pn823. The Latest Political Poll: Curia shows National, Luxon, Jacinda, Greens, Minor Parties all up; ACT, Seymour down

 

National and Luxon up at the expense of ACT and Seymour, Greens up, Jacinda up, Labour steady and little changed.

The most significant happening was the election of Luxon as National's leader. New Covid arrangements could also have had an influence.

pn637. A poll taken so soon after the election is a waste of time. Here's a suggestion on their better use

The preferred PM results

To hold a poll on preferred party and preferred Prime Minister a bare six weeks  after the 17 October election seems a waste of time and money. What significant changes —or changes that could not be anticipated—  could possibly have happened in that time, and how would the changes matter anyway?

But that is what we had last night.  

pn576. Want to know which of our media is the most biased? Three Thinkers try but need to rethink their methodologies

I've just finished reading three articles which aim to measure media bias in New Zealand:  David Farrar's 2019 poll survey  in Kiwiblog, an ultra-statistical  Mediabias.co.nz which analysed thousands of media articles over a year, and Brian Easton in The Pundit, who converted Mediabias's scores into z-scores, with somewhat different results. All made an attempt to scientifically measure media bias. 

I  tabulated, ranked and compared their results and considered their respective methodologies and personal biases where I could, and I'm really no wiser.

Two Very Differing Polls, and TV1's Possible Biasses

pn410

When two polls taken within a week of each other come up with quite different results it's understandable that many people will question the value of polls, especially when the pollsters were wrong about the recent Australian election results.

Some said the difference was due to the (slightly) different poll dates when political interest was high due to National's budget leaks. Others said this would make no difference.

Polls on Capital Gains Tax Don't Agree

pn326

Your public library like mine probably invites readers to comment on the books they read by placing a tick in a column  on a front cover page. The book I've just finished scored 2 brilliants, 1 good, 2 okays, 1 other (the reader wrote "crap") and one extra category created by one reader, very good. Seven responses in all. The publisher described the book as explosive, excellent, compelling, a view not shared by most. I wonder if this poll was an accurate reflection of readers' opinions, and whether questions we can raise here might also apply to our national opinion polls such as the Horizon,  Newhub/Reid and Colmar Brunton polls  on the Capital Gains Tax discussed below.

What we don't know is how many other people read the book, why they didn't comment and what their opinions were.  How many of those who did not comment really had no opinion or for some unknown reason "refused to answer"? Neither do we know the age, sex, education level, type of personality and reading habits of those commenting, or how quickly they commented after finishing the book. Might they have thought differently had they reflected for an hour or a day? Or read the book  more slowly?

Nor do we know how the sex of the author might have influenced their opinion. Alex can be Alexander or Alexandra. Did any reader change their mind when they discovered they were mistaken about the author's gender? And so on.  

The Horizon poll on the Capital Gains Tax (n=1116, margin of error 2.9%) was far from decisive and not as politically divisive as one might think. Nearly a quarter had no opinion, and the margin between those who supported or opposed the the tax was not that wide. 

Unsurprising, most overall opposition came from the political right (see graph above) but a surprising number held contrary opinions: 23% of National supporters supported the tax and 14% of both Labour and the Greens opposed it.  Unsurprisingly, over half (56%) of those dabbling in the share market and those who owned rental properties without a mortgage (66%) or with a mortgage (74%) or who owned a farm or lifestyle block (90%), opposed the tax. But these figures also show contrary positions:44% of share dealers and 34% of rental property owners without a mortgage were either in favour of the tax or undecided.

The poll also showed opinions differed by age with most people up to the age of 54 supporting the tax and more older people opposing it. Opposition was greatest among those earning over $100,000 a year.

Support for the tax was highest for those who were most educated, while opposition was highest among adults with the lowest education levels. Professionals and senior government officials were the most in support.

A month ago, another poll, the Newsbub/Reid Research poll, had importantly different results. Overall, only 32% supported the tax,  54% were opposed and 14% were unsure. Some 42% of Labour supporters opposed the tax and 14% were undecided. 73% of National supporters opposed the tax, compared with 62% in the recent Horizon poll. 

In yet another poll, conducted by OneNews/Colmar Brunton taken at the same time as the Newshub poll, found 46% support, 41% opposition and 13% undecided. The pollsters concluded more people might support the tax "if they were to receive a return of some sorts."

So here we have three polls conducted in a reasonably close time frame. Each claims its results to be statistically significant, and each has quite different results with support for the tax, for example, ranging from a low Newshub/Reid at 32% to a high Colmer Brunton at 46%.

I'll go back to making a comment on my library book.

--ACW