It is interesting how leaders of political parties react to opinion polls. They, not unexpectedly, react positively if the polls are favouring their party or themselves and negatively if they don’t. The polls, of course, are only a guide to people’s thinking at the time of publication. The other factor in determining the numbers is how many questioned give honest answers. Allowing for that and how the questions are framed we have to take the polls as being accurate to their margin of error.
What is of interest is to compare each party and leadership numbers. The two main parties provide contrasting results.
LABOUR:
It would appear that the fortunes of the party rest 100% with a lady whose only experience outside of politics was working in a fish and chip shop. Ms Ardern has a certain je ne sais quoi about her. She has the ability to communicate which includes the propensity to say a lot while actually saying very little, particularly on matters of substance. This faculty is accompanied by a happy or friendly expression on the face, mostly with the lips moving apart so that the teeth can be seen. It should be noted that the teeth are of visual importance only and appear to have nothing to do with the ability to getting stuck in to achieve something of purpose. It would seem these attributes are sufficient to cover for a totally inept government as the recent 43% poll rating would attest.
NATIONAL:
Even allowing for the fact that National is led by a member of the male species, Bridges and Ardern are as different as chalk and cheese. Mr Bridges, unfortunately, lacks what nowadays is required as part of a leader’s appeal – charisma. Adding to that he doesn’t possess the innate ability needed to achieve public connectivity. He, therefore, does not rate highly in the leadership rankings in the polls. This, however, is not having disastrous consequences for National as seen by the 45% poll rating. Why? My own opinion is that the Party is viewed by the public as overall having MP’s that are more capable than those in government. Looking at the government’s performance to date it is not hard to see that is the case.
GREENS:
The situation here is that the Leader who could make the party more acceptable to the public, i.e Mr Shaw, is not allowed to do his job. The Greens are now effectively leaderless, taken over by four activist and racist nutjobs now known as The Squad. These four appear to have no idea what the role of a responsible politician is. Their sole aim is to misuse their position and turn up to every protest going inciting trouble by promoting racism and division. The party as a whole is ideologically driven and therefore largely out of touch with reality. How it rates 7% beggars belief. Leadership does not seem to play a part.
NZ First:
This party is all about the leader, one Winston Raymond Peters. It can be argued that without him the party would not exist Shane Jones notwithstanding. In my opinion, the party’s current low poll rating reflects the current mistrust of Mr Peters stemming from his behaviour post the last election. The party’s fortunes depend very much on how Mr Peters behaves. It is not unrealistic to believe his party may not make it back to parliament as this has happened once before. Critiquing Mr Jones, I think a party leader he doth not make.
ACT:
Again, very much about the Leader as he is, in parliamentary terms, the party. Mr Seymour has been performing well of late despite some controversy re his euthanasia Bill. ACT deserves to be higher than 1% in the polls.
What we can deduce from the polls is that a leader with popular appeal is necessary if the party is perceived to be more unelectable. Labour. If the party is considered more electable then the leader is less important. National. If the party is about ideology then leadership is not important. Greens. If the party is all about the leader then that person is all-important. NZ First and Act.
In conclusion, perhaps we should go back to Jim Bolger’s quote – Bugger the polls!
