Colmar Brunton-TV1 News – not giving us the complete picture





A story on TV1 News on 9 September was more interesting for what it failed to tell the viewer, rather than any information it was trying to impart.

Briefly, the story focused on a recent Colmar Brunton survey that stated that National’s poll rating remained “unchanged at 47 per cent, the same amount it attained at the election“. It also told us;

Mr Key’s personal approval ratings also continue to ride high. He’s steady at 40 per cent this month.

According to the story, the  Colmar Brunton Preferred Prime Minister survey gave the viewer  a ‘snapshot’ of the survey period 29 August to 2 September. There was no other context to the survey.

The viewer was not given information as to how Key’s popularity compared to previous Colmar Brunton surveys.

If TV1 News producers had bothered to do a brief search on the issue, the result would have given better context and a more overall, informative  picture.

TDB Recommends

For example, a Google search for past Colmar Brunton surveys reveals  the rise and gradual decline of our “popular” Prime Minister;

September 2009 – 50%

May 2010 – 46%

November 2011 – 52%

September 2012 – 44%

September 2013 – 42%

September 2014 – 46%

September 2015 – 40%

In fact, the Colmar Brunton Preferred Prime Minister polling shows a striking similarity to polling carried out by TVNZ’s rival, 3News/Reid Research Poll;

Aug 2009: 51.6%

April 2010: 49.0%

Nov/Dec 2010: 54.1%

1-8 Nov 2011*: 50.0%

9-16 Nov 2011*: 49.4%

16-23 Nov 2011*: 48.9%

July 2012: 43.2%

Nov 2013: 40.9%

2-8 Sept 2014*: 45.3%

9-15 Sept 2014*: 44.1%

May 2015: 39.4%
* Where multiple-polling took place within a given month, all poll results have been presented top give the reader a more accurate picture.


It is therefore apparent that to claim that “Mr Key’s personal approval ratings also continue to ride high” and that   “He’s steady at 40 per cent this month” – is not an accurate reflection of polling trends.  Those are misleading statements, creating a false perception of a politician’s standing in the electorate.

Sloppy work.

If this is the new standard of political analysis from TV1 News then the producers may as well not bother. There are plenty of crime, disaster, “cutesy animal”, and quirky-celebrity stories they could broadcast instead.

Perhaps serious political analysis should  best be left to the experts – bloggers.





TVNZ News: Nearly a year on from its election victory and National is continuing to ride high in the polls

ONE News Colmar Brunton Poll Sep 19-24, 2009

ONE News Colmar Brunton Poll May 22-26, 2010

ONE News Colmar Brunton Poll 27-31 October 2012

Facebook: Colmar Brunton – 14-18 Sept 2013

Colmar Brunton: 6-10 September 2014

Previous related blogposts








= fs =


  1. Any leader in power for more than 7 years would expect a decline in popularity. In this context John Key’s ratings trend is hardly news. What is news is his overwhelming popularity compared with rivals (both real and potential). Helen Clark did not enjoy such a commanding lead at the same time in her Premiership.

    • @ GOS – is Key really that popular?

      Most former NatzKEY supporters I speak to say they will definitely not be supporting FJK or his corrupt party again! Have also read the same online.

      So I’d say the polls promoting FJK are not a true refection of NZers’ position where the PM is concerned! It’s deliberate generated spin to try to convince the masses of something which is not true!

    • Gosman, as usual I doubt you’ve read what I actually wrote.

      The point is not whether “in this context John Key’s ratings trend is hardly news” .

      There was no context given. That is the point.

      • There is no need for a context around the long term decline in approval ratings of John Key. It would be like giving context to the fact that the temperature is colder in Winter than in Summer. It is a given.

        • There is no need for a context around the long term decline in approval ratings of John Key.

          So… I take it you’re in favour of censorship then, Gosman? Especially if it supports the Party in power?

        • Gosman, even professional pollsters understand the simple truth that individual polls by themselves are meaningless. Polls need to be taken as a whole and it’s the trend that counts. So your attempt at spin is a bit of a joke and just makes you look desperate.

    • @ GOS . Hmmm. Quick of the mark I see @ GOS . And that was quite the logical fallacy you Gollum’d out.
      #1 ” Any leader in power for more than 7 years… ” Implies he must be quite the leader . When we all know, including yourself, that he has a well established reputation as an accomplished liar and general, all round, fake.
      #2 … would expect a decline in popularity… ” Oh, poor lamb. He’s been so good for our economy and so stalwart in his championing of the most at risk and yet we’re becoming ambivalent toward the Wonderful Commander despite his tireless efforts . Shame on us. Nice try at the guilt peddling trickery there @ GOS
      # 3 ” In this context Key’s ratings is hardly news ” So, you’re saying our multi millionaire prime minister, bully, fetishist, sociopath and deviant currency trader with an umbilical connection to corporate America isn’t news worthy 100% of the time for anything he does. When he farts, that should make headlines much less bias ratings from a clearly tampered with organisation. Something like the way you’re tampering with reality and by association the truth here @ GOS.
      #4 “…his overwhelming popularity compared to his rivals ” Well, how would we really know what his popularity is, other than the one his mates in the poling companies tell us he enjoys. It’s like me employing a couple of people to go ahead of me to a party and start asking around if anyone knows me. If not, then, before I arrive, they go around telling everyone that I’m amazing and fabulous and OMG ! You have got to get to know this guy because, well, he’s amazing and fabulous! Down on the farm it’s known as bullshit.
      #5 Ever stop to ponder that the reason Helen Clark ( And to be honest I didn’t have much respect for dear old Helen either but at least she was ‘ real’ . ) didn’t enjoy such a commanding lead was that she was ‘ real’ . That she wouldn’t begin to countenance directly fiddling around with the polls. ( Yeah, yeah , yeah . Signature on stupid and frankly rather hideous little painting. ) Have you read Dirty Politics ? Jonky used the SIS for Gods sake and an attack blogger, more suited to being a little kids kitten euthanise-er , to change the way the public viewed their politics. You seriously think jonky would stop at fiddling the polls , or the election for that matter?

      #6 That was an attempt at a clever piece of work @ GOS. And it might have worked ten years ago. But oh my, how things have changed aye ? Big hugs xx Love you , mis you already .
      Excellent work @ Frank.

    • Gosman, by deflecting frpom the issue Frank actually raised, I take it you have no answer to what he said? Just checking.

      • I answered his main point. I tated that John Key’s long term decline in popularity is not surprising and therefore hardly newsworthy. That is the reason it wasn’t reported as such. Of course you can choose to take the conspiratorial angle on this.

        • Oh, Gosman, that is crap even for you.

          So what you’re saying is”nothing to see here, folks, move along”? So any news not favourable to your party is “hardly newsworthy”?

          Ever heard of Pravda and Izveztia? They also chose not to publish stuff that was “hardly newsworthy”.

          • Frank I may be able to help here.

            I believe the point Gosman is trying to make is that no-one expects any PM’s popularity to stay high throughout three terms, and so the long term trend is not as newsworthy as the short term.

            By way of interesting analysis, there is a graph directly comparing Keys and Clarks popularity at intersecting points of their tenure her It is over a year old, but it does show the remarkable level of popularity Key has enjoyed, even compared to Clark. I’d be interested to know if you were writing articles about Clarks decline in popularity in her third term?

            • And yet again, you and Gosman continue to deliberately deflect from the point I have made. To spell it out; it’s not the fact that Key’s popularity is declining. It’s that the TV1 News report took the latest Colmar Brunton poll and presented it without any context. Not only that, but the statement “Mr Key’s personal approval ratings also continue to ride high. He’s steady at 40 per cent this month” is misleading.

              Trying to paint the story as something it is not suggests a strategy of deflection from you and your fellow National apparatchiks.

              I’m kinda flattered that you’re focusing on me and my writing.

              I must be getting to you guys from Young Nats?

              • Re my comment;

                “Trying to paint the story as something it is not suggests a strategy of deflection from you and your fellow National apparatchiks.”

                Well, well, well… what do we have here? A former National Party insider, Grant McLachlan, confirms our suspicions;

                “National has several levels within its organisation that try to sway public opinion. Groups target talkback radio, social media, surveys, and media polls. Crony commentators manipulate, obfuscate, smear, and stigmatise.”


                Anything you want to tell us, Sceptic?

            • Barnman, you’ve missed the point as we’ll as Goosey. Clouding the issue much? Thing is, mate, we see through your bs.

            • You’re deflecting Born in a Barn. The issue here isn’t that Key’s popularity is being eroded. The point is that the MSM, bless their little corporate black hearts, is ignoring the fact.

              This may suit your agenda as you’re a National Party supporter.

              But if the shoe were on the other foot and the MSM was ignoring a trending downward of support for a Labour PM, you’d be the first one to kick up a fuss.

              I’m right, aren’t I?

    • Helen Clarke did not enjoy unabated MSM cheerleading propaganda throughout her tenure as PM, either. Key, on the other hand, has the MSM in his pocket, and they routinely praise him, his government, and his…. accomplishments(??). Remember ‘Helengrad’, ‘Nanny State’, well they pale into insignificance when you consider what Key has done on the social engineering and Privacy/democracy front. These polls only confirm to me the success of right wing propaganda spewed forth by the MSM. Simple as that!

  2. Just wondering: Would it be worth laying a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Authority?

    Or perhaps that consumer group whatever that is, that deals with misleading advertising?

    The NZ public deserve better than this from a public-funded broadcaster.

    Thanks as always, Frank, for all the excellent documentation.

    • Agree with Murray.
      There is a serious issue about “misleading and manipulating facts” which has been spreading under the leadership of Key.
      The objective is of course to deceive the average Kiwis who scan the news without wanting to read much or analyse. TV3 did a great job to discredit itself and now TV1?
      What is really impressing in some of the blogs here is the presence of intruders who deliberately attempt to upset the comments flow and a healthy debate. I recall Gos, Andrewo, and others. Guys, please be respectful to the forums; We all care about our country, nobody would accept wrongdoings except individuals with dodgy agendas.
      Thank you Frank. Keep up the great work.

  3. I detect some political interference, Crosby Textor would have checked the script before it was released by the Press.

  4. Well done Frank for keeping us in the picture.

    This is false presentation of the facts and those responsible need to be challenged! But who or what will do that on the public’s behalf? What are our options?

    The BSA is useless and is another puppet of NatzKEY!

  5. Yes the polls are rigged be sure of this.

    It is a tool the radical right use to gain false popularity, and is used widely world wide by the right wing bandits as they control the media also it is just another tool in their spin doctoring tool box.

    They live by corruption, worse even than the radical spin used on the stock market.

    The bloody scene was apparent again today in which the Dow crashed again today by 240 points that even their CNBC are saying everyone’s waiting for a big thud.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the nasty NatZ were just a little bit honest like that but don’t hold your breath, they will use any dirty tricks to cling to power.

    Say NO like our folks are saying about NatZ insidious plans to control yet more of us at the local level the thugs.

    Say NO to plans for council amalgamation

    • Indeed, Countrygreen.

      Interesting concidence, that I had an email exchange with someone just this morning who was using MSM tv images and “news” to put his point of view across. My reply was simple;

      “TV ‘news’ is the worst way to educate yourself. You’ll learn nothing, and be saddled with images and sound bites taken totally out of context.”

      • Do you think the polls are rigged now Frank? That is the inference I take from your reply to the comment directly above it. If so how come they broadly reflected the results of the last election prior to the election occuring?

      • So your blog is unbiased and has no agenda?

        TV1 was simply commenting on the poll results compared to the last poll taken in May, and what they say is completely accurate.

        The trend from the last poll is what most people are interested in, not trends from the last 6 years at 1 year intervals as you have done. If a week is a long time in politics, 6 years isn’t context, its pre-history.

        I don’t think you can boast of having a higher standard of honesty based on this kind of selective reporting.

        • So, Sceptic, what you’re really saying is that “trends from the last 6 years” is inconvenient for your esteemed Dear Leader?

          If it’s “pre history” as you claim, why does Key, English, et al, keep blaming problems on the previous Labour government?

          No. The data I’ve provided is embarressing because it shows a steady decline for Key and that just sends your blood pressure elevated, doesn’t it? If it didn’t, you wouldn’t care sufficiently to engage with a patently silly remark like yours.

          Worried, much?

          • Not worried at all because he’s not particularly my leader, esteemed, dear, or otherwise, despite your assumptions and prejudices.

            Its pre-history to a news show – that’s why its called “the news” and not “the long term trends”.

            In any event, every other party would give their right arms to poll 47% after 6 years in power so my guess is the Nats are relaxed and their blood pressure’s fine – how’s yours?

            • … so my guess is the Nats are relaxed and their blood pressure’s fine – how’s yours?

              I was going to ask you the same thing – Jeremy Corbyn is now leader of the UK Labour Party. How’s your blood pressure, Sceptic? 😉

              • If I was the person your narrow mind thinks I am, I would be elated, as UK Labour is probably now as unelectable as it was under Michael Foot.

                But actually I find it sad that they have chosen to go down this cult-de-sac, democracy requires a viable opposition.

                • But actually I find it sad that they have chosen to go down this cult-de-sac, democracy requires a viable opposition.

                  So… let me get this straight, my little Tory Budrick… You want a “viable opposition” – but you don’t want an alternative Party with alternative policies?! You want Labour-Lite or Conservative Lite – but no real meaningful difference?

                  So how does that make for a “viable opposition” when the main political parties are much of a sameness?!

                  What you’re really telling us is that on the one hand you are making nice noises about a “viable opposition” – but on the other – don’t rock the boat.

                  Hmmm, kinda reminds me of the system they had in Poland pre-1991. They had several political parties under their communist system – all communist. (To create the pretence of a pluralistic political system.)

                  So that’s what you’re after, is it?

                  So yes, you are narrow minded, Sceptic. Otherwise your response would’ve been something along the lines of, “I disagree with Corbyn’s politics, but it’s healthy to have as wide a range of political options to choose from as possible. Otherwise there is no choice, and no political diversity. In the end, let the voters decide.”

                  But you didn’t say that, did you.

                  • [Unacceptable slur on “most writers on this site”. Just to remind you that you are a guest here, and insulting others is a no-no. Robust debate is one thing, insulting digs are another, and will not be published. – ScarletMod]

                  • I’m very relaxed about letting the voters decide as I have full confidence in the common sense of the electorate, and wouldn’t insult them afterwards if they vote the other way, unlike at least one writer on this site who repeatedly refers to the “sleepy hobbits of muddle NZ.”

                    How effective was the UK Labour opposition under Michael Foot?

                    Your belief in political diversity and anti-communism seems hollow given your previous comments supporting Mao.

                    Ok ScarletMod?

                    • As usual, you are being disingenuous. My comment;

                      “China took a huge leap forward since World War 2 under Mao’s reforms.”

                      – cannot be construed as “supporting Mao”.

                      It is historical fact.

                      As pointed out by;

                      Despite these international concerns, Mao launched a wide-ranging program of reconstruction and nationalization in major industrial and commercial cities such as Shanghai and Guangzhou (Canton). In the countryside, land was confiscated from the landlord class, many of whom were summarily executed by makeshift tribunals, and land passed (if only briefly) into the hands of the ordinary peasants. A comprehensive range of social reforms was also launched, including marriage reform favoring the female; a crackdown on crime, drugs, and prostitution; and clean-up campaigns targeted at government and business corruption. Although U.S. intervention had placed Taiwan beyond their grasp, by the mid to late-1950s things had gone very well for the Communists, and for this much credit must go to Mao and his fellow party leaders.


                    • [Comment declined for publication. Unacceptable ad hominem attack. Consider you posting privileges gone, Sceptic. I will also be looking out for any attempt for you, or Born In A Barn, returning under another pseudonym. – ScarletMod]

                    • Barnman, stooping to sneering personal insults now?

                      I guess that shows you have nothing to prove your point.

                      Frank has given 26 citations in his Housing NZ blogpost and you’ve given us zilch.

                      You deliberately misrepresented what he said about Mao and China. I’m noit surprised Scarletmod put a stop to your line of comment. It was desacending into smearing him by misrepresenting what he wrote.

                      You tories eventually resort to lies as you’ve got nothing else to back up your ideas.

                    • Sceptic, I read what Frank said about China and Mao.

                      You are being totally dishonest in your interpretation.

                      Is that really the best you can do? Smear someone?

        • Septic – Frank is just clutching at straws.

          Try to look at it from his point of view and show some sympathy for the poor chap: People with his political view are in such a tiny minority these days that any scrap of information is seen as a potential life raft for him.

          It’s quite sad really.

          • “Clutching at straws”?? He’s whipped your asses! You tories have no response to the facts he’s presented and your scorn doesn’t cut it. It just shows he’s right and you’re wrong.

            Point. Set. Match.

            Game over.

  6. The current TV News both one and three are simply propaganda for the moneyed elite and the ignorant.
    1st rule in neo-liberalism times: Don’t believe what you see on the news unless it’s sports results.
    I would like to see a real analysis of what happen at the shooting in Upper Hutt, there appears to be a few conflicting statements around.

  7. TV News – more a source of confusion, misplaced perceptions, and reinforcing prejudices. About as useful as tits on a bull.

  8. I also noted Frank that on those numbers, Lab/Greens/NZF could form a majority. That wasn’t mentioned. Nor was the fact that Key wouldn’t be able to form a Govt on those numbers without NZF.

    However, I must say it is pretty depressing reading. It shows that a year on from the election, despite declining popularity in Key and a non-stop run of scandals, the wider public still don’t find the opposition credible enough.

  9. Unless the Opposition ups its game and has a clean out of tired old deadwood the next election is a given for Key. The TV could equally have said that.

  10. Interesting analysis , Frank. I’ve shared it with a few others on Facebook. It gives a whole new perspective on these polls which many of us don’t realise so it’s good that someone like you is keeping track.

    I wonder if the reason Key keeps winning is because of high poll ratings, and so many voters like to think they’re for the winning horse instead of a “loser”. In which case this is a kind of self-defeating, circular-logic.

  11. Labour, Greens NZ First all have some admirable qualities.

    So they had better now for our sakes learn to bury their differences now and form a unit to show a formidable collective opposition soon for all our sakes.

  12. Thank God for people like Frank Macskasy.
    I too saw that bit of propaganda by Corrin Dann this morning followed up by the moronic mutterings of Rawdon ( I’ll bore you to tears) Christie and thought wow, we really and truly are corrupt.
    This ‘poll’ was an apropos of what in particular?
    There were no sampling numbers given.
    No question examples supplied.
    No context.
    No nothing.
    This was however an example of appalling journalism.
    Apparently according to Dann , the SERCO disaster, crooked deals to the Arabs , an imploding economic performance (brought on by poor myopic decision making) are just a few minor hiccups.
    And Christie wading in with “even if the flag referendum turns out to have low interest , it won’t hurt Key because it’s all about the economy”.
    However the down turned mouth expression of his Co host gave more of an insight than what either of those two clowns had to say!

  13. This predictable, tiresome and misleading play on stats goes hand in hand with the Herald on Sundays imbeciles analysis of the Key government in its 3rd term where they concluded “the polls suggest most trust him”.

    No they don’t and you would have to be insane to trust such a proven untrustworthy personality.

    Ironically former NZ Herald editor Gavin Ellis opined to Catherine Ryan on RNZ that Apple News and similar is going to cause us to lose self-determination and will be very bad for democracy. That and people turning to international websites to get their news. Now why on earth would we do that I wonder? Its like the awful Murdoch empire never existed or that he hasn’t noticed what is going on in New Zealand in the past 7 years. Has he heard of Paul Henry and Mike Hosking?

    Gavin, it’s all ready here with our partisan useless media, the war is lost if you think our media are something to hold up as a positive example.

  14. Best advice is to switch it off, and watch a movie on Netflix, YouTube or some other internet-based content provider.

    If you do turn it on, expect it to be right-wing propaganda (not legitimate news) – and get your mates together and have a good laugh or critical analysis of the whole thing.

    There is much better content to be read on blogs, as well as foreign newspapers and media organizations that aren’t the property of right-wing media conglomerates aka like the UK based Independent or the Huffington Post (UK/US), which are more objective in their content.

    It is a sad indictment of NZ media, when they are mostly owned by powerful foreign media conglomerates that favor right-wing propaganda and ratings over decent media coverage.

  15. I am seriously wondering where are his supposed supprters? Because I have been unable to detect any. And also wondering seriously about the sanity of the few who admit on social media that they are Key supporters.

      • “Half the population”?

        That’d be about 2.2 million people. I doubt Dear Leader got that many votes.

        You’re thinking of 1,131,501 voters – roughly one quarter of the population.

        • Except the voters represent more than just themselves. Many will have children under the age of 18 so 1 million voters probably equates to around 1.25 to 1.5 million people. Roughly one third of the population. If you wish to dismiss these people so readily I suggest it does you a disservice.

          • If you wish to dismiss these people so readily I suggest it does you a disservice.


            And you’ve just questioned “What benefit do people get from knowing this?”

            So on the one hand, you prefer to see critical analysis suppressed because you don’t think there’s any “value” to it – but on the other, you’re quite happy to engage in pedantic bullshittery by playing with numbers?

            And all because you can’t address the simple point I’ve raised here that the TV1-Colmar Brunton survey, taken out of any meaningful context with past polls, is by itself useless.

            It’s interesting that your fellow Nats here are also trying to deflect and cloud the issues I’ve raised.

            You and your right-wing comrades must feel very threatened by the time and energy devoted to trying to smear and undermine my blogposts.

            Excellent. It means I’m not wasting my time.

      • You still haven’t explained why exactly they should provide a context to the story by linking it back to Key’s popularity 6 or 7 years ago. What benefit do people get from knowing this?

        • . What benefit do people get from knowing this?

          Gosman, you’re kidding right?

          You’ve just invoked the justification used by authoritarian regimes throughout history, to suppress information. Otherwise known as censorship.

          Your authoritarian tendencies are revealed.

        • Gosman, are you serious when you ask “what benefit do people get from knowing this”??????

          So you’re comfortable with the media not reporting information that makes the government look bad?

          You do know what that’s called, don’t you?

  16. Fraudulent statistics,like the troop deployment in Iraq support, lets hope it doesnt turn into a Dien Bien Phu, with IS within 45 minutes Humvee range you can bet our Get Some Guts Prime Minister wont be visiting them this Xmas.

  17. “There was no other context to the survey.”

    Ok, so I’ll provide some context for you.

    Colmar Brunton Poll Aug/Sep 2015
    National 47%
    Labour 32%
    Greens 12%
    NZF 7%

    Preferred PM
    Key 40%
    Little 10%
    Peters 6%

    Now lets compare those results with the same stage of the Clark Labour Govt, in Sep 2007:

    National 49%
    Labour 39%
    Greens 5%
    NZF 3%

    Preferred PM
    Key 31%
    Clark 33%
    Peters 4%

    This ‘context’ shows just the true and remarkable extent of Key’s popularity.

    One year out from their 9th year in Govt, National are only 2% below where they were 1 year out from the end of the Clark Govt. National are 15% ahead of Labour in 2015, they were only 10% in 2007.

    Key’s popularity is a full 7% above Clarks at a comparable time. Whereas Key (as leader of the opposition) was on 31%, Little is on 10%.

    You have tried your very best to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, Frank, but you have failed.

    • *sighs*

      And you’re still attempting to deflect from the point raised in my story, and trying to reframe the issue to suit yourself (and your fellow Young Nats).

      Deflection appears to be your primary strategy these days. Won’t work, I’m afraid.

      • Your ‘point’ seems to be that Key’s popularity is lower now than it was when he first got elected and that the Media aren’t mentioning this in their news reports about the polls. You haven’t really given an explanation over why they should do this given it is something that you would expect to occur for ANY leader not just Key. I’m pretty sure they didn’t make reference to long term historical trends wth Helen Clark either due to the same reasons so why should they do different for Key?

        • Your ‘point’ seems to be that Key’s popularity is lower now than it was when he first got elected and that the Media aren’t mentioning this in their news reports about the polls.

          Correct. You’re finally addressing the point.

          You haven’t really given an explanation over why they should do this given it is something that you would expect to occur for ANY leader not just Key.

          1. Because John Key is the PM, not “ANY” other person.

          2. Because it provides a better, more overall picture.

          One poll, by itself, is meaningless without overall context. Which is why is other instances, polls are charted, to give a fuller picture. Like this;

          I trust that clears up any confusion in your mind, Gosman?

          By the way, if you don’t think my points are valid, that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how strange they might be to others.

          But if you don’t like my blogposts, why don’t you carry out your own advice that you give to us when you suggest we invest our money to set up out our tv station, newspaper, or radio network (when we criticise the MSM) ? Why don’t you invest your own money/time to set up your own blogsite?

          Because questioning “What benefit do people get from knowing this” just because you see no value to the info I’ve presented leaves you in a precarious position of imposing your values on others.

          • Frank, I never thought I would post on the daily blog again but I am back. I think you are trying to make something out of nothing with this blog post concerning the Colmar Brunton Poll, so I went to the Colmar Brunton website and find:

            1) National have averaged 47.5% in the last 6 polls with the low point in Sept 2014 45%.

            2) Labour have averaged 30.3% in the last 6 polls with low point 25% (Under Cunliffe) in Sept 2014.

            3) John Key has averaged 41.7% over the last 6 polls with the low points in July and Sept 2015 40%.

            4) Andrew Little and David Cunnliffe (14% Sept 2014) have averaged 10% in the last 6 polls with th low point 8% in July 2015.

            You have mentioned context in your post. Let me say that John Key and the National Party have remained on 40% and 47% for both July and September 2015 so I guess the context is that nothing has changed.

            This information was sourced from the Colmar Brunton website.

            [Hi Grant, just a heads-up that we’re still experiencing issues with some posts being diverted into the incorrect folder, instead of the Pending Folder. So if one doesn’t appear, there’s no need to post it again. Eventually I’ll find the posts and (usually) Approve them. So don’t be concerned you’re on any ‘black list’, because as far as I’m aware, you’re not. – ScarletMod]

            • Grant – firstly, welcome back. We often disagree, but at least you stick to the issues.

              Without checking any of the data you’ve presented (you’ve given no links), the point is that even you have analysed Colmar Brunton’s data.

              TV1 News failed to do this.

              Without some form of previous context, presenting one poll is meaningless.

              • Frank, I agree, that when looking at a poll it is essential To be able to compare the current position with the history.

              • Frank, not so sure what “even you” means. Are you suggesting I would dare to comment without any facts.

                I presume you will be updating your detailed polling analysis soon.

    • @Born In Barn You have missed the point well and truly. No context was provided by the broadcaster presenting the information which therefore was greatly misleading. You providing ‘context’ now doesn’t change that.

    • Barn, “Ok, so I’ll provide some context for you.”

      No citations given for your stats. For all I know, you’ve plucked the figures out of thin air. Which, I notice, you have done on previous occassions.

      So either reference your figures or don’t bother.

    • Born in a barn – citations for those poll results please? Because I don’t believe a word of what you say.

      I’ve been reading your comments here, and elsewhere, and you’re a deceitful little National toady by the looks of it.

      Can’t even be bothered signing with your real name, I notice.

  18. TVNZ have clearly become politicized by the National party.
    Even just the fact that they allow Hosking to run his National party political broadcasts in prime time each night is evidence enough in itself.

  19. I think it’s quite relevant that National got rid of the TVNZ charter in 2011, so they were free to have right wing biased idiots like hosking on every night.
    Some of the things in the charter were,
    “feature programming that contributes towards intellectual, scientific and cultural development, promotes informed and many-sided debate and stimulates critical thought, thereby enhancing opportunities for citizens to participate in community, national and international life;”
    That would have ruled out hosking.
    “Provide independent, comprehensive, impartial, and in-depth coverage and analysis of news and current affairs”
    That’s obviously out the window now too.

    • John Key and the Nats would love NZ to become a poor man’s Singapore, where even uttering an ill word against the dear leader is jalliable offense or at the very least has harsh fines and penalties. Having a free press is a threat to the plan for a more authoritarian society, so it is important for them to shut down all objective voices, and replace them with right-wing mouthpieces that re-enforce the ‘new order’ whatever that is.

  20. The Greens, Labour and NZFirst all need to get their shit together and start working together. They need to figure out if they are prepared to work as a coalition to work for the benefit of New Zealand as a whole, otherwise I am going to have to tolerate another 3 years of Heer Key and his cronies.

Comments are closed.