Latest Roy Morgan poll bad news for National



Red Green Up


The latest Roy Morgan poll is bad news for John Key, as it confirms a downward trend for the current National-led government and a rise in the left Labour-Green bloc.

Taken between 6 January  to 19 January, 2014, the poll was conducted through   calling  1,509 respondents, both on landline and mobile telephones. (Currently, Roy Morgan is the only polling company that calls cellphones as well as landlines.)

The poll showed that voter-support for the main ‘players’ is fluid and that none of the parties can take anything for granted. At 46%, the Labour/Green Bloc is outstripping National’s 43.5%, which appears to have no viable coalition partners on the Right.

The Numbers

The Right Bloc:

TDB Recommends

National Party: 43.5% (- 1.5%)

Conservative Party of NZ: 2.5% (+ 0.5%)

Maori Party: 2% (+ 0.5%)

United Future: 0.5% (+ 0.5%)

Act: 0% (unchanged)

The Left Bloc:

Labour Party: 33.5% (+ 3%)

Green Party:  12.5% (- 2%)

Mana Party: 0.5% (- 0.5%)

Wild Card:

NZ First: 4% (- 1%)

The Trend


Roy Morgan New Zealand Voting Intention - January 22, 2014



The Analysis

1. At 43.5% in the poll, this constitutes a 3.8 percentage-point drop from National’s election night result of 47.3%, in 2011. A few more percentage points lost between now and Election Day this year, and it’s Game Over for this hopeless government.

A point to consider is that part of Key’s unbelievable success can be laid at his public persona of an easy-going nature, and his uncanny ability to de-politicise politics. As he is forced to become more political in a very politicised year, that easy-going nature and de-politicised approach to issues, will be put to the test. The Prime Minister may yet become a political creature like his predecessors.

2. Labour’s 33.5% poll result contrasts starkly with their poor election night result in 2011, where their support collapsed to 27.48%. If the Labour-Green-Mana bloc can increase their support by a couple of more percentage points – the next Prime Minister will be David Cunliffe and Dear Leader John Key will be taking an extended vacation in Hawaii.

Expect Labour to attack National on it’s weak fronts;

  • rising mortgage interest rates – estimated to reach 7% to 8%
  • rising fuel prices as the global economy picks up, and the demand for oil increases
  • a bounce upward in unemployment, as businesses attempt to cut costs by reducing staff
  • an on-going shortage of affordable housing
  • young New Zealanders forced out of the housing market, due to National’s sign-off on Reserve Bank policies
  • continuing wages lagging behind CPI increases
  • worsening balance of payments and another credit downgrade by Standard & Poors, Moodies, and/or Fitch
  • and as winter sets in – an outbreak of infectious disease in low socio-economic areas will impact on Key’s reputation as a sound political manager

3. Though NZ First currently polls at 4% – just under the 5% threshold – this blogger believes Peters can pull his Party up, and return to Parliament. The only qualifyer to this is if the public are sufficiently  spooked by Peters’ continuing refusal to indicate which Bloc he will support, post-election.

In essence, voters will be reluctant to give him a “blank cheque”, knowing that (a) he will be “king maker” and (b) he may “make the wrong person king”.

For a Voter who supports a Labour-led Coalition – what if Peters joins the Nats?

For a Voter who supports a Key-led government – what if he opts for a left-wing government headed by Labour?

This “fetish” of Peters – whilst strategically sound in some respects – may start to annoy a significant proportion of swing-voters to such a level that they are reluctant to take a “punt” on him.

As always, when playing two elephants off against each other, there is a risk of being trampled underneath.

4. It appears that Labour has ‘cannabalised’ support from the Green Party. Anyone in Labour rejoicing at this will need to smarten up their ideas. The task ahead of us is to grow the overall Labour-Green-Mana vote – not cannibalise each others’ support. Attacking each other is a mug’s game and the only person who will rejoice is the current Prime Minister.

There were 800,000 non-voters at the last election. They are the ones we should be engaging with.

5. National seems to have lost support to the Conservative Party, which has recorded a rise in polling. But if the Conservatives fail to win an Electorate Seat, their small rise – at National’s expense – will not only be wasted, but will harm National’s overall Parliamentary seat numbers.

6. Act’s currently zero polling indicates that there may be no strategic value for National to “gift” them the seat of Epsom. If the next Act candidate (John Boscawen?) cannot pull in another Act MP on his “coat tails”, then the Nats might as well take their seat back.

That will be the end of Act and another nail in the coffin that is being prepared for neo-liberalism in this country.

7. If everyone who voted Green in Ohariu sobers up long enough to cast their electorate vote to the Labour candidate, that will be the end of Dunne’s political career. Had 1,775 Green voters who gave their electorate vote to Gareth Hughes voted for Charlers Chauvel instead, Dunne would have lost his seat in 2011.

8. The Maori Party is doomed.

9. The Conservative Party will not cross the 5% threshold, nor win an electorate seat. Aside from alienating women voters by calling them sexually promiscuous, or opposing marriage equality for all New Zealanders, regardless of sexual orientation; or admitting to breaking the law and assaulting his own children – Craig and his Party are simply too ‘fringe’ for 99% of New Zealand voters to stomach.

Even the religious-based Christian Coalition in 1996 could only achieve 4.33% of the Party vote. Not enough to cross the 5% threshold.

And if by some miracle (!), Craig wins an electorate seat and/or crosses the 5% threshold – who else will be on his Party List? The Conservative Party list may field candidates every bit as loopy and ill-disciplined as Peter Dunne’s rag-tag band of eccentrics in 2002. And that did not last very long either.

10. We are on track for a change of government at the end of this year. But there is still a lot of work ahead of us.


Of all respondents/electors surveyed, 4% (unchanged) did not specifically  nominate a preference for any party.


vote left

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen





Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 1996

Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2002

Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2002 – Early activity

NZ Herald: Key says he’ll quit politics if National loses election  (3 January 2011)

Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2011

NZ Herald: No proof to promiscuity claim (9 May 2012)

TV1 News: Conservative leader says gay marriage ‘not right‘  (27 July 2012)

NZ Herald: Colin Craig: I smack my child  (13 January 2014

Roy Morgan Poll: Jan 22 2014

Previous related blogposts

Post mortem #1: Green Voters in Electorates (27 November 2011)

Mr Morgan phoned (1 September 2013)

Latest Roy Morgan Poll – on course to dump this rotten government (14 September 2013)

Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (Part rua) (12 December 2013)

Latest Roy Morgan Poll: next govt too close to call? (15 December 2013)

Letter to the Editor: Winston Peters, Kim Dotcom, and blank cheques (22 January 2014)

Other blogs

The Daily Blog: Does Winston want to go home?

The Standard: National’s first strategic mistake

The Standard: Latest Roy Morgan – Labour + Green ahead

No Minister: Key softens stance on deal with Peters

Gordon Campbell: On National’s election fling with New Zealand First

Polity: The science of Key’s 2014 coalitions

Public Address: Hard News: All John’s Friends

The Dim Post: Winston Peters is not that unpopular



= fs =


    • Politikiwi – they’ve painted themselves into that corner by aligning with National. That’s the reality they’ve created for themselves.

      If, however, they attempt to redeem themselves by supporting a Left Bloc in Parliament, I’ll change my views accordingly.

  1. Normally, I would argue that to win an election political parties have to keep their messages simple but for this election I think Labour and the Greens need to promote a wide variety of policies – IT, environmental, economics etc

    • I’d like to think that a Left message can be simple: we can do much better; New Zealand can be a fairer society; we can define ourselves in the 21st century in ways other than the Holy Dollar…

  2. The quantisation error on the reported results is so big it hardly seems worth commenting on the changes to parties with total percentages of less than 3. Especially the ones that only have a 0.5% change (was it a 1 vote difference or a 10 vote difference).

    • Indeed, Korakys.

      Considering that four of those parties – Mana, Act, Maori Party, and United Future – are all electorate-based entities, their Party Vote poll ratings are irrelevant unless they can rise above 1.2% (approx). At that point they pull another MP into Parliament on their coat-tails.

      That seems unlikely for Act and United Future; difficult for Mana; and an unbknown for the Maori Party because they already have three MPs (thereby causing an over-hang with their low Party Vote).

      • Yeah I know all that, but thanks anyway. I guess I would just like to know the raw results for the parties under 3%. I mean from these results 7 people could’ve said ACT and 8 UF. I suppose they sell the raw results though.

  3. And now here is what is really happening…

    1. The increase in Labour’s vote is close to the decrease in the Greens vote. As expected, Cunliffe is simply transferring votes between the two left wing parties.
    2. National have perhaps 4 coalition partners who can feasibly win electoral seats, the Conservatives, the Maori Party, Act and Peter Dunne.
    3. The economic analysis in point 2 is so far off the mark it is hilarious. The economy will be booming in 2014, and virtually all of the major economic indicators currently show National as far better economic managers than Labour, and that will be the decisive factor.
    4. When NZ’ers go to the polls they will have realised that a Labour led Govt means the Greens will play a major role in Govt, something that will rightly put the wind up all thinking kiwi’s.

    There we go, much shorter and much more sensible.

    Frank you continue to base your opinions on your view of what might happen in the economy. Try looking at what IS happening and you’ll get a better mark.

    • IV – considering that the RBNZ has stated it will be raising interest rates this year, and that mortgage rates will reach 7% to 8% – what part of that do you contest? (

      Considering that the global economy is picking up – why do you not think that will result in higher demand for oil, leading to higher petrol prices? Higher demand in fuel inevitably means higher fuel costs. Basic economics.

      And the housing crisis is still with us, despite your pitiful (and somewhat laughable) attempts to talk it away.

      RYCT me: ” The increase in Labour’s vote is close to the decrease in the Greens vote. As expected, Cunliffe is simply transferring votes between the two left wing parties.”

      I believe that is what I said. Repeating it doesn’t make it any more or less true, but thanks anyway.

      RYCT me: “National have perhaps 4 coalition partners who can feasibly win electoral seats, the Conservatives, the Maori Party, Act and Peter Dunne.”

      “Feasibly” isn’t something that Key is banking on. Hence his attempt at rapprochement with Winston Peters. It seems Dear Leader is not as optimistic as you are.

      Of the Maori Party, perhaps Flavell will win back his seat. Perhaps.

      RYCT me: ” The economy will be booming in 2014, and virtually all of the major economic indicators currently show National as far better economic managers than Labour…”

      A booming economy will bring it’s own problems; higher interest rates; a rising dollar; higher inflationary pressures. We’ve been down this track before and it’s no great mystery.

      As for “show[ing] National as far better economic managers than Labour” – the facts do not support your wishful thinking. Unemployment is at 7.2% – compared to Labour’s 3.4% in the mid-2000s. And National has accrued a debt of SIXTY BILLION dollars ( – or an increase of $27 million a day.

      On top of which the Nats are having to resort to bail-outs, subsidies, shonkey deals, etc, to generate economic activity.

      Plus, if it weren’t for the Christchurch re-build, our economy would still be struggling as Key’s cycle track was their one big shot at job creation.

      “Better managers”?


      But you’re entitled to your self-delusions if it helps you sleep better at nights.

      • Frank you are living in a parallel universe.

        1. You have set up a straw man on the economy, and then tried to blame the Govt. for what is nothing more than your own speculation. As previously posted to you, here is the current data:

        Inflation – 2008 Q3 Annual 5.1%, 2013 Q3 Annual 1.4%.
        Mortgage Interest Rates – 10/08 9.6%, 10/13 5.8%
        GDP Growth – 2008 Q4 (0.8%), 2013 Q2 2.7%
        Current Account as % of GDP – 2008 (8.8%), 2013 (4.3%)
        Household Debt as % of disposable income – 2008 151.9%, 2013 147.6%
        Unemployment – 2008 4.5% (and rising), 2013 6.2% (and falling).

        Even by your own estimates, which don’t stack up based on current long term fixed interest trends, interest rates aren’t going to be anywhere near what they were under Labour, the economy will continue to grow, and unemployment continue to fall. That all adds up to a big tick for National.

        I’ve already caught you out on your claims on the economy previously (when you posted evidence that actually supported my argument), you need to up your game Frank.

        2. Thank you for highlighting the challenges of a booming economy. Now please exhort your readers to vote National to enable that performance to continue. Labour to 2008 were bad enough, but with the greens on the accelerator, the economy would be stuffed inside 3 years.

        3. ‘Bailouts’, ‘subsidies’ and ‘shonkey deals’ are ‘Frank speech’ for the sae things the left has engaged in. Remember the BNZ? Or what about that great deal Labour did…renationalising NZ Rail? Did Labour not subsidise power to aluminium smelters? Or do deals with Casino’s? Selective memory Frank, selective memory.

        4. National’s poll rating…is still well above the levels it has previously enjoyed in the RM poll previously. You fail to mention that the RM poll is traditionally the toughest on National, and Labour’s rating is still well below what it was 12 months ago.

        But here’s the kicker. NZer’s are already waking up to the fact that Cunliffe talks out of both sides of his mouth. The latest Curia poll had JK on 45%, DC on 18% as preferred PM. Overall most of the polls have DC rating less than Shearer did as preferred PM. With a hostile caucus and poor personal polling, DC will be lucky to lead Labour into the election.

        • Inflation – 2008 Q3 Annual 5.1%

          Mortgage Interest Rates – 10/08 9.6%

          Thank you. I think you’ve just underscored my point (in my post above) that the sudden burst of growth (not attributable to anything National has done) will have predictable, negative consequences,

          * rising mortgage interest rates – estimated to reach 7% to 8%
          * rising fuel prices as the global economy picks up, and the demand for oil increases


          Or what about that great deal Labour did…renationalising NZ Rail?

          Correct. After privatisation, NZ Rail was run into the ground by successive incompetant private owners. As with Air New Zealand, these were critical essential businesses that could not be left to collapse. The impact on the economy/environment would have been phenomenal.

          By contrast, I doubt there’s much danger of Warner Bros or Rio Tinto collapsing, eh?

          3. ‘Bailouts’, ‘subsidies’ and ‘shonkey deals’ are ‘Frank speech’ for the sae things the left has engaged in. Remember the BNZ?

          Yes I do. But it was bailed out by the Bolger-led National government in 1990, not Labour.

          However, the woes of said bailout can be attributed to the neo-liberal, market-driven ideology that governments in the late 1980s (Labour) and 1990s (National) implemented.

          Had those policies not been implemented, the BNZ would have stuck to it’s “knitting” and not engaged in wild “cowboy” behaviour as was the norm with corporate culture at the time.

          Ironically that occurred under a neo-liberal, right-wing “Labour”.

          Notice a pattern developing here?

          By the way, using stats from the 2008 period to attempt to paint the Labour government in a negative light, when the GFC was beginning to impact, is dishonest of you, IV.

          In which case, you’ll be applying the same measuring standard against the Nats? (Eg; massive debt, high unemployment, etc)

          Because you’ve wilfully missed out other facts in terms of Labour’s track record,

          * paying down billions in debt accumulated by National in the 1990s,

          * low unemployment (3.4%),

          * Real GDP in the 2000s was often stronger than our trading partners (

          But we’ve come to expect that of National and it’s acolytes; mis-information, omissions, and downright lies.

          National’s real track record,


          * $60 billion in debt,

          * 7.2% unemployment,

          * growing income inequality,

          * increasing child poverty,

          * ongoing wage gap with Australia,

          * Nearly thirty thousand jobs lost in the manufacturing sector,

          * millions wasted on consultants after 3,000+ redundancies in the State sector,

          * corporate welfare,

          * tax cuts resulting in massive borrowings,

          * etc.

          Keep trying IV. All you’re doing is presenting opportunities to demonstrate National’s hopeless economic mismanagement.

          • Oh and you missed my point on the bailout’s. All Govt’s do it, when it suits, so your criticism of one Govt over another is hypocritical.

            PS care to explain the ridiculous amount Cullen paid for Kiwi rail? Economic mismanagement at it’s finest.

    • By the way, IV, I note that you studiously did not comment on the drop in National’s poll rating…

      Perhaps Kiwis are starting to cotton on to National’s incompetance at managing the economy; job creation; and addressing problems surrounding growing poverty and inequality.

      A few more polls like that, and Paula Bennett will be announcing another round of beneficiary-bashing “reforms”…

      • Come on Frank…I showed you with your own data that your claims of rising inequality are just plain false. Care to go again?

          • IV – do you actually read the information you link to?

            To quote – from your linked item;

            “In New Zealand during 1982–2012 income inequality, as measured by the P80/P20 ratio, was higher after adjusting for housing costs, as housing costs generally make up a greater proportion of household income for lower income than for higher income households. The most rapid rises in income inequality occurred during 1988–1992. While income inequality also rose during 1994–2004, the rate of increase was slower. During 2004–2007, income inequality fell, a decline which Perry attributes to the Working for Families package. During 2009–2011 however, the impact of the economic downturn and global financial crisis led to volatility in the index, with Perry noting that it may take one or two further surveys before the post-crisis inequality level becomes clear”

            And more (from your link);

            “In New Zealand during 1982–2012, income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, was also higher after adjusting for housing costs, for the same reasons as given above. The most rapid rises in income inequality also occurred between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Using both the before and after housing cost measures, the Gini Coefficient declined slightly between 2001 and 2007, a decline which Perry attributes to improving employment and the impact of the Working for Families package. During 2009–2012, however, there was considerable volatility in the Gini coefficient, which Perry attributes to the differing size and timing of the impact of the global financial crisis, Christchurch earthquakes and the associated economic downturn and recovery on different parts of the income distribution. “

            In fact, I think you tried passing this one off before?!

            Congratulations. That must be your tenth own goal thus far.

            • “In New Zealand during 1982–2012 income inequality, as measured by the P80/P20 ratio, was higher after adjusting for housing costs,”

              Mmmm interesting that. These years had a virtual split of Governments between Labour and National.

              “The most rapid rises in income inequality occurred during 1988–1992.”

              Two years of Labour, 2 years of the Nats.

              While income inequality also rose during 1994–2004 the rate of increase was slower.”

              5 years of National, 4 years of Labour.

              So Frank, your attempt to paint National as the party of inequality just failed miserably!

                  • 1. We have not had true ‘neo-liberalism’ in NZ. Ever.

                    Yeah, right. Whatever. You’re in la-la land, IV.

                    I’m guessing you’re a Libertarian acolyte, then?

                    So, you want more, purer, neo-liberalism? Like no minimum wage? No taxation? No RMA?

                    No thanks. What we’ve had thus far has been an abject failure.

                    Poisononing the economy with more toxic neo-liberal economic policies is not going to revive the patient.

                    2. I am responding to Frank’s allegations of a widening income inequality under National specifically.

                    Not an “allegation”. A reality.

                    The links you’ve provided actually prove that. You just don’t want to accept it.

                    3. Define ‘failed’. A widening income inequality is not in and of itself a failure if you cannot demonstrate that it is, in and of itself, a bad thing.

                    Oh it’s a bad thing alright. It’s just you neo-lib/libertarians that can’t see it.

                    It’s fine if you’re at the top of the “heap” – but not so flash if you’re at the bottom with crap wages; multiple jobs (with secondary tax!); high GST; more user-pays, etc.

                    “The most rapid rises in income inequality occurred during 1988–1992.”

                    Two years of Labour, 2 years of the Nats.

                    While income inequality also rose during 1994–2004 the rate of increase was slower.”

                    5 years of National, 4 years of Labour.

                    So Frank, your attempt to paint National as the party of inequality just failed miserably!

                    There’s an element of truth to that, although Labour’s WFF tax credit arrested inequality by returning more income to a sector of society.

                    Unfortunately it left out those right at the bottom of the socio-economic scrap-heap. Those without jobs did not get the benefit of WFF and for them, inequality worsened.

                    Of course, you won’t believe any of this but that’s your problem.

                    Thus far none of the links you’ve provided back up your delusional worldview and instead support the facts I’ve outlined.

                    You can keep trying to argue that black-is-white and white-is-black, but really, IV, how foolish do you want to look?

                    No wonder you use a pseudonym – I wouldn’t want to put my name to the rubbish you’ve been writing either.

        • What do you call beneficiaries getting $1.25 annual increase compared to the pollies getting over $100 per week year after year?
          Can’t wait to see how miserable Paula will be this year.

  4. I expect the Green and Mana votes to increase as Cunliffe and his front bench continue down their path of being NAct lite, with deep sea drilling, the TPPA, and delayed pensions. This will garner very few votes from the less extreme right of National, and may well lead to the total irrelevance of Labour. At such a point, Goff, Jones, Parker, and Mallard would no doubt push for a coalition of national unity with National. It really saddens me that we need Labour bums on the green leather for our reasonable parliamentarians to have a say in the policies of the country.

  5. I think Colin Craig may yet surprise you – 2.5% is a strong showing for a new minor party with no seats. I suspect he will cannibalise enough of Winston’s vote to topple him. Much as I regret the loss of the opportunity to see Key begging on Winston’s carpet, I was in the Alliance the last time Winston changed horses in midstream, and, like the Labour MPs who support Slave Ships, he will never be forgiven.

  6. Hooray for that. Just keep on going down. With regard to the extended holiday in Hawaii, it seems Hawaii is a meeting point for the worlds greedy and they can all dine on radiated fish and other seafood. Maybe that’s why he is looking so ill these days.

Comments are closed.