Pondering The Counterfactual: How many more percentage points might Labour have advanced in the latest One News Colmar Brunton poll had “discontented party activists” not spent the week prior to its execution demonstrating rank disunity and ideological extremism?
ONE SWALLOW does not make a summer, any more than a two-percentage-point
lift in the latest One News Colmar-Brunton poll amounts to a massive political
vindication. What Labour’s marginal rise in popularity does signal, however, is
some very unhelpful news for some very unhelpful people.
Why do I say that? Because the furore over Willie Jackson’s
return to the Labour Party can now be put in its more immediate context.
Before exploring that context, however, a word or two about
polling.
Both of the major political parties have their own
“internal” pollsters (David Farrar and Curia Research in the case of National,
Stephen Mills and UMR for Labour) and both know when their researchers are in
the field. Indeed, they often time their public policy pronouncements to coincide
with such polling.
For very similar reasons most senior political operatives
and public relations mavens also like to know when media-commissioned agencies
like Colmar Brunton are on the job and when their results will be published.
In a society as small as New Zealand, acquiring such
intelligence is relatively straightforward. Most of the people who believe they
need to know, know someone who really does know when a poll is about to get underway.
The fieldwork for the Colmar Brunton poll that was broadcast
on One News on Sunday, 19 February, was conducted between 11 and 15 February
2017.
This is significant, because in the week prior to the survey
the Labour leader, Andrew Little, found himself under vicious attack from
persons (including Poto Williams, the Labour MP for Christchurch North) opposed
to Labour’s strategic recruitment of the broadcaster, community organiser, and
former Alliance MP, Willie Jackson.
That Williams consulted a Christchurch public relations
firm, Inform PR, to shape her criticism of Little, and to assist her in
distributing the resulting statement to selected political journalists, prior
to posting it on her Facebook page, struck many observers as odd. Now that we
know Colmar Brunton was scheduled to be in the field by the end of the week,
William’s behaviour appears much less so.
The same applies to the letter of protest posted on Facebook
by members of Labour’s youth wing – Young Labour. Like William’s media
statement, this document attracted considerable media attention throughout the
week, especially after two former Labour MPs, Maryan Street and Marian Hobbs, added
their signatures to the document.
Throughout the week Little was required to endure the
less-than-friendly attentions of the parliamentary press gallery, as well as a
succession of highly critical opinion pieces questioning his political
judgement and challenging his commitment to Labour’s quest for gender parity.
By the end of the week, the proprietor of the POLITIK blog,
Richard Harman, was reporting that:
“The events last week [5-11 February] seem to be connected
to what has been what one senior party source described as a ‘parallel universe’
of discontented party activists who have been active on the left-wing blog ‘The
Standard’ and who also organised to promote candidates for office within the
party.”
It is, therefore, very tempting to see, with the benefit of
hindsight, the timing of the criticism of Little’s recruitment of Jackson as
something more than coincidental. If Harman’s “discontented party activists”
had prior knowledge of when the Colmar Brunton survey would be in the field, it
is not difficult to fathom why they might be tempted to seize upon the
opportunity to put a spanner in the Leader’s works.
Clearly, there are many in Labour’s ranks who do not like
the idea of the party once again becoming a “broad church”. How better to prove
the unwisdom of Little’s policy than to orchestrate a week-long outpouring of protest
against the Jackson recruitment, culminating in a falling-off in support for
Labour – and Little – as measured in the oh-so-conveniently scheduled Colmar
Brunton survey?
Except, of course, the campaign failed to achieve its
objective. Far from registering a falling-off of support for Labour, the poll
revealed a small, but very welcome, rise in support. At last, Labour was back
in the 30s – an important morale-boost for both the caucus and the wider party.
The recruitment of Jackson and the selection of the former Police Association
President, Greg O’Connor, had produced precisely the effect which Little and
his team had be working for.
The question that cannot be avoided, however, is as
straightforward as it is disconcerting: How many more percentage points might
Labour have advanced in the Colmar Brunton poll had “discontented party
activists” not spent the week prior to its execution demonstrating rank
disunity and ideological extremism?
This essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Monday, 20 February 2017.
When Andrew Little has to deal out the ministers to be; in Labour the caucus apparently decides exactly who will be in cabinet; but the party leader decides who gets what. In National the leader decides who and what.
ReplyDeleteIt is great to see Labour starting to reach out to a broad range of people and stop fighting the Greens over the left. The addition of Greg O'Connor was a brilliant stroke by Andrew Little (although I wonder if Ohariu is the best seat for him - civil rights-focused voters, especially Greens, might find his support for general arming of police a bit hard to swallow).
ReplyDeleteI do wonder whether Andrew is (to use a very bad comparison) Labour's Don Brash - the guy who gets the party in position to win, rather than the guy who wins. Let's see how we go...
One miserly correction - Poto is MP for Christchurch East, not North.
An interesting piece, Chris. But I begin to sense another National victory, albeit with NZ First thrown into the mix.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that English has started the year well and is able to cater to a perceived need for stability, in a world that's rapidly being turned upside down.
But, of course, it's early days and I may be proved wrong
Victor I sense the opposite. There seems to me a wind of change. I listened to some noise about the state of the rivers and heard real anger. I have heard anger re housing, indebted graduates, student debt, immigration. Too late for National to pick this "populist" positions up as they are seen as the problem.
DeleteNick J
ReplyDeleteI agree there's a lot of anger around (and not before time) but I don't yet see much sign of it translating into support for Labour and/or the Greens. NZ First is another matter.
The question, to my mind, is whether English can ride the two horses of continuity and change at one and the same time. It's a hard act to pull off but I've been a mite surprised by his success to date.
And, I must confess, I have some difficulty taking Andrew Little seriously, which might condition my view of things.
Time, though, will tell. The events of 2016 should temper all forecasts.