Friday, April 30, 2004
Polls apart
It's time to lift the veil a little on the mysteries of public opinion polls, which are of course running hot in the United States with the Presidential election looming. In New Zealand - still 16 months or so out from an election - they are having a surprising profile also. The fortunes of three parties are hinging surprisingly on them at the moment.
One of the most misunderstood things about an opinion poll is the much-bandied about phrase "margin of error". You might assume that this means "margin of error", as in how accurate the poll is. Wrong.
Here is what the market research companies don't tell you:
"Margin of error" means purely "to what degree does the sample of people we have spoken to represent the population at large," particularly in terms of age and sex. It tells you nothing about whether they represent the population in terms of views expressed (that is an assumption the polling companies make); it tells you nothing about whether the questions were biased; and so on. What the market research companies also don't tell you is that if they do not get a close match with their sample compared to the population at large, they weight the age and sex groupings to bring the sample into line. There is no way of knowing whether that distortion affects the responses or not.
This is only one of many problems attached to market research. Problems that often create "rogue" polls, which bear no resemblance to the true state of affairs. It's also why two different polls taken at the same time can produce quite different results.
It's time to lift the veil a little on the mysteries of public opinion polls, which are of course running hot in the United States with the Presidential election looming. In New Zealand - still 16 months or so out from an election - they are having a surprising profile also. The fortunes of three parties are hinging surprisingly on them at the moment.
One of the most misunderstood things about an opinion poll is the much-bandied about phrase "margin of error". You might assume that this means "margin of error", as in how accurate the poll is. Wrong.
Here is what the market research companies don't tell you:
"Margin of error" means purely "to what degree does the sample of people we have spoken to represent the population at large," particularly in terms of age and sex. It tells you nothing about whether they represent the population in terms of views expressed (that is an assumption the polling companies make); it tells you nothing about whether the questions were biased; and so on. What the market research companies also don't tell you is that if they do not get a close match with their sample compared to the population at large, they weight the age and sex groupings to bring the sample into line. There is no way of knowing whether that distortion affects the responses or not.
This is only one of many problems attached to market research. Problems that often create "rogue" polls, which bear no resemblance to the true state of affairs. It's also why two different polls taken at the same time can produce quite different results.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Now it's Generation X-Cell!?
Cell phones have become the most important status symbol in the lives of teenagers prior to a driver's licence, the Washington Post reports. In four years the proportion of American youngsters aged 11 to 17 owning a cell phone has gone from an estimated 5 per cent to 30 per cent and is expected to reach nearly half by 2007. By the end of this year people aged 11 to 24 may account for a quarter of the total cellular market - a $21 billion share. (From The Washington Post, Apr 25, reported in Family Edge)
Cell phones have become the most important status symbol in the lives of teenagers prior to a driver's licence, the Washington Post reports. In four years the proportion of American youngsters aged 11 to 17 owning a cell phone has gone from an estimated 5 per cent to 30 per cent and is expected to reach nearly half by 2007. By the end of this year people aged 11 to 24 may account for a quarter of the total cellular market - a $21 billion share. (From The Washington Post, Apr 25, reported in Family Edge)
"I had an affair"
"I don't know exactly when my affair started. My marriage of eight years had brought me three wonderful children and a beautiful home. While I'd like to say it brought me happiness, too, I couldn't. I questioned the direction of my career, I felt guilty leaving my children with a babysitter, and I believed my husband, Allen, wasn't doing everything he could to make me happy."
That's the opening paragraph of Lyn McKenzie's story as she details how she spiraled into an affair, and then headed for divorce.
Marriage is a hard call these days. Everything in modern society says when the going gets tough, you have the right to something better.
What happened to Lyn is a compelling story (but hey, I'm a sucker for happy endings!).
"I don't know exactly when my affair started. My marriage of eight years had brought me three wonderful children and a beautiful home. While I'd like to say it brought me happiness, too, I couldn't. I questioned the direction of my career, I felt guilty leaving my children with a babysitter, and I believed my husband, Allen, wasn't doing everything he could to make me happy."
That's the opening paragraph of Lyn McKenzie's story as she details how she spiraled into an affair, and then headed for divorce.
Marriage is a hard call these days. Everything in modern society says when the going gets tough, you have the right to something better.
What happened to Lyn is a compelling story (but hey, I'm a sucker for happy endings!).
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
A strange day in politics
It was a strange day in New Zealand politics today. A Prime Minister who should have sacked one of her cabinet ministers did not....and the leader of the ACT party resigned when he probably should have stayed.
Of the two, Helen Clark is the more likely to regret her (in)decision. She will now be seen as weak and inconsistent (she has sacked other cabinet ministers for far less), and pandering to Maori when she would not tolerate the same from pakeha.
As for ACT: Richard Prebble is not the problem that underlies their terrible plunge in the opinion polls. And there really is no-one else among the party's MPs who will do any better. The real problem is that National has moved some of its policies to the right, and squeezed ACT out to the very edges.
Not that this will do the poor voter any good, either way. National leader Don Brash may be right of centre economically, but he is very liberal/left-wing socially. He will not provide National with the coherent basis it needs if it is to regain its position as a centrist conservative party. The party will continue to wobble around a confused core of beliefs (and consequently, policies).
ACT will continue to be predominantly libertarian (there is even less future in them trying to become more conservative).
So the poor voter looking for a party with sound conservative values is going to struggle in vain. It may be that NZ First is the best placed to exploit the gap - and once again Winston Peters will be king maker after the next election. He must be laughing all the way to the polls.
It was a strange day in New Zealand politics today. A Prime Minister who should have sacked one of her cabinet ministers did not....and the leader of the ACT party resigned when he probably should have stayed.
Of the two, Helen Clark is the more likely to regret her (in)decision. She will now be seen as weak and inconsistent (she has sacked other cabinet ministers for far less), and pandering to Maori when she would not tolerate the same from pakeha.
As for ACT: Richard Prebble is not the problem that underlies their terrible plunge in the opinion polls. And there really is no-one else among the party's MPs who will do any better. The real problem is that National has moved some of its policies to the right, and squeezed ACT out to the very edges.
Not that this will do the poor voter any good, either way. National leader Don Brash may be right of centre economically, but he is very liberal/left-wing socially. He will not provide National with the coherent basis it needs if it is to regain its position as a centrist conservative party. The party will continue to wobble around a confused core of beliefs (and consequently, policies).
ACT will continue to be predominantly libertarian (there is even less future in them trying to become more conservative).
So the poor voter looking for a party with sound conservative values is going to struggle in vain. It may be that NZ First is the best placed to exploit the gap - and once again Winston Peters will be king maker after the next election. He must be laughing all the way to the polls.
Monday, April 26, 2004
Treasury discussion paper critical of government financial policies
The NZ government comes in for quite a bit of criticism in a new document from the government’s principle economic advisory group – the Treasury.
The paper effectively praises the economic reforms of the 1980s and early 90s, which have been criticised by the current Prime Minister Helen Clark.
The report also speaks of growing discomfort about the direction in which Labour is now heading. Recent policies which it sees as potentially damaging include concerns about the coming tax cuts in the Budget, employment legislation, infrastructure failures, education legislation, competition regulation and the Resource Management Act.
It says if New Zealand is to climb back into parity with other OECD countries, a prime requirement is strong property rights – something which is under direct threat from the present government. (One example is the plan to allow the public recreational access to farmers’ property, while making the farmers liable for any problems that arise.)
The whole scenario regarding the issue of the paper (first written last November, but only just released) raises some interesting questions. The authors say they want to stimulate public debate. They are obviously not reading from the same script as the Minister of Finance. Is this is a fight to recapture economic ideology from the socialist-minded government?
The NZ government comes in for quite a bit of criticism in a new document from the government’s principle economic advisory group – the Treasury.
The paper effectively praises the economic reforms of the 1980s and early 90s, which have been criticised by the current Prime Minister Helen Clark.
The report also speaks of growing discomfort about the direction in which Labour is now heading. Recent policies which it sees as potentially damaging include concerns about the coming tax cuts in the Budget, employment legislation, infrastructure failures, education legislation, competition regulation and the Resource Management Act.
It says if New Zealand is to climb back into parity with other OECD countries, a prime requirement is strong property rights – something which is under direct threat from the present government. (One example is the plan to allow the public recreational access to farmers’ property, while making the farmers liable for any problems that arise.)
The whole scenario regarding the issue of the paper (first written last November, but only just released) raises some interesting questions. The authors say they want to stimulate public debate. They are obviously not reading from the same script as the Minister of Finance. Is this is a fight to recapture economic ideology from the socialist-minded government?
