iPredict says:

*             National still on course to govern alone

*             Labour remains below 30%

*             Tamaki-Makaurau becoming too close to call

*             Economic indicators remain steady

*          Fonterra payout forecast to be $8.14 in 2010/11 and then fall within the $7-$8 range for the following four seasons

Commentary:

The race between Maori Party Co-Leader Dr Pita Sharples and Labour’s Shane Jones in Tamaki-Makaurau is rapidly becoming too close to call, this week’s snapshot from New Zealand’s prediction market, iPredict, suggests. Over the past two weeks, Dr Sharples’ probability of retaining the seat has increased from 42% to 47%, while Mr Jones’ probability of winning the seat has slipped from 55% to 50%. John Key’s National Party remains forecast to govern alone with 61MPs, while the Labour Party opposition continues to track below 30%. In commerce, key economic indicators (Fonterra payout, GDP, unemployment, inflation and OCR) have remained largely unchanged.

Continue reading »

So Labour’s campaign manager compares the Prime Minister of New Zealand to the Nazis, the fascists and the Stalinists. Could you imagine the outrage if Steven Joyce compared Phil Goff to Al Qaeda or something.

Hat Tip: Whale

UPDATE: How is this for irony. TVNZ reports from two years ago:

Labour MP Chris Carter is in trouble with his party again for making a joke comparing New Zealand Prime Minister John Key to Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. …

Carter later blogged about the incident, but it was later removed by the blog’s editor Trevor Mallard, who did not see the funny side.

“Trevor was sensitive to anyone who found it offensive. There are people still alive who suffered under fascism; that wasn’t something I thought about when I put the blog up,” says Carter.

So Trevor is now doing the exact thing he censored Chris Carter for doing two years ago.

Have just published the Curia polling newsletter for August 2011. The summary page is:

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 51, August 2011

August saw six political polls published – two Roy Morgan polls, a One News Colmar Brunton, a 3 News Reid Research, a NZ Herald Digipoll and a Fairfax Research International poll.

The average of the public polls has National 24% ahead of Labour and able to govern alone. The gap in July was 22%, so the gap widened in August, as it has for the last three months.

Australia may end up with a new Prime Minister before the next election. Julia Gillard’s approval rating has fallen 18% in one month to a net -45%.

 In the United States Barack Obama is in freefall. His approval rating has dropped 12%, his handling of the economy by 10% and the right vs wrong direction for the country is down 14% to around the lowest point it was under George W Bush. Meanwhile Texas Governor Rick Perry has all the momentum for the Republican 2012 nomination.

In the UK the riots have had little change on the polls, with Labour 4% ahead of the Conservatives.

In Canada the Conservatives have lost 5% to the New Democratic Party. This is probably due to sympathy at the death of long-time NDP Leader Jack Layton.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on the Labour leadership, the Rugby World Cup, asset sales, KiwiSaver, law & order and the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

Correspondence and feedback is also welcome to the same address.

And a graph from the newsletter:

There’s been a quite clear trend for the last three months, and Labour on the average of all polls is below 30% for the first time since 2009. Just over 11 weeks to turn the trend around.

The Herald reports:

Entrepreneur and philanthropist Owen Glenn says his commitment to donate $100 million to New Zealand youth is not contingent on National and Act winning the November 26 general election.

Glenn said on TV3’s The Nation over the weekend that he would make a donation but said today that his commitment was not contingent on the two parties winning the election, as was suggested by the programme.

“My commitment to this country is not politically motivated, so regardless of who governs New Zealand after November’s election, once my business is sold, which I anticipate will be during October, I will look to announce more on my plans,” Mr Glenn said.

He said he was not trying to influence the outcome of the election through the announcement.

“I happen to believe that currently a government involving both National and Act is best situated to move New Zealand forward and to leverage the opportunity I intend to create through this donation,” he said.

His earlier linking of it to the election outcome excited a couple of people. Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn called it attempted bribery and demanded Owen Glenn be prosecuted and jailed if convicted.

Personally I think the bribery laws are about directly paying people to vote a certain way, not about what is effectively a charitable donation. But I guess one for the lawyers to decide.

But what struck me is the contrast.

If a businessman gets up and announces he will spend $100 million of his own money on helping disadvantaged youth if a political party he has no connection to wins the election, then some on the left call that bribery.

However if a politician gets up and announces he will take an extra $100 million forcibly off rich pricks, and spend it on disadvantaged youth, if his party wins the election (which happens to make that person prime minister, and get a big pay rise) – then that is commendable and noble.

So it is illegal to pledge your own money contingent on an election result, but it is legal to pledge other people’s money.

Chris Carter does his valedictory speech at 5.45 pm today. I hear the entire National caucus will be there, with popcorn.

While I have been as harsh a critic as anyone, over Chris’ sense of entitlement to overseas travel, I think it is fair to note that his parliamentary career should be remembered for more than just the overseas travel controversy.

Chris was the first MP to be openly gay. That may not mean a lot to most of us, but if you are a member of a minority group, it is a big thing to see someone like you able to serve in the House of Representatives. Since Chris came out in the 1990s, he has been joined by Tim Barnett, Georgina Beyer, Charles Chauvel, Chris Finlayson, Kevin Hague, Grant Robertson, Maryan Street and Louisa Wall. That list shows how today being gay and an MP is no big thing, but even 15 years ago it was quite significant.

During my time in Parliament, I got to know Chris reasonably well as we had some mutual friends in common. I always found him very funny and likeable, and he performed well as a whip for labour. Good whips needs to be able to work with their counterparts from other parties.

While I don’t think he shone as Minister of Education, he only held the portfolio for a year. He spent five years as Minister of Conservation and I think most people would acknowledge he was a very committed and effective Minister in that role.

As I said, I think Chris lost the plot in recent years. His political radar failed him, and he didn’t realise that his level of overseas travel was excessive, even if approved. Also his attempts to undermine Goff were clumsy and amateurish.

Being expelled from the Labour Party would have been a terrible blow for Chris. He is tribal Labour to his soul. But I suspect he has been told that he will be allowed back in, once there is a new Leader. So he may not have much longer to wait.

Stuff reports:

The Crown has dropped charges against 11 of the Urewera 15 who were charged following the 2007 “terror raids”.

The Crown Solicitor has issued a statement saying only four of the group – Tame Iti, Emily Bailey, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara and Urs Singer – will face trial for participation in a criminal group and firearms charges.

The other 11, who will be discharged in a court hearing soon, only faced firearms charges.

Crown Solicitor Simon Moore said the effect of a recent Supreme Court ruling on the case – which is suppressed – was that the others would have to be tried separately after the main trial.

That would be four and a half years after they were charged and so was not practical or in the interests of justice. 

You have to give the defence lawyers credit. They appeal everything to the Supreme Court numerous times, and then because so much time has lapsed since they were charged, the charges get dropped.

It’s much the same strategy as was used with the Zaoui case.

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

Housing NZ chief executive Dr Lesley McTurk has told the corporation’s 1100 staff that staff numbers will be cut by about 100 as the agency’s focus narrows down to managing its 70,000 state houses.

“We will no longer have a role to assist individuals with their wider social needs. We will concentrate on their accommodation needs,” she said.

Most tenancy managers will become “fully mobile” by next September, reporting from their cars to five home bases in central and South Auckland, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch.

Housing NZ should indeed focus on being a great landlord, not an agency of social workers.

Labour housing spokeswoman Moana Mackey said a Labour Government would reverse the changes and turn Housing NZ back into “a social housing provider rather than just another landlord”.

Of course.

But a consultation document issued to staff a week ago says the agency would “stop delivering social services that should be delivered by other organisations”.

“Tenancy managers and case managers frequently find themselves following up with many other agencies such as Child, Youth and Family [CYFS] on child safety concerns; district health boards on health; budget services; school truancy issues and so on,” the document says.

“The Ministry of Social Development [MSD] will act as a conduit for all other agencies that need to provide social support to the corporation’s tenants.”

Dr McTurk said all existing Housing NZ branches would be absorbed gradually into MSD’s “Community Link” centres, which already bring together Work and Income, CYFS and sometimes other agencies in 50 locations. A further 30 are planned in the next year.

And that is probably one of the best things you can do to help families in need. A “one stop shop” centre which brings all the social need agencies together should be vastly superior to having each agency doing its own thing.

Let Housing NZ be a great landlord, and MSD be a great  social service provider.

The NZ Herald reports:

The taxpayer’s share of the $29.5 billion bill for rebuilding Christchurch is set to rise yet again – by as much as $1 billion according to Prime Minister John Key – after a High Court decision late last week.

Late on Friday the court issued a declaratory judgment confirming the Earthquake Commission’s maximum cover of $100,000 for properties and $20,000 for contents applied to claims resulting from both the September and February major quakes and associated aftershocks, rather than just the first one.

The decision effectively shifts hundreds of millions of dollars in liability for quake damage from private insurers to the EQC which only last week raised its estimated liability from $3.05 billion to $7.1 billion.

Mr Key said the additional liability for the EQC could be as much as $1 billion.

Again no choice over this one, and the court decision is the right one that they should be treated as two different earthquakes. The ruling may encourage the global reinsurers to remain in the market also.

Andrea Vance reports at Stuff:

The husband of disgraced former minister Pansy Wong wrongly claimed more than $2000 of taxpayers’ money for private business trips, a watchdog has ruled.

A report ordered by Speaker Lockwood Smith last year found the couple had abused the MP’s travel perk on one occasion, in December 2008, and forced them to pay back almost $500. Wong resigned as Botany MP in December.

But, Auditor General Lyn Provost said another trip – in  June 2008  to China’s Lianyungang province – was for “private business purposes” and Sammy Wong should not have asked for a rebate.

However, Provost said her investigations found there was ”no pattern of wrong doing” by the couple “or of extensive business activity linked with overseas travel”.

Wong said she welcomed the report because it found they had not “intentionally abused the system”.

She denied her husband meant to mislead the first inquiry.

In a statement she said: “At the November 2010 inquiry, Sammy Wong contacted the company in Lianyungang, China, to ascertain the dates that he visited there. He received a list detailing trips he had made and the June 2008 trip was not on it.  None of the trips listed involved any parliamentary travel rebates. He accepted the external confirmation in good faith and had no intention to mislead any inquiry.”

Wong added: “I hope the findings of the Office of the Auditor General and my actions taken demonstrate that accountability was accepted and any mistake made was unintentional.”

While in no way condoning the claiming for two trips which were ineligible, I would note Pansy has paid a very high price for just $2,000 of wrong claims. Many other MPs were found to have inappropriately charged more than that to credit cards etc, and they got away with just paying it back.

I blog at Stuff:

A number of blogs have done their own analysis of the different party lists, but they have all made the same fatal mistake. They have looked only at the party list, and not at what electorates a party will win. For what counts is not what number someone is at on a party list, but whether that ranking will get them into Parliament. For example, 20 is a great rating on National’s list but a lousy one for the Greens.

On the latest Fairfax poll I find:

National would have 21 female MPs, which is 30% of their caucus

Labour would have 11 female MPs, which is 34% of their caucus

And overall:

So overall on the current poll ratings Labour does slightly better than National with female MPs and Pacific MPs, but National does slightly better with Maori MPs and Asian MPs.

The full blog post details the projected number of female, Maori, Pacific and Asian MPs for National, Labour and the Greens on the Fairfax poll. It also looks at how many MPs of Maori descent in total there would be in Parliament.

An interesting ruling from the Ontario Superior Court, as reported by the International Forum for Responsible Media:

On 30 August 2011 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice handed down judgment in the case of Baglow v. Smith, 2011 ONSC 5131. The decision suggests that an allegedly defamatory statement made in a debate on a blog or internet forum may not be found to be defamatory if the plaintiff previously engaged in the debate but did not respond to the statement despite having the opportunity to do so.

As far as I know, this is the first ruling of this type.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants defamed him by making statements that exceeded the boundaries of their normally acrimonious political debate on the Free Dominion internet message board. The plaintiff complained that the defendants defamed him by branding him “one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters”. The parties had aggressively berated each other on the message board, and often employed colourful derogatory characterizations. Although the plaintiff had the opportunity to respond to the impugned statements on the message board, he did not do so. The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the action on the basis that the statements were not defamatory or, alternatively, that the defence of fair comment applied.

Mr. Justice Annis concluded that the impugned statements were not defamatory and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

I’m glad of that. I doubt anyone would take a forum comment calling someone a Taliban supporter to be literal.

What is interesting is the comments made obiter by the Judge:

“a statement is not derogatory when made in a context that provides an opportunity to challenge the comment and the rules of the debate anticipate a rejoinder, unless the statement is wholly outside the scope of the debate or otherwise so outrageous as to prevent meaningful argument from continuing.”

It will be very interesting to see if this view is shared by other Judges. He carried on:

“[58] Although I am satisfied that the words complained [of] are not capable of damaging the reputation of the plaintiff, I am of the view that there is another contextual factor that would further bolster this conclusion, namely that the alleged defamatory words were made in the context of an ongoing blogging thread over the Internet.

[59] Internet blogging is a form of public conversation. By the back and forth character it provides an opportunity for each party to respond to disparaging comments before the same audience in an immediate or a relatively contemporaneous time frame.

[60] This distinguishes the context of blogging from other forms of publication of defamatory statements. One exception could be the live debate, of which blogging constitutes the modern written form.

Heh I could be sued by a number of National MPs for comments I’ve made about them, while chairing debates 🙂

It is noted:

70] Bringing an action on the comment in mid-debate runs contrary to the rules and has the effect of chilling discussion. If allowed, it places the opposing party in a defensive mode, rather than an offensive one, strategically putting that party at a disadvantage.  …

I suspect the next time there is an online defamation case, these obiter comments will be cited by the defendant. It will be fascinating to find out if any other courts agree.

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES … WALLACE CHAPMAN, DAMIAN  CHRISTIE, THE BACK BENCHES PANEL AND SPECIAL GUESTS DISCUSS THE WEEK’S HOTTEST  TOPICS.

CHRISTCHURCH REBUILD … A year since the first Christchurchearthquake and a lot has been accomplished but what more needs to be done?  Is the  rebuild of Christchurch  happening as quickly as it should and what about the people of Bexley?  The EQC has a huge number of claims to deal with plus their reserves are  exhausted with the Government saying repairing Christchurch will cost double the original estimates. Will the new city  look completely different and what time frame are we talking about?

PACIFIC FORUM … Starts Wednesday in Auckland.  It’s the 40^th anniversary  with the first one taking place in Auckland  in 1971.  Prime Minister John Key says he’ll be “absolutely stunned” if Pacific Island  leaders have changed their position on Fiji.  Over the weekend a  number of leaders expressed support for Fiji wanting its membership of the  Pacific Forum restored.   In the past New  Zealand and Australia have been accused of  being bullies … is that valid?  Would it be more effective to keep Fiji  within the forum?  The other big issue is Climate change.  United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is warning if nothing is done the islands  of the pacific face economic and social instability.  Is this the real worry the ocean waves that are more dangerous than any army?  Is New Zealand  doing enough?  A number of Islands could  disappear will a lot more Pacific people be coming here to live?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Back Bencher pub: Wednesday 7^th of September.  Our Panel … Rahui Katene Maori Party, Labour’s Stuart Nash and Jacqui Dean from National.

Back Benches screens on TVNZ 7 Wednesdays at 9.05pm with encore screenings on Thursdays at 9.05am and 1.05pm, Saturdays at 10.05pm, Sundays at 10.05am and 2.05pm

An excellent post by Ludditejourno at the Hand Mirror:

Imagine this. You’re a woman. You live with your partner and your daughter. One night, your partner has gone out to a Christmas party by himself. When he comes home, it’s late, he’s drunk, he fancies a shag, you don’t.

You say “no, thanks” and go to sleep.

In the wee hours of the morning, you wake up. Something’s not quite right. You open your eyes properly and look around. Your beautiful little girl, all of four years old, has jumped into bed with you.

Your partner has pulled down her pyjama pants. He was removed her night-time nappy. He has his mouth where her tiny, four year old genitals are.

You probably shout or scream. You probably grab your daughter and pull her away from him. You probably can’t quite believe what you’ve just seen, and desperately wish you hadn’t. You probably try to control what you want to say and do to him, because you have a little, confused girl in your arms who needs a cuddle, who needs help to put her nappy and pyjamas back on properly.

He says “I was confused, I thought it was you.”

You don’t believe this. You don’t wear nappies to bed. And you had already told him, that night, that you didn’t want to have sex.

Who knows how much you talk about it that night – but you decide you have to report this to the Police. You’re not sure why your partner would lie about trying to do adult sexual things with your daughter, but you don’t want her to be at risk. You don’t know what to believe. Could this happen again? Has he done this before? You don’t know. But you can’t risk your little four year old girl. You talk to people. No one else wants to believe it either.

When you tell the Police, he is furious. He made a mistake, he was drunk, it could happen to anyone. Don’t you care about him? What about his career, he’s a comedian, he makes people laugh, this will ruin everything. He just wants a chance to show you and your daughter how much he loves you. But he has to get a lawyer, because the Police investigate. …

You stay strong. Your lawyers stay strong. The trial goes ahead, fifteen months later. The lawyers talk. He doesn’t want to go to prison, and he knows he will if the court believes you and your daughter, if you get to tell them what happened that night.

Your lawyers do a deal. He says he did it, he did try to do sexual adult things with your four year old daughter. He says he is guilty. You don’t have to talk in court after all.

You go back for sentencing. The judge says your partner needs to get back to making people laugh as soon as possible. She said what happened wasn’t so bad, and he had suffered enough, and anyway it wasn’t like real child abuse, because that happens in secret. He doesn’t have to go to prison, or have counselling, or do community work. He is free.

Your life has changed forever. So has your daughter’s. None of this was funny.

I’d been trying for some days to write a post to express my outrage at the discharge without conviction of this comedian. This post did it far better than I could.

John Weekes at NZ Herald reports:

Police and child welfare authorities are hunting a woman who was spotted breastfeeding and driving at the same time, with three other children in the car.

In a move called “highly dangerous”, the woman attracted attention with her erratic driving at Kamo, near Whangarei.

The Government has banned using a cellphone while driving. Will it also ban breastfeeding while driving?

I have to admit I have no first hand knowledge of how distracting it is to breastfeed while driving a car, but surely it is more dangerous than using a cellphone?

Or maybe the Government should do a compromise, and say it is legal to breastfeed while driving only if you use a hands-free kit.

The Dom Post editorial:

But the new administration should think hard about another part of the convention. One protocol therein requires signatories to make the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material via computer systems a crime. It might also outlaw Holocaust denial and what some groups, deeming themselves to be persecuted, call “hate speech” online. The United States, the UK and Ireland have refused to sign that protocol. New Zealand should, too.

When states consciously choose to ban the traffic in ideas, they take a giant stride toward control of their populace. Freedom of speech – one of the pillars that buttress democracy – is its most potent when its practitioners advocate the unpopular, the unconventional, even the downright nasty.

Informed public debate, which of necessity includes ridicule and derision, is always the most effective antidote to racism, sexism, xenophobia … Banning criticism – as this protocol would do, at least in cyberspace – merely drives racists, sexists, xenophobes underground and gives them cause to claim martyrdom.

I blogged on this issue a couple of weeks ago. The answer to offensive speech is not to ban it, but to counter it.

It is timely to repeat a quote from Noam Chomsky:

If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.

One of the few Chomsky quotes I love.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff writes:

The decision earlier this year to leave the door open a crack to National post- November 26 was a difficult bridge for the minor party to cross, and there has been collateral damage – but it also looks to have been a shrewd move, even if the Greens are picking up votes from Labour, rather than catching the soft National vote, which was the intention.

What the Greens have actually said is that they “could” work with a National- led government, even if on the basis of current National Party policies it is “extremely unlikely”.

It is extremely unlikely, but possibly preferable to a further 6+ years of opposition.

With National’s only reliable allies, ACT, looking decidedly pasty, and the Maori Party under pressure to distance themselves from National, a cuddlier Green Party would, on the surface, look decidedly attractive to National should its vote fall much below 46 per cent on election night.

Here I disagree. If National’s vote is low enough that Labour could form a Government, then the Greens will go with Labour.

However if a Labour-led Government is not a possibility, then you could have some sort of deal between National and the Greens. It will only work if National does not need the Greens to govern, but like with the Maori Party offers a deal anyway.

A formal coalition deal may be a bridge too far for both parties but as MMP has shown, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Greens are unlikely to bring themselves to support National on confidence and supply, but abstaining, as they did after 2002 with Labour, could give them sufficient clout to extract significant policy concessions.

This I agree with, and maybe one could even include a portfolio or two in such an agreement. You might have it that the two Ministers have to vote for confidence and supply (as they are in Government) and the rest of the caucus abstains.

Stuff has video of Happy Foot being released yesterday into the ocean. You can track his location vis gps.

Cynically I am wondering how parents will explain to their kids what it means when Happy Foot’s swimming speed suddenly increases from 7 km/hr to 20 km/hr and he also is shown scores of metres below sea level.

A reader asked me to look up and compare ACT’s polling three months before an election with its actual results. I’ve done so with data from One News Colmar Brunton showing the election result, the poll results 90 days out and the difference

• 12 Oct 96 – 6.1% v 3.2% – 2.9% better
• 27 Nov 99 – 7.0% v 5.0% – 2.0% better
• 27 Jul 02 – 7.1% v 3.5% – 3.6% better
• 17 Sep 05 – 1.5% v 2.o% – 0.5% worse
• 8 Nov 08 – 3.7% v 0.6% – 3.1% better

So on average ACT has scored 2.2% better than the TVNZ poll had them three months before the election. In the last election they got 3.7% despite a poll result of 0.6% three months earlier.

In the August 2011 Colmar Brunton poll, ACT were at 1.7%. While this is well below what Don Brash would have wanted or expected, I think people should be very cautious with suggestions that ACT may only have one or two MPs. I believe it is quite possible they could get a result such as they did in 2008 with five MPs or so.

Readers may recall that TVNZ under Labour was given a “charter” and “charter funding” with the idea being that TVNZ would be both a commercial broadcaster and a public service broadcaster.

It was an experiment that failed. Former TVNZ CEO IAN Fraser, a huge public broadcasting advocate, said that you can’t ask the broadcaster to be both.

And certainly viewers couldn’t detect any change in TVNZ programming despite the charter money. In fact much of it got siphoned off into stuff that they would have done anyway, or stuff shown at times no one watches.

So National abolished the meaningless charter and took the charter funding of around $15m a year, and gave it to NZ on Air who uses it for contestable “public good” programmes through their platinum fund.

Now I’m not sure if others have been watching Sunday Theatre the last few weeks, but there have been some great shows on, funded through the Platinum Fund. There was Billy on the life of Billy T James, Rage last night on the Springbok Tour by Tom Scott, Bliss on Katherine Mansfield, and the iconic Tangiwai.

Now some may say they don’t think there should be any public broadcasting at all. That’s fine. But I think most would agree if we do have public broadcasting it should be high quality programmes that people actually watch,

These dramas have all had massive ratings, and in my opinion have all reflected events and people which are important parts of New Zealand’s history.

I think it is a great example of substance over form. The TVNZ charter made people feel think that it would be good for public broadcasting, but it wasn’t. The current approach of using the charter funding as a contestable fund has produced some superb New Zealand television.

Just got back from watching Four Flat Whites in Italy at Circa.

I was expecting it to be highly enjoyable for two reasons. The first is that it is a Roger Hall play. The second is that it first was staged a few years ago, and lots of my friends saw it and raved about it.

It didn’t disappoint. Roger Hall has a gift for not just writing funny comedies, but comedies that reflect Kiwi life and mannerisms. You see so much of yourself reflected in the characters on stage. In fact the friend who attended with me, was unerringly similar on holidays to Alison the Librarian.

There were six characters. Adrian and Alison were one couple, played by Stuart Devenie and Darien Takle. They are a couple of retired librarians and the trip to Italy is their once in a lifetime adventure. By adventure, they mean art galleries and cathedrals.

Their best friends are unable to make it, so they go with their new neighbours – Harry and Judy, played by Tim Gordon and Vivien Bell. They are far more into late mornings and doing as little as possible on holiday.

The play is similar to The Motor Camp, with most of the humour coming from two mismatched couples – one uptight and one free spirited. There is also a degree of dark secrets and sexual tension to keep things interesting.

The dark secret is revealed fairly early on. I won’t reveal it here, but will note that four of the plays I have seen in the last two years at Circa have all had much the same dark secret. It would be nice to have a greater variety of dark secrets in play.

Stuart Devenie also acts as a narrator for the play, often narrating what has happened to the audience, on top of his dialogue. He was the start of the show for me, with his numerous asides and his wonderful array of facial expressions.

Also worth of mention are Simon Vincent and Heather O’Carroll who play a variety of Italian roles from a photo touting Roman legionary at the Coliseum to a Count and Contessa who own a villa the families stay at. A very funny joke in the script about how it is only Australians and New Zealanders who make jokes about spelling Count with an O.

The play is quite long at 140 minutes, but has an interval. However it is never boring. The laughs are pretty much non stop, and it was a thoroughly enjoyable play. Kudos should also go to the set designer, especially for the pop up car.

3 News reports:

Businessman Owen Glenn says he plans to donate a $100 million to youth and education in New Zealand, but it comes with one condition.

The man who donated half a million dollars to the Labour Party prior to the 2005 general election says he is now back the National Party.

Mr Glenn says the money would be invested from primary school through to tertiary education, and beyond to help New Zealand market its products and services overseas.

He says is worried about the way forward for New Zealand when it comes to growing the country’s wealth.

The 71-year-old worries that our politicians could be bereft of ideas and meaningful policies and he also worries that New Zealanders are lacking vitality and get-up-and-go.

The ex-pat entrepreneur who once lived in a state house in South Auckland has made a fortune, ranking sixth equal in this year’s NBR Rich List.

He has also given millions to Kiwi causes, from the Christchurch quake recovery fund to university business school education.

National’s 2011 party list is above. The first column is their list ranking. The third column is what I call the effective list, which takes into account which candidates are likely to win their electorate seats. The assumption is that National will hold all 41 existing seats. In reality of course it is possible it may win some additional seats, or lose a seat. In the absence of public polling data, I go with the status quo.

The fourth column is their rank in 2008, and the fifth column is the change from 2008. These are interesting but you can read too much into them. For example Maurice Williamson has dropped 11, but that is simply because the Ministers are ranked in ministerial order, while in 2008 they were not.

The sixth column is my calculation as to what party vote National needs for that candidate to be elected on the list. It assumes a 4% wasted vote, and is approximate only.

So who are the big moves. The three biggest promotions are:

1. Paula Bennett +27
2. Amy Adams+24
3. Nikki Kaye +24

A big vote of confidence in all three.

The two board only nominees (on top of Joyce and Lockwood) are Alfred Ngaro and Dr Jian Yang. Alfred stood for the Auckland Council last year, chairs the Pacific Health Committee of the Auckland District Health Board and in 2009 was awarded a Sir Peter Blake Emerging Leader Award.

Dr Yang is the associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts, and director of the China Studies Centre for the New Zealand Asia Institute at Auckland University. He is also chair of the Auckland Branch of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs.

If National wins 48% of the party vote, all current List MPs would be returned to Parliament. If they got 50%, then they would also get Paul Foster-Bell and Claudette Hauiti. At 53% every electorate candidate would get into Parliament – either via their seat or the list.

In terms of caucus diversity, and assuming a 48% party vote, National would have 15 female MPs out of 60, or 25%. A lot better than the old days when you could count the number on one hand, but not as high as it could be. The percentage women would increase to 28% if National gets 52%.

However several women have moved up the list significantly – Paula, Amy and Nikki have all had huge promotions as has Junior Whip Jo Goodhew (and all on merit in my opinion).

In terms of ethnicity, at 48% National would have seven MPs of Maori decent which would be 12% of Caucus. This is equal to the adult Maori population, which is 12% of the country. There would also be two Pacific MPs and three Asian MPs.

In terms of age distribution, 49% of the caucus would be in their 40s or younger and 51% in their 50s or 60s.

The list does not bring in much new blood. There is new blood coming in on the electorate side also, but also not a lot. This is not unusual for the first term in Government. Not many retire after one term. National’s real challenge will be in 2014. To enhance their chance of winning a third term (if they get a second term), they will need to have a significant amount of rejuvenation in both caucus and cabinet.