The politicians' elite event, the three-yearly voter-fishing frenzy, has begun. And you are the prey. Between now and the September 20 General Election, there will be a cacophony of alluring claims made, aspersions cast and promises pledged. Bruce Munro talks to those in the know about how not to be spun by all the spin.
It took Steven Joyce less than two hours to set the record straight, maybe.
Earlier this week, David Cunliffe had barely finished his major election policy announcement of the day - a $200 million regional development fund - when the Minister of Everything's minions began formulating their counterattack.
By 11.52am the ''send'' button was hit on a press release clarifying that the Labour Party's regional announcement was in fact ''a desperate bid to distract people from Labour's own internal problems, including how their regionally-based candidates and MPs are deserting them''.
By mid-afternoon, however, the pro-business lobby group BusinessNZ had waded in with its view that the often apologetic Labour leader had no reason to say sorry for his regional plan which ''could help develop industry in the regions'' as long as it had ''clear parameters''.
Mr Joyce had argued Labour's policies would hurt the economy. Whereas ''independent data shows'' that under National ''eight out of 11 regions have a lower unemployment rate than Auckland'', Mr Joyce said.
But Mr Cunliffe parried with some facts and figures of his own. In only one of the country's 16 regions was unemployment lower than when National came to power. And in only three regions were median incomes higher than in 2008, he asserted.
Who are voters to believe? And how are they supposed to decide who to vote for?
The countdown to polling day is a veritable blitzkrieg of electioneering. Just when we are supposed to be preparing to exercise what for most is our only opportunity to influence the course of the nation, we are bombarded by a seemingly never-ending stream of conflicting and questionable information.
Confronted by yet another claim or promise, it can be tempting to swallow it hook, line and sinker, or to steer such a wide berth that we do not even have to consider it.
Thinking voters, however, guiltily suspect there must be a better way. They are right. And it begins with a healthy dose of scepticism.
1. The first step is to identify the questions you have about whatever piece of political rhetoric has just landed in your lap.
For instance, when the next political poll is hoisted high for all to see, do not join the gawking masses awestruck by the pollster's fortune-telling powers. Instead, make a mental list or - more likely in this age of orthographically and digitally foreshortened memories - grab a smartphone and post a video of all the questions the survey results raise. It is important, because not all surveys are created equal.
The news this month from right-wing think-tank New Zealand Centre for Political Research that 96% of its newsletter readers oppose Labour's plan to increase the tax burden on New Zealanders is in a different class to the latest One News Colmar Brunton Poll of 1002 eligible voters, of whom 47% said John Key was their preferred prime minister and 10% nominated David Cunliffe.
Bad survey methodology has caused some ''real doozies''. One of the most infamous was the Gallup poll during the 1948 United States presidential election contest between Thomas Dewey and Harry Truman. Gallup conducted a poll with a sample size of about 3250, but used the soon-to-be-abandoned quota sampling technique.
Based on the results of the poll, Gallup predicted 50% of the vote would go to Mr Dewey and 44% to Mr Truman. The Chicago Tribune was so convinced that would be the final result it printed its early post-election edition with a front page headline declaring ''Dewey defeats Truman''.
But Gallup got it almost exactly wrong. Mr Truman got half the votes and Mr Dewey 45%.
Rubbing salt into the newspaper's and the pollster's wounded pride, the newly elected president held aloft a copy of the paper announcing his defeat and quipped, ''Ain't the way I heard it.''
So it is important not to take all poll results as gospel truth.
It is all about determining reliability and validity, the University of Otago Business School lecturer says. The sample technique needs to be probability-based, which means everyone has a known chance of being selected for the survey. Done well, it enables pollsters to take a small, randomly selected sample of the population and use it to pick the attitude or opinion of the whole country.
Results of nationwide surveys with fewer than 500 participants should be treated with caution, Dr Parackal says.
Probability sampling allows margins of error and level of survey confidence to be set. A good margin of error is plus or minus 3% with a 95% confidence level. This means that in 95 out of 100 samples of the same type and size, the results would not vary by more than 3% above or below the result that would come if every member of the population was interviewed.
''Without being too scientific, voters can assume reliability and validity when they start seeing similar results being announced by different pollsters for a given time frame,'' Dr Parackal says.
Politics researcher and commentator Bryce Edwards says voters should not let politicians drive the election agenda.
Politicians on the hustings normally shift the focus to mundane and trite issues about personality and style, Dr Edwards says.
''But elections should be a time to consider the big issues in life,'' he says.
''And even to dream a little about how the world could be a considerably better place.''
Voters should do all they can to stay focused and get answers on those more substantive matters.
The same process applies no matter what the topic: decreasing home affordability, calls for a capital gains tax, lower crime figures, politicians' expense accounts, climate change, economic growth, land rights for gay whales ... Start by listing your questions.
2. Once you know your questions, you are ready to gather the information that will lead to the answers. You are no longer the quarry, you are now on the hunt.
Potential sources of information are as rife as their degree of reliability. Your next-door neighbour may have strong views on doing business in China. But exchanging terse tweets with Judith Collins does not prove he is the world authority on global trade he believes himself to be.
The Wikipedias of the online world can be a useful starting point. Searching the local library's catalogue can point to useful resources. An online search of your newspaper will often yield good summaries of political issues. Articles also normally include both sides of the debate under consideration.
Politicians themselves are busy and willing beavers at this stage of the election cycle. Most hold regular clinics at which you can put your questions one on one. Public election forums are an opportunity to hear, from those hoping to represent you, how legalising marijuana, selling assets, cleaning rivers and taxing businesses will all, each in their own right, more than adequately address your particular concern.
The use of statistics demonstrates why gathering your own information is crucial.
Percentages or numbers can be chosen to make matters look more or less significant than they really are, Dr Parry says. For example, saying violent crime has gone down by 10% sounds better than saying there were 20 incidents last year and 18 this year. Or saying budget spending will increase $200 million sounds better than saying it will increase 1.5%.
It is easy to mislead by carefully selecting the quantities that best support your point of view, he says.
Energy consultant Molly Melhuish, of Wellington, questions whether that is what is going on over electricity price information released this month by Minister of Energy Simon Bridges.
Mr Bridges said the 2.3% price increase during the year to the end of March was the lowest since 2001.
It showed the Government's electricity reforms were making ''a real difference'', Mr Bridges said.
But Mrs Melhuish says the Government should also provide figures detailing how many consumers pay more, or less, than the average.
''Competition produces winners and losers,'' Mrs Melhuish says.
''The winners pay the low prices, the losers pay the high ones. If competition is increasing the spread between winners and losers, it is making electricity prices less fair. Can't we see those results?''
Politicians also like to take the credit for good news.
''The Government might report that crime went down 5% between 2012 and 2014,'' Dr Parry says.
''They want you to assume that they are responsible for this decrease. In fact, there are likely to be lots of causes, or no identifiable ones at all.''
This year, the Government has been trumpeting income increases.
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English says the average New Zealand income is $54,700; a $3000 increase during the past two years.
''The benefits of a sustainably growing economy are tangible and meaningful,'' Mr English said.
But talking about an average (or mean) income - which is arrived at by adding up all the incomes and dividing them by the number of people getting those incomes - distorts the picture. It is better to look at the median (or middle) income, Dr Parry says.
He explains with an example.
''If Bill Gates moved to Dunedin, the average [or mean] income would change enormously, but the median income wouldn't change at all.''
Mr English got his mean income figures from the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES). That survey does not provide a median income.
Finding median figures takes just a few clicks of the mouse to access the New Zealand Income Survey (NZIS) spreadsheet which is publicly available through the Statistics New Zealand website.
The NZIS has different parameters to the QES, but allows comparisons between mean and median incomes.
It shows the mean income has increased by $1768 during the past two years, while the median income has increased by only $1300 during that period.
As well as revealing fewer of us are getting Mr English's average income, looking for information independently highlights the fact that those on higher incomes are still pulling further away from the pack. Or, as Dr Parry puts it, ''Claims about rising average income are consistent with rising income inequality: the income distribution is simply becoming more skewed.''
3. Gathering facts is not enough. The final step is to assess those facts so you can form your own opinions.
At election time, this can often involve laying various parties' policies alongside each other and trying to work out which is best. Or weighing up politicians' claims and counterclaims and trying to divine which is closest to the truth.
Almost all political policies have winners and losers, Prof Pigden says.
''If you are going to be doing someone some good, you are almost certainly going to be doing someone else some harm,'' he says.
''If you are going to benefit the rich, you are going to hurt the poor. And vice versa. Win-wins sometimes happen, but not as often as many people like to think.''
So voters examining policies should ask themselves, what are the costs and what are the benefits, and who will be saddled with each? And remember, it is broader than just financial costs and benefits.
Prof Pigden says voters also need to consider the principles underlying electioneering bluster. For example, Prime Minister John Key has criticised Green Party carbon tax proposals, saying they would be bad for economic growth and would cost jobs.
''So we must ask ourselves, what principle is he appealing to?"
Is he really appealing to the principle that we should never do anything that will hurt the economy or cost jobs? What then of the Labour and National policies of the 1980s and '90s that resulted in economic upheaval and large increases in unemployment? And what about National's current talk about steps it is taking to address climate change? Any action to address climate change will have at least a short-term negative impact on jobs and the economy, Prof Pigden says.
If Mr Key really means what he says about carbon tax, he either condemns policies of which he formerly approved (free market reforms) or the talk about addressing climate change is merely adding to global warming.
What is more likely is that Mr Key has left out some of his argument. He, and many other politicians, are ''lazy arguers'', Prof Pigden says.
''People often give incomplete arguments. They leave out the things they are taking for granted,'' he says.
Voters need to work out what the gaps are - the missing premises or guiding moral principles - and then see whether the whole argument still leads to the political party's promised land flowing with milk solid payouts and varroa-free manuka honey.
The missing chunks can often be found lurking with intent on political parties' websites under the headings ''about'' and ''policies''.
In the case of the climate change debate, this game of fill-the-gaps reveals National is not averse to policy that will hurt in the short to medium term if the long-term benefits are likely to be large enough.
Prof Pigden says it also highlights that the Greens need to be more upfront about the likely short-term negative impacts of their climate change and green economy policies.
The questions have been identified, the facts gathered, the critical assessment conducted. Now it is crunch time - the moment at which decisions must be made and votes cast.
Prof Pigden has one final salient piece of advice.
''You look at the political parties. You examine their overall ideologies and their specific policies. And then you vote for the one you dislike least.''
The alternative is not voting. And it is a legitimate option, Dr Edwards believes.
''Voters shouldn't feel the pressure to vote if they can't make up their mind or aren't inspired enough by any particular option,'' he says.
''It's a legitimate choice not to participate in the election. By not voting, you also send a signal that the system isn't working for you.''
