HoS on Moore

The Herald on Sunday editorial looks at what Mike Moore said:

Moore’s style, which displays no more regard for logical structure than for the rules governing the use of the comma, is not exactly measured. He admitted as much the next day, saying that “I just rattled this thing off, as I rattle columns off” – a slightly alarming admission from a lifelong Labour Party man who had just trashed the Labour administration.

I remember Ken Douglas speaking at a Young Nationals conference when Moore was leader, and saying that the great thing about Mike Moore is he has a great idea every day.  The bad thing is he has 100 ideas a day 🙂

Progressive leader Jim Anderton, looking more than ever the supernumerary Government poodle, got stuck in, however, accusing Moore of being a bitter, hypocritical failure. He has reportedly challenged Moore to a debate on the matter, an event which, it must be hoped, will not go ahead for fear of the danger the combined carbon dioxide emissions would pose to the environment.

Heh, I like it when editorial writers get snarky 🙂

Labour may not like it, but the fact is that many of Moore’s random shots hit their targets dead centre. The co-ordinated Parliamentary attack on Key did him no damage at all but severely dented the Government’s own credibility. The fact that the second wave of attacks, the queries raised about Key’s multiple addresses which turned out to have no substance, was led by Pete Hodgson, whose health portfolio is full of far more pressing problems than the Opposition leader’s domestic arrangements, simply compounded the offensiveness of the approach.

Funny, I pointed out the same thing here and got told I am just being nasty and partisan for suggesting over capacity emergency departments may be a priority.  A Government will always have a couple of Ministers who are “attack” Ministers but they shouldn’t be Health or Education Minister as those portfolios are always under stress.

The PM may maintain a lofty distance from the Government’s recent strategy but we may be sure she is driving it.

Indeed.  It is great to have this tactic called for what it is.

Whether it is the politics of personal destruction or the rough-and-tumble of Parliamentary politics in an age where proportional representation makes for odd allies is a matter that may be debated. What is beyond dispute is that it is having a disastrous effect on the Government’s popularity.

As it happens Labour is disputing it.  They leaked to The Press some excerts of their private polling done by UMR, claiming that “while National was ahead by a healthy margin, voters were increasingly critical of Key”. They have vowed to keep up their attacks.

Now it is an interesting thing when someone leaks selective portions of private polling.  If it was done by UMR (a very good company) then it will be accurate, but what one doesn’t know is the context in which various questions were asked.  Anything less than the full report showing all the questions and all the results, can be potentially misleading.

This has become such an issue in the United Kingdom, that the British Polling Council has put this rule in place:

Organisations conducting privately commissioned surveys have the right to maintain the confidentiality of survey findings. However, in the event the results of a privately commissioned poll are made public by the organisation that commissioned the survey (including its employees or agents), such results will be deemed to have entered the public domain and procedures outlined above will be followed in respect of those findings.

The procedures referred to are

publishing within two days “Computer tables showing the exact questions asked in the order they were asked, all response codes and the weighted and unweighted bases for all demographics and other data that has been published”.

This is a fascinating rule, and worthy of debate in New Zealand at some stage.  It basically says private polls remain private, but if the client releases or leaks a portion of the results to make them look good, then there is an ethical obligation on the polling company to release the full results.