Bad uses of pre-election polling
On making kings and reading tea-leaves
There were more examples last week of poor opinion polling and misinterpretation of poll results. So let’s clear things up.
An Essential poll reported results implying that National+ACT would get 59 seats, just short of a majority, and that NZ First would hold eight. The Guardian reckoned this would give NZ First the balance of power, and make Winston Peters the kingmaker – a role that apparently he ‘relishes’, although of course he’ll deny it if anyone asks him.
Rather than read the tea-leaves about a post-election future, however, it pays to look at National’s past record of government-formation.
In 2008, when John Key took office, National held 58 seats, but it signed confidence-and-supply agreements with ACT (5 seats), Māori Party (5) and United Future (1).
Why did Key go for more than the minimum winning coalition? Why didn’t he just go with ACT for a slim majority of 63 seats out of 122? (Note: there was an overhang of two seats.) They signed up the other two parties in order to maximise bargaining power for their policy and legislation (playing one off against the other), and as ‘insurance’ for future elections. This arrangement worked for three terms.
In 2011, NZ First made it back into parliament, but their 8 seats were surplus to Key’s requirements. National won 59 seats, and continued in office with support of ACT (1), Māori Party (3) and United Future (1). It was a similar story in 2014.
National neither wanted nor needed NZ First. Nor did they allow ACT to push them around.
From a viewpoint of ideological compatibility, it looked odd that National embraced the ACT and Māori parties. But grasping the options – and using them – maximises bargaining power.
Luxon, I believe, would rather ACT wasn’t his only option. And Seymour (shall we call him Ken?) has overplayed his hand, so it’s no wonder ACT’s polling eased back to 10%-ish. (His campaign speech on Sunday was more predictable and less punchy, so maybe he’s turning a corner.)
Depending on the numbers, Luxon could take a leaf from Key’s memoirs and negotiate an arrangement that exceeds the minimum needed for a majority. That could include ACT, Greens and/or even NZ First (if the latter get back in). Winston acts as ‘kingmaker’ only if the other parties are daft enough to let him take centre-stage. (More about Winston and populism below.)
From an ecological viewpoint, moreover, it would be irresponsible of the Greens to be political purists and watch from the sidelines as ACT pushes National towards repealing the Zero Carbon Act.
I assume that Te Pāti Māori has positioned itself so far to the left that an arrangement with National isn’t possible this time round – but who knows?
A Newshub-Reid Research poll asked whether respondents prefer income-tax cuts or exemption from GST on fruit and vegetables. This purportedly compared National and Labour party policies.
43% chose the income-tax cut, 37.3% chose the GST exemption. But we’ll never know how many respondents were expressing a preference for the party that advances the policy, rather than the policy. The survey item confounded the two.
Furthermore, the poll compared two quite different kinds of tax-break without relevant context. A fair poll would consider Labour’s GST exemption alongside (at least) its announced free dental care for under-30s and $25 pw tax-credit boost for families. They’d consider National’s tax cuts along with the new taxes that they propose to help fund them.
If survey respondents can’t make a holistic comparison of the parties’ fiscal packages, then we’re not getting close to understanding which they genuinely prefer.
National’s proposed 15% tax on purchases by foreigners of high-end real estate has been questioned over its legality and whether it could raise the sums they claim. And survey respondents should’ve been asked whether they approve of more land being sold off to foreigners. (In 2017, I found only a very small minority wanted that.) Labour’s GST exemption has also been questioned by many experts and commentators (including me).
A quick ‘this or that’ survey item doesn’t allow respondents to consider trade-offs. How are these policies balanced against potential spending cuts or new taxes or other consequences?
The survey also asked whether it’s the right time for income tax cuts, to which 51% said yes and 36.1% said no. But that was a leading question, akin to asking if it’s the right time for motherhood and apple pie.
If the survey had asked respondents whether it’s the right time for cuts to public services, the figures may well have been reversed.
No surveyor, moreover, has asked voters how much public debt they’re comfortable with!
The TV news needed something simple and catchy for a headline, so the questionable polling didn’t stop Newshub from opining: ‘New Zealand has spoken - and it wants tax cuts.’ And then they boosted the National Party’s income-tax cut as opposed to Labour’s consumption-tax cut.
In last week’s straw poll of readers about the concept of a National–Green Coalition, 55% chose ‘it could work’, 36% said ‘utterly absurd’, and 9% said ‘good idea’.
For an ‘inside’ assessment of this kind of thing, see Matthew Hooton’s recent column.
The other poll asked how you rated the tone of the election campaign so far. 62% chose ‘pretty normal’, 23% said ‘a bit nasty’, and 8% agreed that it’s ‘the nastiest ever’. On the other side, 8% saw it as ‘a fair and decent contest’.
But then I wondered if ‘nasty’ is ‘normal’. It’s hard to write a good survey question!
Explainer: What is populism?
Winston Peters is seen as NZ’s exemplary populist – a word that’s used a lot these days, normally with negative connotations. What does it mean though?
Our system of government is representative: the people elect a small number of fellow citizens to pass laws and to form governments on their behalf. This creates a wide division of labour – and a huge power differential – between representatives and the many people whom they represent. The big decisions are made well above the heads of ordinary folk, but the saving grace is that the people can pass judgement at the next election.
Some people see the effects of this arrangement as undemocratic and elitist, however. They feel that the system is rigged against them, that decision-makers don’t care about them, and that the country’s heading in directions they don’t like. And they get angry about that.
Sooner or later, an outspoken politician appeals to those people by saying: ‘I hear you; I understand your grievances. And I speak for you!’
The populist claims to break through the barriers created by representative government and to understand ‘the will of the people’ – or at least the will of the ‘real’ people, not those arrogant phony elitists and hangers-on who benefit from the rigged system.
Populists claim to be more democratic than other leaders, and hence they often call for referendums so that the people can decide directly.
Populists can come from either left (socialist) or right (nationalist). Winston Peters is unusual as he fits in the middle and he’s worked with both sides. (Here’s a populist-style tweet from Winston out there on the hustings: ‘Another packed hall in a real grassroots campaign - this time in Palmerston North…again no media at all - a deliberate disgraceful manipulation in a democracy.’)
So, a populist isn’t just a leader who pushes whatever’s popular in order to get more votes. To understand populism’s appeal, we might first ask if representative government with competitive elections isn’t as ‘democratic’ as it says on the label. We might take account of the alienation that powerless people feel, and of how this can be exploited by a leader.
The grievances of those who follow a populist aren’t always conspiracy theories or racism or the like. After all, modern societies are objectively unequal, only a few make it to the top, and ordinary people’s genuine concerns aren’t always heeded. A populist leader will zero in on those latent grievances and give them a voice.
All sorts of concerns may become populist political causes. Paper money and the gold standard once worked, for example.
Imagine a climate evangelist trying to redeem us from vested interests that stand in the way of saving the planet…. or a green populist.
The troubling thing about populism, though, is that it doesn’t just blame the minority who rule and govern; it may also light upon immigrants, refugees and/or ethno-religious minorities. It gets dangerous when it demands that the needs of the nation (or the native-born folk) should over-rule international law and human rights. The UN is a handy target for right-wing populists.
The outcome can be situations such as in Italy, presently governed by a coalition of three right-wing populist parties.
What’s up with government anyway?
For more about the problem of government in general, and about how to do it better, you can pre-order my forthcoming book:
Government and Political Trust: The Quest for Positive Public Administration
If the government is a problem, what should be done about it? A new era of intervention has begun following a global pandemic, climate change and strategic rivalry – but will a better government emerge from this? Political turmoil and polarisation are causing people to question how well their societies are governed and how leaders conduct themselves, while urgent practical challenges are arising for public policy and administration. A deeper concern, then, is to re-examine the nature and problem of government itself.
This study covers historically enduring dilemmas that will persist, as well as emerging issues such as climate change and artificial intelligence. It sets out core concerns that systems of government, of all kinds, must address. The wide diversity of political beliefs and constitutions calls for toleration in order to foster effective collaboration across types and levels of government. Each country, community and individual follows their own path, but we can all do something to help restore political trust and to raise standards of public administration.
An essential guide for those seeking general and lasting principles of good government, including elected officials, civil servants, community leaders and students of politics and public policy.
And in case you missed the Ken reference:
Book cover looks good.
While the Ken rebrand is brilliant Seymour will always be Arnold Rimmer