Amateur hour
Poll results are often a little like the Rorschach Inkblot Test - the ink blot that some psychologists show their patients. You see what you want to. That’s certainly the only way to explain how the Dominion Post has reported a poll it has done on tax cuts. The front-page story, penned by Dominion Post political editor Tracy Watkins, reads:
Alarm bells will be ringing within the Government after a new poll showing 75 per cent of New Zealanders and a staggering two out of three Labour voters want tax cuts now.
The Fairfax NZ/ACNielsen poll for The Dominion Post will shake the Government’s pre-Budget complacency that tax cuts are not an election winner, with most voters who favour an immediate cut in taxes also of the view there is room for a reduction in government spending.
The results are the clearest indication yet that National is starting to win the argument over whether there is enough money in the Government’s coffers to pay for tax cuts without cutting into core public services.
David Farrar interprets this result with glee, saying voters are chanting:
What do we want?/ Tax Cuts/ When do we want it?/ Now.
Well, no. This is a completely erroneous interpretation of the results.
Let’s recap. Two questions were asked. First: Would you support or oppose immediate tax cuts? Second: If you support tax cuts, would you still support them if public spending was reduced as well? The results for question one were 75% yes, 24% no. The results for question two were 64% yes, 35% no.
The key to interpreting these results is to realise that only those who supported tax cuts in question one were asked question two. So, here’s a question for all those sixth-formers out there: what percentage of all people polled support tax cuts if they mean cuts in public spending as well?
75%? Nope. 64%? Nope. Actually, 48%, or less than half of those polled support tax cuts if they mean cuts in public spending.
75% of the 1110 polled said they supported tax cuts. That’s about 830 people. Only these 830 people were asked if they would still support these tax cuts if they meant a cut in public spending. Of these 830 people, 64%, or about 530 people, said yes. So, out of a total of 1110 people, only about 530, or 48% of the total number polled, said they supported tax cuts if this meant cutting public spending. That’s less than half. On the other hand, about 550 people, or 50% of those polled, said either that they didn’t support tax cuts at all or that they didn’t support them if they meant cuts in public spending.
So, what does this all mean? Well, 50% of those polled support Labour’s position (that tax cuts shouldn’t be made if that would mean public spending cuts), compared to 48% who support National’s position (that tax cuts should be made, and one of the ways to pay for them is to cut wasteful public spending).
So, how on earth is this a victory for National? Why on earth will this set off alarm bells ringing in the Government? And given that only 38% of Labour voters polled said they support tax cuts even if they meant public spending cuts, how on earth can you justify the headline “We want tax cuts now: Labour voters”? Does the Dominion Post simply not understand its own polling?
If that’s the case, can I suggest the Dominion Post’s political editor does a refresher course in sixth-form statistics? As for David Farrar: you’re a pollster, son. Shame on you.
June 20th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Oh come on, to pretend this is not a massive shift in opinion is to blind yourself. Having 67% of Labour voters saying yes to tax cuts now is somewhat akin to 67% of NZ First voters saying we want more immigrants.
I noted that it was more 50/50 after the *if it meant a cut in public spending*. Now putting aside for one moment that one can be achieved without the other, that is still an amazing result. Traditionally when asked that question only around 25% say they support tax cuts over spending. The fact it has near doubled to 50% is a huge swing.
It also ignores that on current budgets one could deliver say $3 to $4 billion of tax relief and not even cut a dollar of public spending.
More importantly more voters I suspect begin to see that cutting spending does not always mean cutting services. The waste under this Government is almost an epidemic.
So the headlines and analysis is quite correct. As it is quite possible to cut taxes without cutting spending (let alone services) there is a huge majority in favour of tax relief.
I’ll predict now that Labour will announce further tax cuts before the election, if they do not get a big lead in the polls.
June 20th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
fwwog .. fwoggy .. how are you .. centre right wiun election
fwog but ther’s space for you on the billboards .. take opportunity to place GREEN clearly to left of billboards .. to get yopur message of tax increases across raise the word “NO”
I suggest a picture of Rod to go with it
It would read
NO to tax cuts and everyone would see what you stand for
or RAISE TAX NOW
come on Amphibian be bwave
June 20th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Fascinating…
We have no position/polict papers on Defense, Immigration OR Taxation.
What is a “normal” voter to think?
respectfully
BJ
June 21st, 2005 at 1:18 am
Actually they do have a tax policy, which is often mentioned here. It is to tax the ‘bads’ in our society/environment, and move the burden off income. starting with making the first $5000 tax free.
DPF, I think the disagreement comes from blogging styles. You blog moods and trends as if they are definite and certain. Frog is more factually correct.
June 21st, 2005 at 8:20 am
True, there ARE policies for all those things… not to imply that there is no opinion held, but the library of policy papers reads rather unevenly, and all these things are missing from it. That’s the website. Which is where any reasonable person would expect an indication of what Greens stand for… and against.
There is a practical problem here. I came in, joined actually, and was smacked in the face by the absence of anything that resembles a responsible platform… except with respect to the environment.
Where does Peters get the scope to run FUD programs at immigrants? It is partly the failing of the Greens to put anything like an immigration policy in place. The perception of the party in the “white community”, is NOT a very positive one. The scope that Peters gets is largely defined by the absence of ANY limits in the apparent green position. I suspect that the actual position of the party is more complex and responsible than it appears to be, but that would not be difficult, given the appearance.
I also suspect that a more responsible Green party would get a lot more and better attention from prospective voters.
My co-workers LAUGHED when they learned I had joined this party. I pointed out my own fundamental environmentalism and they quit laughing… of course, I also happen to be the boss. That however, is the perception that Greens have to combat.
respectfully
BJ
June 21st, 2005 at 10:33 am
Um, there are some immigration things in the newly released Human Rights policy (or see summary). For example:
June 21st, 2005 at 10:57 am
BJ, here’s a list of the Greens policies.
http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/policy/
June 21st, 2005 at 11:15 am
Actually I was referring to that policy page.
The problem with it is what is missing. What is there is OK, as it goes, but I reiterate that if the Greens are to be taken seriously as an alternative, they have to fill in the blanks.
Having a few lines on immigration in the human-rights policy is NOT the same as having an immigration policy. Having a “peace” policy is peachy, but gives no shelter if something nasty comes our way… these things are responsibilities of government, and if we wish to be stewards of government so that we can be stewards of the environment, we’d better get these blanks filled in with something other than blank looks.
respectfully
BJ
June 21st, 2005 at 11:35 am
see frog even your own people are confused .. tell you why frogg .. red rod .. he not gween fwog he red .. not look good against winston eh .. very bad publicity .. twubble is you can’t sack him .. he invented the voting system .. i used to be in the party to frog ..