Member log in

OneNews-Colmar Brunton snap poll: voters shrug off Hager book

A Colmar Brunton snap poll for One News has found 77% have heard of Nicky Hager's new book Dirty Politics.

But only 28% say they believe its allegations about an organised smear campaign carried out by National. 42% did not beleive Mr Hager's allegations. 29% didn't know.

And 82% say it has not negatively influenced their view of National. 

9% said it had negatively influenced their view of National. 5% didn't know. 4% said it had positively influenced their view of the party.

A general OneNews-Colmar Brunton update was also released. It was taken before Dirty Politics hit shelves and found National down 2 to 50, Labour down 2 to 26%, the Greens 1 to 11, NZ First up 1 to 5% an Internet Mana up 2 to 4% (although a tival poll, below, saw Internet Mana falling 0.2% to 2%).

"Reality check"
Meanwhile TV3 has billed a new poll released tonight as a "reality check" for National.

The 3News-Reid Research poll was completed just before the release of Dirty Politics. It found:

Party vote:

National: 47.5 percent, down 1.9 percent
Labour: 29 percent, up 2.3 percent
Greens: 13 percent, up 0.6 percent
New Zealand First: 4.6 percent, up 0.3 percent
Conservatives: 2.5 percent, down 0.2 percent
Internet Mana: 2.0 percent, down 0.2 percent
Maori Party: 0.8 percent, down 0.3 percent
ACT: 0.3 percent, up 0.2 percent
United Future: 0.2 percent, no change

Seats in Parliament:

National: 61
ACT: 1
United Future: 1
Maori Party: 2
Right total: 65

Labour: 38
Green: 17
Mana: 3
Left total: 58

Preferred Prime Minister:

John Key: 44.1 percent, up 0.3 percent
David Cunliffe: 9.9 percent, up 0.4 percent
Winston Peters: 6.7 percent, up 1.4 percent

1000 people polled, margin of error 3.1 percent

More by this author

Comments and questions
29

Good spin on the Colmar Brunton poll

The reality is that 9% are negatively influenced and that could be the difference between winning and losing the election.

This is not scaremongering - just a realistic review of the poll

And the Government will be worried about this

The election is about to get dirtier as National now has to pull out all stops - they won't pull back from any negative influences like this via their policy - as they don't have any policy of note to hang on to.

What a shame they didn't create any legacy policy during the last 6 years as this would have got them through - this is also wht we expected from the golden boy John Key - but he has preferred kissing babies and watching All Black games etc to keep the polls up - rather than becoming an iconic PM

And that's just spin on spin. Why assume the 9% were from National voters to start with. Talk about a story from fresh air.

9 % !
9% is pretty big considering most people have only seen snippets of the book in the news. I wouldn't be saying thats a shrug.IMO

I don't think so.

I'd like to see more discussion of attack politics, and for the Great New Zealand public to rise up and reject it.

But 9% doesn't represent much cut-through. I'd have expected a much higher figure given you'd expect a lot of Labour, Green etc voters to weigh in with a "more negative" response.

Dirty Politics has made it harder for Judith Collins to ever become PM, but that ship had probably already sailed.

Chris your comment proves your biased reporting

Isn't it your job to report on the facts not what you personally would prefer to happen

Based on the poll breakdown above the election is very close - not sure how the Maori party get 2 seats - they are dead

This poll is pre the Hagar book

The 9% negatively influenced figure needs more investigation but if those 9% are National or undecided voters then the 9% is very very material.

i think you are incorrect doctor; my understanding is that the poll is post the Hagar book. I too am astonished with the "9%" figure given that approx. 45% of those questioned would've been of "left leaning" political views.
I think It (the 9%") more probably reflects the public's view of someone that has written a whole book pointing out politics can be dirty and then expecting the public to read it and declare it is a revelation. In other words the public does like mr hagar trying to teach them something they are already well aware of.

Just reading the commentary in Newspaper columns and basic logic you would have to expect that a larger proportion of the 9% would be non national and already committed elsewhere.

What is surprising is that you would expect that a large number of the 40%+ that support Labour and the Green would have been negatively influenced even if it just reinforced their opinion.

Polls are polls though, however I am surprised by the lack of numbers badly influenced.

What if the majority are non National but undecided voters - they may make the difference on election day - the margin for national based on yesterdays polls is not huge

It's not the book that will switch people's votes, it's the fallout and the relentless negative reporting over the next few weeks.

I concur, Chris. Given the ubiquity of Steven Joyce, I think he's the logical contender for Key's eventual successor. In that eventuality, I suspect Bill English would stay on in the (shadow?) finance portfolio. That is, unless he gets an executive position with an international financial organisation, given what must be a good reputation as a prudent manager of government finances by now.

Give them time, Chris. The backlash is coming.

Media think people think like light switches.

is that on/off or dimmer ?

The problem with these two polls (as with the Stuff-Ispos poll) is all were compiled before Hager's Dirty Politics was published. One News/Colman Brunton poll is 9-13 August and 3 News/Reid Research is 5-13 August. Stuff Ispos is 9-13 August.

Anon #3 - astute observation

To those debating the 9%, surely the relevant figure is actually net 5% being the 9% 'negatively influenced' vs the 4% 'positively influenced'

Like Tamati though I think the real impact will take a bit longer to settle.

"Meanwhile TV3 has billed a new poll released tonight as a "reality check" for National"
That’s just Gower playing sensationalist journalism. The problem with Gower and TV3 is that Gower is starting to believe his own PR. As the TV3 political editor he could well be better placed Editing his own stories before they go to air. It is my understanding that a good journalist reports the story they are not the story.

Disagree. Patrick Gower is head and shoulders above most of the other journos.

Goodness I did not think Gower was THAT tall. My old pappy would say, 'Now there is some shoulders which could do with a good head'

I think the question is whether the poll timing this time was adequate enough for voters to read, process and evaluate the significance of the information presented in Hager's book. If issue significance duration continues, there may be a more perceptible effect on polling.

A few commented here don't seem to be able to read and understand. It's in the headline people "OneNews-Colmar Brunton snap poll: voters shrug off Hager book". This was a snap poll after the book was released, otherwise how could they pass comment on the books release on how they were going to vote.

Rubbish Dermott.
Headlines are often deceptive and reflect the bias of the sub-editor.
You need to dig into the article before making a decision.
paleo

Key was doing a great act of attempting to shrug off difficult questions on Radio NZ's morning report today too.

Key's attempt to use his usual tactic of dismissing and/or rubbishing anything perceived as adverse is just not working this time.
The accusations are too many and too close to home to be ignored.
New Zealand voters deserve a more detailed and serious answer.
Otherwise, it could be that we are starting to see chips in his teflon coat.
paleo

As Geff Boycott famously once said "this isn't tiddlywinks". I find it funny the level of outrage at the allegations in Hagers book. I read it over the weekend, and frankly, I will never get those heartbeats back. It read as a collection of script ideas rejected by house of cards. I am not a fan of slater or his WOBH blog, so there were no surprises to me about the levels to which he will stoop - just like Nicky Hager. Politics is a dirty, nasty game and no party is without blame, they will all do whatever it takes to win a place at the trough - things like having staff deface party billboards, or sending people to Aussie to dig dirt on opponents. For better or worse (I think worse) blogs and bloggers are part of the journalistic landscape. The Traditional Journalistic profession could have responded by lifting the bar in terms of research and integrity, but sadly they have not.

It's early days yet and Key is far too complacent. Any potential National voter should be alarmed at how much influence a clearly nasty and sociopathic blogger like WhaleOil has on Key and how much they interact with each other. Does this sit with their moral compass? Maybe if Slater called all National voters "feral"?

I dont believe that Slater has influence over the PM. I think Slater has played up his realtionship, and teh PM (and office) have played him for the fool he is in terms of planting information - no different to how Helen Clarks office also leaked stuff to WO on occassion.

Hope you are right, I guess time - and possibly @whaledump - will tell...

There is no doubt that some of this has stuck with National and perhaps cost them 1-2%. What is critical about that is not whether Key will be PM or not, but its looking increasingly like he will need to deal with Winston Peters.

There remains zero chance for a Cunliffe led rabble and I haven't seen anything that suggests Cunliffe can manage his own party let alone his potential coalition partners.

All of this does not suit Labour (they cant even lock the door when they go out, to expand on Cunliffe's analogy).

This is all falling perfectly for Winston's swansong.

Will Winstone deal with John Key??? I sincerely hope not.