Roy Morgan poll confirms blogger’s prediction – National is in freefall

.

 

.

On 12 November, I made the following observation;

Polling Decay in Opposition

The longer the Nats remain in Opposition, the  faster their public support will erode. Post 2008, Labour’s polling continued to plummet, whereas National’s ascendancy continued to build on it electoral success…

[…]

The longer National stays in Opposition, the further it’s public support will fall. It is hard to imagine that it’s election night result of 44.4%  will be maintained to the next election in 2020.

In short, the Nats risk growing irrelevancy the longer they stay out of government.

It’s taken faster than I thought possible, but the first post-election poll – from Roy Morgan – has the Labour-led coalition rising  whilst National’s support is falling;

In November support for the newly elected Labour/NZ First/Greens Government was 54.5% (up 6% since early October) ahead of National/Act NZ on 41% (down 5.5%) with minor parties outside Parliament attracting the remaining 4.5% of support.

• Support for Labour/NZ First is at 44.5% (up 7% since early October), a slight increase from their election result of 44.1% while coalition partners the Greens are on 10% (down 1%).
• Support for National is at 40.5% (down 5.5%) and down 3.95% from their election result of 44.5% while their right-wing colleagues Act NZ are stuck unchanged on 0.5%.

Hence why National’s chief party strategist, shit-stirrer, and head-kicker – Steven Joyce has been so vocal lately. His on-going carping about the new government is a desperate attempt for his party to stay relevant.

The longer the Coalition has to implement it’s reforms and fix up thirty years of neo-liberal mis-management, the harder it will be for the Nats to offer themselves as a viable alternative in 2020 or 2023. Or 2026.

Who would vote for a party whose nine years in office saw nothing of any practical value except a cycleway (that failed to deliver promised 4,000 new jobs) and bloated house-values for a minority of middle class property-owners in Auckland and Wellington?

Who would vote for a party whose former Dear Leader smiled and waved his way through eight years in office; who bullied a powerless waitress; wasted $26 million on a pointless referendum; and left a legacy of Kiwi families living in cars, garages, or crammed into mouldy, delapidated housing?

And then there’s this;

.

.

… rivers too polluted to even swim in.

Nine years of National has proven to be an expensive exercise  in futility for this country.

But more so thirty years of a dogmatic neo-liberal experiment which has failed on almost every level (unless you are the 1% or an Auckland property owner).

TV3’s ‘The Nation‘  on 25 November emphasised the grim problems we face, as the entire episode was taken up with the socio-economic problems faced by Northlanders.

• Turning around the far north
• What happened to Moerewa?
• Fixing Northland

That one, single, episode was award-winning journalism. It was Reality TV unlike the inane bullshit we get from “The Block“, “Home Improvement“, “Survivor Whatever/Wherever“, “The Bachelor/ette“, “My Kitchen Cooks“, etc, etc, et-bloody-cetera.

It made for grim watching and deserves to be re-broadcast at prime time.

It is against this back-drop that National’s strategists should understand one thing very clearly: people’s expectations over the last three decades have been low. The pressing social and economic problems we face have been accepted with a shrug from a sizeable chunk of the voting population.

It was presented for a generation that this was as good as it gets.

But if Labour, NZ First, and the Greens can prove that a better alternative exists – then watch National’s poll rating plummet even further. The Roy Morgan Poll gave us a hint of this;

Government Confidence increased substantially during November after New Zealand First chose to form Government with the Labour Party installing Jacinda Ardern as New Zealand’s new PM.

The Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating jumped 15.5pts to 146.5pts in November (the highest for nearly eight years since January 2010 early in the reign of Prime Minister John Key) with 66.5% of NZ electors (up 8% from October) saying NZ is ‘heading in the right direction’ cf. 20% of NZ electors (down 7.5%) that say New Zealand is ‘heading in the wrong direction’.

The Nats are on borrowed time. Their relevancy will continue to diminish.

And it is when the Right have their backs against the wall that they will be most dangerous.

Labour, Green, and NZ First Ministers and MPs need to be on-guard at all times. Stay focused on what needs to be done.

The Roy Morgan poll shows we are on track…

.

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: 26 November 2017
subject: Letters to the editor

.

The editor
Sunday Star Times

.

The latest Roy Morgan poll must be sending shivers down the backs of the National Party hierarchy.

Not because support for the newly elected Labour-led coalition was up 6% to 54.5%, with National/ACT free-falling 5.5% on 41%.

But because the same poll revealed that “66.5% of NZ electors (up 8%) said NZ is heading in the right direction”.

This is a clear message from the people that they have had enough of a market-led, minimalist-government regime that has seen growing child poverty; widening income/wealth inequality; stagnating wages; corporates rorting the tax system; worsening housing affordability; growing homelessness with entire families living in garages or cars; degraded rivers; and a grossly under-funded health system.

National was quick of the mark cutting taxes in 2009 and 2010, for which they had to borrow from overseas to fund, despite assurances that would not happen.

But not so quick to address the critical problems that really matter to New Zealanders.

.

-Frank Macskasy

[name and address supplied]

.

.

.

References

Wikipedia:  Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2011

Electoral Commission:  2017 General Election – Official Result

Roy Morgan Poll:  New PM Jacinda Ardern drives surge in New Zealand Government Confidence

NZ Herald:  Cycleway jobs fall short

Mediaworks:  New Zealand housing most unaffordable in the world – The Economist

Fairfax media: Prime Minister John Key pulled waitress’ ponytail

Radio NZ:  Flag referendum ‘waste of money’

Fairfax media:  New Zealand’s poor housing is making our children sick

Fairfax media:  ‘Serious pressures’ facing rivers, Government report finds

Mediaworks: The Nation – Turning around the far north

Mediaworks: The Nation – What happened to Moerewa?

Mediaworks: The Nation – Fixing Northland

Other Blogs

The Standard:  Latest Roy Morgan Poll – Labour and Greens surge as National flounders

Previous related blogposts

The Legacy of a Dismantled Prime Minister

“Fool me once”

St. Steven and the Holy Grail of Fiscal Responsibility

.

.

.

That was then…

.

This is now…

 

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 November 2017.

.

.

= fs =

From TV’s “The Nation” – Patrick Gower and James Shaw have a heart-to-heart

.

.

 

Saturday, 12 August – On TV3’s ‘The Nation, Patrick Gower interviewed the Green Party’s remaining co-leader, James Shaw;

.

.

For a while, the interview was low-key, with Gower exercising old school  journalistic professionalism. It’s as if someone slipped him a nice camomile tea laced with a couple of shots of  bourbon and just a smidgeon of valium.

The interview progressed well, with James Shaw being somewhat irritatingly ‘coy’ about the Green’s campaign re-set. Gower kept his frustration in check as Shaw did the dance of the Seven Veils, but without the peeling-away of said veils.

Then, at 6:10 into the interview, there was this jaw-dropping exchange between Gower and Shaw;

Patrick Gower: Well, an important aspect of that is what Metiria Turei’s venture around this benefit fraud was all about, which was empowering the disenfranchised. Now, where do they sit — those people that she tried to reach, or, as you’ve argued, did reach now they’ve seen someone who’s stood up for them slapped down and destroyed, effectively? What message does that send to those people that you were trying to reach that this is what happens when someone speaks up for you?

James Shaw: Yeah, Patrick, I have to say that’s been a huge personal concern for me is — what message does that send? And so it is a really important part of our campaign that the people that have come forward over the course of the last four weeks in response to Metiria’s campaign who said, ‘Finally, I feel like there’s someone in the House of Representatives who actually represents me,’ we are going to be speaking directly to those people and say, ‘The Green Party is here for you. We still stand for you.’ And it is our goal to end poverty. I mean, Metiria herself said that is was always bigger than her.

Patrick Gower: Yeah, but what do those words mean when what they see is she stood up for them and she was taken down by her own party in some senses? You guys didn’t stand behind her.

James Shaw: Patrick, we absolutely stood behind her. She had the full support of me, the caucus, the party executive. I mean, we had thousands of volunteers all over the country.

Now – what’s wrong with Gower’s comments?

Why – when listening/reading his words – does one feel rising nausea and anger?

And why does the word “hypocrisy” ring loud?

Perhaps I’ve crossed over into a Parallel Universe… Bernie Sanders is still President of the United States, right?

 

.

.

.

References

Mediaworks/TV3: The Nation – Patrick Gower interviews James Shaw (video)

Scoop media: The Nation – Patrick Gower interviews James Shaw (transcript)

Previous related blogposts

Some background info for Guyon Espiner

Time to speak up for Metiria Turei!

Time to speak up for Metiria Turei! (Part Rua)

The most grievous betrayal of all – two so-called “Green” MPs who should know better

Metiria Turei has started something

 

.

.

.

.

Acknowledgement for cartoon: Toby Morris, Radio NZ.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 13 August 2017.

.

.

= fs =

The Mendacities of Mr Key # 18: “No question – NZ is better off!”

.

.

1. Credit where it’s due!

.

TV3’s  The Nation on 2 July was probably the most incisive investigative journalism this blogger has seen for a long time. The only “fault” is that The Nation is ‘buried’ at the ghetto time-slot of early Saturday (and repeated early Sunday morning). Mediaworks is wasting a tremendous opportunity to use their current affairs journalistic team as a critical lynch-pin of their broadcasting line-up.

(Especially after the fiasco surrounding the cancellation of Campbell Live. But let’s not go there and rain on The Nation’s well-deserved parade.

In this episode;

• Patrick Gower interviewed John Key and elicited some eyebrow-raising responses from him
• An investigation by Phil Vine and Heather du Plessis-Allan into the Saudi sheep deal yielded  disturbing revelations

.

2. Evidently, we’re “better off”?

.

Following on from Bill English’s tragi-comical  assertion in Parliament on 29 June that  “there is no evidence that inequality in New Zealand is increasing“, our esteemed Dear Leader repeated the mantra three days later in response to a question from Gower;

Patrick Gower: “Good morning, Prime Minister, and thank you very much for joining us. Now, I want to take you back to your first big speech as leader of the National Party – that speech about McGehan Close. You talked in that speech about streets in our country where helplessness has become ingrained and said we have to do better. Now, on McGehan Close, when you went there, people were living in homes. Now we are looking at people living in cars. Is that really better? Is that better?”

John Key: “I think there’s no question New Zealand’s better…”

As reported in a previous story (see: Foot in mouth award – Bill English, for his recent “Flat Earth” comment in Parliament) practically every metric used  presents an unflattering picture of New Zealand in the early 21st century.

From the Children’s Commissioner;

Child poverty is now significantly worse than the 1980s. In 1985 the percentage of children in families experiencing income poverty was 15%, compared to 29% now

Put another way;

“305,000 New Zealand children now live in poverty – 45,000 more than a year ago”.

Statistics NZ’s reported;

“Between 1988 and 2014, income inequality between households with high incomes and those with low incomes widened“

And the OECD was also damning, stating;

  “rising inequality is estimated to have knocked more than 10 percentage points off  [economic] growth in Mexico and New Zealand.” 

Perhaps the most credible indictment of Key’s misguided view that “there’s no question New Zealand’s better” is from Key himself, from 2011;

He said he had visited a number of budgeting services and food banks “and I think it’s fair to say they’ve seen an increase in people accessing their services. So that situation is there.”

The difficulty with Key’s statement that “there’s no question New Zealand’s better” is that no one believes it.

.

3. Unemployment is down?

.

When Gower pressed Key that things had not improved much since Key’s visit  to  Aroha Ireland in McGehan Close in 2007, Dear Leader responded;

“The unemployment rate in New Zealand is now falling pretty dramatically.”

Well of course “unemployment in New Zealand is now falling“.  Unemployment has “dropped” from 5.7% to 5.2%.

But not because National’s policies have created twelve thousand new jobs.

But because Statistics NZ had conveniently revised its method of calculating the number of unemployed men and women by arbitrarily excluding those who were jobseeking using the internet;

Looking at job advertisements on the internet is correctly classified as not actively seeking work. This change brings the classification in line with international standards and will make international comparability possible… Fewer people will be classified as actively seeking work, therefore the counts of people unemployed will be more accurate.

The utter cheek of Statistics NZ to claim that   “therefore the counts of people unemployed will be more accurate” by excluding on-line job-hunting is matched only by Dear Leader Key who wasted no time in taking credit for “unemployment rate in New Zealand is now falling pretty dramatically“.

We are being lied to – and it is officially sanctioned.

.

4. Cosying up to Winston?

.

Gower then touched upon Key’s attitude toward NZ First leader Winston Peters, and asked;

Patrick Gower: “But what about deputy prime minister? Do you rule out Winston Peters being deputy prime minister in one of your governments?”

At this point, my mind immediately Quantum-Leaped back to 2008 and 2011 when Key categorically, absolutely, 100%, resolutely, ruled out any possibility of having Winston Peters in his government;

“Mr Peters will be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by me unless he can provide a credible explanation [on the Owen Glenn donations scandal].” – John Key, 27 August 2008

“I don’t see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead. Historically, he has always been sacked by prime ministers. It’s a very different style to mine and it’s rearward-looking. I’m about tomorrow. I’m not about yesterday. If Winston Peters holds the balance of power it will be a Phil Goff-led Labour government. ” – John Key, 2 February 2011

Seems fairly straight forward; Key was holding up his own “No” card, a-la Winston;

.

.

Except, in the next breath, Key over-ruled himself and his previous pronouncements;

John Key: “Well, I’m not going to rule those sorts of things out.”

Perhaps Key mis-heard Patrick Gower’s question. Perhaps Key had mistakenly thought that Gower had asked him; “But what about deputy prime minister? Do you rule out Moonbeam being deputy prime minister in one of your governments?”

So, being the fair-minded journo that Gower is, he repeated the question;

Patrick Gower:  “Yeah, but do you rule out Winston Peters as John Key’s deputy prime minister?”

John Key: “No, because in the end, in 2017, we’re going to have an election, and when we have that election, what we’ll have to do is I’ll ultimately put together a government. I can’t determine that. The people of New Zealand determine that. What I have a responsibility to do is to put together a government — if I’m in the position to lead the largest party and to lead those negotiations — then to try and make that work.  But I’m not going to say who’s a minister and who’s not or what role they have and what they don’t.”

So there you have it. John Key – a Man of his Word. And principled. And flexible. Flexible with his Principles.

Or else, the John Key of 2008 and 2011 is not the same man who calls himself “John Key” in 2016? An imposter?

The only reason that people like John Key can get away with back-peddling; mis-information; and bendy-truths is that the voting-public are more cynical than ever. (Hence the rise of anti-establishment figure, Donald Trump; the in-your-face “Brexit” vote, and the success of Independent candidates in the Australian elections.) Voters expect politicians to be dishonest, manipulative, and abandon all principles in pursuit of power.

In this respect, Key has not disappointed.

.

5. Matthew Hooton

.

Well known right-wing commentator, Matthew Hooton, has been scathing in his condemnation of Murray McCully’s “Saudi Sheep Deal”, and has  conducted his own investigations into the scandal. His findings have been published on the National Business Review’s website.

Whilst Matthew and I hold wildly differing political views, and whilst his involvement in ‘Dirty Politics’ is questionable, his insightful analysis and  commentary on McCully’s dealings with Hmood Al-Khalaf has to be respected.

Matthew was a valuable contributor in analysing the “Saudi Sheep Deal” on The Nation, proving a credible counter-foil to Michelle Boag’s slavish and occasionally near-hysterical defense of Murray McCully’s dubious actions.

.

6. Auditor-General

.

The panelists lamented the fact that the Auditor-General’s report into the Saudi Sheep Deal was “not imminent”. I do not share those feelings.

Next year will be Election Year, and the closer the report’s release is to Election Day, the better it will be for the Opposition. If the Auditor-General’s findings are as scathing as many believe it will be, McCully will be sacked from his Ministerial position. The inglorious demise of his career will add to public perception that National plays “loose” with laws if there is a “buck” to be made.

The release of the Auditor-General’s report next year would be a strategic coup for Labour, Greens, and NZ First.

 

.

7. Final Word

.

Final word from that outstanding episode of The Nation has to go to Victoria University political scientist, Dr Jon Johansson;

.

.

 

“ People are utterly fed up with their Establishment, their elites, never accepting accountability for anything.”

Nailed it, Doc.

.

.

.

References

TV3: The Nation

TV3: The Nation – Interview with John Key

Parliament Today: Questions & Answers – June 29

NZ Children: Child Poverty Monitor – Technical Report

Radio NZ: A third of NZ children live in poverty

Statistics NZ: Income inequality

OECD: Trends in Income Inequality and its impact on economic growth

NZ Herald: Key admits underclass still growing

NZ Herald:  A day out with friends in high places

Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – Revisions to labour market estimates

Scoop media:  Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government

NZ Herald: PM rules out any NZ First deal

Fairfax media: John Key’s Cat Moonbeam

NBR: Flying sheep endanger McCully

TV3:  Panel – Jon Johansson, Conor English & Mike Williams

Previous related blogposts

John Key: Man of Many Principles

An open letter to Winston Peters

John Key: When propaganda photo-ops go wrong

National Housing propaganda – McGehan Close Revisited

What will be her future?

I have seen one future, and it is bleak

State house sell-off in Tauranga unravelling?

The Mendacities of Mr English – Fibbing from Finance Minister confirmed

Why is Paula Bennett media-shy all of a sudden?

Park-up in Wellington – People speaking against the scourge of homelessness

Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies

Foot in mouth award – Bill English, for his recent “Flat Earth” comment in Parliament

Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies – ** UPDATE **

.

.

.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 7 July 2016.

.

.

= fs =

Letter to the editor – Did Bill English try to pull a swiftie on ‘The Nation’?

.

.

On TV3’s “The Nation“, Lisa Owen asked Finance Minister Bill English if funding for health and education had been cut on a per-capita basis. The response from  English was jaw-dropping;

“…if you look at the figures, let’s say for health, a variety of economists say that we needed about 700 million a year just to keep pace, yet health is getting about 570 million a year. You’ve frozen the schools’ operational budgets, so to be absolutely clear, per capita spending on health and education, it’s down, isn’t it?”

Bill English replied;

“No. Look, I couldn’t say for sure whether it’s up or down. “

.

.

What?! The Finance Minister was saying to the New Zealand public that he “ couldn’t say for sure whether it’s [per capita spending] up or down“?! So how does he allocate money within the multi-billion dollar budget? By roll of a dice?

It deserved a response…

.

from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Sat, May 28, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor

.

The editor
NZ Herald

.

On 28 May, Finance Minister Bill English was interviewed on TV3’s “The Nation“. Host Lisa Owen asked English if funding for health and education had been cut on a per-capita basis;

“…if you look at the figures, let’s say for health, a variety of economists say that we needed about 700 million a year just to keep pace, yet health is getting about 570 million a year. You’ve frozen the schools’ operational budgets, so to be absolutely clear, per capita spending on health and education, it’s down, isn’t it?”

English replied,

“No. Look, I couldn’t say for sure whether it’s up or down. “

Which he repeated;

“It’s not a measure we apply… Now, per capita, I can’t tell you whether it’s up or down. “

It beggars belief that a Finance Minister, responsible for a budget of $77.4 billion of taxpayer’s money, appears not to know if per capita spending on health and education is up or down.

This would be akin to mum and dad doing the weekly grocery shopping – and not knowing how many children to buy food for.

It simply is not credible that a Finance Minister would be unaware of such basic information.

So which is it – incompetence or evasion?

.

-Frank Macskasy

.

 

[address and phone number supplied]

.

.

.

References

TV3 The Nation: Interview with Bill English

Fairfax media:  Budget 2016 – $700m needed for health to stand still – CTU

NZ Herald: New Zealand Budget 2016 – At-risk students targeted, operational funding frozen

Budget 2016: Core Crown expenses

.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on  29 May 2016.

.

.

= fs =

Media stories of the Week: US Ambassador dismissive of our laws

.

.

Every so often, the mainstream news media do their job well, and little nuggets of insights are revealed…

TV3’s ‘The Nation‘ on 28 November had host and highly-experienced journalist, Lisa Owen, interview current US Ambassador, Mark Gilbert.

Amongst topics covered was National’s determination to invite an American warship to New Zealand.

Since 1987,  this country has been a nuclear weapons and nuclear-propelled* free-zone and even National grudgingly acceded to Labour’s then-revolutionary policy. At a time when the Cold War between super-powers held the entire planet at the precipice to atomic armageddon, a tiny little country of barely three million held up it’s collective hand and refused to participate in the madness.

In 2004, then-leader of the opposition National Party, Don Brash made secret promises to a US Congressional delegation that New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation ban would be ‘gone by lunchtime‘. The story hit headlines, though Brash denied making any such promise. Two years later, after losing an election; personal-life problems; and unable to take Helen Clark head-on in debates; Brash was ousted as National’s leader.

Shortly after rolling Brash and seizing power in the National Party, newly-elected leader John Key vowed that his party would maintain New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation, asserting;

“National’s position has been in limbo in relation to nuclear ships, so I want to make it perfectly clear that I support the nuclear-free legislation.

For as long as I am leader of the National Party, the nuclear-free legislation will remain intact.

I think New Zealanders have a long-held view that this is important to our nation-building. I think they see it as New Zealand standing up strongly for something it believes in.

I believe in that position and I see absolutely no reason to change it.”

In 2012, Key repeated his promise to maintain New Zealand’s status as nuclear-free;

“There’ll be no change to New Zealand’s anti-nuclear legislation, no change to the provisions about boats that would come to New Zealand.”

This year, Key has been making noises to invite a US warship to New Zealand, with an invitation issued at the beginning of November;

.

.

When challenged whether or not National would take steps to seek guarantees that a visiting warship would neither be nuclear armed nor propelled, Key replied it was not necessary. In effect, he referred people to use Google;

“There’s plenty of open source documentation and qualification that would allow you to form a view – for instance, I don’t think anyone’s ever argued that a US coastguard is either nuclear-powered nor nuclear-armed.

There’s enough stuff there, depending on the vessel that they send, for an assessment to be made.”

Despite the supposed removal of all atomic weapons from US warships announced by President Bush in September 1991, the US military still maintains a “neither confirm, nor deny” policy, as stated unequivocally by Ambassador Gilbert on 28 November;

“We will always stay with our ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy.”

Yet, as President Bush maintained on 28 September 1991;

“… the United States will withdraw all tactical nuclear weapons from its surface ships and attack submarines, as well as those nuclear weapons associated with our land-based naval aircraft. This means removing all nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. ships and submarines, as well as nuclear bombs aboard aircraft carriers. The bottom line is that under normal circumstances, our ships will not carry tactical nuclear weapons.”

Bush has stated categorically that atomic weapons were removed from all US warships.

Why is Ambassador Gilbert unwilling to confirm that?

Furthermore,  Lisa Owen extracted this admission from the Ambassador;

.

 

.

Lisa Owen: Okay, so will you send a ship that complies with our laws? Let me put it that way.

Mark Gilbert: First of all, a decision has not been made whether we’re going to be able to send a ship or not.

Lisa Owen: If you were to send one, would you send one that complied with our laws?

Mark Gilbert: We will always stay with our ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy.

Lisa Owen: You’re going to stick hard and fast with that?

Mark Gilbert: We always have.

Note that not only did the Ambassador refuse to confirm President Bush’s removal of atomic weapons from US warships – but he also refused to comply with our laws.

This is a shocking admission that the United States is prepared to ignore our laws, and that our esteemed dear Leader is prepared to turn a blind eye.

There is nothing from Key’s or Gilbert’s assertions that fills me with confidence that either men are willing to uphold this country’s nuclear free legislation.

.

 

* The sinkings of the Lermontov and Rena perhaps offer sound reasons why the ban on nuclear propulsion should remain alongside atomic weapons.

.

.

.

References

TV3: The Nation – Interview and transcript – US Ambassador Mark Gilbert

NZ History: Nuclear-free New Zealand

Beehive: Not yet gone by lunchtime

Radio NZ: Gone by lunchtime stoush erupts again

NZ Herald: Key’s vow makes National anti-nuke

TV3: NZ will stay nuclear-free – Key

Radio NZ: US naval ships invited to visit NZ

New York Times: Bush’s Arms Plan – Remarks by President Bush on Reducing U.S. and Soviet Nuclear Weapons

NZ National Maritime Museum: The Last Cruise of the Mikhail Lermontov

Transport Accident Investigation Commission: Marine Inquiry 11-204: Container ship MV Rena grounding on Astrolabe Reef, 5 October 2011

Other bloggers

No Right Turn: Against a US ship visit

The Daily Blog:  Is a US warship finally coming to New Zealand?

The Standard: US ship visit and nuclear free NZ

.

.

.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 November 2015.

.

.

= fs =

The Mendacity of Ms Una Jagose, Spymaster

.

.

Intro.

.

.

Background.

15 September 2014

Despite being labelled a “fizzer” by some National-aligned critics, and a media expecting ‘fireworks’, the “Moment of Truth” event  presented information that raised the public’s awareness of state surveillance and data collection in this country;

…that the Government Communications Security Bureau was involved in the mass surveillance of New Zealand citizens, and that the National government and Prime Minister John Key were aware of it […] NSA leaker Edward Snowden accused Prime Minister John Key of misleading the public over the country’s spying activities…

One mass-surveillance system referred to was XKEYSCORE, which investigative-journalists on The Intercept described as;

The NSA’s XKEYSCORE program, first revealed by The Guardian, sweeps up countless people’s Internet searches, emails, documents, usernames and passwords, and other private communications. XKEYSCORE is fed a constant flow of Internet traffic from fiber optic cables that make up the backbone of the world’s communication network, among other sources, for processing. As of 2008, the surveillance system boasted approximately 150 field sites in the United States, Mexico, Brazil, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, Japan, Australia, as well as many other countries, consisting of over 700 servers.

These servers store “full-take data” at the collection sites — meaning that they captured all of the traffic collected — and, as of 2009, stored content for 3 to 5 days and metadata for 30 to 45 days. NSA documents indicate that tens of billions of records are stored in its database. “It is a fully distributed processing and query system that runs on machines around the world,” an NSA briefing on XKEYSCORE says. “At field sites, XKEYSCORE can run on multiple computers that gives it the ability to scale in both processing power and storage.”

Our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, has consistently refused to confirm of deny whether or not the GCSB uses XKEYSCORE. Equally critically, Key refused to confirm or deny whether or not the spy bureau obtains information from the American NSA, which does employ XKEYSCORE.

15 March 2015

However, seven months ago, investigative journalists Nicky Hager and Ryan Gallagher, working with the Herald on Sunday, released a damning report which presented clear evidence that the New Zealand government was indeed collecting private information using XKEYSCORE;

For the first time, New Zealanders can learn about people their government has targeted as part of its role in Five Eyes, a surveillance alliance that includes New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.

The secret document, dated from January 2013, shows some of the names and other search terms that the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) entered into the internet spying system XKeyscore . XKeyscore is run by the US National Security Agency and is used to analyse vast amounts of email, internet browsing sessions and online chats that are intercepted from some 150 different locations worldwide.

GCSB has gained access to XKeyscore through its partnership in Five Eyes, and contributes data to the system that is swept up in bulk from a surveillance base in Waihopai Valley.

John Key’s assurances that New Zealanders are not under mass surveillance, nor mass data-collection being used, is also questionable after a recent TV3 The Nation’s interview with the GCSB’s  acting director, Una Jagose.

As well as XKEYSCORE, there is another programme that Key confirmed was being used by the GCSB – “Cortex”;

“We’ve never undertaken mass surveillance, we have got a programme called Cortex running over specific entities providing cyber protection.”

However, there are indications that Cortex is not merely the benign “cyber protection system” as has been made out.

It may well be a cleverly  disguised ‘Trojan Horse’ – a possibility recently raised by fellow blogger, Martyn Bradbury and others.

The Present.

On 3 October, the GCSB’s  acting director, Una Jagose, was interviewed by Patrick Gower.

.

Image acknowledgement: TV3 – The Nation

.

Whether by clever persistance or sheer dumb luck, Gower managed to elicit some intriguing responses from Jagose on the ‘Cortex’ programme.

Gower first asked who is under attack by “cyber threats from overseas”. Jagose responded;

“We focus our attention on New Zealand companies that are holders of information, assets of importance to New Zealand, so nationally important infrastructure companies and some key government departments. So, yes, we’re definitely seeing attacks there.”

Gower then pointedly asked; “So what you’re talking about – banks, telecom companies, those kinds of things?”

At this point, Jagose became less than forthcoming;

“Well, those parts of the infrastructure, the nationally important, those sorts of things. We actually don’t talk about who they are or specifically what types of organisations they are, because revealing that also reveals to an adversary where we might have our best and richest sources of data that they might be interested.”

Which is interesting, as foreign cyber attackers would already be aware who their targets are in this country. Jagose would not be revealing anything that foreign cyber attackers would not already know.

The only people kept in the dark – us.

As Gower continued to interview Jagose, it soon became apparent why she was reticent in revealing who was being targetted by so-called “foreign cyber attacks”.

Gower followed up by asking a natural-enough question; “who is trying to get this information? Is it individual criminal organisations, or is it countries?”

Jagose replied;

“…At best it’s criminals. It’s often foreign-sourced sophisticated malware that we’re seeing…

[…]

… it could be industrial espionage. It could be IP theft. It could be just having an in to important sovereign communications or discussions by government agencies, policies, positions governments might take, positions companies might take.”

Then, she made this startling admission;

“We don’t spend too much of our time trying to track down who did that, because, in fact, we want to use our time and our technology protecting networks and systems.”

Pardon?!

“We don’t spend too much of our time trying to track down who did that…”

Jagose repeated the statement in the next response she gave to Gower – though the TV3 reporter did not appear to comprehend the implications of her candid admission;

“Well, again, I say we don’t spend our energy looking at— attribution is really difficult. It is apparently a very technical and difficult thing to work out where did that come from, who’s doing it and why are they doing it? We spend our energy on defence.”

In effect, the GCSB’s “new role” has moved from intelligence gathering (ie, finding out who is supposedly – and I use that word deliberately – launching “cyber attacks” against us) – to one of being a State-funded-and-operated, quasi-Norton Anti-Virus agency?

Is this credible?

When did National decide to go into business to offer a rival service to MacAfee, AVG, Norton, et al?

That is not a rhetorical question, as National released two Cabinet Minutes related to “Project Cortex”. The first, labelled “1”, is dated 28 July 2014, the other (labelled “4”) is simply dated “2014” (though Key refers to the document as having been written in July 2014). Both outlined a business case for “Cortex”, including costings and assessment by Treasury – though all dollar figures had been redacted.

Cabinet Minute 4 takes great pains to point out;

2. The proposal takes into account the amended GCSB Act and necessary warranting procedures, and will in all cases operate with the consent of the participating entities.

In fact, Cabinet Minute 4 refers to “consent” from organisations and entities no less than eight times. Someone was at pains to make the point to whoever was going to read the document. Which would be  unusual, as normally Cabinet Minutes are almost never made public.

Cabinet Minute 4 also makes several curious statements;

27. There will be no ‘mass surveillance’, and data will be accessed by GCSB only with the  consent of owners of relevant networks or systems.

By coincidence, a press statement from John Key dated 15 September, 2014 – two months after Cabinet Minute 4 was supposedly written shortly after a Cabinet Meeting held that year – quoted Dear Leader as stating;

“I can assure New Zealanders that there is not, and never has been, mass surveillance by the GCSB.

“In stark contrast, the Bureau actually operates a sound, individually-based form of cyber protection only to entities which legally consent to it,” Mr Key says.

Paragraph 27 of that Cabinet Minute – supposedly written before the “Moment of Truth” on 15 September 2014 – sounds remarkably similar to Key’s 15 September 2015 press statement – a year after “Moment of Truth”.

It almost seems as if Cabinet Minute 4 was prepared at some later date, knowing that it would be eventually be released to the media and the public to counter the “Moment of Truth”. Which is ridiculous… the author(s) of that Minute could not have known – in advance – that the Minute would eventually be released by  National. That would mean that the document was written well after the Cabinet meeting, and was re-worded to take into account revelations by Edward Snowden on 15 September last year.

That would mean the document was a fraud.

Ridiculous… right?

Interestingly, Cabinet Minute 4 also makes this curious statement at two different points;

7. GCSB is not proposing to procure or develop bespoke systems. No material level of software development is required of GCSB or a second party. The proposal is to procure then integrate capability components already available and tested over several years [redacted],

41. GCSB is not proposing to procure or develop bespoke systems. No material level of software development is required of GCSB or a second party. The proposal is to procure then integrate capability components already available and tested, [redacted]. The hardware and software components range from widely available commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) systems, through to single-source COTS, to systems only available through government-to-government agreement. All of the technology has been in use for some time, [redacted].

As The Intercept website asked,

The Cortex documents [Cabinet Minutes] refer to the use of technology that “has been in use for some time.” What technology is this?

What is the Cabinet Minute referring to when it states; “ components already available and tested over several years ” and “capability components already available and tested“?

“Available” where?

“Tested” by whom?

“In use for some time” by who?

The document throws up more questions than answers. Unfortunately, despite Key’s claims to the contrary, this is not an open and transparent government that readily shares information.

So which “consenting organisations” will use Cortex? And will clients and staff be made aware that their electronic communications may be intercepted by the GCSB?

Cabinet Minute 4 states;

18. The foundation of the preferred option is a malware detection service delivered to [redacted] consenting organisations. [redacted] of the [redacted] organisations will be government agencies. The other [redacted] will be drawn from a list of approximately [redacted] organisations of national importance developed by DPMC’s National Cyber Policy Office (NCPO) and approved by ODESC on 7 June 2013. The list includes key economic generators, niche exporters, research institutions and operators of critical national infrastructure.

However, we do not know who those “consenting organisations” are. It is a secret. Remember Jagose’s first response to Gower during the 3 October interview;

“We actually don’t talk about who they are or specifically what types of organisations they are, because revealing that also reveals to an adversary where we might have our best and richest sources of data that they might be interested.”

Note that Paragraph 18 above refers to the “National Cyber Policy Office” (NCPO). The NCPO is an arm of the Security and Intelligence Group. That Group, in turn, is part of  the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC);

.

.

Note the address of the “National Cyber Policy Office“: Pipitea House, 1-15 Pipitea Street, Thorndon (arrow 1). Which happens to be the same building housing the GCSB.

Then note something called “Connect Smart” (arrow 2), which is described as;

Connect Smart is a new Government-led initiative, delivered in partnership with the private and NGO sectors, to raise awareness of cyber security issues and promote ways to protect yourself, your business and others online.

“Connect Smart” sounds remarkably like the supposedly top-secret list described by Cabinet Minute 4 as, “organisations of national importance developed by DPMC’s National Cyber Policy Office (NCPO) and  … The list includes key economic generators, niche exporters, research institutions and operators of critical national infrastructure”.

“Connect Smart” was launched on 16 June 2014 (just prior to Cabinet Minute 1   supposedly written on 28 July 2014), by Communications and Information Technology Minister, Amy Adams.

Adams warned about;

“The common thread that unites cyber threats is their capacity to cause damage; ranging in scale from the distress experienced by an individual who has had their identity hacked, to the economic damage that sustained industrial cyber espionage can cause to a country.”

She further stated;

“A range of departments are involved – from those at the front end, such as Police, Department of Internal Affairs, and the National Cyber Security Centre, through to those grappling with the policy implications of cyber security, led by the National Cyber Policy Office. 

This year, the NCPO will be working on a number of major policy initiatives:

• A refreshed and comprehensive national Cyber Security Strategy to make sure we are coordinated and resourced across government to address this challenge;

• A targeted inter-agency cybercrime plan;

• An assessment of the economic balance of cyberspace for New Zealand;

• Testing the Government’s response to a significant cyber incident; and

• Consideration of the options for a national cyber mechanism to improve the coordination, effectiveness and efficiency of the Government’s response to cyber incidents. “

It sounds as if Adams is referring to… Cortex?

So who are the  “Connect Smart” Partners? They are;

• Hewlett Packard
• Spark NZ (formerly Telecom)
• ASB
• Facebook
• ANZ
• Datacom
• Microsoft
• Dimension Data
• Marsh
• International Underwriting Agencies Ltd
• Internal Affairs
• Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
• Vodaphone
• Aura Information
• Mako Networks
• Ministry for Primary Industries
• RSA
• Symantec
• NZ Post
• Inland Revenue
• EQC
• Nga Pu Waea
• NCSC
• North Harbour Business Association
• RealMe
• Mastercard
• NZ Police
• Transpower
• University of Auckland
• Yahoo NZ
• ZX Security
• Google
• IPENZ Engineers NZ
• ACC
• Air New Zealand
• British High Commission
• Consumer
• Financial Markets Authority
• Institute of IT Professionals
• Internet NZ
• Kiwibank
• KPMG
• Massey University
• Privacy Commissioner
• PWC
• Senior Net
• VISA
• Dept of Conservation
• Xero
• 1st Tuesday
• Journey Church
• Duo
• Digital Journey
• Institute of Directors
• University of Waikato
• Unitech
• Scots College
• Greater East Tamaki Business Association
• Commission for Financial Literacy
• Delta Insurance
• Neighbourhood Support
• Westpac
• Ministry of Education
• BNZ
• Waikator District Health Board
• NZ Foreign Affairs & Trade
• Waitemata District Health Board
• Business NZ
• Crimestoppers
• MPA
• Longitude 174
• University of Canterbury
• VMWare
• Trademe
• Insurance Council of NZ
• Weta Digital
• High Tech Youth Network
• AJ Park
• Noel Leeming
• Our School
• NZ Transport Agency
• NZ Bankers Association
• University of Otago
• Gallagher
• Chartered Accountants
• AIG
• ARC Solutions
• Secure Safe
• Safestack
• Paymark
• Quantum Security
• NZ Customs Service
• Room 9
• NZ Trade & Enterprise
• SSS IT Security Specialists
• Statistics NZ
• NZ Health IT
• Crombie Lockwood
• Snap
• Lock It
• Connect
• Computercare
• Meredith Connell
• Network Box
• TUANZ
• Stay Smart Online
• Sovereign
• NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS)
• Eagle Technology
• Plan B
• Naki Cloud
• Pentech
• Liverton Technology Group
• Price Me
• Mila XAG
• Need A Nerd
• KD Consult
• Senate SHJ

(I have listed all companies, in case the website suddenly disappears, or that particular page is taken down.)

“The list includes key economic generators, niche exporters, research institutions and operators of critical national infrastructure” – the DPMC’s National Cyber Policy Office’s description of their supposedly secret list of clients.

The “Connect Smart” list certainly meets that criteria – including the Security Intelligence Service. And Amy Adams’ 16 June speech appears to confirm it.

So do the staff and clients of these companies, organisations, and government departments know that they are most likely part of the Cortex programme run by the GCSB?

Are they aware that their electronic communications may be collected and stored by the GCSB?

Are they aware their communications could be read, as Jagose confirmed to Patrick Gower;

Gower: What does the analyst do if there’s a personal email there?

Jagose: Well, the analyst is looking at it not for its content but for what the email and the traffic tells us about the fingerprint or the adverse attack that is occurring. So that’s what they do with it.

Gower: But the analyst can see the content if they want to?

Jagose: Yes.

Gower then asked the all-important question;

Gower: Yeah, but I would be told, would I, by the company that they’ve now put Cortex on?

Jagose: You’ll be told that your communications will be screened or may be screened for cyber defence purposes.

Gower: Right. How do you get told that?

Jagose: In terms and conditions of use, for example.

I scrutinised the Terms and Conditions of Spark NZ – one of the country’s largest companies that deals with thousands of employees, contractors, and customers. Is there any reference to Cortex with Spark’s Terms and Conditions?

Answer: no.

There is, however, this brief reference to handing over information to the government;

The Operator and Spark Digital reserve the right to disclose end user information that it believes, in good faith, is appropriate or necessary to take precautions against liability; to protect the Operator and Spark Digital and others from fraudulent, abusive, predatory, or unlawful uses or activity; to investigate and defend against any third party claims or allegations; to assist government enforcement agencies; or to protect the security or integrity of the Platform.

That paragraph is at the end of the Terms and Conditions statement, at the bottom of the page. How many people will have waded through the entire document to spot it? Who even bothers to read Terms and Conditions?

And by itself, just how informative is the brief statement, “to assist government enforcement agencies“?

It is a meaningless statement.

One cannot escape the conclusion that Una Jagose has attempted a ‘snow job’ of New Zealanders. If so, it remains to be seen how effective she has been.

Meanwhile,  it is unclear what the true purpose of the  ‘Cortex’ programme really is. Can we trust anything that we are told about it by National?

Answer: no.

There is much more to this than meets the eye.

.

Addendum1

Def: “Bespoke”

Of goods, especially clothing) made to order.

(of a computer program) written or adapted for a specific user or purpose.

Addendum 2

Questions posed by The Intercept on XKEYSCORE and Cortex;

We are currently researching a number of other stories related to GCSB, and I expect we are going to shine more light on the agency’s activities in this sphere in the near future. In the meantime, Key and the GCSB face a mounting number of important questions that they have until now managed to dodge.

Here’s a few for starters:

• Why did you inform the public that the GCSB Amendment Bill would not lead to an expansion of powers when at the same time you were planning the Speargun mass surveillance initiative?

• Why was phase one of the Speargun project completed if it was, as Prime Minister Key has claimed, something that never made it past the “business case”?

• Why were New Zealanders not informed about the Cortex project until the government’s hand was forced by disclosures based on documents from Snowden?

• How much data is collected on a daily basis by GCSB under the Cortex project, and how does the agency ensure this data does not “incidentally” include the content or metadata of citizens’ communications?

• The Cortex documents refer to the use of technology that “has been in use for some time.” What technology is this?

• Is any information collected by GCSB under Cortex — or any other program that accesses internet data — shared with the NSA and/or other Five Eyes agencies through systems such as XKEYSCORE?

• Does GCSB have access to XKEYSCORE and, if so, for how long has this been the case?

• Does GCSB use its access to internet data streams — under initiatives like Cortex or similar — to launch active/offensive cyber operations that involve hacking computer systems to collect information?

• When will you declassify documents detailing the Speargun project and showing that it was not completed?

.

.

.

References

Radio NZ: ‘Moment of Truth’ on world stage

The Intercept: Xkeyscore – NSA’s Google for the World’s private communications

Radio NZ: Key silent on spy programme

NZ Herald on Sunday: Revealed – The names NZ targeted using NSA’s XKeyscore system

TV3 The Nation: Interview – GCSB Acting Director Una Jagose

TV3 The Nation: Interview – GCSB Acting Director Una Jagose (transcript)

Beehive: Cabinet Minute 1

Beehive: Cabinet Minute 4

Beehive: PM responds to incorrect surveillance claims

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: National Cyber Policy Office

Connect Smart: Partners

Spark NZ: Terms and Conditions

Other bloggers

No Right Turn: The GCSB’s PR campaign

Public Address: Crowdsourcing Project Cortex

The Daily Blog: Martyn Bradbury – GCSB begin marketing campaign to con NZers

The Daily Blog: Chris Trotter – Revolution In Pipitea Street: The Listener celebrates the Baby-Boomer takeover of the SIS and the GCSB

Previous related blogposts

An Open Message to the GCSB, SIS, NSA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly

Letter to the Editor: John Campbell expose on Key and GCSB

Campbell Live on the GCSB – latest revelations – TV3 – 20 May 2014

The Mendacities of Mr Key #1: The GCSB Bill

One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill

The “man ban”; animal testing; GCSB Bill; and compulsory miltary training

Nigella Lawson, GCSB, Christchurch re-build, and Malcolm Burgess on Campbell Live

The real reason for the GCSB Bill

The Fletcher Affair – a warning for Labour

TV3 – Campbell Live’s GCSB Public Vote

The GCSB Act – Tracy Watkins gets it right

The GCSB Act – some history

The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do

The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?

.

.

.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 October 2015.

.

.

= fs =

Polls and pundits – A facepalm moment

.

.

19 September – This morning’s  episode of The Nation on TV3 featured leaders from Labour, Greens, NZ First,  ACT, and Steven Joyce spinning for National. The episode was an appraisal of National’s performance since last year’s election.

Joyce, Little, Shaw, and Peters were given decent time to respond to questions from hosts Lisa Owen and Patrick Gower. David Seymour seemed short-changed with an unseemingly hasty, brief interview, though at 0.69% of the Party vote his five minutes of question-and-answer might be deemed appropriate. Except that ACT has considerable influence on National out of proportion to it’s miniscule electoral support.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect to the episode were continual references to poll ratings for John Key and National being “unchanged” and continuing to ride high. The implication being that National and Key’s poll ratings remain unchanged.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

A Roy Morgan poll reported on Radio NZ on Friday – the day before The Nation went to air – gave a shock result for National;

.

.

According to the poll, National National’s support  has plummeted  by six percentage-points, with support for the  Labour/Green bloc jumping by eight percentage points.

NZ First support had also fallen by 2.5 percentage points.

The inescapable conclusion is that, according to this poll, Labour and the Greens had achieved the Golden Rule; increase support by taking from their opponants, and not by the two Left-wing parties cannibalising each other. As Patrick Gower pointed out;

@5.27

“They have to find a way to take votes of National. They can’t just shuffle it around between the Greens and New Zealand First to get to 33, 34. That ain’t gonna do it.”

In the Roy Morgan poll, National and NZ First’s fall mirrors almost exactly the rise of the Labour-Green bloc. No “shuffling” – National’s support has moved over to Labour and the Greens.

How was this reported on The Nation? Not at all. No mention made whatsoever of a poll – which while it should not be taken in isolation – should still give government party strategists cause for alarm and rate a mention from our current affairs media.

This made a mockery of Patrick Gower’s comment to Labour leader, Andrew Little,

@ 2.05

“But still the poll ratings haven’t changed. John Key is exactly where he has always been.”

@ 4.40

“That’s what the polls say. The polls put them at 47%.”

Or this comment from Lisa Owen;

@ 0.01

“So while National’s well ahead in the polls, it’s not been a year without its challenges.”

During the Panel discussion with Guyon Espiner, Patrick Gower, and  Tracy Watkin, similar  mis-leading references were made by professional political journalists who should know better.

Guyon Espiner

@ 0.18

“I think it’s tracking pretty well, if you look at the polls. I mean, 47% for National is extraordinary at that point.”

Tracy Watkins;

@ 1.15

“47%, if that’s that the numbers in the latest poll, I mean  that is quite incredible, it really is.”

Tracey Watkins;

@ 7.15

“Well I’m going to have to say John Key [is the winner]… Well, I mean, if he’s still on 47% [interruption] Winner! Winner! He’s…Despite everything,  y’know, third term and he’s still massively popular  and his government is still hugely popular.”

To be fair, if  the interviews for Saturday morning were pre-recorded throughout the week, the Roy Morgan poll results appeared too late to be included in questions asked of Party leaders. Though the lead-in from Lisa Owen and Patrick Gower was a live (?) broadcast. They should have been aware of the shock result only twentyfour hours previous.

The reality is that Roy Morgan polls are rarely reported by either TV1 or TV3. Both broadcasters have their own contracted polling companies and ignore all other results.

What is totally inexplicable is that the producers and hosts of The Nation ignored polling from their own company, Reid Research.

Polling from Reid Research has shown a steady decline in John Key’s popularity, as I reported on 13 July and  28 July;

As was reported previously, the personal popularity of our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, has been in slow free-fall since 2009;

Oct/Nov 08: 36.4%

(Source)

Feb 2009: 52.1%

April 2009: 51.1%

Aug 2009: 51.6%

Oct 2009: 55.8%

Feb 2010: 49.4%

April 2010: 49.0%

June 2010: 49.6%

Jul/Aug 2010: 48.7%

Sept/Oct 2010: 50.6%

Nov/Dec 2010: 54.1%

Feb 2011: 49.1%

April 2011: 52.4%

May 2011: 48.2%

Jun/Jul 2011: 50.5%

Aug 2011: 53.3%

Sept 2011: 54.5%

Oct 2011: 52.7%

1-8 Nov 2011: 50.0%

9-16 Nov 2011: 49.4%

16-23 Nov 2011: 48.9%

Feb 2012: 45.8%

April 2012: 44.2%

May/Jun 2012: 40.5%

July: 43.2%

(Source)

Feb 2013: 41.0%

April 2013: 38.0%

May 2013: 41.0%

Jul 2013: 42.0%

Nov 2013: 40.9%

Jan 2014: 38.9%

Mar 2014: 42.6%

May 2014: 43.1%

Jun 2014: 46.7%

Jul 2014: 43.8%

5-3 Aug 2014: 44.1%

19-25 Aug 2014: 41.4%

26 Aug-1 Sept 2014: 45.1%

2-8 Sept 2014: 45.3%

9-15 Sept 2014: 44.1%

Jan 2015: 44.0%

May 2015: 39.4%

(Source)

The most recent 3News/Reid Research Poll is no better for John Key. His PPM ranking has slipped again;

July 2015: 38.3%

From the rarified-atmosphere heights of 55.8% (2009), Key has dropped 17.5 percentage points in the Preferred Prime Minister rankings by July of this year.

Not referencing a polling company that Mediaworks has no contractual relationship with is, perhaps understandable, even if it means not presenting their audience with a full picture of New Zealand’s ever changing political environment.

But not referencing a polling company that Mediaworks is contractually bound with, and has previously used their results for several years? Especially when that polling company has recorded a massive fall in popularity for Key since 2009?

The only explanation for this strange over-sight of data is that it did not fit with The Nation’s narrative of a “hugely popular Prime Minister”. Otherwise, Owen and Gower would have had to completely change their interviewing tactics with Little and Shaw.

Perhaps this is one reason why Key’s popularity has “remained so high” – a reluctance by certain MSM not to reassess the narrative around our esteemed Dear Leader. In doing so, the perception of Key’s “high popularity” is artificially maintained, creating a perpetual, self-fulfilling scenario.

In part, this provides an answer why Key is so “hugely popular”. Because we are told it is so.

Tim Watkin Responds

When the issues raised in this story were put to The Nation’s producer, Tim Watkin, he generously took time  give his response;

“On your Roy Morgan critique:

Media organisations always refer to their own polling, not others. The Roy Morgan poll is well known as the most volatile. Indeed, to emphasise why we wouldn’t base a programme discussing the past year in politics around a single poll by another organisation, Radio New Zealand and no lesser poll-watcher than Colin James reported this in just the past few days: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/284109/national-back-in-poll-position

Polls are about trends, as you know, not single results. So I’m afraid your “nothing could be further from the truth” couldn’t be much further from the truth.

On your quotes of Lisa, Paddy, Tracy and Guyon:

Looking at the 3News-Reid Research poll, National has been remarkably consistent since 2011. National is indeed at 47%, as those on the programme said. When Guyon mentioned 47% he was likely referring to RNZ’s poll of polls, which also has National at 47%. Labour is in the low 30s. So all the quotes you mention are absolutely correct. Paddy’s mention of John Key being unchanged I took to mean ‘still well ahead of you, Mr Little’.

On John Key’s numbers:

Though you’re changing the goalposts by switching from party numbers to personal numbers, you’re right that Key’s own preferred PM numbers are down and right to focus on the trend, rather than a single poll. But when you say a couple of times that we didn’t reference that, you have simply ignored our final couple of questions to Steve Joyce. We didn’t mention those numbers precisely, but the ones behind that, on honesty, capability, narrow-minded etc. We put to Joyce that Key was sliding, exactly as you argue. So your outrage at our pre-ordained narrative is somewhat misplaced, isn’t it? We raised the point that you say we didn’t.

Still, to take a step back, the thing about those numbers is that while trending down (as Lisa stressed with Joyce), they are still at a level any other politician in the country would give a limb for. So when you talk about “freefall” etc, I think you’re missing the big picture, which is how those numbers are a) so much higher than others, b) unusually high for a third term PM and c) have gone down before, only to bounce back up.

So there’s no agenda or telling people how to think; just a cold hard look at the trends.”

Appendix1

Acknowledgement: some quotes have been used from transcripts provided by The Nation, to this blogger.

Appendix2

Roy Morgan polling is conducted by calling  both landline and mobile telephones throughout New Zealand, and is the only polling company to do so.

.

.

.

References

The Nation: Steven Joyce interview

The Nation: Andrew Little interview

The Nation: Winston Peters

The Nation: James Shaw interview

The Nation: David Seymour

Wikipedia: 2014 General Election – Overall Results

Radio NZ: Labour, Greens support outstrips National

The Nation: The Panel discussion

Previous related blogposts

Mr Morgan phoned

Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (Part rua)

Census, Surveys, and Cellphones

The slow dismantling of a populist prime minister

The slow dismantling of a Prime Minister continues

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

 

.

.

.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 September 2015.

.

.

= fs =