Rob Salmond is an expatriate Kiwi who knows a fair bit about politics and a lot about statistics. His Pundit article is certainly worth reading.
At the start of an election year, many folk like to try and project the future. Some do it with gut instinct like “Key has the nation’s trust”, others by simple historical precedent like “New Zealanders favour multi-term governments.” These are good fun to read but aren’t usually very rigorous. Others use well-regarded bases in science, like “National is miles ahead in the polls, therefore they’re likely to win,” or “the economy is in the crapper, so the incumbents will lose seats”. These are an improvement, but sometimes get you woolly, ambiguous predictions.
A third group in New Zealand has started using polling trends, as opposed to polling levels, to project an election result.
“The gap is closing, gradually but surely. And it could be very close indeed by late 2011…” said Marty G at The Standard in December, an argument he has continued to make since. I think this style of psephology is seductively sciency but sadly shallow, and should be resisted rather robustly. Here’s why:
and:-
>
1. You can get almost any result you want.
Look at Figure 1. It shows the trend of right-leaning support (National + ACT) as compared to left-leaning support (Labour + Greens) from Pundit’s Poll of Polls from March 2008 to December 2010, along with four projections of the 2011 election result. All are simple linear regressions, based on all the data subsequent to some starting point. All project the result of a November 26, 2011 election. And they project wildly differing results. Line 3 projects a squeaker, with the right winning by only two points, and the election result up to the Maori party (this was basically the version used at The Standard), while line 1 projects a right-leaning landslide. Indeed, if you took the 2008 result as a fixed gauge of support as opposed to an estimate, and then ran your regression on all subsequent data, you would project an even bigger thrashing.
and:-
2. Trends don’t last a year.
Every projection, no matter the start point, is based on the premise that the broad trend we are following now will more or less continue through until the election. Without that kind of assumption, you cannot project. But, as Figure 2 shows, trends in New Zealand politics do not last a year. In fact, they last only four months on average.
The fight is on!
FF 2 
11 !!!!!!!!!!!
G
For those who wonder why Labour wouldnt roll out its policy early read this
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10704904
There’s no fight, it’s either Key governs alone, or Key governs with Rodney/Sharpels/Dunne.
For those who wonder why Labour wouldnt roll out its policy early read this
Mao Tse Tung said, when talking to students re copying, that if someone has a good idea and you copy it then you have a good idea too.
Shouldn’t Labour be glad that National sees the sense in something they’re proposing, and is willing to copy it? That way isn’t there a guarantee that the policy gets implemented at the next election regardless of who wins?
Or are you more interested in the policy as a potential electoral differentiator than a helper of children?
So key would have you moron party faithful believe.
Key is pinning his election hopes on bashing the unemployed, and NZ winning the rugby world cup. He has nothing else.
I’m not suprised people like you would fall for it, again, but I’m certain that the 5-10% of voters that left Labour in 2008, that they need to win back power this year, won’t be so easilly fooled twice.
I can’t wait for election night.
Certainly at the moment everyone must admit that it’s a tall order to expect that Labour would be able to cobble together a coalition, whatever the raw mathematics of the situation suggest.
Any scenario I’ve seen quoted so far suggests Goff relying on Winston getting back and then having to somehow get NZF and the Maori Party and the Greens to join together to have a hope of getting across the line. Does anyone really believe that’s feasible?
Each of these parties might individually come to some arrangement with Labour, but can you see Winston and the Maori Party sitting down together, for example, even if Ms Turia can bring herself to forgive Labour for perceived past slights?
And would the Greens allow themselves to be sullied by joining a coalition with Winston in it, especially after what they saw as a result of sitting on the committee that investigated him last time. I understand the Russell Norman was outraged by what he learnt about Mr P.
At the moment Labour and its supporters seem to be clutching arithmetical straws. The reality is that if Labour wants to rule again it has to close the two party gap big time in the next nine months.
Unfortunately for Labour I suspect that some of the policies to be rolled out by the Nats will outrage Labour diehards but delight mainstream New Zealand, and could actually lead to a widening rather than a closing of this gap. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Spinning rubbish.
5-10% swing from nats to Labour narrows the party vote nicely.
All very much to play for, despite key trying to cement the result in the national psyche 10 months out.
5-10% swing from nats to Labour narrows the party vote nicely.
A 10% swing would be, in my book, closing the two party gap significantly.
So I take it you agree with me, then, that this is the way Labour will make a fight of it in the election, rather than fantasising about some ridiculous coaltion of anyone and everyone?
I very much doubt I’d agree with anything you think, George, given your extremist right wing views, but I certainly think when Labour get those 5-10 percentage points back, the prospect of a Labour/Green coalition looks increasingly likely.
Key will be the one scratching around, making more bad deals in order to try and stay in government.