Here’s a little guide to trusting polls, which media and readers may find useful, when they see other media trumpet a poll they have commissioned. This is not a comprehensive guide – that could fill up many scores of pages.

1. Is the poll a random selection poll (normally done via phone or in person) or is it an Internet panel poll (less reliable) or a website poll (of almost no reliability)
2. If the poll is a random selection poll, then how big is the sample size. Note this is less important with other polls.
3. Has the company got an accurate track record of polling? How many years have they been polling for? What did they predict for the last election? Have they not only predicted results (who wins) which can be fairly easy but also got the actual percentage vote gained correct?
4. Is the result they are proclaiming in line with any other public polling company? If during the last couple of months four other companies have all independently said Party X is at around Y%, then how likely is it every other company is wrong, and this poll which says they are much higher (or lower) is correct?
5. Consider also if the other polling companies have a long history of public polling, and were very accurate at the last election, but this new poll with incredibly different results, is done by a company that did not exist at the last election? Does that make it even easier?
6. Finally consider then whether giving undue prominence to such a poll, is reporting the news, or inventing the news?

Some media take this stuff very seriously. I know in the past that the TV networks have had polls re-done, and methodologies audited, when they have had a poll result totally at odds with all the other public polls. In fact there have even been times when a poll may not even be published, because the broadcaster sees it as so far out of line with other polls, and indeed upon redoing the poll, a more credible result has occured (remember 1 out of 20 polls will be outside the normal sampling margin of error).

Other media seem content to trumpet highly suspect results – results unmatched by an other company or outlet, as exclusive front page leads. I suppose they have to, as you are loath not to use something you have paid for as a story. But other media, should be very cautious, especially in election year, as to how they report such polls, especially when they are Internet panel polls, not random selection phone or in person polls.

Tim Watkin looks at 2010, and annoints his minister of the year:

But it’s Dr Mapp who had the best year of all government ministers, to my mind, capped off with his announcement that he will make a dignified exit at this year’s election.

Mapp handled two crucial reviews in 2010, in defence and science. Neither gave into ideology, nor over-reached. Both showed real nous.

The defence white paper got our future focus about right in terms of naval and regional priorities and didn’t compromise our growing independence in foreign policy while keeping us close to Australia.

And if there’s that the government did in 2010 that will benefit to country in the long-term, it’s the reform of our Crown Research Institutes, which moved their energies away from competing with each other and back to science and ideas. The changes to how we do science here were over-due, could genuinely boost our economy, especially growth and innovation, in the medium-term and were “ambitious for New Zealand”.

Wayne will be getting out on top.

Labour have only two tax policies – remove GST off fresh fruit and vegetables, and reintroduce a rich prick tax.

To help them with their policy development, Cactus Kate has proposed ten tax policies for them:

1. Reduce GST to 10%
2. Require all trusts in New Zealand to be registered with the IRD with the name of the settlor and beneficiaries
3. Farmers, the largest of polluters (according the the numbnuts measuring of carbon) should be taxed per head of animal per year with the cost that New Zealand has to pay to the invisible pie in the sky
4. Anyone with assets or is a beneficiary or settlor of a trust with more than say $500,000 can no longer receive Superannuation.
5. Reduce the deductible amount to 20% of the total interest expense on real property (land) such that land owned by farmers, property “investors” and the like cannot pay less or even no tax by increasing the interest deductions based on leveraging property.
6. Reintroduce gift duty
7. Introduction of a 20% duty for the sale of all property including primary residence and all forms of land.
8. A new top tax rate of 45% on those rich pricks earning over $120,000 and an increase of the current top tax rate for income between $70,001 to $120,000 from 38 cents up to 40 cents.
9. Abolish Marshall clauses (which excludes the shortfall in interest as a “gift”) where the loan is repayable on demand
10. Taxing New Zealand citizens (passport holders) at a 45% deemed disposal rate on expatriating their wealth at the date of departure if they become non-resident and a 15% inbound transaction tax on their assets coming back in even while they are still non-resident.

I’m worried that they may adopt a few of them.

Phil Quin at The New Tasman blogs:

The justified consensus is that Goff needs a game-changer in order to cement his leadership and have a faintly realistic hope of toppling John Key later this year.  This is more about perception than reality — and a game-changer needs an element of surprise.  This story has set the bar so that elevating Jones and sacking Parekura along these lines will merely meet expectations and deliver no benefit to Goff in the public estimation at all — and the grief and plotting associated with reshuffles like this is a high price to pay for a zero-sum game.

For the reshuffle to reset the deck, Goff now needs to exceed these expectations by making radical changes to his senior team, adding political cost and increasing the risk of instability that comes with it.

I agree, that Goff needs to be fairly radical. His main frontbench is entirely comprised of Ministers from the last Government.

He needs to break from the past by presenting some high-profile scalps:  Ruth Dyson is hopeless in Health, and should be shown the door.  The fear is that she will make Goff’s life hell from the backbench because she is an incorrigible troublemaker.  This argument depends on believing that Dyson is not already plotting her heart out , something that only someone who has never met her could possibly believe.

Heh.

Do more than restructure the front-bench, but re-imagine it by discarding the outdated and pointless front/2nd/3rd bench hierarchy that inevitably constricts flexibility.  A straight-forward shadow cabinet model allows Goff to make bolder changes that align better with  the policy and political challenges the Party faces.  Such an 20-member shadow cabinet could be: Goff, King, Cunliffe, Mallard, Jones, Street, Chauvel, Hughes, Parker, Cosgrove, , Mahuta, G. Robertson, Dalziel, Shearer, Davis, Nash, Ardern, Twyford, Sepuloni and Hipkins.   (For those keeping track, this means that Dyson, Hodgson, Chadwick, Parekura, and Mackey are the highest profile casualties).  Importantly, long-term servants like Rick Barker and Damien O’Connor also miss out — sending a strong signal of change.

I can’t imagine Goff would be this bold, but it would certainly give him a better chance – only 11/20 are former Ministers.

Goff should move Trevor Mallard from education and appoint him to a key strategic role overseeing the campaign.  Shane Jones should get education; Kelvin Davis, Maori Affairs.  Cosgrove to Health.

I can’t see Cosgrove being a fit for health. Shane Jones for education could be a breath of fresh air – but is Shane willing to do the hard yards in a major portfolio?

The Press reports:

Former gang leader Darryl Harris will lose the sickness benefit he has claimed for 26 years.

Social Development Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes said Mr Harris, who lives in Christchurch, had been told that his benefit would stop from January 10 because “he no longer meets standard eligibility requirements”. …

Mr Harris, who has three months to appeal against the decision, and his wife, Marcia Robins, made headlines a year ago when it was revealed they had been claiming unemployment and sickness benefits continually since 1984.

They had received $30,000 in special-needs grants since 2000, including payments for new tyres for their 2007 Chrysler saloon and to fence a swimming pool at one of their Christchurch properties.

Efforts to cancel Mr Harris’s sickness benefit failed when he obtained a medical opinion from one of Work and Income’s designated doctors that he was addicted to cannabis.

Oh no, he is sick, so he must get welfare for life. Or not.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said yesterday that the Government believed those who could work should, “and if that is considered hardline, so be it”.

“If someone is receiving the benefit because they are unwell, it is reasonable to expect them to be making every effort to get well so they can return to work.

“That is their responsibility to the taxpayer,” she said.

“It is unreasonable to expect the New Zealand taxpayer to support someone for extended periods on welfare because of a drug habit, unless every effort is being made to kick that habit and get back to work.”

You go Paula.

Lewis Holden has an oped in the NZ Herald:

Some time this month the Prime Minister will announce who New Zealand’s next Governor-General will be. While they represent the Queen in London, constitutionally the Governor-General is the highest office a New Zealander can aspire to.

The appointment is entirely the choice of the Prime Minister of the day. The Queen merely rubber-stamps the appointment.

That’s one reasons I support a move to a republic. I don’t think the PM of the Day should solely determine who the effective Head of State for NZ is.

… no New Zealander can aspire to being our head of state – that position is reserved for a family in the United Kingdom. However, we recognise that we have to start somewhere. The Governor-General’s office is an obvious candidate for reform.

The Republican Movement believes nominations for the job ought to be made by the general public, instead of the Prime Minister’s office sounding potential nominees.

The public’s nominee should be subject to approval of three-quarters of MPs and a majority of party leaders in the House of Representatives. It should not be up to the Prime Minister to appoint the officer able to dismiss his or her government from office.

As Lewis says, this would be a good intermediate step – introducing some transparency and democracy around the appointment of the effective Head of State.

AP reports:

A woman who claims Donald Duck groped her at Disney’s Epcot theme park in Florida will have her day in court.

A federal judge in Philadelphia says Disney must defend April Magolon’s post-traumatic stress lawsuit.

The 27-year-old Pennsylvania woman claims she was holding her child at the Walt Disney World park when a staff member dressed as Donald Duck grabbed her breast and then joked about it.

Magolon says the May 2008 encounter left her with nightmares, digestive problems and other permanent injuries.

Now don’t get me wrong. Grabbing a breast without permission is not just harrassment,but sexual assault and one should respond to it either by kicking the perp in the balls, calling the police, or at least complaining to the employer to get him (or her) sacked.

But I struggle to see how a grope leads to “nightmares, digestive problems and other permanent injuries”.

I can’t help be cynical about the case. I suspect Donald is being targetted for his uncle’s trillions.

Chris Hipkins at Red Alert is having a little whine because the Fairfax gallery stated the obvious and said they beleive John Key will be Prime Minuister after the election.

I think shoot the messenger syndrone is starting early.

But the best part of the post, was this comment from Danyl Mc:

The Fairfax prediction is pretty safe. When the nation is offered a choice between a National government run by the very popular John Key, or a Labour-Greens-New Zealand First government run by the very unpopular Phil Goff then every swing voter in the country is going to run screaming towards National.

Danyl has a fair point.

It is mathematically possible for Labour to win. But they need all of the following to occur:

1. National to drop around 7%
2. Labour to gain around 5%
3. Greens to pledge support to Labour
4. NZ First to make 5%
5. Maori Party back Labour on the basis of getting an even better deal on the foreshore and seabed than National will give them

A coalition led by Phil Goff with Winston, the Greens plus a potential Harawira-dominant Maori Party. Boy, that would be fun. And as Danyl says, not exactly attractive to swinging voters.

Lincoln Tan in the Herald reports:

Diners and cafe customers in Auckland want clearer rules over when the holiday surcharge should apply after some were slapped with the extra cost on their bills when eating out yesterday.

Aucklanders potentially face a four-day stretch of surcharge, but several cafes and bars which imposed the additional charge during the weekend told the Herald they would not charge extra today.

Restaurants added the surcharge on statutory holidays after changes to the Holidays Act in 2004 gave workers time-and-a-half pay and a day in lieu for working those days.

However, because Christmas Day and New Year fell on a weekend this year and were both replaced with holidays on Mondays and Tuesdays, there’s been confusion over which days should be considered “public holidays” for the surcharge to apply.

People seem to think cafe prices are regulated. They are not. So long as the cafe or restaurant makes clear what prices apply on a day, they can crage what they want – and you can decide whether or not to dine there or not.

If a cafe owner wants to impose a 50% surcharge on Wednesdays, then so long as they clearly inform people in advance, they can. It may be bad business for them – but it is their decision to make.

So if you don’t like a surcharge, don’t complaint to the Government. Complaint to the business. Of course they may point out the extra costs of paying staff effectively 2.5 times ordinary pay on a stat holiday, but it is their decision to make that up by way of surcharge instead of an overall higher charge every day.

If there is a handbook of things PMs are not meant to talk about, then on page one would be “what if you lose”, followed by “the election date” and “the next GG”.

In this interview with the NZ Herald, John Key talks pretty openly about all three. First he states, that if he loses the election, he’ll quit politics.

This is not a big surprise. Key is not one of those politicians so desperate for the top job that he’ll spend 30 years going in and out of opposition.

What is a surprise is that Key will state this so bluntly. Normally PMs will avoid the question (like Clark did) and just do the normal “I am 100% focused on winning”.

Secondly the PM all but confirmed the election date for late November. Again this is no surprise in terms of preferred date, but it is unususal to give away the tactical advantage of knowing. Many Labour MPs spend much of their time speculating on election dates and were convinced Key would go before the Rugby World Cup.

I never thought Key would go early – to do so, would be like a public declaration that he thought the All Blacks would lose.

The third part of the story is Key revealing that he mentioned one of his early candidates for Governor-General to a colleague, and the response was that the person was “obnoxious and untrustworthy”.

This will lead to much speculation, as to the identity of the obnoxious and untrustworthy person. I doubt Key will ever name them – for obvious reasons. Still there can’t be that many people whom Key would have a good opinion of, and a colleague would deem obnoxious.

The Dom Post reported:

Public servants illicitly downloaded thousands of applications – including shoot-’em-up games – on to Labour Department work computers, placing its IT system in danger.

Illicit sounds really bad, but merely means not authorised, and that includes 99.999% of applications. Those illicit downloads may have been Firefox browsers.

The breaches, revealed in a email obtained by The Dominion Post, could bring down computer systems and cause damage costing “hundreds of thousands” of dollars to fix, Labour MP Trevor Mallard said.

They “could”. They also could cost nothing at all. Trevor needs to learn not to get excited because of some IT manager’s anal retentiveness about what applications are allowed on a corporate network.

It also indicated staff were playing when they should be working. “You shouldn’t have time to play these games.” The email sent to Labour Department staff this month from deputy chief executive (business service group) Craig Owen said more than 2000 “unsupported, unlicensed and unauthorised” software applications had been loaded on to the department’s workstations.

I guess Trevor has not heard of meal breaks. Wait  didn’t he pass a law making meal and rest breaks mandatory?

Now the article tells us that the “thousands” of unauthorised applications are in fact 2,000. What they don’t tell us is how many staff do DOL have. If it was say 100, then maybe you would be worried.

It turns out they also have 2,000 staff, so on average each staffer has one unauthorised application – which could be a copy of a solitaire card game, to a copy of Firefox etc etc.

“This exposes the department to considerable risk including the threat of viruses and malware and having unlicensed software on departmental equipment.”

More than 400 of the applications were games, he said.

So only one in five staffers have a game on their computer. That’s pretty low I’d say.

A spokesman identified sci-fi game Halo and first-person shooter Doom as among the downloaded games.

They should place Doom on the server and unlock it during lunchtimes and after work. Nothing builds team morale like blowing each other up.

Some of the applications were work-related and nobody had been reprimanded over the downloads.

All non authorised software has some risk, but in my opinion best to have some flexibility in the system.

NZPA report:

A woman who was allegedly violently assaulted by her partner attacked police officers who came to help her in Hamilton this morning, allowing her partner to get away.

Police went to a Matai Street house about 2.45am after reports of family violence. Once there they found there was a warrant for the arrest of Martin Uta Tahau, Acting Senior Sergeant Craig Taylor said.

Tahau, 31, managed to run from police for a short distance. 

“The officers managed to handcuff one of his wrists but while attempting to secure the other, the woman who was supposed to have been the victim, came out of the house and attacked them from behind,” Senior Sergeant Taylor said.

Tahau struggled free and was now on the run with handcuffs still on his wrist.

Both officers suffered minor injuries in the assault and the woman who attacked them has been arrested.

You know, some people really don’t deserve our compassion. Despite that, I do feel sorry for her.

Tracy Watkins in the SST reports:

On the night when John Key pushed his way through a horde of backslapping supporters celebrating his election victory, no one had an inkling that a series of disasters lay in wait.

Ahead lurked a financial crisis, a $1.7 billion corporate bailout, a $4 billion natural disaster, the first combat casualty in a decade, and, finally, Pike River, a tragedy that dwarfed even Cave Creek in terms of loss of life.

As the good ship New Zealand steams from one crisis to the next, Key has become noticeably grey at the temples, and his staff have become increasingly protective of his private family time – a few hours on a Sunday, and the occasional overseas holiday.

Staggeringly, the optimism that charmed voters in 2008 and swept Key to power seems to have survived the battering of two years in office despite little respite from a grim economy and a string of bad news.

Maybe that is why Key and his government are more popular now than on election night. Leaders are judged on how they handle a crisis and Key’s instincts have remained unerringly in touch with what the man or woman on the street expect of him in bad times.

A crisis only looks easy to respond to with hindsight. They often trip leaders up. The Bolger Govt’s response to Cave Creek was poor, and Bush 43 with Hurricane Katrina is an example of how a lack of apparent concern can be damaging. And Obama’s response to the financial crisis led to the birth of the tea party, as a backlash against his fiscal stimulus.

The most important thing is voters knowing that you can step up, says Key.

“People want to know if the government’s in touch with the issues that are real, or are they just people who fight in the debating chamber on inane subjects and call each other names?”

Exactly.

They are here:

1 National will form a government after the November 26 election. (Note the dangerously specific date).

Agree, on date and outcome.

2 Botany will be a Clayton’s by-election and we don’t mean Cosgrove. National’s candidate will be anointed and Labour will hardly bother to campaign, preferring to keep its cash in the bank for the election.

Not so sure. By-elections can be un-predictable for a Government.

3 Judith Collins will become defence minister after the retirement of Wayne Mapp. Without tanks she could be a useful addition to our arsenal.

Very possible.

4 Mercurial NZ First leader Winston Peters will stand in an inner-Auckland seat to maximise coverage of his bid to return to Parliament. Possibly Epsom, but more likely Tamaki, where he can mobilise any remnants of Sir Robert Muldoon’s “Rob’s Mob” voters and cash in on sitting MP Allan Peachey’s low profile.

I think Tamaki is more likely than Epsom. His old seat of Hunua can’t be ruled out though. He won’t win an electorate though.

5 The Maori Party will not improve its current tally of five seats – a punt.

Probably not, unless Parekura retires then maybe pick that up.

6 MMP will survive the referendum, meaning a second one will not be necessary. But there will be a clamour to change some of the existing features of MMP.

I agree, unless the Government has its coalition partners disintegrate in 2011.

7 Labour president Andrew Little will not win New Plymouth, but will get into Parliament on the list.

I won’t make a prediction here on New Plymouth, except to observe that for Andrew to win he will need around 20% of National party voters to give him their electorate vote. I agree Andrew will be in Parliament regardless of the New Plymouth outcome.

8 Labour will campaign on a new top tax rate on income above $120,000 a year.

Yep – the starting rate may vary but will be at least $100k. The return of Cullen’s rich prick tax.

9 The Government’s popularity will drop mid-year as the rising cost of living, slow economic recovery and cuts in public spending usher in a mild winter of discontent.

It is inevitable that poll ratings of mid 50s will not translate into an election result.

10 Labour leader Phil Goff will survive till the election, but not long after.

By the end of 2012 there will be a new leader – David Cunliffe

11 Kris Faafoi’s majority in Mana will rebound in line with Labour’s traditional dominance in the seat.

I don’t think it will rebound as much as people think.

12 The Greens will beat their 6.72 per cent share of the vote from 2008 and bring in at least one fresh female face.

Probably yeah.

13 National will campaign on partial listings of minority stakes in some state assets including some of the bigger SOEs.

Hope so.

14 Steven Joyce will take over the education portfolio.

After the 2011 election, could well be.

15 The Maori Party will hold its nose and see the new foreshore and seabed law into force despite Hone Harawira’s opposition.

They’ll be irrelevant if they decide to stay with the status quo.

16 Georgina te Heu Heu and Sandra Goudie will signal an end to their political careers.

Would be surpised if either stand in 2011

17 This has been our hardest pick but on balance we think Rodney Hide will hold on to ACT’s Epsom lifeline – though we say so with our heart in our mouth given the signals from even Mr Hide’s Right-wing supporters that they are not convinced the souffle can rise twice.

I think he will, but it will depend on ACT having its shit together enough that people think they will get three or four MPs at least, who can work together.

18 Revenue Minister and UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne will finally realise his haircut is his biggest electoral liability and change it – or even admit it is a hairpiece.

Ha – never.

19 Another senior Labour MP will announce they are bailing out of politics at the next election – and unlike the retirement of George Hawkins and Pete Hodgson, this one will be a surprise.

Parekura would not be a surprise. Perhaps they mean Mallard?

20 John Key will come back from “kicking the tyres” during his Hawaiian holiday and declare himself “relaxed” about his chances in election year.

Of course.

I always admire Fairfax gallery staff for having the balls to make some predictions every year, and be judged on them. They have just self-scored their 2010 predictions and marked it as 128/100 – down from 145 in 2009 and 138 in 2008.

The story does not appear to be online, so no link, but here is the summary:

1. The Government will play follow- the-leader with Australia’s tax reform plans, putting business tax cuts at the top of its reform agenda. 4/10
2. There will be ructions in ACT and at least one of its MPs will signal an end to their political career. 10/10.
3. Hone Harawira will be trouble. 10/10.
4. Jim Anderton will not announce an end to his parliamentary career. 0/10.
5. Prime Minister John Key’s “elegant” solution to the foreshore and seabed issue will turn out to be another way to write the same law, with minor tweaks, that Labour passed. 10/10
6. The Government will signal partial asset sales will be part of its 2011 election campaign. 8/10
7. Chris Carter will be relieved of the Labour foreign affairs role and his frontbench seat. 10/10
8. Former Green MP Sue Bradford will run for the Auckland super- city council. 0/10.
9. 9 The national standards fight will end in a points victory to the Government over education unions. 8/10.
10. John Key will have a White House meeting with US President Barack Obama, but will make a second trip to Washington too. 5/10.
11. Labour will struggle to get its poll rating over 35 per cent, although Phil Goff will survive as leader. 10/10.
12. Two National MPs will announce their retirement from politics. 10/10.
13. The economic outlook and Budget deficit will keep improving, lowering the forecast debt mountain. 0/10.
14. John Key will reshuffle his ministers, or have a reshuffle forced on him. 8/10.
15. The Government will put a woman in a top advisory role. 10/10.
16. The Australia-New Zealand income gap will widen again. 10/10.
17. The Government will water down or even scrap the requirement for ACC to be fully funded by 2019. 0/10.
18. Labour’s Rick Barker will signal his retirement. 0/10.
19. The 2010 Budget will make Bill English’s 2009 effort look like a lolly scramble. 7/10.
20. John Key will admit, at least once, to not being “relaxed”. 8/10.

I thought they did very well with (2) and (7) as both were very specific and occured. Hopefully the full article will appear online as the commentary with the scoring is amusing.

Welcome to 2011. Apologies for late posting – but I can testify that Sydney is a great place to celebrate New Years Eve. Went down to the harbour with 1.5m others to see the fireworks.

Stephen Stratford sent me this story at The Atlantic. It looks at how Wikileaks has damaged the pro-democracy movement in Zimbabwe and helped prop up Mugabe. It is a great example of why secrecy does not always mean bad. When dealing with evil dictators, a lack of secrecy will often help the dictator only.

Last year, early on Christmas Eve morning, representatives from the U.S., United Kingdom, Netherlands, and the European Union arrived for a meeting with Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. …

The topic of the meeting was the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by a collection of western countries, including the U.S. and E.U. Tsvangirai told the western officials that, while there had been some progress in the last year, Mugabe and his supporters were dragging their feet on delivering political reforms. To overcome this, he said that the sanctions on Zimbabwe “must be kept in place” to induce Mugabe into giving up some political power. The prime minister openly admitted the incongruity between his private support for the sanctions and his public statements in opposition. If his political adversaries knew Tsvangirai secretly supported the sanctions, deeply unpopular with Zimbabweans, they would have a powerful weapon to attack and discredit the democratic reformer.

Later that day, the U.S. embassy in Zimbabwe dutifully reported the details of the meeting to Washington in a confidential U.S. State Department diplomatic cable. And slightly less than one year later, WikiLeaks released it to the world.

The reaction in Zimbabwe was swift. Zimbabwe’s Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable.

The consequences may be servere:

It’s difficult to see this as anything but a major setback for democracy in Zimbabwe. Even if Tsvangirai is not charged with treason, the opponents to democratic reforms have won a significant victory. First, popular support for Tsvangirai and the MDC will suffer due to Mugabe’s inevitable smear campaign, including the attorney general’s “investigation.” Second, the Prime Minister might be forced to take positions in opposition to the international community to avoid accusation of being a foreign collaborator. Third, Zimbabwe’s fragile coalition government could collapse completely. Whatever happens, democratic reforms in Zimbabwe are far less likely now than before the leak.

To their supporters, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange are heroes of the democratic cause. Assange himself has claimed that his organization promotes democracy by strengthening the media. But in Zimbabwe, Assange’s pursuit of this noble goal has provided a tyrant with the ammunition to wound, and perhaps kill, any chance for multiparty democracy. Earlier this month, Assange claimed that “not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed” by Wikileaks’ practices. This is no longer true, if it ever was.

I am surprised the mainstream media have not covered the Zimbabwe angle more.

I’m all for less secrecy, but that is not the same as no secrecy. And in terms of who decides what remains secret – I prefer those I elect to Parliament to do so, rather than Julian Assange who is accountable to no one at all.