) Harris-Asahi Shimbun Poll (1971)
Bombings of Hiroshima / Nagasaki
Could Not have been Helped 64%
Were a Mistake 21%
Don't Know 15%
(These findings were widely publicised in Japan and came as a profound shock to the Japanese public)
(3) Harris Poll (1986)
Bombings of Hiroshima / Nagasaki
Could Not have been Helped 67%
Were a Mistake 24%
Don't Know 9%
(somewhat lower approval / higher disapproval = among women, younger age-groups and non-whites - although even among these demographics, absolute majorities still approved (ie Chose the Could Not have been Helped option).
Attitudes to Pearl Harbour:
Entertain ill-feeling towards Japan about Pearl Harbour 43%
(No other data provided)
(4) Gallup Poll (1990)
Question: As you may know, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 near the end of World War II. Looking back, would you say you approve or disapprove of using the atomic bomb on Japanese cities in 1945 ?
Approve 53%
Disapprove 41%
No Opinion 6%
(5) Gallup Poll (1991)
Question: Same as 1990 Gallup Poll
Approve 53%
Disapprove 41%
No Opinion 6%
(6) New York Times-CBS News-Tokyo Broadcasting Poll (1991)
Atomic Bombing of Japan was:
An Acceptable Measure to End War 63%
A Wanton act of Mass Slaughter 29%
No Opinion 8%
Apology:
US Govt should formally apologise to Japan and its people for dropping atomic bombs 16%
(No other data given)
What if Japan apologises for the attack on Pearl Harbour ?:
Then US should apologise for dropping atomic bombs 34%
Should Not 42%
No Opinion 24%
(Main Source briefly mentions a fourth question on whether or not respondents accepted the 'Racial Interpretation' (ie Racism motivated 1945 atomic bombing of Japan). 8% of American respondents accepted this interpretation)
(Note: Some sources call this the 'Detroit Free Press Poll')
(7) Gallup Poll (1994)
Question: Same as 1990 Gallup Poll
Approve 55%
Disapprove 39%
No Opinion 6%
(8) Gallup Poll (1995)
Question: Same as 1990 Gallup Poll
Approve 59%
Disapprove 35%
No Opinion 6%
(Black Americans = 57% Disapprove / 31% Approve, Women = 47% Disapprove / 40% Approve, Young Adults = 49% Disapprove / 46% Approve, Poor = 44% Disapprove / 49% Approve, White Americans = 31% Disapprove / 64% Approve, Wealthy = 27% Disapprove / 69% Approve, Men = 23% Disapprove / 74% Approve, Elderly = 15% Disapprove / 80% Approve)
Question: Do you think dropping the atomic bombs saved American lives by shortening the War, or not ?
Yes 86%
No 7%
No Opinion 7%
Question: Do you think that dropping the atomic bombs saved more Japanese lives than would have been lost if the War had continued, or did dropping the bombs COST more Japanese lives ?
Saved 40%
Cost 45%
No Opinion 15%
(9) Gallup Poll (1995)
What would you have done ?:
Would have dropped the atom bomb 44%
Would have tried some other way to force Japan to surrender 49%
Unsure 7%
(Substantial two-to-one majorities of Women, Black Americans and Hispanics chose the Would have tried some other way option. In contrast, White Americans split evenly, while Men favoured dropping the bomb by a clear majority)
Should US formally apologise to Japan for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?:
No 73%
Yes 20%
Don't Know 7%
(10) Gallup-USA Today Poll (1998)
Half of those Polled believed Truman should have pursued alternatives
(11) Gallup Poll (2005)
Question: Same as 1990 Gallup Poll
Approve 57%
Disapprove 38%
No Opinion 5%
(Approve: Gender: Male 73%, Female 42% / Party: Rep 73%, Ind 53%, Dem 47% / Party-by-Gender: Republican Male 87%, Female 60% / Independent Male 71%, Female 31% / Democrat Male 63%, Female 37% / Age: Under-50s 53%, 50+ 63%)
Question: Do you think dropping the atomic bombs saved American lives by shortening the War or not ?
Yes 80%
No 16%
No Opinion 4%
Question: Do you think that dropping the atomic bombs saved more Japanese lives than would have been lost if the War had continued, or did dropping the bombs COST more Japanese lives ?
Saved 41%
Cost 47%
No Opinion 12%
(12) NHK Poll (2005)
56% say Dropping Bombs on Hiroshima / Nagasaki was based on right judgement
(Age 60 + = 70%, Age 20-39 = 42%)
(13) Quinnipiac University Poll (2009)
1945 Atomic Bombing of Japan
Support 61%
Oppose 22%
Undecided 16%
(Support: Age 55+ = 73%, Age under 34 = 50%)
(14) Pew Research Centre Poll (2015)
Question: As you may know, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 near the end of World War II. Looking back, would you say using the atomic bomb on Japanese cities in 1945 was justified or was it not justified ?
Justified 56%
Not 34%
Don't Know 10%
(Justified: Gender: Male 62%, Female 50% / Party: Rep 74%, Dem 52% / Age: 65+ 70%, 18-29 47% / Ethnicity: White 65%, Non-White (including Hispanics) 40%)
Question: Overall, do you think that Japan has apologised sufficiently for its actions during World War II, that Japan has not apologised sufficiently, or do you think no apology is necessary ?
Not Sufficiently 29%
Sufficiently 37%
No apology necessary 24%
Don't Know 10%
(73% of Younger Americans chose either Sufficiently or No apology necessary compared to 50% of Older Americans)
Japanese Public Opinion - Then
We need, of course, to be extremely cautious about the results of polls and surveys conducted by the victors in war on the defeated or by the occupiers of a country on the occupied. As the United States Strategic Bombing Survey's report frankly admitted, these figures almost certainly underestimated hostility towards the US. The shock of the atomic bombing, the shock of final defeat, the very real threat of widespread starvation and weariness of the American occupiers no doubt greatly affected replies. The new censorship regime of the Occupation authorities went into effect in September 1945 and severely restricted information on and criticism of the atomic bombing and the devastation it wrought on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
(1) United States Strategic Bombing Survey (Oct 1945)
(Survey of 5000 Japanese Respondents, including a sub-sample of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Residents)
Hated Americans for having used the atomic bombs
12% (Entire Sample), 19% (Hiroshima and Nagasaki respondents only)
Where does responsibility for using the bombs lie ?:
Japan's Fault 35% (Entire Sample)
Neither side responsible (simply a consequence of war) 29% (Entire Sample)
(No more data given by source)
(2) United States Strategic Bombing Survey (1947)
Reaction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respondents to US atomic bombing:
Terror 47%
Admiration (impressed by scientific power behind the bomb) 26%
Anger (Atomic Bomb is cruel/inhuman/barbarous) 17%
Fear (for own life) 16%
Jealousy (why couldn't Japan make such a bomb ?) 3%
Hatred of US 2%
No Response 11%
(Note: It beggars belief that, for 26% of Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents, the strongest reaction to the atomic annihilation of their city was "Admiration" (or "Jealousy" = 3%). These figures might better be interpreted as the proportion of residents who either feared the US occupying authorities or were particularly ambitious to get on under the new regime. You also have to wonder at a US regime that, having dropped atomic bombs on two cities, then interviews surviving victims, asking how they felt about it and includes "Admiration" and "Jealousy" as two viable options)
Japanese Public Opinion - Now
(1) Mainichi Shimbun Poll (1970)
1945 Atomic Bomb
Moderately Disapprove of its use 14%
Should never have been used on Japan 61%
(No further data given)
Who is to Blame ?:
Blame Japanese Leaders 19%
Blame US Leaders 38%
(No further data from source)
(2) Chugoku-Shimbun Poll (1971)
(Poll of Hiroshima Residents only)
Blame Japanese Govt and Military 10%
Blame US President Truman personally 10%
Blame US Govt and Military 21%
(Source gives no indication of the options chosen by remaining 59%)
(3) New York Times-CBS News-Tokyo Broadcasting Poll (1991)
Atomic Bombing of Japan was:
An Acceptable Measure to End War 29%
A Wanton act of Mass Slaughter 64%
No Opinion 7%
(Almost the exact reverse of US opinion in the same Poll)
View of US as a result:
Hold it against the US for dropping atomic bombs 50%
(No other data given)
Apology:
US Govt should formally apologise to Japan and its people for dropping atomic bombs 73%
(38% of Japanese Respondents in this Poll accepted the 'Racial Interpretation' of the bombing / 31% rejected it)
(Note: Some sources call this the 'Detroit Free Press Poll')
(4) Asahi-Shimbun Poll (2005)
(Large-Scale 13,000+ survey of surviving Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims (Hibakusha). About 60% from Hiroshima/40% from Nagasaki)
Both US and Japan to Blame "Nearly Half"
US solely responsible 28%
(Source gives no indication of choice of remainder)
(5) Pew Research Centre Poll (2015)
Question: As you may know, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 near the end of World War II. Looking back, would you say using the atomic bomb on Japanese cities in 1945 was justified or was it not justified ?
Justified 14%
Not 79%
Don't Know 7%
Question: Overall, do you think that Japan has apologised sufficiently for its actions during World War II, that Japan has not apologised sufficiently, or do you think no apology is necessary ?
Not Sufficiently 28%
Sufficiently 48%
No apology necessary 15%
Don't Know 9%
Surveys of US and Japanese Students
(1) Polls of Japanese Junior High School Students in Hiroshima (1987) (1989) (2005)
1945 Atomic Bombing:
Could Not be helped because it was wartime / was needed to hasten the end of war
15% (1987), 21% (1989), 25% (2005)
Should Not be forgiven for humanitarian reasons 70% (1987), 55% (1989)
(2) Survey of US and Japanese University Students (2005)
1945 Atomic Bombing:
Could Not be helped (required in order to save American lives) 71% (US), 17% (Japan)
Accept racial interpretation of bombing (US racist motives) 35% (US), 45% (Japan)
Reasons for US dropping Atomic Bombs on Japan:
(Japanese Students)
Top choice: To test the destructive power of the atomic bomb
2nd choice: To pressure the Soviet Union by a display of power
3rd choice: To end the War before Soviet entry (into US / Japanese Theatre of War)
(US Students)
Top choice (overwhelming majority): To avoid US casualties
2nd choice: To pay back for Pearl Harbour
Should US apologise to Japan for 1945 Atomic Bombing:
(asked of US Students only)
Yes 39%
Yes but only if Japan apologises for Pearl Harbour 32%
( = 71%)
Saturday, 1 August 2015
Govt Vs Oppo - Opinion Polls since 2014 Election
Oppo = (Lab+Green+NZF)
Govt = (Nat+ACT+Maori+UF)
Broad = (Oppo+Mana)
Broad = (Govt+Cons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oppo Govt Broad Broad
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015
July
3 News Reid Research
Late July 51 48 51 49
One News Colmar Brunton
Mid July 52 48 53 48
Roy Morgan
Early July 52 45 52 47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June
Roy Morgan
Mid June 46 52 46 53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May
3 News Reid Research
Late May 50 48 50 50
One News Colmar Brunton
Late May 48 50 48 52
Roy Morgan
Early May 42 56 42 57
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April
Herald-DigiPoll
Late April 46 53 46 54
Roy Morgan
Mid April 49 48 49 49
One News Colmar Brunton
Mid April 47 50 48 52
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March
Roy Morgan
Early March 48 50 48 51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February
One News Colmar Brunton
Mid February 47 51 47 52
Roy Morgan
Early February 48 50 48 52
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January
3 News Reid Research
Late January 45 52 46 54
Roy Morgan
Mid January 43 55 43 57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014
December
Herald-DigiPoll
Mid December 44 52 44 55
Roy Morgan
Early December 46 50 47 52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November
Roy Morgan
Early November 45 51 46 53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October
Roy Morgan
Early October 47 47 48 52
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 General Election
44 49 46 53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 2015 Average compared to 2014 General Election
July 2015 52 47 52 48
2014 GE 44 49 46 53
Difference +8 -2 +6 -5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All figures are rounded.
Friday, 27 March 2015
Northland By-Election: Maori and the Hokianga-Kaikohe Red Belt
Contents
(1) Northland + Te Tai Tokerau
(2) How Blue was my Valley ?
(3) Map of 2014 Party Support
(4) NZ First 2014 Strongholds
(1) Northland + Te Tai Tokerau
Over recent weeks, the local blogosphere has witnessed a fair amount of speculation about the electoral effects of Northland voters on the Maori Roll.
On the one hand, a number of commenters have asked if anyone knows precisely what effect the addition of Northland-based Te Tai Tokerau voters would have on the political complexion of Northland. Would it turn Northland Red ? Or just a lighter shade of Blue ?
On the other other hand, a number of blog authors and commenters have suggested - often explicitly, sometimes implicitly - that the overwhelming majority of Northland Maori are on the Te Tai Tokerau Roll and that this takes the bulk of the Region's Left-leaning voters out of the equation for this By-Election. Things would be different, the reasoning goes, if Northland Maori were voting.
To take just a couple of definitive examples, Bomber Bradbury (at The Daily Blog) has (shall we say, somewhat colourfully) argued "Northland voters are blue, drained of the Maori vote who overwhelmingly stay on the Maori electorate, Northland is an electorate of Farmers and provincial businessmen. It's bluer than the liquid they use to show tampon absorption powers on TV adverts...It's blue." And, in a later post, "Northland is a banjo twanging red neck Hicksville bled white from most Maori being on the Maori roll...book burning is recreational here...progress in Northland is people not burning witches when there's an eclipse."
Meanwhile, Chris Trotter at Bowalley Road considers Northland to be "about as close as you get in New Zealand to the American Deep South...Northland's Pakeha voters (will) certainly give Winston Peters and NZ First a serious sniff. But Labour ? Not a chance. Not while most of Northland's Maori voters keep themselves off the General Roll ... (Northland is) Apartheid without the pass laws."
Right, so first of all - the effect of adding Northland-based Te Tai Tokerau voters to the Northland electorate.
Northland Party-Vote (2014)
Total Vote = 35,553
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 11 29 13 42 49 50 6 57
Te Tai Tokerau Party-Vote (2014)
(Only TTT votes from within Northland Electorate Boundaries)
Total Vote = 5,371
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
39 9 68 15 83 7 15 1 16
Combined Party-Vote (2014)
Total Vote = 40,924
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
20 11 34 13 47 43 46 6 51
As you can see, General Roll Northlanders are from Mars / while Maori Roll Northlanders appear to be from Venus. Extraordinary contrast in their political loyalties. The Left take a paltry 29% and the Opposition Bloc (Left + NZF) 42% among the former, but win a commanding 68% and 83% (respectively) among the latter.
National receive almost half the Party-Vote (49%) from General Roll voters but hardly any of the Party-Vote (only 7%) from those on the Maori Roll. Similarly, the Right Bloc (Govt parties + Cons) take 57% in the Northland electorate but a mere 16% among Northlanders in Te Tai Tokerau.
Which all sounds very impressive. But, as the Table suggests, the addition of Maori Roll voters doesn't in fact alter the area's political complexion to any appreciable extent. The seat simply becomes Light Blue rather than Mid Blue.
The Left rises a little, the Opposition draws level with the Government Bloc, but the broad Right still easily trounces the Left and remains ahead of the Opposition parties as a whole - albeit by a narrower margin.
At the last General Election, the Northland seat sat a little to the Right of the rest of the Country (New Zealand split 53% Right / 46% Oppo, Northland split 57% Right / 42% Oppo). Add the region's TTT voters and the resulting 51/47 split moves Northland slightly to the Left of the Nation as a whole. But still clearly, of course, in Light Blue - rather than Red - territory.
Why is the effect relatively minor ? Te Tai Tokerau's 5371 voters from the Northland area are absolutely dwarfed by the 35,553 voters on the General Roll.
Partly, that's a result of extremely low turnout among Northlanders on the Maori roll. 13,492 Maori from within Northland's boundaries are on the TTT Roll. But only 5371 (40%) cast a valid Party-Vote in 2014. Far lower than the 69% turnout in the Te Tai Tokerau seat as a whole. As a result, despite comprising almost 40% of the enrolled, Northland Maori made up less than a quarter of Te Tai Tokerau voters at the last Election.
But it also suggests that many pundits may have an exaggerated idea of the number of Northlanders on the Maori Roll.
(2) How Blue was my Valley ?
I've also read quite a bit of speculation on the alleged ideological proclivities of different towns in Northland.
Again, to take a few definitive examples, Chris Trotter draws a sharp contrast between (1) the "toothless, stubble-cheeked...boarded-up...brown towns", the "desperate people living in dying towns like Kaitaia" where "the votes...have traditionally been cast for Labour" and (2) the "Boats. Beamers. Batches", "Prestige Brands", outdoor cafes, "Ladies with lap-dogs, Gentlemen in Panama hats" that he believes characterises places like "Kerikeri or Russell."
Elsewhere on the local blogosphere, a woman who conducted some canvassing for Northland Labour during the last Election suggested in a comment that the town of Kaiwaka (towards Northland's southern fringe) "seemed quite pro Labour", while nearby Mangawhai was apparently largely full of "Labour-hating 'true blues'."
Another Northland resident commenting on The Standard points to "Kerikeri and to a lesser extent Paihia" as the true-blue affluent towns, contrasting them with "Kaikohe and Kaitaia" which "have been abandoned by successive governments...suffer from terrible unemployment" and where things are generally "quite dire".
Others on the blogosphere have made the geography implied by Trotter and others explicit, emphasising an east-west divide in Northland between the "retired and escapees of the east coast" and the poorer communities of the west.
In order to provide a broad overview of the geography of Party support in Northland, I've set out (below) the 2014 Party-Vote stats for all of the larger communities within the Northland electorate.
The table places these towns and smaller communities in order of Strongest-to-Weakest Opposition Bloc vote (Left + NZF). It ranges from the overwhelmingly-Maori, meatworker town of Moerewa (Oppo 77%) at the top of the table to the conservative, rural Kaipara town of Paparoa (Oppo 32%) at the bottom.
The colour-bar (behind the name of the town) denotes that community's broad political complexion.
Deep Red (Moerewa, Rawene) = Oppo Bloc 70% +
Mid Red (Omapere-Opononi) = Oppo Bloc 60-69%
Light Red = Oppo 50-59%
Light Blue (Ahipara through to Kerikeri) = Right Bloc (Govt + Con) 50-59%
Mid Blue (Mangonui through to Paparoa) = Right 60% +
(There are no large communities in Northland where the Right takes more than 70% of the vote)
The town of Kaeo is evenly split between Oppo and Right (49%/49%) - hence the neutral Tan colour-bar.
With each community, the first layer of figures are for votes cast in the Northland seat alone. Looking at Moerewa at the top of the table, for instance, you can see that 115 votes were recorded in the Moerewa booth in the Northland electorate. Labour received 52% of those 115 votes, the Greens 6%, the Left Bloc (including IMP) won 63%, NZF 14% and the Opposition Bloc 77%.
The Nats, meanwhile, took 21%, with virtually no Moerewa support for its little helpers, the Government Bloc (Nats + ACT + Maori + UF) was also on 21% and with Colin Craig's Conservatives receiving just 1%, the Right Bloc as a whole scored a grand total 22% in the town.
Immediately below those figures, I set out the percentage-point gaps between Left and Right Blocs, Oppo and Govt Blocs, and Oppo and Right Blocs. In each case, the colour of the numbers tell you which Bloc won. So, for example, you can see that the Left beat the Right by 41 points among general roll voters in Moerewa, with the Opposition Bloc a massive 55 points ahead of the Right.
Then, in the second layer, I provide the combined (Northland + TTT) stats.
For instance, 380 votes were cast in Moerewa as a whole (General + Maori Roll voters) and this inclusion of the Te Tai Tokerau votes make the Left and Opposition victories even more emphatic in that town.
As you can see, in those Northland towns with a significant minority of voters on the Maori Roll (in Moerewa's case, an absolute majority and in Kaikohe's case, close to half), the political complexion is significantly transformed by including TTT voters. Kaikohe, for instance, moves from a fairly evenly-divided town (Oppo beats Right / Right beats Left) to a clearly Left-leaning town (Left win by an impressive 25 points, Oppo win by an emphatic 44 points).
The same goes for Kawakawa and a range of other communities, even including one or two otherwise Light Blue towns - Ahipara and Kaitaia, for instance.
Also look at the way Right Bloc margins are slashed in a few Blue places like Awanui, Tokerau Beach, Okaihau and Paihia.
On the other hand, plenty of Right-leaning towns in Northland have comparatively few Maori voters and they remain decidedly Blue (Paparoa, Waipapa, Mangawhai Heads and Wellsford, for instance).
Using the 2013 Census stats, I've done a quick comparison of the 5 most Left/Oppo-leaning towns (Moerewa / Rawene / Omapere-Opononi / Kaikohe / Kawakawa) with 5 communities at the Bluer end of the spectrum (Paihia / Ruawai / Wellsford / Mangawhai Heads / Taipa Bay-Mangonui).
The most obvious contrast is in the ethnic composition. The Red towns are overwhelmingly Maori (Moerewa 88% / Kaikohe 78% / Kawakawa 71% / Omapere-Opononi 67% / Rawene 64%) while Blue towns are largely Pakeha (Maori comprise 37% of the Ruawai population, 27% in Taipa Bay-Mangonui, and 25%, 24% and just 10% in Paihia, Wellsford and Mangawhai Heads respectively).
As expected, unemployment rates are higher in the Red towns (averaging 18%) than in the Blue (9%). That there's an income-gap will also come as no surprise - although, arguably, it's not as great as you'd expect (Average Median Income: Red Town $18,000 / Blue Town $22,000
....Annual Income $20,000 or less: Red Town 56% / Blue Town 45%
....Annual Income $50,000 +: Red Town 11% / Blue Town 16%).
Pretty nuanced income differences for such starkly-contrasting political affiliations. The supposedly affluent Blue Towns of Northland turn out to be comparatively poor - certainly a long way from high-income big city suburbs and much more like Low to Low-Middle income urban areas (although admittedly the rent averages are significantly lower in Northland - a partial compensation, at least).
Nor is it a surprise that Internet access is higher in the Blue towns (average 65% compared to 47% in Red communities) and that one-parent families are much thinner on the ground (18% Blue towns / 40% Red towns). Blue towns also tend to be older in age and composed of larger minorities of overseas-born residents (mainly from the UK).
Moerewa
Northland 115
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
52 6 63 14 77 21 21 1 22
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 41 + 56 + 55
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 380
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
59 6 75 11 86 8 12 0 12
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 63 + 74 + 74
Rawene
Northland 196
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
29 24 59 12 71 22 23 5 28
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 31 + 48 + 43
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 306
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
31 20 64 11 76 15 19 3 22
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 42 + 57 + 54
Omapere/Opononi
Northland 205
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
30 22 53 11 64 30 31 4 36
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 17 + 33 + 28
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 303
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
31 18 58 12 70 22 26 3 29
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 29 + 44 + 41
Kaikohe
Northland 518
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
28 5 36 19 55 37 39 4 43
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 7 + 16 + 12
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 1018
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
33 6 53 17 70 20 26 2 28
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 25 + 44 + 42
Kawakawa
Northland 344
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
31 9 44 9 53 38 40 5 45
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 1 + 13 + 8
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 553
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
42 8 57 10 67 25 28 3 31
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 26 + 39 + 36
Kaeo
Northland 376
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
21 16 40 9 49 43 45 4 49
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 9 + 4 =
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 489
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
27 14 49 9 58 34 37 3 41
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 8 + 21 + 17
Ahipara
Northland 272
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
22 13 36 12 47 46 47 5 52
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 16 = + 5
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 407
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
27 10 47 12 58 34 37 4 41
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 6 + 21 + 17
Kaitaia
Northland 1028
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
21 7 31 15 47 41 43 9 52
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 21 + 4 + 5
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 1524
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
27 8 44 14 58 30 33 7 40
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 4 + 25 + 18
Kaiwaka
Northland 529
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
16 16 33 12 45 49 49 5 54
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 21 + 4 + 9
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 575
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 16 35 13 47 46 47 5 52
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 17 = + 5
Awanui
Northland 269
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
20 6 29 15 44 46 48 6 54
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 25 + 4 + 10
Northland + Te Tai -Tokerau 385
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
24 5 38 15 53 35 40 5 45
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 7 + 13 + 8
Dargaville
Northland 1489
Lab Green Left NZ Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 8 26 17 43 48 49 6 55
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 29 + 6 + 12
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 1726
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
20 8 31 17 48 42 45 5 50
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 19 + 3 + 2
Te Kopuru
Northland 284
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
14 9 24 18 42 48 50 6 56
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 32 + 8 + 14
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 324
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
18 9 28 18 46 44 46 6 52
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 24 = + 6
Maungaturoto
Northland 544
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 9 26 15 42 42 43 14 56
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 30 + 1 + 14
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 581
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
19 9 29 15 44 40 40 13 54
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 25 + 4 + 10
Russell
Northland 592
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
16 15 31 10 42 53 54 3 57
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 26 + 12 + 15
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 663
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 15 34 11 45 49 51 3 54
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 20 + 6 + 9
Tokerau Beach
Northland 234
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
15 5 21 20 41 54 56 3 59
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 38 + 15 + 18
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 325
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
19 6 34 19 53 40 44 2 46
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 12 + 9 + 7
Taipa
Northland 609
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 13 31 9 40 49 51 7 59
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 28 + 11 + 19
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 706
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
20 12 35 9 45 44 47 6 54
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 19 + 2 + 9
Kerikeri
Northland 2531
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 14 31 9 40 52 53 6 59
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 28 + 13 + 19
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 2743
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
18 13 34 9 43 49 51 5 56
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 22 + 8 + 13
Mangonui
Northland 704
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
15 10 26 13 39 53 54 6 60
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 34 + 15 + 21
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 795
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 10 31 12 43 48 50 6 55
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 24 + 7 + 12
Mangawhai
Northland 728
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
8 13 22 17 38 50 51 10 61
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 39 + 13 + 23
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 754
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
9 13 23 17 40 49 49 10 59
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 36 + 9 + 19
Wellsford
Northland 723
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
15 7 23 15 38 53 55 7 62
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 39 + 17 + 24
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 800
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
16 8 26 15 40 50 52 7 59
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 33 + 12 + 19
Okaihau
Northland 333
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
14 7 23 13 36 53 55 5 59
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 36 + 19 + 23
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 414
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
19 8 33 13 45 43 46 4 50
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 17 + 1 + 5
Pukenui
Northland 296
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 8 26 10 36 55 56 6 62
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 36 + 20 + 26
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 352
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
17 8 28 11 40 50 53 5 59
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 31 + 13 + 19
Ruawai
Northland 427
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
18 5 23 13 36 55 56 6 62
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 39 + 20 + 26
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 461
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
19 5 25 14 39 52 53 6 59
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 34 + 14 + 20
Mangawhai Heads
Northland 465
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
13 9 22 14 36 54 56 8 64
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 42 + 20 + 28
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 476
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
13 9 23 14 37 53 55 8 62
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 39 + 18 + 25
Waipapa
Northland 1029
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
10 11 22 11 33 58 59 7 66
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 44 + 26 + 33
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 1090
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
12 11 24 11 36 55 57 7 63
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 39 + 21 + 27
Paihia
Northland 620
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
14 11 25 8 33 62 63 3 66
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 41 + 30 + 33
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 748
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
18 11 31 10 41 53 55 2 57
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 26 + 14 + 16
Paparoa
Northland 528
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
10 8 20 12 32 54 54 12 66
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 46 + 22 + 34
Northland + Te Tai Tokerau 547
Lab Green Left NZF Oppo Nat Govt Cons Right
11 8 20 13 33 53 53 11 65
Left/Right Diff Oppo/Govt Diff Oppo/Right Diff
+ 45 + 20 + 32
(3) Map of 2014 Party Support
I've created a Map of the Booth-by-Booth 2014 Party-Vote in Northland here...
http://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/Northland%20Party-Vote%202014:%20Booth-by-Booth/O0LSZEvYA5
I'm toying with the idea of (somewhat ostentatiously) calling the Red communities of Northland the Hokianga-Kaikohe Red Belt. The strongly Left/Oppo-voting region starts on the Hokianga in the west (Omapere-Opononi / Rawene / Kohukohu and a few nearby communities) and then heads east to the larger town of Kaikohe before striking further east into otherwise deep Blue territory with the Red working-class Maori stronghold of Moerewa and the Orange tourist town of Kawakawa. Having said that, as you can see by the size of the circles (denoting number of votes) the Red Belt towns are absolutely dwarfed by the Blue towns of the Bay of Islands, Kaipara, Doubtless Bay and elsewhere.
(4) New Zealand First 2014 Strongholds
11 Northland communities recording the highest NZF Party-Vote in 2014 (excludes small booths).
1. Tokerau Beach 20%
2. Kaikohe 19%
3. Te Kopuru 18%
4. Dargaville 17%
5. Mangawhai 17%
6. Awanui 15%
7. Kaitaia 15%
8. Maungaturoto 15%
9. Wellsford 15%
10. Mangawhai Heads 14%
11. Moerewa 14%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)