Peter Mandelson, one of the architects behind UK Labour’s landslide victory in 1997, echoes what I recently said and many other pundits have said about the UK Election. That you can’t win with a shit-house leader. [40s]
He said “…I don’t think the result was entirely undeserved by the Labour party. If you go into an election with a leader who is, sort of, minus 40% in his own ratings…”
That then leads one to look closely at the polls both here and in New Zealand to get a sense of direction and accuracy. YouGov in the UK released a poll just before the election that predicted the Conservatives would win in a landslide, and Labour would be annihilated. Their headline percentages were:
- Conservative – 43%
- Labour – 34%
- Liberal Democrats – 12%
- Brexit party – 3%
- Green – 3%
- SNP 3%
The actual results were:
- Conservative – 43.6%
- Labour – 32.2%
- Liberal Democrats – 11.5%
- Brexit party – 2%
- Green – 2.7%
- SNP, 3.9%
As you can see YouGov was pretty much on the money. I mention this because YouGov released their first poll in New Zealand last year and many people, including some on this site scoffed at their methodology and echoed what Labour used to say when a poll didn’t reflect where they thought things were at. That is not a rational analysis of a poll, to just dismiss it out of hand because the poll numbers don’t suit your internal narrative of red team – evil, blue team – good.
YouGov, the same company who largely got the numbers right in the UK, presented their first poll via Stuff. These were their numbers:
- Labour – 41%
- National – 38%
- NZ First – 8%
- Greens 8%
- Act 2%.
But more importantly they also provided a favourability rating for the leaders:
- Jacinda Ardern – +35%
- Simon Bridges – -37%.
Sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and screeching over and over again “lalalalala” won’t make those numbers say anything different. On those results, you could see a Labour/NZ First government, or a Labour/Green government, or a National/NZ First/Act government. Then it comes down leadership and that is where National starts to drop away, considerably.
Commentators like David Farrar and others will say that Bridges should rule Peters out. And David Farrar has done that just yesterday. Interestingly though, he hasn’t updated his Curia Blog with poll results for quite some time. The last entry was his own poll in August, but before that the last political poll he mentions was the Newshub/Reid Research poll of May 2018! Curia blog used to be a very good research tool for looking up poll numbers, now it is nearly two years out of date.
The last Newshub/Reid Research poll of the year showed National – 43.9%, Labour – 41.6%, Green – 6.3%, NZ First – 4% and Act on 1.4%.
National still can’t get there on those numbers, and you also have to bear in mind that both National and Labour slide during the campaign and minor parties do better. It is foolish to count NZ First out. But that is precisely what pundits like David Farrar and many readers here (some of whom seem to suffer from Winston Derangement Syndrome) are saying. Well, counting out Winston on those numbers would be very silly indeed. Those suggesting that as a valid strategy seem to think that the votes NZ First formerly had would all fall to National, and that would be a silly assumption to make. Some might, but if NZ First doesn’t get over the line then those votes are split based on the percentages Labour and National got, and that still won’t help National.
Now for the kicker, like YouGov, Newshub/Reid Research also uses a favourability rating. Like YouGov the reading of those number is dire for Simon Bridges. Newshub/Reid Research numbers from October 2019 are:
- Jacinda Ardern – +39.3%
- Simon Bridges – -31.8%.
So what you say, National still is in with a chance. Well, again, look to the UK. Here is an average of two years of polling in the UK, and Labour was in the hunt right up until the Conservatives changed their leader to Boris Johnson:
Now think back to 2017, Labour was behind in the polls, their leader was shithouse with deeply negative ratings (Little) and then Labour changed leaders six weeks out from an election, and ended up “winning”. Saying they came second doesn’t change the fact that Labour is sitting on the Treasury benches and Jacinda Ardern is now Prime Minister. The fact is that Ardern gave Labour a fighting chance that Andrew Little could never do.
National are now faced with the same dilemma. They have a leader that polls show is deeply unpopular. Sure, he doesn’t hug terrorists or hold deeply anti-Semitic views, but the fact remains is that he is disliked even after a massive tour around the country letting people find out all about him. If those are his numbers after two years in the job then what would they have been had he kept hidden? That’s not winning, that is losing slowly.
This is an election year and we should see more polls. If Bridges’ favourability ratings don’t improve dramatically then there is little chance of him becoming Prime Minister. That would suit a large group in caucus who don’t want to change leaders because they have two main thoughts:
1) That Bridges has to lose to snuff out his ambitions, rather like Bill English in 2002.
2) That will give them a chance at the leadership. That is almost certainly the thinking of Paula Bennett, Mark Mitchell and Todd Muller. Even though he isn’t in caucus yet that will also be the thinking of Chris Luxon.
One mustn’t look at polls in isolation, rather look at the trends. When you do that you can see National has two glaring issues. No partners and a shit-house leader. Sure you can point to the single One News/Colmar Brunton poll and say “See, National can govern alone”, but you’d be in the “special” class for political pundits. If anything the last Colmar Brunton was the outlier when compared to the Reid Research and YouGov polls which were broadly in alignment. But even the Colmar Brunton isn’t good news for Simon Bridges: his preferred PM rating is still subterranean.
The facts are there to see for all, it just requires one to takes one’s blinkers off and look at the numbers without fear or favour. That, and improving one’s ability to count.
Can National learn or will they act like lemmings and hurtle to their doom?
