New survey on republic issue
The jury is still out on a new survey by Research New Zealand that seems to show a big increase in people who are neutral or undecided about becoming a republic. The survey of 1252 people taken in August last year asked respondents to say whether they strongly agreed strongly disagreed or were neutral on the matter. The results are online. 15% strongly agreed, 38% were neutral, 44% strongly disagreed and 4% did not know. With previous surveys showing support as high as 44% this result may be showing a trend toward republic supporters becoming neutral and there appears to be strong consolidation among people who are against the idea. This result was consistent across a range of people.
The major problem with the survey is the interpretation of the results and they are being described. The actual questions asked people to rate their support on a scale from 1 to 10. Anyone who rated 3-7 were described as neutral. Q: How much do you agree or disagree on a scale of 0 to 10 that New Zealand should become a republic?: 15% answered 8-10, 38% answered 3-7, 44% answered 0-2. Answering 3- 7 was described as neutral. This is misleading as presumably anyone who answered 6 and 7 can be called conditional supporters of a republic. We will try and find out what the actual answers were.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
I see state asset sales have a majority of support 52%, while support for changing the flag is 19%. I call bullshit - clearly this poll is biased. There hasn't been a poll for years showing majority support for asset sales.
What do surveys normally show for changing the flag? I think the main issue (as per my updated blog) is that the answers have been interpreted in a very simplistic way.
In fact according to the poll results: "Over one-half of respondents (52 percent) agreed that state-owned assets should not be sold, either partially or entirely. In comparison, 14 percent disagreed".
Right you are Anon, got that the wrong way around. Still 52% opposition to asset sales is significantly less than the NZ Study of Values Survey, published in November, showing 75.9% of respondents opposed to asset sales. If I was the Government I would've been using that apparent drop in opposition - but they didn't because the survey doesn't appear to have much credibility.
I'm not so sure that there's too much of a bone to pick with the interpretation of the recent poll results. By the crudest of measurements the widespread public support for John Key's determined return to elements of imperial-type honours plus the reinstatement of the old British-style "Honourables" and Queen's Counsels, has been palpable.
For one thing, notice how ten years of unrelenting carping that for his services so-and-so once "would've got a knighthood" (meaning, has been short-changed by the New Zealand awards) has ceased completely. You find virtually no criticism of the Key reversion. We have gratefully slipped back into it as one would a pair of comfortable old shoes.
I suspect that this widespread support isn't merely our Kiwi authoritarianism coming to the fore but possibly also reflects a favourable reaction to the unwinding of Helen Clark's unpopular regime.
All this I take to indicate that we're as far as ever from establishing ourselves as a standalone identity. The word "republic" even appears to be seen as some sort of menace. As usual it'll take "someone to lead us" - probably Australia. I'd bet on it.
We've got the full results now from Research NZ. They make for interesting reading, especially looking at the NZ-born support for the monarchy versus NZ naturalised. On a scale of 0 - 10, you'd expect "neutral" to simply mean those who responded "5". In that case, the result would've been:
It is interesting to note that in this poll "strongly agree" republican support is weakest in the 18-34 age group at 11% compared to 17% in the 35-54's and 15% in the over 55's.
40% of the young age group "strongly disagree" with becoming a republic. That is well over three times of the number (11%) who "strongly agree". From this survey, it seems that a republic will not necessarily be inevitable with the passing of time.
One survey can't show a trend and the trend long term is still that
older people support the monarchy more. We now have the full results of
the survey so we can take a look in more detail at the age break down. At this stage there is not that much deviation from the averages for it to be that significant.
Also the question of inevitability is not just about age and voting
support. The inevitability comes from both the contradictions inherent
in the monarchy and in the size of the hardcore support for a republic.
The contradictions will never go away and neither will the people
demanding change. Some people want an elected head of state and some want the royal family to supply one. The only fair way to decide in a democracy is to vote on it.
My memory might be letting me down but can recall a poll upon which NZR placed quite a bit of credence a year or so ago, in which 38% of respondents "favoured NZ becoming a republic".
This latest result could stem in large part from the dazzling success of the "Marriage Made In Heaven" of William and Catherine Middleton. Surely this must have been seen by the House of Windsor, monarchists generally (and not forgetting the British Establishment) as a gift from the gods.
Notice the swift injection of William to the countries recently suffering tragedies - Australian floods and the Pyke River/Chch earthquakes -capitalising on the great success of the pair during their recent tours.
At any rate this does show just how flaky these surveys are. They really are only a snapshot of the national mood at any given time. I fail to see any consistent trend here.
Polls vary according to the method used, the questions, and short fluctuations in public opinion. You can see the overall trend (Monarchy declining,
republic increasing) at our poll page.
The Monarchists are on a big PR push and the wedding and the Jubilee
are a big part of that. The Monarchy have been promoting themselves for
centuries and they certainly won't be giving up without a fight despite
what they say. They have been gifted huge cultural and political power
and they won't give that up unless they are forced to. There will ,more
than likely, be a baby next year. What are your personal views? Do you
support retaining the Monarchy? Feel free to add your name to your
posts.
Both Australia, since its 1999 referendum and NZ have seen an upswing in support for the monarchy in recent years. The European monarchies have also seen an upswing in support in recent years. Perhaps one of the reasons may be owing to uncertain times and recession leading to more conservative attitudes in some fields.
Prince William has reached the time in his life when it would be likely that he would become partnered and take on more "royal duties". Conversely, the Queen is nearing 90 and is unable to continue to travel as she did when younger. PR has always been present in one form or other in society. It is not unique to the monarchy or to the present time.
Given the current review of our constitutional arrangements, if anything cries out for change it is the Oath of Allegiance. I for one am deeply offended that we New Zealanders still are compelled to swear allegiance to someone halfway round the world and purely on the specious grounds of "tradition" while ignoring the land that nourished us, and to whose soil we will ultimately return.
If nothing changes, nothing changes Anon. We can't simply ignore the review because it only provides an opportunity to "vent". It's much better that we vent and get people discussing the issue than try vainly to ignore what's going on. As we know, whenever a republic is discussed support for it increases.
I agree with Lewis. We need to stand up anywhere we get the opportunity and say why we want a republic and why its the best thing for new Zealand. The review is an opportunity to do that and we should make sure we are on the record and that our views on the matter are clear. Pledging allegiance to the Queen is an empty and out-dated pledge.
LJH/Savage,
The fact it keeps coming up is a start. What's telling is that the only reaction of the defenders of the oath was to tighten the rules and threaten ejection for anyone who doesn't tow the line. It's an admission in itself that there's something wrong - and that the sentiment expressed by Hone is widespread.
Post new comment