Mood of the nation: we don't care about monarchy
UMR has published its annual mood of the nation survey, and it's not good news for the monarchy. Despite 2011 being the "biggest" year for the firm since Charles and Diana were hitched in 1981, the wedding of William and Kate didn't even rate a mention. In fact, our top news story and main concern of 2011 - was the Christchurch earthquake and its aftermath. That's what, rightly, actually mattered to New Zealanders. In the month of April, when the wedding was held, New Zealanders thought the threat of nuclear meltdown in Japan was more important to them. And it is.
This result once again shows that there is no widespread, popular support for the monarchy. There is widespread nostalgia for a time when Britain mattered to New Zealand (which is projected onto the Queen), there is fear of what a New Zealand republic might mean for things such as the Commonwealth or public holidays, but there is no popular support for the institution; just apathy.
Given the media's attention to the wedding, it will be interesting to know what mention the wedding itself did actually rate. We've contacted UMR to find out.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
Hmmm, it will be interesting to hear how the wedding does rate on UMR's measures. However, would a person who wanted to be taken seriously ever admit to anyone that they closely followed the it during April? ;-)
Here's the response from UMR:
Hi there,
53% followed the Royal Wedding, which puts it in 33rd out of 118 issues in 2011. It’s between the Egyptian revolution (54%) and the protests by Christchurch business owners about access to their buildings in central Christchurch (51%).
Kind regards,
Gavin xxxx
Yeah, in spite of my recent comment, I guess that sounds reasonable. Thanks for passing the info on.
It does sound reasonable, but it's still amazing, given the amount of press the event was given, that it didn't even make it into the top 10. I was having Japanese with friends last night and asked them to guess - they all said it would be either 1 or 3 for 2011, and were surprised when I said 33.
Given the tough year NZ and the Province of Canterbury had last year, it's not surprising that the Royal Wedding only rated no. 33 on the UMR survey list. What must tear you republicans up is the poor poll ratings you've had since then. The truth is no-one cares about your little republic agenda.
Haha, whatever Anon. By merely bothering to comment on here, you're showing us all the underlying truth: those opposed to a republic are feeling very insecure about their position - they can sense a republic's coming, too.
Paahahaha - insecure!? I'm not the one calling for an end to our Queen's reign. Admit it, you're a rabble of haters and wreckers, intent on destroying what is not broken because YOU are insecure.
Whatever, Anon. For starters, what am I trying to destroy? Personally, I quite like the Queen and I won't be doing a thing to change all the historical links we enjoy with the UK.
Your trying to destroy NZ's British heritage. Like most NZers I don't care if NZ is "truly independent" off the UK. Were a small fish in a big world, we need friends. The UK has been very good to us and we would be spitting on our ancestors Graves if we broke with the Monarchy & Commonwealth.
Thanks for the further comment, Anon. Britain is and will always be part of our heritage. They are not the influence they once were, though: they were hardly "very good to us" when they joined the EEC and gave up importing our farming products in the 60s and 70s, were they?
As has been posted, the UMR survey discovered that 53% of "us" closely* followed the royal wedding "news story". So on that basis, "we" (a majority of "us") did care about following the royal wedding. Of course, whether we "cared for" the monarchy was in fact not canvassed in the survey!
It is entirely understandable and reasonable that more people should follow more closely the unfolding stories involving disasters, tragedies and politics rather than a wedding. Evolution has made us to be more aware of things that could impact survival and prosperity. The World Cup sport contest in the national sport is a proxy battle. A wedding is unthreatening and the result (a marriage!) is unsurprising there is no need to follow it closely. In fact, it is surprising so many followed the royal wedding news story.
* closely following meant those rating how they followed a news story at 1 or 2 out of a scale of 1(very closely)-5(not closely at all)
By merely bothering to comment on here, you're showing us all the underlying truth: those opposed to a republic are feeling very insecure about their position
Do or don't the Republican Movement want people to be interested in the debate that they want to start concerning the monarchy? If by merely commenting, monarchists get that response, it seems like only RMNZ republican views are wanted. No way to get as many people as possible to get involved in the discussion you want! Saying "The truth is no-one cares about your little republic agenda".is as sweepingly tabloid-like ridiculous as saying "Mood of the nation: we don't care about monarchy".
You're kidding, right Anon? You're confusing a provocative heading of a blog-post that's followed by some careful analysis with a bald statement of finality from someone who isn't even brave enough to use their own name.
You're confusing a provocative heading of a blog-post that's followed by some careful analysis with a bald statement of finality
The "provocative" heading was a bald statement not based on anything revealed in the survey. The royal wedding was not one of the most closely followed news stories but how could that justify the heading Mood of the nation: we don't care about monarchy? A royal wedding news story is not the monarchy. That tabloid heading was bald - it had nothing to support it in the "analysis" other than the writers opinion. The UMR survey had canvassed how closely followed were news stories not attitude to them. How closely the wedding news story was followed has but the most tenuous link with attitudes to the monarchy. Also you can care about more than one thing. Because a large majority of us closely followed the Christchurch earthquake, did not mean we did not care about the other events in the year
Moreover, the bald headline was made without even knowing the percent who had closely followed the royal wedding story. It was found out that 53% had followed the story. So we do care about it!
The wedding event was as linked to the monarchy as much (or as little) as the Queensland Floods to Global Pollution and Warming.
Come on, Anon, now you're just making yourself look ridiculous. If the blog title wasn't based on anything decent, how come it's just taken you 11 sentences to rebut it? You're interest in dissecting the analysis behind the title merely shows us that Lewis' choice of title did what it was meant to do - it started the debate.
So just what is the link between "Mood of the nation: we don't care about monarchy" and the result from UMR that the news story of the Royal Wedding of William was closely followed by 53% of those in their survey?
It was tabloid headline at its worst - sweeping, incorrect and irrelevant.
<sighing> Anon, why should I bother replying to you explaining this? You've already made up your mind that it is nothing more than a tabloid headline. Seems very like how you'd made up your mind that a) the Movement doesn't encourage debate and b) there's no link between the wedding and NZers' views of the monarchy. When I made solid arguments on both of those topics, you merely dropped them without acknowledgement.
I have an opinion because I have read nothing yet that shows that the headline is correct, relevant and not sweeping...
I addressed some of your points, not all I admit, so
(a) True, RM has this open forum for debating points of view as this discussion shows! Your reply to a poster "Haha, whatever Anon. By merely bothering to comment on here, you're
showing us all the underlying truth: those opposed to a republic are
feeling very insecure about their position - they can sense a republic's
coming, too" may perhaps have been "banter" directed at the poster, and, despite its generality, not intended to discourage others of different opinions from posting.
(b) The link between monarchy and the wedding of William: you quoted another lobby group. I admit I have not followed the link. I still don't know what your argument is on the link between monarchy and a wedding of a member of the royal family. The discussion is getting difficult to follow-so sorry if I missed something. In my opinion, the only connection I can see is that William may or may not become the monarch. Whether we closely follow his wedding has no bearing on whether we care about (the) monarchy as a whole. It also has no bearing on whether we support monarchy over republic. Just as all those who closely followed President Clinton's troubles may or may not have cared for a presidential republic or the American presidential republic in particular. I would like to understand how the wedding equates to the monarchy.
The relevant part of the UMR survey concerned news stories. I would still like to see and understand the argument that links "Mood of the nation: we don't care
about monarchy" and the result from UMR that the news story of the Royal
Wedding of William was closely followed by 53% of those in their
survey?
Ok, Anon, I will take a) as something of a point conceded. On b), I don't think there was any need to read my link, which was to a TV3 article. It quoted our opponents Monarchy NZ as saying the wedding showed great support for the monarchy. It even discussed how John Key was saying ""Unquestionably this continues to deepen the support for the royal family." Aside from our PM, if our opponents are saying it, isn't it obvious that we should approach it that way, also?
Despite supporting the NZ constitutional monarchy I did not follow the "wedding story" closely. In relation to Happy Feet and others - the news stories we follow bear no relationship to our care for or otherwise with constitutional arrangements or structure including monarchy. Maybe we do or don't care about the events and trappings of the monarchy's royal family. Maybe we do or don't care about monarchy. The UMR poll certainly revealed nothing on the latter..
I will have to remain in disagreement with you.
Hey Anon,
Another meandering attempt by Mr.Anon to waste our time with incorrect facts and fallacious arguments. I was particularly amused by his claim that we are anti-British and that republicanism means we have to leave the commonwealth. Clearly he knows very little about the commonwealth. He also seems to think that everyone in Britain supports the Monarchy and that being British and supporting the Monarchy are one and the same thing. Is Mr.Anon a British citizen? I doubt it. I am a British citizen I can assure him there are more republic supporters in the UK then there are people in New Zealand. Its pretty simple really - the run down, out-dated and inequitable monarchist system has to go. Its unfair and undemocratic and close to being ludicrous.
Post new comment