Yet another ‘game changer’ takes us to the beginning
National would be unwise to put its head in the sand. It might be Jacinda Ardern is the irresistibly engaging, unifying polymath that the Wellington set has acclaimed her to be.
New Zealand pundits and politicians have a propensity to invoke the phrase ‘‘game changer’’ at the drop of a hat.
By my reckoning, there have been more than 20 wrongly forecasted game changers since 2008. At this point, commentators should be too embarrassed to use the phrase – at least in connection with their own speculation.
Let us examine the changing political narrative of the past fortnight.
On 31 July, Newshub and Reid Research published a poll of the New Zealand electorate. The results had National at 45.2 per cent, Labour on 24.1 per cent and the Greens at 13 per cent. Winston Peters’ party was also at 13 per cent.
If replicated on election night, National would be able to govern with Peters’ support. So too would Labour and the Greens, if that’s the way he decided to go.
Then a week of chaos. Andrew Little lost his nerve and resigned his leadership of the Labour Party. Jacinda Ardern took his place. A giddy political and entertainment media heralded this ascension with trumpets and thunderous applause.
At the same time, the tenor and direction of reporting on the Metiria Turei’s fraud turned sour. Reporters started asking her uncomfortable questions. Gentry liberals, seeming to sense the issue might be difficult for new idol Ardern, began to abandon Turei.
Amid all this, Newshub announced it had a new poll on August 9. Political editor Patrick Gower hyped its results up as being ‘‘explosive’’. Commentators went gaga over the new, altered landscape the poll would unveil.
Six o’clock rolled around and Gower delivered the results. National was down a little bit to 44.4 per cent, Labour was up quite a bit to 33.1 per cent and the Greens tumbled to 8.3 per cent. New Zealand First was also down to 9.2 per cent.
If replicated on election night, National would be able to govern with Peters’ support. So too would Labour and the Greens, if that’s the way he decided to go.
I decided to check what Newshub’s polling said this time last year. Remember, August 2016 was before the political earthquake of Sir John Key’s retirement. Given all the water that has passed under the bridge since, how different were things then?
Well, as reported on 8 August 2016, National was at 45.1 per cent. Labour was at 32.7 per cent and the Greens were at 11.5 per cent. New Zealand First had 8.1 per cent.
If replicated on election night, National would be able to govern with Peters’ support. So too would Labour and the Greens, if that’s the way he decided to go.
What about the same time in 2015? We are getting into ancient history now. This was before the Labour-green memorandum of understanding. In fact, it was so long ago that Newshub went by the quaint name of 3 News.
They didn’t actually announce any poll results in August 2015. But in late July, National was on 47 per cent, Labour was at 33.1 per cent and the Greens were at 11.1 per cent. New Zealand First came in at 8.1 per cent.
If replicated on election night, National would be able to govern with Peters’ support. So too would Labour and the Greens, if that’s the way he decided to go.
Noticing a pattern here? Since Budget Day 2015, the basic proposition for 2017 has remained the same. Labour and the Greens together are – usually – a bit less than National.
Winston Peters picks the winner. For all the ‘‘everything is different now’’ takes on Jacindamania, the broad outlines have not changed.
When you point this out to pundits, one response is to point to the preferred prime minister ratings. The Newshub poll showed Jacinda Ardern rocketing up to 26.3 per cent for this. But this is quite a weak measure of party fortunes. Helen Clark polled higher than that, and often quite a bit higher, in 2008 – the year that she lost power.
The other rationalisation for the champagne uncorking is the idea that the poll shows all the momentum is now with Labour. But you don’t need to be Nate Silver to know that’s not how elections work. Gaining ground is no guarantee of continuing to do so – or even of holding the ground already won.
National would be unwise to put its head in the sand. It might be Jacinda Ardern is the irresistibly engaging, unifying polymath that the Wellington set has acclaimed her to be. If she is even half of all that, she may well go on to convert a material number of National voters to the Labour cause.
But in the meantime, a waitand-see approach seems wise. I wouldn’t be too excited or spooked by speculation at this point. Especially by speculators with such a dismal track record.