Derek Cheng writes in the NZ Herald:

An Act candidate touted as a future leader has declared the party all but dead and represented by an “economically ignorant” John Banks who wants to “suck up” to National.

Stephen Whittington, 25, ran in Wellington Central and was seventh on the party list. Along with number five on the list, David Seymour, he was regarded as a future star.

On his Facebook page Mr Whittington called Mr Banks “economically ignorant and interventionist”, in response to the Epsom MP’s comments opening the door to Conservative Party leader Colin Craig. …

Mr Banks declined to comment, but party president Chris Simmons said Mr Whittington was wrong.

“The bottom line is that the party has a lot of work to do. In Parliament we’re represented by only one person, and John Banks signed up to represent Act and Act’s principles and he’s working really hard at exactly that.”

He believed the party would survive.

“Will it be a liberal party? Yes, it will be. Will it be the liberal party that Stephen Whittington thought it would be? I’m not really sure about that.”

Mr Whittington said Act needed a counterbalance to Mr Banks to maintain a consistent liberal message.

I think Steven’s comments are somewhat unfair to John Banks, even though I agree with his overall position that ACT as we know it is no more.

The problem is not that John Banks won Epsom. That is what stopped ACT being wiped out entirely. The problem is that ACT failed to win enough party vote to get a second MP in. A further 0.1% would have got Don Brash into Parliament. Brash inevitably would have made way before long for Catherine Isaac, and the combination of Isaac and Banks would have been a workable one for ACT.

I called the Brash coup a “cluster fuck” back in April. I think few would now disagree. If there had been some sort of deal where Don became co-leader with Rodney Hide, then it is quite possible ACT would have done well in the party vote. But the very nature of the coup where someone who is not even a party member demands he be made leader or else he will destroy the party was repulsive to even the most loyal supporter of ACT’s policies.

Having failed to get a second MP into Parliament, the brand of ACT will be the brand of Banks. That’s a perfectly good brand, but it is not the brand traditionally associated with ACT. I still think the best way forward is for ACT to rename itself and look at some sort of co-operation with the Conservative Party, and those who are economic and social liberals to form a new party without the baggage of the past.

John Armstrong writes in the NZ Herald:

Nothing should be exempt from scrutiny. Not even that most delicate of subjects – the role of the party’s trade union affiliates.

Will any of the leadership contenders have the courage to say that Labour should be a party of one person, one vote?

The party kidded itself – as it had done since losing power – that voters would come “home” to Labour once they came to their senses and realised the overwhelming superiority of its policies and that John Key is not quite what the media cracked him up to be.

This toxic combination of false hope and unfathomable arrogance was shattered last Saturday.

The arrogance is unbelievable. How many times have you heard from a Labour MP that Labour won the campaign? I don’t recall anyone in National in 2002 claiming National won the campaign. Quite the opposite – National did an independent review of what went wrong.

Labour’s overall vote shrank by 15 per cent at the 2008 election. That was not unusual for a party that had been in power for nine years. But Saturday night’s result saw Labour’s vote shrink again, this time by 23 per cent on the 2008 provisional result.

All up, nearly 300,000 voters deserted Labour between 2005 and 2011 – that amounts to 35 per cent of the party’s 2005 election night tally.

That reminds me of Darien Fenton’s reaction to someone suggesting that Labour should try to win back the votes of former supporters such as the Mad Butcher. Her response was “Why?”. It sums it up.

Take welfare reform. These are tough times. People who are working cannot fathom why those on benefits – including sole parents – should not be obliged to look for work. Labour’s response that there are no jobs misses the point. Worse, Labour promised to make beneficiaries eligible for the in-work payment – a device which was designed by the last Labour Government to reward those finding work. Labour would have turned what was a hand-up into a handout.

That was one of their worst policies – $70 a week more for a parent not in work and $10 a week for a parent in work.

Perhaps the best example where Labour is wrongly positioned is national education standards. Parents want them – plus league tables rating schools’ performance to boot.

Labour predictably sided with the teacher unions. That may have produced a warm glow of solidarity. Siding with parents – as the Australian Labor Party did on the issue – would have sent a powerful message about Labour’s readiness to adapt and modernise.

Australian Labor is far far more moderate than NZ Labour.

Chris Trotter writes:

WHAT MUST LABOUR DO to be welcomed back by ordinary Kiwis? What are the things it has to find, and what must it lose?

The first thing it has to lose is trade union affiliation. The big private sector unions still associated with the Labour Party: the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) and the Service and Food Workers Union; must be cut loose – and soon.

I write those words with a heavy heart, because it was the affiliated union vote that elected me to the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party way back in 1987. In those grim years unionists were the backbone of the opposition to Rogernomics. They kept the flame of the true Labour faith flickering through the party’s darkest days. And it was the block-votes of the trade union affiliates which kept Helen Clark’s political machine ticking over so reliably for the 15 long years it controlled the party.

Even so, it’s time for them to go.

If Labour wants to do the working-class a big favour it will purge its party of these oligarchs and welcome workers into the party as ordinary rank-and-file members. Who knows, if enough of them join up, they might even be able to persuade Labour’s MPs (including those who owe their positions on the Party List to the machinations of the Affiliates Council’s wise old heads) to rebuild New Zealand’s trade unions to Twenty-First Century specifications – most particularly by requiring them to operate, from bottom to top, as inclusive, transparent and recognisably democratic institutions.

Stuff reports:

Internal power struggles are plaguing the Maori Party as it tries to finalise a coalition deal with National.

Party whip Te Ururoa Flavell is likely to take over the co-leadership from Pita Sharples in a special meeting in two weeks.

Having Flavell take over sooner rather than later makes sense as he will need time to build up profile.

What I find interesting is that Stuff has characterised this as an “internal power struggle” yet provided nothing to back up this assertion. My reading of the situation is that this is being done with the support of all Maori Party MPs, but I could be wrong. However nothing in the Stuff article talks about this being a hostile move against Sharples, so my suspicion is the opening sentence is sensationalism. If it is not, then it would be good to have more details.

Cactus Kate has details of the impoverished wages that the wharfies are striking over at the Ports of Auckland.

Their oppressive employer is only paying them:

• An average full-time wage of $91,480
• Free medical insurance for not just the stevedore, but their entire family
• Three times the statutory sick leave entitlement, being three weeks a year accumulating up until nine weeks.
• Fully paid in-house training (no qualifications needed)
• Five weeks annual leave

The wharfies will be disappointed Labour did not win the election, because Labour’s proposed Workplace Commission could have ordered Ports of Auckland to pay them more money, in line with a industry standard they set.

In my NZ Herald column I label David Shearer the right man for Labour. I conclude:

As a National supporter, I know National will not always be in Government. I think a David Shearer led Labour Party will pose more of a threat to National, than any alternative leader. But I still hope that the Labour Caucus will elect Shearer as their leader, as if there is to be a Labour Government, I think the sort of policies we would get under a Shearer administration would be far better than we had under Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, or were offered by Phil Goff.

Shearer is backed by many reformers within Labour. A likely area of reform is around list ranking and candidate selection – specifically the heavy influence union affiliates get in these decisions. Many in the caucus are upset that new MPs such as Carmel Sepuloni, Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash were ranked below longer serving MPs with union backgrounds. They lost some of their most promising talent from 2008. If a Shearer led Labour can reform the party so that it operates on a one person, one vote principle then Labour is far more likely to regain the votes of its former supporters.

It will be interesting to see how Cunliffe and Shearer do on The Nation tomorrow.

Derek Cheng at NZ Herald reports:

Twenty-five new members of Parliament will pick up a pay packet of at least $141,800 – a huge pay rise for some of the newcomers.

It is not a universal rule, but for those from the centre-left an MPs pay packet is the highest salary they have ever had in their lives. While for many from the centre-right, it is a considerable drop in income.

Here’s what the salaries will be for the various MPs.

• PM – $411,500
• Deputy PM – $291,800
• Cabinet Ministers – $257,800
• Speaker – $257,800
• Leader of the Opposition – $257,800
• Ministers outside Cabinet – $217,200
• Government Chief Whip – $192,370
• Members of Executive Council not a full Minister – $189,000
• Labour Deputy Leader – $184,790
• Labour Senior Whip – $183,940
• Deputy Speaker – $181,200
• Green Party Leader – $174,790
• NZ First Party Leader – $168,640
• Under-Secretaries $168,600
• Green Whip – $164,310
• Maori Party Leader – $161,250
• NZ First Whip – $158,160
• Mana Party Leader – $157,550
• Assistant Speakers – $155,700
• National and Labour Junior Whips – $155,700
• Select Committee Chairs – $155,700
• Select Committee Deputy Chairs – $146,200
• Member of Parliament – $141,800

If a leadership position is shared, my understanding is that the difference between the Leader’s salary and a normal MPs salary is shared between them – they don’t both get the full leader salary.

The Herald editorial yesterday:

Saturday’s referendum on the electoral system did more than just embed MMP, subject to the tinkering recommended by an Electoral Commission review. It also, by implication, enhanced the case for the term of Parliament to be increased from three to four years.

The argument against this has always been that in a country with few constitutional restraints on the power of the Executive, a short term affords the electorate one strong means of restraint.

If proportional representation promised to be an equally effective safeguard, its popularity had yet to be confirmed. Now, with the substantiation of MMP’s broad acceptance, the time is right to reconsider a four-year term.

I have long supported a four year term. A three year term is almost unique to New Zealand and Australia. It may sound ironic coming from me, but a longer term means that a new Government can concentrate on doing what is right, without worrying about the polls because the next election is further away,

Of course as a pollster, annual elections would be great 🙂

The thought is not new. In the most recent referendum on the subject, in 1990, 69.3 per cent of those who voted opposed the notion. That rejection must, however, be placed in context. It was held at the tail-end of a two-term Labour Government whose disdain for the public view led eventually to the introduction of MMP.

In hindsight, it is a pity that a referendum on a four year term wasn’t held last weekend. I think it would have won.

The topic will be examined by the constitutional review panel set up in August at the behest of the Maori Party. But, after gauging public opinion, it is not due to make its recommendations on this and an array of other issues until September 2013.

There is good reason to hold a referendum well before then.

I don’t think it is a good idea to do an early referendum. The cost of a stand alone referendum will put some New Zealanders off, and it also means that any recommendation is considered in isolation. If the review also recommends that the dates of elections be fixed (not set by the PM), this could make a four year term more attractive.

The other thing I would do, if there is a referendum, is have any change apply to the term after the next term of Parliament. That way there is no suggestion of self-interest by those politicians supporting a four year term. So if there is a referendum in 2014, the next term of Parliament will be 2014 – 2017 and it is the term after that (2017 – 2021) that would be four years.

Stuff has just tweeted that David Parker has suddenly pulled out of the race for Labour Party Leader. This is a huge boost for David Shearer, and I suspect Shearer is now the favourite.

No word yet on why Parker pulled out. It seems he has endorsed Shearer. I presume if he had stayed in that Labour requires the leader to get 51% of the caucus vote so in a three way contest, the lowest polling candidate would drop out and then have a second vote between the remaining two if none had got 50%.

Analysing the prices of the stocks for the next Labour Leader, and for being PM before 2015 shows us some fascinating insights into how the market views the electability of the various candidates.

The market says there is currently a 55% chance of Labour winning the 2014 election. So in theory the odds of a Labour contender becoming PM by 2015 should be the probability of them winning the Labour Leadership x 55%. But let us look at the actual prices.

David Shearer is at 34.0% for the leadership. This means his PM price should be 18.7%. However it is at 23.2% which indicates the market thinks Labour has a better chance of beating National in 2014 if he is Leader.

David Cunliffe is at 38.5% for the leadership. This means his PM price should be 21.2%. However it is at 14.0% which indicates the market thinks Labour has a worse chance of beating National in 2014 if he is Leader.

David Parker is at 31.0% for the leadership. This means his PM price should be 17.1%. However it is at 7.8% which indicates the market thinks Labour has a much worse chance of beating National in 2014 if he is Leader.

Grant Robertson is at 1.7% for the leadership. This means his PM price should be 0.9%. However it is at 9.4% which was initially a mystery to me. The only way to reconcile his far far higher price for being PM by 2015 than being the next Labour Party Leader, is that the market thinks there is a significant chance that Robertson will roll whomever is elected Leader before the next election, and that Robertson will then become Prime Minister after the 2014 election.

So the market thinks Labour is most likely to win if David Shearer is elected Leader, and if Cunliffe or Parker is elected Leader, they are more likely to lose or be rolled by Robertson before the 2014 election – which Labour is favoured to then win.

Matt Nolan blogs at The Visible Hand in Economics. He works professionally as an economist.

Matt is providing free briefings for the blogging community on the international and domestic economic situation. It’s a great opportunity to learn a bit more about what is happening. Matt will cover:

• An overview of what’s going on in Europe, what we need to keep an eye out for, and how it will impact on New Zealand generally,
• A discussion of “rebalancing” in New Zealand,
• What’s going on with food prices and what it means for us,
• The growing problems in the labour market,
• A social “minimum income”.

There’s also a general Q+A at the end. There are presentations in Auckland and Wellington. Details are:

Auckland – Friday December 2, 3pm

Meet at MORE FM reception on Level 2, 239 Ponsonby Rd.

Wellington – Saturday December 10, 12pm

 Meet outside 109 Featherston St.

I hope to make the Wellington one. Should be very useful and informative.

The Herald did a story yesterday based on my analysis, and said it showed there was little diversity in Parliament and the average MP was a straight, European man from the North Island aged in his 50s.

In fact only 10% of MPs are straight, European men from the North Island aged in his 50s. Five average characteristics do not make one overall average.

With the exception of gender, I think Parliament does quite well on the diversity stakes, as is shown above. I have excluded age from this comparison as I don’t think anyone really thinks that Parliament should have 21 MPs aged in their 20s and 20 MPs aged over 65.

Note the comparisons are to the adult (15+ or 18+) population.

On gender, there is a serious imbalance. Later on, we’ll look at the breakdown by party.

Ethnicity is very interesting. Maori are the most over-represented ethnicity followed by European. Pacific are slightly under-repreented and it is Asian New Zealanders who are the most under-represented.

Geographically Auckland and provincial cities are pretty spot on. However Wellington and Christchurch are over-represented at the expense of those who live outside a city.

The North Island v South Island balance is almost spot on.

The number of gay/lesbian MPs is also pretty proportional. There is no definite prevalance rate for gay and lesbian adults, but 5% is generally regarded as in the ballpark. In times past 10% was often cited, but this is now thought to be too high.

So as I said overall, I think Parliament does quite well on the diversity front. Now let us look at the breakdowns for the four main parties.

In terms of gender, the Greens are broadly balanced (their rules require it), Labour and NZ First have a 2:1 ratio for men to women and National a 3:1 ratio. National does need to select more women in winnable seats or in winnable list spots.

13% of the adult population is Maori, and 10% of National’s caucus if of Maori descent, 18% of Labour’s and around a quarter of the Greens and NZ First.

5% of National’s caucus is Asian, as is 3% of Labour’s. No Green or NZ First Asian MPs.

9% of Labour’s caucus are Pacific, 13% of NZ First’s and 3% of National’s.

In terms of geography, NZ First is very Auckland dominated, and the Greens relatively light.

Labour and the Greens both have heavy Wellington biases with three times as many MPs from Wellington, as you would expect from the population. Conversely NZ First has no Wellington MPs and National only 5% from Wellington.

The Greens do badly in provincial cities. In rural areas (outside cities), National is the only party with proportional representation. Labour and NZ First have less than half what the population share is.

Based on island, the Greens are out of kilter with only 62% in the North Island where 74% of the population live.

By sexuality, National’s rainbow representation is just 2%, Labour’s is 12% and the Greens at 15%. NZ First have none (known).

Finally, there are some interesting age patterns. National’s most common age is in the 40s. Labour’s most common is 50s, Greens also 50s and NZ First 60s. Labour have a lot in the 30s also.In terms of median ages it looks like NZ First is the oldest and Greens the youngest.

Today’s Waikato Times editorial:

Over the next few days the caucus and wider party must articulate a new vision for the party.

But that gives no time to establish why Labour’s share of the vote dropped 7 percentage points from 2008, an 85-year low point for the party. Fairfax blogger David Farrar contends the question Labour should be asking and answering before naming new leaders is why it lost that much support. He notes that in 2002 National dropped 9 percentage points from its 1999 result. It did not replace its leader immediately, but commissioned a review to ascertain where it had gone wrong. The results of the review triggered significant change for the party.

Labour is bound to baulk at taking advice from a Right-wing commentator. But it looks like good advice for any well-beaten party, no matter the colour of its stripes.

It is good advice. I never deliberately give bad advice when I blog, in some sort of psychological trick. Labour would do better to delay their decision. The new leader will get a brief mention before Christmas and then disappear over the summer. Far better to keep the contest going over January and elect the new leader just before Parliament resumes in February, to heaps of publicity.

I can understand Phil Goff not wanting to stay on as Leader for longer than necessary, but there is a sensible solution. Appoint an Acting Leader for two months or so, as they do in Canada. The Acting Leader could be Annette King or even Trevor Mallard.

MPs in

None

Result

5.0/10.

The Conservatives did not get into Parliament but they attracted over 55,000 votes gaining 2.8% of the vote. This exceeded expectations for a first time party with no current MPs, and wasn’t included in any of the debates. Obviously it helped that their leader, Colin Craig, could fund their campaign, rumoured to cost $1 million.

Craig came second in Rodney but only attracted 22%, miles behind Mark Mitchell who got 53%.

The Conservative tag line was “Every vote counts” which is especially ironic as none of their 55,000 votes counted. It is unknown how many people only voted for them because they believed Colin Craig would win Rodney, and hence their votes would count. I debunked the Rodney poll they pushed out, in this post.

Challenges

A major challenge for them in 2014, will be to convince people that a vote for them won’t be a wasted vote. No one in their right mind will ever again believe a poll commissioned by the Conservatives purporting to show them ahead, unless the methodology and questions are fully revealed.

A related challenge will be how to maintain momentum over three years. Not being in Parliament makes it very hard to gain publicity.

There is definitely room in the political spectrum for a conservative party. IF NZ First had failed to make it back, they could have picked up a significant portion of their vote. It is hard to see how the Conservatives can make 5% in 2014, especially with the fear of wasted vote.

Hence there is much logic to exploring a merger with John Banks. Banks seat of Epsom means they would gain seats, even if they get less than 5%. Banks has the profile and the seat, while Craig has the money and the activist base. But I am unsure that Colin Craig would accept any sort of shared leadership.

The Press reports:

Christchurch Central Labour MP Brendon Burns won more polling booths on election night than National Party challenger and list candidate Nicky Wagner.

Electoral Commission figures show 27 booths inside and outside the electorate boundaries were won by Burns and 26 by Wagner.

However, the number of ordinary votes made in other electorates before polling day favoured Wagner in five seats – Christchurch Central, Ilam, Selwyn, Waimakariri and Wigram – with Burns the choice of early voters in Christchurch East and Port Hills.

Both candidates finished with 10,493 votes on Saturday night and are awaiting the final announcement on December 10 after special votes have been counted.

If Burns win, Wagner will be a National List MP and Labour List MP Raymond Huo will be out. This will hurt Labour as he is a good fund-raiser for them.

If Wagner wins, then Burns is out of Parliament, but Huo remains.

I will not be surprised if we do not get a final result on 10 December. If that result is a majority of a few dozen only, the losing candidate may apply for a judicial recount, which can be asked for up until Wednesday 14 December. If the result after specials is again a tie, then the judicial recount is applied for by the Electoral Commission and is mandatory.

A judicial recount must start within three working days of application and the major focus would be on whether certain special votes are valid or not.

If after the judicial recount there is still a tie, then the Electoral Commission determines by lot which candidate is elected. But that would probably not be the end of it.

If a majority is in single figures, the losing candidate might lodge an electoral petition. This is more likely if Burns loses as his career depends on winning, while Wagner is an MP regardless. A petition must be lodged within 28 days of the final result (after the judicial recount if there is one).

Any petition goes to a bench of three High Court Judges appointed by the Chief Justice. The petition can only be heard at least two weeks after it is filed.

Andrea Vance and John Hartevelt debate whether or not National has a mandate for asset sales. This is a topic that some on the left has been pushing also – that 48% is not a mandate, in fact some say that even if National had got 51%, that is not a mandate as polls shows most voters against.

As a pollster I quite like the idea that polls are more powerful than elections, and polls determine a mandate. Presumably this goes both ways, and those on the left who claim polls determine a mandate would be happy for National to (for example) ban unions, so long as a poll showed it was popular.

I think this shows how flawed the idea is that polls give you a mandate, not elections.

The reality is that National announced its plans for selling minority stakes in five companies way back in January.  I doubt a single voter could have been unaware of the plans. Labour declared it the defining issue of the election campaign, and their entire campaign was based on opposition to the policy – ranging from their slogan to their leader declaring time after time that the election was New Zealander’s final chance to save their assets. People absolutely knew what they were getting if they voted for a National-led Government.

The National, ACT and United Future parties all had policies in favour of the mixed membership model and they got 62 or 61 seats out of 121. I have pointed put previously the irony that if Labour had not won Te Tai Tonga, then asset sales would probably have been blocked.

A mandate comes from seats, not votes or polls, in my opinion. But it is interesting to look at the votes for and against parties on this issue.

The combined vote for National, ACT and United Future is 991,374 votes (to date). The combined vote for Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori, Mana and Conservative is 991,150. The difference of 224 is a mere 0.01%.

Vernon Small reports:

Labour’s “three Davids” will put their case to party members before MPs pick a new leader on December 13 as the two main players court the pivotal vote of Shane Jones.

Party president Moira Coatsworth said the unprecedented meetings were planned in Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, Christchurch and possibly Dunedin.

“Constitutionally it’s MPs’ vote at caucus but I am really keen we have member feedback and input into it,” she said.

The meetings would be closed to the public and media.

It’s a good idea to have meetings around the country. I can understand wanting them members only to allow more candid discussion, but think it would also be a good idea to have at least one open to the media, to boost their public profiles.

David Cunliffe, David Parker and David Shearer are lining up to contest the leadership, with Nanaia Mahuta running on a ticket with Mr Cunliffe, as his deputy.

Having Nanaia Mahuta on the ticket may help win the caucus vote, but I am unconvinced it would help Labour win an election. The deputy leader is your party’s candidate to be the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, and I have to say I’ve never seen any sign that Nanaia can perform at that level. She held very junior portfolios as a Minister and has been near invisible in Opposition. People can exceed expectations, but the choice of Mahuta does seem risky.

Grant Robertson is running as deputy on a ticket with Mr Parker, but has not yet been specific on whether he will also seek the leadership.

This isn’t personal against Grant, but I’ve said many times do not have as your deputy, someone who sees it as a very temporary stepping stone. If Parker/Robertson wins and Labour does not go up in the polls, there will be constant speculation about whether Robertson will roll Parker – even if Grant is 100% loyal.

One possibility is Mr Jones, a list MP, who is yet to make a final decision but is thought to be considering a tilt as deputy.

He may be using the option as a negotiating ploy to secure a plum portfolio such as finance.

Cunliffe is the logical choice for Finance if he is not Leader, and Parker the logical choice if Cunliffe is the leader. Jones would be credible for the role in terms of background, but the question mark would be over his work ethic. As Jones has considerable natural talent, he tends to glide somewhat in his portfolios. Now you can do that in some portfolios, but not in Finance. If he did get Finance, it would probably be a very good discipline for him.

Sources said yesterday that both the Cunliffe and Parker camps had offered Mr Jones the third slot on their front bench; a move seen as a way to bring swinging voters on board.

It will be a very interesting contest.

Stuff reports:

Teachers say the NCEA maths exams that thousands of students have just completed were riddled with mistakes and contradictions.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in my life before,” said Rory Barrett, a maths teacher at Auckland’s Macleans College and former head of maths at one of the country’s top schools, Auckland Grammar.

He said he had trawled through each maths exam across NCEA levels 1, 2 and 3 and said there were contradictions and mistakes in at least five papers. He has made an official complaint with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA), which adds to the pile it has received in the past two weeks. French teachers complained last week about a level 1 exam that had bizarre references and was at least two years above the year 11 standard.

Mr Barrett said he had exchanged hundreds of emails with other maths teachers in the past three days and the Auckland Mathematical Association held a meeting last night to discuss the issue.

I’ve never worked out why NZQA doesn’t have the draft exams peer reviewed by actual teachers in schools.

An exam set too tough can be a devastating experience. I remember the 1983 School certificate physics exam was set far above 5th form level. There was stuff in there we had not even studied, and our teachers said it was closer to 7th form level. Even the brightest of our class were convinced we had failed.

As it happened I was amazed to receive a score of 78%, but upon getting my paper back with raw marks discovered the raw mark was 41% and it got scaled to 78%. That left me wondering if a single student had actually passed the exam before scaling!