Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:30 pm, July 11th, 2025 - 6 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
I bin thinking, as Prebble would say if he spoke kiwi. That surge by NZF yesterday does seem statistically significant. The surge is close to the Labour drop!
Cue the Winston as Statesman thesis. Cue also the Labour Machiavelli thesis; likely to work for conservative Labour voters: "Hey, it's just a poll. We can game the entire right-wing system!!" Just give the media a tip-off that centrists in Labour are tactically touting Winston as Statesman. Think of it as applied Trumpism…
Funny you should say that ,nash was on the platform saying pretty much that, (no idea how to link that
Although remember 3%+- in all polls doesn't make it 2 serious yet.
Curia's owner is a corrupt pollster, politically partisan, and has been ejected from the industry body, RANZ, for repeated breaches of their code. Anything Curia publishes is manufactured at the request of their client, so it's impossible to take them seriously.
Hipkins on Curia:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350420252/pollster-stands-work-despite-labour-attacks
Please make it clear what is your honest opinion and what is established fact. I considered that your comment was honest opinion based on the available information.
But you nearly got moderated out because it wasn't clearly expressed as being an opinion. It isn’t hard for you to express the same thing as an opinion rather than assertion of fact. So bloody well do so.
On the other hand, the lack of clarity of design and obvious lack of professional standards by Curia seems to be designed to obscure what they are doing in their surveys and why they are doing it. That is a behaviour that implies a high degree of professionally corrupt behaviour.
Personally I think that you are probably correct in your opinion after reading the RANZ findings. It follows a pretty clear pattern that Curia has established over decades in playing fast and loose with survey design in sampling, questions, and the overall survey. I think that there is a clear attempt either by Curia or their customers to skew survey results to support their pre-existing opinions. Presumably for payment.
RANZ sub-committee findings
Okay, I'll go with you & Muttonbird on the credibility issue (having had the same suspicion myself) but why would Farrar manufacture that surge? I always thought he was just another Nat stooge. Hang on, let me guess.
From here till the election National needs to control the narrative. Market forces seem to have taken a holiday, so there's no knowing if it really is `the economy, stupid' as the Clinton honcho's logic goes. Luxon gets irritated by Seymour's chihuahua bleatings which threaten to upstage him from time to time, so he decides to help Winston out of the margin of error.
How am I doing so far? Perhaps Key told Luxon Farrar was a tool to be used. Luxon: "Shit, I forgot to ask him how. Bugger!" "Hey lad, I need you to promote the old dog over the young dog. Can do?"
I have no idea what the current Curia poll said. I only looked at Muttonbird's comment.
Generally I don't follow individual polls, I get interested in trends which usually requires at least 3 polls from the same surveyor because they bounce around.
In the case of Curia (and most pollsters), I have a habit of looking at the details of the actual poll – which in the case of the Taxpayers you have to open yourself up to marketing by the "Taxpayer Caucus" to read any detailed report of the poll.
These days I don't need examination to as much for Curia because there are some people who do that and email me. So for the July 2025 poll at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/pollnztu_20250710 you just get ambiguity in any visible data.
There are some question marks about how this factors into the percentage calculations. Or even which 'vote question(s)' that the paragraph is referring to. Looking at the questions in order, there are at least 3 direct questions with vote in it, and several more that it could be inferred as being a question about voting. It would be highly unusual for responders to answer all 3 questions.
I have very little faith in any poll that hides so many details from public view.
A "random poll of 1,000 adult New Zealanders weighted to the overall adult population" is completely meaningless without some idea about how those phone numbers were sourced.
There isn't a functioning visible phone number system today. Virtually no-one under the age of 60 lists their phone numbers (I dropped that 30+ years ago). Even if they still have a landline (dropped that 8 years ago when the parent who used landlines switch to cellular).
So the method of gaining those numbers isn't going to be 'random'. It will come from a source that effectively filters for people who are credulous enough to give their phones numbers to someone who will use it for marketing (including polling).
Then you have the pickup issue. Most people screen their calls. I never pickup on a number that my phone doesn't already know. I'll let it go to voicemail as a way of screening out unsolicited scammers. If they don't leave a voice msg or txt me then they are junk scammers.
I don't know many people who do pick up on unknown numbers. They are invariably a waste of time. If they do, they are invariably old with old habits and/or conservative and/or kind of stupid. In any of those cases they wouldn't fit a profile of average kiwi voter with time pressures.
To get an idea on the quality of the poll, knowing the sources of the phone numbers is important. So is the number of calls that people didn't answer, the number who answered, the number who agreed to answer the questionaire etc..