I’m sending this on Tuesday NZT, as Monday was our big public holiday!
January’s headlines were overtaken by Jacinda Ardern’s resignation and the consequent cabinet reshuffle. And then Labour got a boost in support, according to two polls. Today, though, I’m turning my attention to the National Party.
A Reid poll done on 22–27 January asked whether respondents trust each of the two major parties’ leaders. Rounding out the figures:
53% said Yes and 27% No for Labour leader and prime minister Chris Hipkins. (The rest didn’t know.)
37% said Yes and 44% said No for National’s leader Christopher Luxon.
I advise caution when reading surveys but you can’t ignore such a big gap (53 to 37%). And Luxon should be concerned that more said No than Yes in his case.
But what does it actually mean when we’re asked if we trust a politician? It’s certainly not a blind faith. One good reason for periodic free elections is to reject leaders who breach our trust due to broken promises or incompetence or inappropriate behaviour.
Our political trust is conditional and it’s more than just our subjective opinion. (I wrote a book on this subject!) It’s based on a kind of deal between ourselves and our representatives, in which we pay taxes and vote, while they lead and do what’s right for the country. Fat chance, I hear you say – but bear with me!
Luxon became National Party leader in November 2021. During 2022 National’s polling improved to a point at which they could seemingly cruise to victory on 14 October and form a coalition with the ACT party. But now it’s looking more uncertain.
In preferred PM polls Luxon had always lagged behind Ardern, and he was also behind Hipkins in those two recent polls. Adding to his troubles, a survey now suggests not many people trust him. I’ve seen comment on Twitter that says he’s a fence-sitter, and either getting too woke, or not attacking wokeness hard enough. Although he was often compared to the very popular John Key (PM from 2008 to 2016), Luxon isn’t coming across as effectively and authentically.
Mr Luxon responded to the survey by saying “voters can trust me to get things done”. He staked his claim to your trust based on competence, and he hinted at an ongoing criticism of Labour: that they haven’t been getting things done.
Part of the problem here is what we call the personalisation of politics: the persona of the leader overshadows the party and its substantive policies.
In our parliamentary system we don’t directly elect prime ministers. But, based on TV presentation, many voters see the election as a choice between two candidates for the job of prime minister. Swing voters may decide simply based on which candidate they like – or trust. And that’s their prerogative.
Candidates for election may have to adopt Sledge Hammer’s attitude of “trust me – I know what I’m doing”, at least implicitly. But Luxon was tempted to say it openly, in response to queries about the embarrassing survey result. Just saying “voters can trust me” isn’t enough, however, and indeed it could make people even more sceptical about him. (The more I insist that you can trust me, the more you may wonder why!)
National would like to be polling in the 40s right now but they’re not. Remember that they got 44% in the 2017 election - without John Key. (Bill English then failed to reach a coalition deal with Winston Peters.) But so far this year they’ve revealed little about their policies and their leader isn’t having the necessary impact.
A good thing about this election campaign could be that policies become more important than personalities. Two average white guys debating on the TV won’t look remarkable at all.
Now, you may recall last week I said I’d let you know about a meeting with a representative of the political polling industry. So read on if you’re curious.
This person is experienced in polling. He started off with dire descriptions about how hard it is to do opinion polling under authoritarian regimes – without saying what that had to do with me! He then told me that I don’t understand the nuances of how polling worked, that I lacked expertise, and that my article in The Conversation hadn’t given due credit to how accurate the polls had often been. He said that the purpose of political polls is to give “accurate forecasts” and, closer to the election, to state what they believe “will be the election result”. In future he requested that I check with him, or someone in “the industry”, before publishing anything more on this topic. What would you have said to this guy?
Next week’s newsletter will probably (and belatedly) cover the Treaty of Waitangi.
In response to I would quote the Rt Hon James Bolger- "bugger the polls' and by implication ,the pollsters.
Polls are being used by an increasingly polarised Media to create doubt for the one and approval for another,and for that reason alone are now untrustworthy.
It is difficult to find clear unvarnished and accurate reporting on any Political movement at the moment.
Thank you for this post Grant - most insightful. May I suggest that the reason most people don't trust Christopher Luxon is that he is and will be campaigning in this election year on the basis of the Big Lie of New Zealand politics: that National-led governments are better for our economy. They simply are not. Data from 28 years of National-led governments and 26 years of Labour-led governments, show that per capita GDP growth has been double under Labour, and the country's GDP growth is around 5% greater under Labour. Also his comments that this Labour-led government has been 'catastrophic' for New Zealand are also clearly incorrect: with four different international agencies calling our Covid response and economic recovery the best in the world; with the country repeatedly being acknowledged as the easiest in the world to do business in; with NZ regaining the top spot in the world's transparency index for the least corrupt country in the world (after having slipped during the John Key Dirty Politics years) etc etc. National and Luxon have every right to say their piece as opposition politicians. But there's no mana in trying to lie your way to leadership. Let us all remain vigilant in this election year, aye.