ON/CB Poll: June 2005

The latest One News/Colmar Brunton poll was out on Sunday night, showing the long expected reversal of polling fortunes between the two big parties. They are below, while the numbers in brackets show the May, April, March and February results (in that order).

Lab 41% (44, 45, 46, 44)
Nat 43% (37, 38, 35, 39)
NZF 7% (8, 7, 5, 5)
Grn 3% (4, 4, 5, 4)
ACT 2% (2, 3, 3.4, 2)
UF 1% (1, 1, 1, 1)
MP 2% (2, 1, 1.3, 2)

The Preferred PM numbers are as follows:

Clark - 39% (41, 40, 40, 40)
Brash - 20% (15, 20, 16, 19)
Peters - 8% (13, 10, 7, 9)

On government performance approval ratings, the following numbers apply:

Approve - 44% (47, 49, 48, 55)
Disapprove - 39% (33, 34, 34, 30)

On perceptions about the economy's performance in the next twelve months:

Improve - 28% (26, 26, 32, 42)
Get worse - 35% (39, 43, 35, 25)

This, I think, reflects the budget. Other than that, one can note that Labour hasn't even begun public advertising, while National's billboard campaign has been in full swing for some weeks. There are some mixed trends in the approval/economic numbers: people are tired of the string of mistakes, manufactured or real, and are saying so, but economic confidence is beginning to recover a bit.

The good thing about this poll is that after months of sustained attacks, the Labour Party is still polling where it got in the 1999 and 2002 elections - without campaigning. As the most National-friendly poll of the main ones, that is of some comfort.

National have accumulated vast swathes of support from the minor parties, and that support is by definition soft. A hard edged campaign will knock several edges off that.

As everyone can agree, it's going to be a damn interesting campaign!

Comments

[Sock Thief]

I think this is just evidence of the usual voter discontent with a government, any government, that's been in power for 2 terms. People do have unrealistic expectations about how much a government (or lack of it if you are on the Right) can improve their lot.

Presumably Labour will claw back some votes but the devil will be in the minor parties. I don't have any strong objection to Labour workng with NZF (and there are quiet a few Lab supporters who will quietly say the same). Labour worked with UF and the Greens and did not allow any of their more crazy policies to see the light of day. I'm sure Helen would do the same with Winston.

[tim barclay]

The Government has been advertising itself full tit since the election. It is the opposition parities that have not got much air time. Therefore unless Labour can convince it has a better story to tell I cannot see it increasing support. It has had a pretty easy ride especially with the media but that will change.

[Mike Collins]

Remember also that this far out from the election last time Labour were polling at 10% higher than what they got on election day.

[Gooner]

All I want to say, and I've said it before, is that there are no prizes for 1st across the start line.

[tim barclay]

Gooner I just hope you are right because this Government has been in election mode since the 2002 election. It is only now that the opposition parties are getting some air time and the Government is finding it hard and it will get harder.

[Paul]

Tim they are only getting air time because they are finally getting some policy out and not changing leaders every second.

Although I see Nat hasn't pout out any economic policy yet. For what reason:

They don't have one, how long in oppositon to devise one. or;
They don't want it to be scrutinised because they know it can't work on the costings of treasury.

[Chris]

National has economic policy and you know it Paul.

[Jordan]

National's economic policy is almost the same as Labour's. It's just their tax policy which is whacky. :)

[Paul]

What is it Chris.

Tax cuts yes, but when, how much, costings. Apart from that what, public service cuts, sure (to pay for tax cuts) but what, who & why.

What happens if the US dollar strengthens, interest rates rise etc etc, are the tax cuuts guaranted.

It's all very well for Brash to sayy these things, but an actual policy open for scrutiny, not fluffy stuff.

Genuine question

[Paul]

Jordan,

this is the problem I have as someone left of Labour. Why vote for them if the economic policies are similar. Now I'm all for fiscally conservative/safe policies that provide the markets with certainty and stability, etc, it make sence it's good for the economy.

And to tell the truth I would do well out of tax cuts, so put on your electioneering hat and tell my why.

[Jordan]

I think Labour is aware of the dilemma, Paul, and as someone on the Left of Labour I agree with the critique. Our policy has been remarkably centrist.

[Paul]

If it wasn't for the relatively easy to remember ba humbug last national govt, where we were told to spy on neighbours in case they were getting too much money.

And essential institutions like education were so under valued let alone under funded, many people might be opting for the Nat option. National was the sole reason I left education, and Labour too a while getting in there.

I hope and pray they don't get in, because social policy is equally as important as economic, and their's is based on division and envy.

[Gooner]

Paul, I think you'll find if the $US strengthens the $NZ will fall which should not directy lead to a rise in interest rates here. Of course if lenders here have borrowed on current US interest rates, and they rise there (which is possible) then we could see a rise here on that basis.

Jordan, remarkably centrist? I'd say a free trade deal with China is anything but.

[Paul]

Cheers Gooner,

they were just hypothetical points, but what you say makes sense.

I agree, free trade with a communist state, where all of our clothes are made now, would have been so far off a previous labour govt's radar.

[Jordan]

Well it's hardly rushing to cut taxes, cut benefits, cut superannuation, let waiting lists explode, slash tertiary education funding, deregulate the labour market.......

[Drone]

Jordan you said "Other than that, one can note that Labour hasn't even begun public advertising, while National's billboard campaign has been in full swing for some weeks"

I beg to differ, couple of days ago I received in my mailbox a "you're better off with labour" flyer so this statement is not correct. It also has the parliamentary crest on it, it warms my heart to know when I get up in the morning that I am contributing to Labour's re-election campaign. Your party should be ashamed of itself using parliamentary funds in this way. If national has done this then they deserve criticism also but I think the current billboard campaign is paid for out of party funds (correct me if I am wrong). Do you have any defense at all for using taxpayer funds for your propaganda?

[tim barclay]

The prime Minister has been undergoing an aggressive state funded campaign promoting the working for families package and much else for some time now. National has launches a series of brillent billboards. The only one Labour have put out so far is one paid for by the tax payer showing a solo mother thanking the Labour Government for her lifestyle.

[Paul]

Well Drone,

I didn't get anything, so it's hardly a nation wide advertising campaign like nationals.

Plus look at all the non-press that National has been getting recently compared to the negative press that Labour has been getting, I'm surprised that National doesn't have a 10 point lead by now.

Tim, the media (flyers & newspapers adverts) that was put out under the last Nat govt trying to sell over and over again why cutting the state back (underfunding Varsities etc) was good for us, and that was all state funded, and rejected.

[Drone]

Hi Paul, keep a watch out I'm sure yours is on the way, looks like it has fairly high design budget so I'm sure they won't want to keep the good news from the rest of the country for long.

[Paul]

It's the (un)fortunate advantage of beinging in power. There was so much of this sort of stuff coming out at the end of the last National govt, I was able to light my fires with it.

But having said that, Nat or Labour, they do have the right to educate the public about a body or service available to the public. Otherwise we'd be complaining that nobody uses the service.

[tim barclay]

In a way I am glad the Labour Party is plundering the state coffers to fund their election campaign. It shows two things. Firstly they are having trouble getting in money to support them and secondly it shows them up as utter spend thrifts with taxpayers money. Both messages play into the Oppositions hands.

[Dave]

Solo mother Tim? Couldn't Dad be taking the photo? ;)

[tim barclay]

I guess Dave that is how the Labour party might justify it. But the message is a sole mother thanking the Labour Government for her lifestyle. If they wanted Dad there it would have been easy to have a photo that included him as well, but the feminists in the Labour Party do not like fathers. So the message is a solo mother supported by the tax payer and the ad is paid for by the tax payer as well. No wonder the Labour party does not want to reduce taxes, what new plans have they got??

[Paul]

Tim,

they want to ship all nasty right wing nutters off to siberia, won't cost too much though

[rightkiwi]

Jordan: Anything to say on the u-turn on race-based funding? In particular, is it still the Government line that Brash's campaign about this was racist?