Vernon Tava’s Sustainable NZ party made a transparent attempt to target the center of the political spectrum. The logic was that they would be an environmentalist movement that wasn’t tarnished by the social justice obsession of the Greens. In the end, they received 1,880 votes, which amounted to less than 0.1% of the total.
Variable
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
Voting ACT in 2020
0.54
Voting National in 2020
0.50
Voting Greens in 2020
0.26
Voting New Conservative in 2020
0.37
Voting The Opportunities Party in 2020
0.32
Voting Labour in 2020
0.02
Voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 2020
-0.41
Voting Maori Party in 2020
-0.46
Sustainable NZ may not have won many votes, but they succeeded in positioning themselves somewhere between the National Party and the Green Party. The correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and voting National in 2020 was 0.50, and with voting Greens in 2020 it was 0.26. Both are significantly positive.
The correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and voting Labour in 2020 was not significant, at 0.02. This suggests that Sustainable NZ was successful in avoiding the label of ‘left-wing’. In fact, there was even a correlation of 0.37 between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and voting New Conservative in 2020.
The strongest negative correlations with voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 were with voting for the parties representing disadvantaged demographics, such as the ALCP (-0.41) and the Maori Party (-0.46).
Variable
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
< $5,000
-0.17
$5,000-$10,000
-0.11
$10,000-$20,000
-0.37
$20,000-$30,000
-0.18
$30,000-$50,000
-0.32
$50,000-$70,000
0.23
$70,000+
0.44
The general rule is: the wealthier the voter, the more likely they were to vote Sustainable NZ in 2020. The reason for this, as it is for the Greens and The Opportunities Party, is that environmental issues are high up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and people suffering from housing or income insecurity will vote on the basis of that instead.
The strongest support of any income bracket for Sustainable NZ came from the $70,000+ bracket. The correlation between voting for Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having a personal income of over $70,000 was 0.44. This is a curious result, given that votes for alternative parties are normally cast by disenfranchised people, and disenfranchised people normally vote for left-wing parties. This paradox may explain why Sustainable NZ got so few votes.
The financially disenfranchised avoided voting for Sustainable NZ. The correlation between having an income between $10,000 and $20,000 and voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 was -0.37.
Variable
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
No qualifications
-0.46
Level 1 certificate
-0.22
Level 2 certificate
-0.31
Level 3 certificate
-0.24
Level 4 certifiate
-0.30
Level 5 diploma
-0.20
Level 6 diploma
0.55
Bachelor’s degree
0.36
Honours degree
0.40
Master’s degree
0.34
Doctorate
0.34
As with the Greens, ACT and The Opportunities Party, highly educated voters were more likely to vote Sustainable NZ than poorly educated ones. There was a significant positive correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having any of the university degrees. On the other hand, there was a correlation of -0.46 between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having no academic qualifications.
Unlike the Greens, the correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having a highest educational qualification of a level 3 certificate was significantly negative. This reflects the fact that the Greens have broad appeal among university students, a niche that Sustainable NZ were unable to gain entry to.
From these three sets of correlations, we can see that Sustainable NZ voters were considerably more privileged than the average voter.
Variable
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
No children
0.19
One child
-0.02
Two children
0.39
Three children
-0.05
Four children
-0.46
Five children
-0.62
Six children
-0.64
Sustainable NZ voters walked the talk when it comes to the sustainability of their breeding. The strongest correlation between voting for Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having any number of children was two (0.39). There was also a positive correlation of 0.19 between voting for Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having no children.
On the other hand, there were significant negative correlations between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and having four, five or six children. All three of these correlations were at least as negative as -0.46. Sustainable NZ voters are clearly aware that having more than two children is unsustainable.
Variable
Voting Sustainable NZ in 2020
Working as a manager
0.45
Working as a professional
0.31
Working as a machinery operator or driver
-0.52
Working as a labourer
-0.45
A curious outcome of the election is that there was a significant positive correlation between voting Sustainable NZ in 2020 and both working as a manager and working as a professional. Working as a manager and working as a professional are the archetypal occupations of National and the Greens, respectively.
The working-class occupations, by contrast, were relatively less likely to vote Sustainable NZ in 2020. As mentioned above, people who are worried about housing affordability generally consider environmentalism to be a luxury concern.
In summary, Vernon Tava and his Sustainable NZ movement were successful in positioning themselves in the “blue-green” space that appeals to educated, long-sighted people, whether managers or professionals. The problem is that they failed in the much more important objective of obtaining enough votes to threaten the 5% threshold.
*
This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.
People today work as hard as their parents did, but they have much less wealth. The reason for their relative poverty is that three mighty lions take a share of every worker’s production before it gets to their bank account. These three lions have always existed, but today they are much more ravenous than ever before.
The first lion is profits.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how productive the average worker is, because their employer takes all their production off them and gives only a fraction back, in the form of wages. This is inescapable given that the employer owns the workplace and everything that gets produced in it, and given that the Police will always take their side (at least initially) in any property or rights dispute.
In America, the labour share (or wage share) has been declining for several decades. Compared to the early 1970s, the labour share has declined some 10%. An OECD report suggests that a similar decline, of about 10%, has been seen in the labour share across a basket of Western countries. Employers take more, and give back less, than ever before.
To put this into perspective, the average American worker produces some USD72 of goods and services per hour of labour. A fall in labour share, from 65% to 55%, represents a $7.20 difference by the time it gets to the worker – and that’s before the other two lions take their share!
The second lion is taxes.
The average tax burden in Anglo countries is about 30%. This is lower than the average of other Western nations, and reflects that Anglo countries are run in accordance with a small-government ideology. However, it’s still a significant amount of the average worker’s productivity. After losing 45% of their productivity to profits, to lose a further 30% to taxes is brutal.
It means that our average worker, having produced $72 of goods and services before the lions took their share, is now down to about $27 after profits and taxes have been accounted for. The tax burdens of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, by contrast, are all less than 15%, despite that their wages and standards of living are similar to those of Anglo countries.
And there’s still the third lion to contend with – perhaps the hungriest of all. This third lion is rents.
The median monthly gross residential rent in the United States is now around $1,100 per month. Median rents in New Zealand are around the same level. Assuming that our average worker works 150 hours a month, dividing their rent by the number of hours worked gives us around $7 an hour. In other words, seven dollars of the income earned for every hour of labour the average worker performs goes to pay the rent.
Subtracting this from the $27 after profits and taxes means that the average American worker ends up with $20 out of every $72 they produce, once profits, taxes and rents have been taken out. If the labour share was still 65%, if the tax rate was 15% like in Far East Asia and if the average rents were at pre-Clown World levels (let’s say $600 per month), the average worker would be left with around $36 for every hour worked – almost twice as much as in reality.
Moreover, out of the $20 per hour the average worker gets in reality, they have to pay for a number of work-related expenses out of that. Transport to and from their job, work clothing, health insurance (if American) and the cost of any psychiatric medicine they might need would account for another $10 at least. They also need to save some of their wage for a house deposit if they aspire to ever be more than a rentcuck.
All of these facts tell us that, if the average Anglo worker in 2021 had the benefit of a pre-1970s labour share, Far East Asian tax levels and pre-Global Financial Crisis rent levels, they would have about three times as much disposable income as they actually do have in reality. Once the three lions have taken their share, there isn’t much left over for the average worker.
In summary, the three lions that take a share out of every worker’s wage, before the worker sees it, are profits, taxes and rents. If we could reduce these expenses to levels that exist elsewhere in space and time, we could triple the prosperity of the average worker.
Increasing levels of homelessness have been observed all over the Western World. The waiting list of families in severe need of housing in New Zealand has increased sevenfold since 2016, and has nearly quadrupled since the Sixth Labour Government came to power in late 2017. A similar situation exists in America, where “tent cities” of homeless people now surround major metropolitan areas.
A great deal of thought has gone into solving this crisis – or so we’re told. Apparently it’s an issue of great concern to the leaders of the West, who are doing everything they can to get their young people into houses. The reality is that they don’t care about homelessness at all – in fact, they want more of it. Homelessness serves a very important social role.
Like much of human behaviour, whether or not the lower classes rebel is a function of two factors: reward and risk.
The greater the reward for rebelling, the greater the likelihood it will happen. The more oppressed a people are, the greater the reward for rebelling. Anyone who has to endure daily humiliations, especially those of a physical kind, will soon come to feel that it’s worth rolling the dice.
The greater the risk for rebelling, the less the likelihood it will happen. This is why ancient kings used to put every male in rebellious villages to the sword. Others had to learn that the consequences of rebellion were either self-determination or death.
The ruling classes have always had to keep this reward-to-risk balance titled towards not rebelling. A failure to do so could mean that those ruling classes were violently deposed.
Ever since the advent of agriculture, the ruling classes have been preoccupied with one question: how to get people to work. Tilling fields is much less interesting than hunting. Left to their own devices, people would rather hunt and fish, and then lie around the rest of the time, than till fields and accumulate a surplus of grain.
Using violence to force people to work led to rebellion. So the ruling classes had to be subtle about tinkering with the reward-to-risk ratio.
One approach was to increase the reward for working. This was originally how early societies came to have a schedule of festivals, such as harvest festivals in Autumn, fertility festivals in Spring, and festivals for Midsummer and Midwinter. The idea was that people would more readily work a week of tilling fields if they had a festival to look forward to.
The other approach was to increase the risk of not working. As mentioned above, the ruling class couldn’t simply whip people, because they would rebel. The punishment for not working had to be more subtle. The usual solution was ostracisation. Anyone considered to not be working hard enough was deemed a ‘bludger’ or ‘malingerer’ and abused psychologically, instead of physically.
In contrast to physical abuse, psychological abuse can be dished out with very little chance of retaliation. So the ruling classes of today seek to maximise the amount of psychological abuse they inflict upon the lower classes, and that means spreading fear. The ruling class, in the final analysis, are little different to terrorists, and to that end they deliberately cultivate visible homelessness.
Most homelessness has been purposefully created by the ruling class, because they need to have people visibly suffering in public in order to scare the rest of the population into submission. In the terms used above, homelessness has been purposefully cultivated by the ruling class in order to increase the risk of not working.
The presence of homelessness means that the working classes put their heads down and obey orders without complaint, for fear of being made homeless themselves.
Many people have wondered about the logic of doubling the refugee quota, as Labour did in 2017. It seemed especially mysterious, as we were already in the grip of a housing crisis at the time, and each refugee family we housed meant one Kiwi family had to go without.
But that was the precise outcome intended.
The reason why they let the refugees in, and give them housing, while leaving Kiwis to suffer homeless, is because they want Kiwis to suffer. They want the average New Zealander to see his fellows suffering and homeless every day, because this will keep the average New Zealander compliant.
This strategy, which could be summarised as “A boot stamping on a human face, forever,” has reached its apogee in today’s America, where major Californian cities are now surrounded by miles and miles of tents. Los Angeles is believed to contain 60,000 homeless, many of who live in tents in the downtown commercial area.
This need to threaten people into submission is why they will never solve the homelessness crisis.
Much like cannabis prohibition, homelessness serves the purpose of signalling the government’s cruelty, and thereby works to bring the lower classes into a state of compliance. The homeless have to be there, so that the average citizen can be reminded of the consequences of resisting the government’s will. The more tyrannical the government becomes, the more homeless there will be.
The presence of homeless people, then, could be considered a sign of tyranny. Therefore, the homelessness problem won’t be solved until the tyranny one is.
Like the ACT Party, the Greens have been described as the next generation’s alternative to the Establishment. Also like the ACT Party, the Greens increased their vote from 2017, although the Greens only increased slightly, from 162,443 votes (6.3% of the total) to 226,757 votes (7.9% of the total). This was enough for ten seats in Parliament.
As in previous years, those who voted Greens in 2020 were much better educated than the average New Zealander. This, more than anything else, was the most distinguishing characteristic of the Greens voter.
Variable
Voting Greens in 2020
No qualifications
-0.64
Level 1 certificate
-0.58
Level 2 certificate
-0.53
Level 3 certificate
0.31
Level 4 certificate
-0.60
Level 5 diploma
-0.71
Level 6 diploma
0.05
Bachelor’s degree
0.59
Honours degree
0.77
Master’s degree
0.74
Doctorate
0.77
The correlation between having any one of the three highest university degrees and voting Greens in 2020 was at least 0.74. This is one of the strongest correlations between any demographic variable and voting for a particular party in 2020.
The reason for this is simple, but widely denied. People who can understand scientific literature understand that the human race is on a path to destruction, and that our current lifestyles are not sustainable. As such, they vote for environmentalism. This pattern is replicated in most other Western countries.
On the other hand, the correlation between having no qualifications and voting Greens in 2020 was -0.64. Poorly-educated people often resent the scientific approach taken by the Greens, and don’t consider it particularly intelligent. In general, the more poorly-educated a person is, the more they will resent being told that our current lifestyles are unsustainable.
The Greens are a large enough movement to present different faces to different people. Although some might see Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman, and decide that the Greens are a dangerous pack of Brown Communists, others see Chloe Swarbrick and James Shaw and decide that the Greens are the only party who take science and scientific evidence seriously.
Variable
Voting Greens in 2020
Special voting Yes for euthanasia
0.70
Special voting Yes for cannabis
0.68
This latter point is shown most clearly in the results of the cannabis referendum. There was a very strong positive correlation of 0.68 between casting a special vote for Yes in the cannabis referendum and voting Greens in 2020.
The reason for this is clear: anyone who actually looks at the scientific evidence will understand that cannabis is medicinal and not anywhere near as harmful as its detractors have claimed it to be (two points that VJM Publishing discussed at length in The Case For Cannabis Law Reform). Given this, it seems unreasonably cruel to keep locking people up for using it.
The correlation was even more strongly positive for the euthanasia referendum, which speaks to the absence of religious superstition among Green Party voters. The most common reason for people to vote No in the euthanasia referendum was a superstitious fear of death, and not many Green voters suffer from this.
Variable
Voting Greens in 2020
No religion
0.31
Buddhism
0.22
Christianity
-0.39
Hinduism
0.09
Islam
0.10
Judaism
0.54
Maori religions
-0.30
Spiritualism and New Age religions
0.34
It’s easily possible to overstate how irreligious the Greens are. Although there was a significant negative correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and being either Christian (-0.39) or a follower of a Maori religion (-0.30), these were the only religions to be so negatively correlated.
The strongest positive correlation between voting Green in 2020 and belonging to a religion was with Judaism, at 0.54. Next was Buddhism, at 0.22. For the most part, this follows the rule that, the better educated a voter is, the more likely they are to vote Green.
The one notable exception is people who follow Spiritualism and New Age religions. This group is not particularly well educated, but they like to vote Green nevertheless. The correlation between being a Spiritualist or New Ager and voting Greens in 2020 was 0.34. The explanation is probably because Spiritualists and New Agers share with the Greens many anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist sentiments.
There was a significant positive correlation, of 0.31, between having no religion and voting Greens in 2020. This speaks to the extent to which Greens supporters are members of the scientific and technical elite, which is educated into a scientific materialist paradigm at high school and university.
Variable
Voting Greens in 2020
Living in an urban electorate
0.30
Living on the North Island
-0.08
Percentage of males
-0.16
Surprising to many is the fact that Greens voters in 2020 were significantly more urban than rural. Some might suggest that this shows the Greens to not really care much about environmental issues. A more plausible explanation is that educated people have to move to urban environments to get jobs that make the most of their skills, and so it’s the fact that Green voters are highly educated that explains why they are so urban.
Green voters are slightly more likely to live on the South Island. These correlations reveal that their strongest support is in places like Christchurch, Dunedin and Nelson. Indeed, these are the places where environmentalist and anti-consumerist sentiments are strongest.
Green voters are also slightly more likely to be female, although the correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and percentage of males was also not statistically significant, at -0.16. This suggests that educated young women like Julie Anne Genter and Chloe Swarbrick represent the archetypal Green supporter.
Variable
Voting Greens in 2020
Working as a manager
-0.04
Working as a professional
0.75
Working as a technician or trades worker
-0.50
Working as a community or personal service worker
-0.03
Working as a clerical or administrative worker
0.03
Working as a sales worker
-0.09
Working as a machinery operator or driver
-0.58
Working as a labourer
-0.48
The most striking thing about Greens voters is how heavily represented they are among professionals. The correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and working as a professional was 0.75, one of the strongest between any party and any occupation. This is inevitable given how well-educated Greens voters and professionals both are.
There were significant negative correlations between voting Greens in 2020 and working as a machinery operator or driver (-0.58), as a technician or trades worker (-0.50) or as a labourer (-0.48), three of the most typically working-class occupations.
These correlations might seem strange, given that the Greens are a firmly left-wing party and therefore are supposed to represent the working class. The paradox at the heart of the Greens is that, despite their positioning, few working-class people vote for them.
The reality is that the Greens, like all Parliamentary parties, represent not a specific part of the population but a specific part of the Establishment. The Greens’ turf is the young, well-educated globalists whose parents usually vote National.
Variable
Voting Greens in 2020
European
0.19
Maori
-0.27
Pacific Islander
-0.19
Asian
0.12
Many will also be surprised, given the virtue signalling that the Greens do around Maori issues, that there was a significant negative correlation (-0.27) between voting Greens in 2020 and being Maori. There was also a negative correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and being a Pacific Islander.
On the other hand, there were positive correlations between voting Greens in 2020 and being either a Kiwi of European descent or Asian. Neither of these correlations were significant, but they reflected the general trend that the better-educated any one group of New Zealanders is, the more likely they are to vote for the Green Party.
Variable
Voting Greens in 2020
< $5,000
-0.01
$5,001-$10,000
0.34
$10,001-$20,000
-0.37
$20,001-$30,000
-0.37
$30,001-$50,000
-0.52
$50,001-$70,000
-0.04
$70,000+
0.52
That voting Green is not considered a working-class option is underlined by the fact that there is a negative correlation of -0.52 between voting Greens in 2020 and having an income of $30,001-$50,000. Someone working 2,000 hours a week, or close to it, at or just above minimum wage will be in the middle of this income bracket.
On the other hand, there was a strong positive correlation of 0.52 between voting Greens in 2020 and having an income of $70,000+. Many people in the top 15-20% of income are Greens supporters, which is a function of the fact that Greens supporters tend to be better educated than average and that educated people tend to earn more than average.
Variable
Voting Greens 2020
Aged 20-24
0.56
Aged 25-29
0.45
Aged 30-34
0.34
Aged 35-39
0.24
Aged 40-44
0.21
Aged 45-49
0.08
Aged 50-54
-0.02
Aged 55-59
-0.13
Aged 60-64
-0.17
Aged 65-69
-0.16
Aged 70-74
-0.16
Aged 75-79
-0.17
Aged 80-84
-0.15
Aged 85+
-0.04
Up until pension age, there is a clear trend: the younger someone is, the more likely they are to vote Greens.
The aged 20-24 demographic, or the “student” demographic, are the strongest supporters. The correlation between being in this age bracket and voting Greens in 2020 was 0.56. This contrasts sharply with the correlation between being aged 20-24 and voting Labour in 2020, which was -0.02.
For every age bracket older than this up until pension age, the correlation between being in that bracket and voting Greens in 2020 becomes less positive or more negative. The correlation between being aged 60-64 and voting Greens in 2020 was -0.17, and the correlations for older age brackets were similar.
These numbers support the idea of the four basic political niches, with the Greens representing young women (or the alternative left). It remains to be seen whether Green-voting young women switch to Labour in coming years as they get older.
Variable
Voting Greens 2020
Work in agriculture, forestry and fishing
-0.34
Work in mining
-0.12
Work in manufacturing
-0.69
Work in electricity, gas, water and waste
-0.20
Work in construction
-0.46
Work in wholesale trade
-0.30
Work in retail trade
-0.23
Work in accommodation and food service
0.41
Work in transport, postal and warehousing
-0.41
Work in information media and telecommunications
0.64
Work in financial and insurance services
0.44
Work in rental, hiring and real estate services
0.05
Work in professional, scientific and technical services
0.62
Work in administrative and support services
-0.05
Work in public administration and safety
0.51
Work in education and training
0.29
Work in healthcare and social assistance
0.04
Work in arts and recreation services
0.61
Examining the industries in which Greens supporters work reveals that they are heavily represented in cultural and social jobs as well as intellectual ones.
Given the strength of the correlations between having a university degree and voting Greens in 2020, it’s unsurprising that Greens supporters are heavily represented among those working in professional, scientific and technical services. The correlation between working in such services and voting Greens in 2020 was 0.62.
There was an even stronger correlation between working in information media and telecommunications and voting Greens in 2020 – this was 0.64. As with professional, scientific and technical services, employment in this industry generally requires a good education. The information media and telecommunications industry also attracts many young people, which increases the proportion of Greens voters among them.
The third industry to have heavy Green representation is working in arts and recreation services. This industry is heavily populated with the young and talented and these people tend to vote Green. Women like Eleanor Catton are typical of the kind of high-IQ Green supporter that works in the arts.
Green voters are least likely to work in typical working-class industries, which is again surprising to those who consider the Greens to be a leftist movement. There was a significant negative correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and working in manufacturing (-0.69), working in construction (-0.46), working in transport, postal and warehousing (-0.41) or working in agriculture, forestry and fishing (-0.34).
The significant correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and working in accommodation and food services can be explained by the fact that many Greens voters are students, and students comprise a large proportion of those working in that industry.
Variable
Voting Greens 2020
Voting Greens 2017
Voting Labour same year
0.29
0.11
Voting National same year
-0.16
-0.25
Voting ACT same year
-0.08
0.17
Voting New Zealand First same year
-0.24
-0.48
Voting Maori Party same year
-0.15
-0.06
Voting ALCP same year
-0.23
-0.13
Voting New Conservative/Conservative same year
-0.35
-0.33
Voting The Opportunities Party same year
0.84
0.77
Voting Advance NZ same year
-0.36
n/a
Voting Sustainable NZ same year
0.26
n/a
The Greens might not have that much in common with their fellow leftists in Labour, but there was a significant positive correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and voting Labour in 2020 (0.29). The correlation between voting for these parties was not significant in 2017.
The strongest positive correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and voting for any other party that year was with voting The Opportunities Party in 2020, which was 0.84. Both parties seem to be targeting the same niche, of young urban leftists. The danger for the Greens in 2023 will be that The Opportunities Party wins so many votes that the Greens fall under the 5% threshold.
Some might be surprised to see that the correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and voting National in 2020 (-0.16) is more strongly negative than the correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and voting ACT in 2020 (-0.08). After all, ACT is even further to the right than National is, and the Greens are a far-left party.
This can be explained by the fact that both the Greens and ACT appeal primarily to younger and better-educated people, whereas National (like Labour) appeals more to older and more poorly-educated people. This means that the support base of the Greens and ACT overlap demographically in ways that they do not overlap ideologically.
The strongest negative correlations with voting Greens in 2020 were with voting Advance NZ in 2020 (-0.36) or voting New Conservatives in 2020 (-0.35). The reasons for these are obvious: Advance NZ and New Conservatives are the two parties with the most poorly-educated followers. They both attract old, poorly-educated and religious voters, which is the exact opposite of the Greens.
Variable
Voting Green 2020
Median income
0.37
Mean income
0.49
Unsurprisingly, given the heavy representation of Greens voters in highly-paid occupations and industries, there were significant positive correlations between voting Greens in 2020 and both median income (0.37) and mean income (0.49). These correlations aren’t quite as strong as the correlations between voting Greens in 2020 and having any of the university degrees, because many Greens voters are still too young to have achieved any workplace seniority.
Variable
Voting Greens in 2020
Income from wage or salary
0.44
Income from self-employment or owning own business
0.15
Income from interest, dividends, rent or other investments
0.43
Income from ACC or private work insurance
-0.47
Income from NZ Super or Veteran’s pension
-0.20
Income from Jobseeker Support
-0.27
Income from Sole Parent Support
-0.31
Income from Supported Living Payment
-0.06
Income from Student Allowance
0.54
Unsurprisingly for a party with so much student support, the correlation between between voting Greens in 2020 and receiving an income from the Student Allowance (0.54) was stronger than any correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and receiving income from any other source.
Some, however, might be surprised to learn that there was a significant positive correlation between voting Greens in 2020 and receiving an income from interest, dividends, rents or other investments (0.43). This statistic speaks to the paradox at the heart of the Greens: they are privileged people speaking for the non-privileged.
In summary, the typical Greens voter is young and urban, and is either on a Student Allowance or has earned a postgraduate degree and is earning a full-time salary as a professional in a major urban centre.
*
This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.
