Guest post: Is Key as golden as he seems?

Occasionally, I get thinkpieces sent to my inbox from overseas with a different angle or perspective on things happening. This is the first I am publishing, from an avid follower of politics, here and abroad. Guest columns like this will remain anonymous unless the contributing writer requests otherwise.

Is Key as golden as he seems?

There’s seldom a week that goes by without a story running in one of our daily papers about John Key’s honeymoon as National Leader. With a few notable exceptions – for example, he received deserved criticism over his claim that Helen Clark’s trip to Washington was a failure because she did not return with a free-trade deal – the Press Gallery gives the impression that everything Key touches turns to gold. In contrast, it portrays Helen Clark as having lost her feel for the pulse of the New Zealand electorate and leading an Administration that is on its way out. The term “lame duck” has started to rear its head.

The release of every opinion poll is taken as validation of this storyline – the positives for National and negatives for Labour are magnified; conflicting evidence is brushed aside. The best example of this was the latest TV3/TNS poll: despite showing a slight Labour lead, it was depicted as bad news for Clark, because NZ First recorded a poor rating.

The only problem with this Key-has-the-golden-touch/Clark-is-on-her-way-out storyline is that the numbers simply don’t bear it out. This can be seen by comparing the latest opinion poll results with those taken in the last days of the Brash leadership. Taking an average of the TV3, TVNZ, NZ Herald and Roy Morgan polls, National’s average party vote support pre-Key was 44.8%; now, it is 44.0%. Labour’s average support pre-Key was 38.4%; now, it is 39.8%. So, Key’s leadership has had no significant effect on the two major parties’ polling support: if anything, National’s ascendancy in the polls has slipped slightly from around 6% to around 4%.

If the Press Gallery really wants to see what an Opposition Leader With The Midas Touch sticking it to a Lame Duck Prime Minister looks like, it needs only look across the Tasman. Kevin Rudd assumed the Australian Labor Party leadership a week after John Key took over at the head of the New Zealand National Party. His first four months in charge have been much more successful, polling-wise, than Key’s. Taking an average of the Roy Morgan, Newspoll and AC Nielsen polls, Labor’s primary vote support has moved from 39.7% pre-Rudd to 47.8% now. Meanwhile, the primary vote support for John Howard’s Liberal/National Coalition has fallen from 39.5% to 35.8%. So, since Rudd has taken over, he has converted a neck-and-neck race into a thumping 12% lead.

What about the Preferred Prime Minister stakes, you ask? It is true that Key has closed the gap on Clark. Her lead (over all her National competitors combined) has shrunk from on average of 16 percentage points (40% v 24%) to an average of 8 percentage points (39% vs 31%). What this shows is that Key is held in higher regard now than Brash was towards the end of the latter’s leadership; equally, it illustrates that Key has failed to discernibly dent Clark’s popularity: her average preferred PM rating has barely moved in Key’s four months at the top. Again, on this score, Rudd completely outshines Key. Pre-Rudd, John Howard had an average lead in the Preferred Prime Minister race of 24 percentage points – 53% plays 29%. Now he finds himself trailing Rudd by 7 percentage points – 48% plays 41%. That’s a dramatic turnaround, and goes a long way to prove that Rudd has so far been much more effective than Key in turning voters off their respective Prime Ministers.

None of this means that Helen Clark is assured of a fourth term in office. National still holds, on average, a small but significant lead over Labour. John Key has a year longer up his sleeve than Kevin Rudd to convince voters of the need for change. But the above numbers should give John Key’s cheerleaders in the media pause for thought. They should also take note of the Australian media’s restraint: despite Rudd’s impressive numbers, no Australian Gallery journalists I’m aware of have been willing to write off John Howard just yet. This is because Howard has come back from behind before. But, then, so has Helen Clark. We should all remember that the same Press Gallery journalists predicting doom and gloom for Helen Clark in 2008 are the very same people who were convinced in the final weeks of the 2005 campaign that Don Brash was about to become Prime Minister.

The Key juggernaut might be an alluring storyline, but so far the evidence doesn’t bear it out. To be sure, if you were to wager on one Prime Minister, out of Helen Clark and John Howard, still being in office when the next President of the United States takes over in January 2009, you’d be a fool to bet against the Kiwi.

 

Data:

Kevin Rudd: Assumed leadership 4 December 2006
Roy Morgan 41.0/38.5 48.5/33.5
Newspoll 37/41 49/38
AC Nielsen 41/39 46/36
Average: 39.7/39.5 47.8/35.8

Preferred PM
AC Nielsen 33/51 48/43
Newspoll 25/55 48/38
Average: 29/53 48/40.5

 

John Key: Assumed leadership 27 November 2006
TV3/TNS 40/42 42/44
Roy Morgan 42.5/37.5 45/37.5
TVNZ/Colmar Brunton 49/36 46/37
NZ Herald/Digipoll 47.5/38 43.1/40.6
Average: 44.8/38.4 44.0/39.8

Preferred PM
TV3/TNS 15/35 28/37
TVNZ/Colmar Brunton 28/33 29/32
NZ Herald/Digipoll 30.9/52.4 36.2/47.7
Average: 24.3/40.1 31.1/38.9

Comments

[sagenz]

All very convenient. But the last Roy Morgan poll (most accurate last election) showed that National/Act/UF finally polled over 50% for the first time in almost a decade.

Your guest pieces would do well to have a new and interesting perspective rather than repeating the same old mantras.

[guest]

sagenz: Sorry, what's "all very convenient" about the numbers I quote? I didn't make them up. And I wasn't selective in those I chose - I simply averaged the most recent of all the major polls I could find...

Also, sorry to be pedantic, but the one statistic you cite - that the last Roy Morgan poll showed that National/Act/UF finally polled over 50% for the first time in almost a decade - is incorrect. Their combined total in the March 5-18, 2007 poll was 49.5% :)

[burt]

guest

Please forgive sagenz, we have come to expect numbers that have been made up on this blog.

[Mainly Politics]

As usual, people get too hung up on the numbers. The point raised in this post is a valid one, that we should look past the hype of the new National leader and start applying equal scrutiny to both parties. It's a fair point to note that most media coverage paints Key as the up and coming and Clark as the lame duck outgoing PM. The facts are a little different.

Labour haven't had a great 18 months poll wise, but then they are the government so they actually have to do things, all the opposition need to do is attack. Go back pre-1999 and most governments lagged in the polls mid-term. That's just the nature of things. I won't be concerned if Labour trails in the polls all year this year, provided they come out swinging in 2008, they can pull it back. Far better for them to get on with being government in the meantime and let the shine wear off the new National leader.

[Clint Heine]

It's too far way to start predicting any such thing. It will all come down to how much Labour is willing to hold back in the budget to offer in sweeteners in election year. I'm betting on tax cuts, some sort of free education and a surprise or two.

[Razorlight]

I look at the numbers in two similar jurisdictions, the UK and Australia. It is a similar story in these two places as it is here.

Tony Blair, John Howard and Helen Clark have been in power for 3 - 4 terms. They have all benefited from reasonably strong economic growth in their respective countries. The International Economy has benefited them greatly. Basically they have governed during the golden weather on the world scene.

All three are now trailing in the polls and for no apparent reason. The economy is still reasonably strong. It is just the simple fact that governments run out of steam.

Helen Clark has had nothing to offer this year except excuses and an absolute political hand grenade in the form of the smacking bill.

There is no real vision or inspiration. And the term lame duck is becoming more and more appropriate.

Labour needs to find a way out of this hole they are in. Some fresh new approach to something which people will get behind. Education or Health, not sustainability or carbon neutrality which not many people really care about and even fewer understand. They must get on the front foot in an issue which we really care about.

Other wise they will die a slow death as we lead up to the polls next year.

[Clint Heine]

The only way Labour can finda way out is to start offering what National says they will. Tax cuts will help them in that regard.

The British Labour Party just did that very same thing and reduced taxes that effectively - at first glance - hurt the Torys. However as good as it might sound, after more analysis, these cuts end up being worse for the people. But it might be enough to fool enough people, and that is the whole idea.

And we all know how Labour and Clark like to fool people, especially during election year!

[Clint Heine]

The only way Labour can finda way out is to start offering what National says they will. Tax cuts will help them in that regard.

The British Labour Party just did that very same thing and reduced taxes that effectively - at first glance - hurt the Torys. However as good as it might sound, after more analysis, these cuts end up being worse for the people. But it might be enough to fool enough people, and that is the whole idea.

And we all know how Labour and Clark like to fool people, especially during election year!

[peter mck]

I know you would love to take a lot of this as gospel but can one really accuratley compare Australia to NZ - there are different drivers over their - including involvement in Iraq.

It seems to me that labour are living in absioolute fear of John Key. They are not denting him despite some nasty personal attacks in the house. He keeps stamping all over "Labour turf" and the polls will continue to strenghten as he plays the long game.

The public are now tired of Labour who have had their opportunity and are now tired and visionless.

In their strong support for both Key and National the public are saying it is time for a change - and in about 18 months that is exactly what they will get.

[guest]

Razorlight: Actually, what your two similar jurisdictions tell us is that governments can be well behind in the polls mid-term and go on to win elections. The Tory Government of the 80s and early 90s made an artform of this: the British Labour Party would work up thumping leads mid-term, but never quite manage to win an actual election. The Howard Government has been well behind in the polls in all four of its terms and so far has not lost a general election. None of which is to say that these governments will go on winning forever - simply that pundits have a tendency to make idiots of themselves by writing off governments too quickly. And I fear that NZ's pundits are now, like they did in 2005, writing off Helen Clark too soon. (Remember those pundits who predicted that Howard, Bush and Blair would all lose their jobs in 2004/5 because of Iraq? They were wrong about all three men...)

I stand by my assertion that Clark is (much) better positioned than Howard to retain office at their next general election. I'd add that I'd prefer Clark's odds of winning another term than Gordon Brown's - as much as the right like to demonise Helen Clark, she is held in much, much higher regard by her electorate than are any of John Howard, Tony Blair, or Gordon Brown.

[Jordan Carter]

Burt - you have implied that I publish incorrect numbers on this blog. That is not the case, and you know it.

You are welcome to either provide evidence to back up your assertion, or to withdraw your comment. If you do neither, don't expect to see any of your comments appearing here for long in the future.

[Clint Heine]

Jordan, thats a little rich coming from you. Burt was confused because you publish the truth as according to Labour spin... given these days we are inclined not believe you.

Throw your hissy fit if you like - it seems to be the thing this week for Labour. Pressure getting too much??

[burt]

Jordan

Posting made up figures and information is something you have accused me and other commentors of in the past - but as you haven't answered my comment about the difference between your claim of a 49% marginal tax rate vs 20.5%. I'm haven't decided yet if you make numbers up to work with the argument at hand or not.

see: http://jtc.blogs.com/just_left/2007/03/the_tax_whinge.html#comment-64605712

It's up to you to resolve the tit-for-tat we stand in at the moment.

[Clint Heine]

Burt, you can't just come in here and throw around facts and figures. They only confuse Jordan, he's only used to seeing Labours figures and therefore recycling them to us all for re-education.

Incorrect figures, embellished stats, threats, abuse... mate.. its all here!

[Jordan Carter]

Are you serious? The average wage earner faces the tax wedge discussed in that post. Given I don't earn the average wage, I pay more. I'm happy with that.

I accept in principle that, *all other things being equal*, a much higher marginal tax rate across the entire population *may* have an effect on work effort. I simply said that it makes no difference to *my* work effort.

There is no inconsistency in the two points. I don't see how there could be. I am simply one individual, my behaviour is not and cannot be held to represent the views of a population.

I invite you again, for the last time, to withdraw your false assertion.

[burt]

Jordan

Pathetic. Follow that link back to the context it was in, clearly you read your own comment and then continued to threaten me. What percentage of tax must you be paying (more than any rate I know of in NZ) for 21.5% to be valid for the average if you are paying 49% (marginal - over all). There must be a 60%+ rate in there somewhere.... I didn't say it was you making up numbers per sae, the OECD report is obviously only counting some aspects of our taxation and that suits your agenda so you post it as fact... How can a lefty post 'evidence' of low taxation and call it a good thing - they can't - but a spin puppet can.

The follow on comments from that reference are;
=============================================================================================
Jordan
You need to stick with the numbers, where did the $8b tax cut come from.

To have a $15,000 tax free threshold cost $8b we would need to have 2.7m people earning over $15,000/year. That would be a jump of over 600,000 people based on very recent Labour party statistics (no 2001 diversions in this calculation).

Perhaps you are comparing a projected working population for 2014 with statistics from 2001.

It is this kind of spin that you place on the debates that creates frustration.

Posted by: burt | Friday, 02 February 2007 at 03:45 PM

No, I was continuing to base the first part of that comment on wrong numbers. Do disregard it. It's not spin, it's a mistake. :)
===================================================================================================

IE: ... I don't know, my numbers don't stack up....

Delete my comments if you like Jordan, you can hide the truth by censorship for a while - but it finds it's way out in the end. You really should understand what you are posting - then you might be in a position to defend it - easier to delete comments I'm sure.

[Clint Heine]

Just ban him Jordan and prove us right all along!

[John]

Why do so many bull dikes play Netball ?