The Pigeon blogs:

John Key returned to New Zealand from a diplomatic conference last night, to find the country was a complete shambles. Sources claim the Prime Minister was extremely disappointed and very angry at the nation for not cleaning up the mess we made while he was away, because even though we don’t mind living in a pigsty, he doesn’t expect to come home from a hard day at work to find the country in utter chaos.

“I work and I work and I work so that we can live in a nice country and have good food everyday and when I come home, I just want to put my feet up and watch my programme for once,” Key said, clearly frustrated, “but I guess that’s just too much to fucking ask.” …

The Prime Minister’s emotions reached boiling point however, after spotting Hamilton out of the corner of his eye.

“OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!” he bellowed suddenly, adding “Who did this?” while pointing at the city. “I want to know NOW, who did this?”

“I’m not kidding around here, who is responsible for this atrocious pile of crap?” the Prime Minister raged on as he grabbed the nearest Air New Zealand shares and dashed them to pieces on the floor.

“Now look what you made me do. Are you happy now?”

At press time John Key had reportedly locked himself in his room, leaving the clearly shaken remainder of the country to sombrely reflect what a disappointment we all were to him.

Not bad.

David Fisher in the HoS wrote:

It could be dubbed the Slingshot law.

Consumer organisations have singled out the company while asking the Government to force phone and internet companies to a scheme designed to protect customer rights.

And the Government has signalled it is prepared to listen to rein in phone and internet customers that refuse to be accountable.

The Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand and Consumer New Zealand wrote to Telecoms Minister Steven Joyce on Friday.

“TUANZ is fed up,” said the organisation’s business manager Katherine Hall. “We’re fielding calls from disgruntled – mostly Slingshot – customers on a regular basis.”

Hall said there was nowhere to direct customers of companies which did not belong to the Telecommunications Dispute Resolution Scheme.

The scheme is intended to be an option of last resort for frustrated customers who want independent arbitration. Membership is voluntary but includes Telecom, Vodafone and a host of other providers.

“Those who are signatories have smartened up their act and those who haven’t have a licence to frustrate and annoy.” …

A similar scheme in Australia was compulsory for phone and internet companies. Joyce said he had told the industry he was comfortable with membership being voluntary “provided that all carriers are members”.

“I advised them at the time that if they are not able to do this I will be considering a range other options.”

I’m hesitant about making the TRDS compulsory. What is preferable is that telco and internet providers who are not members of it, in the media etc when they fail to provide good service.

I suspect David’s articles on Slingshot may do more towards improving their customer service, than joining the TDRS would have.

So long as it is easy to leave a badly performing provider when they give crap service, then generally they will suffer the consequences of making customers wait on hold for an hour.

In another article, it is reported:

Many of the people who did email said they would leave Slingshot if it were not for the $149 “early termination fee” to get out of their contracts. Callander told me customers would not be held to that fee if they were leaving as a result of a problem that was Slingshot’s fault.

In the end, I told Callander that I was treated so poorly I didn’t want to remain a customer. Callander now accepts my time on hold was not an isolated incident.

Also, customers should be free to shop around. Many phone and internet companies charge early termination fees. The fee is usually included on contracts that give good deals (including bandwidth and hardware) over 12 or 24 months.

If one has an early termination fee, and the reason you are leaving is crap service (not just cheaper price elsewhere), then I’d tell the company you won’t pay it as they have not provided an adequate service. If they take you to the disputes tribunal, you’d probably win I reckon.

Stuff has a headline:

Nude women’s rugby players draw a crowd

Who would have guessed?

The Old Boys University women’s rugby team have put together a nude calendar as a fund-raiser. They are on Trade Me.

Do you remember the Rainbow children’s TV series? They ran from 1972 to 1992. This is an episode that never made it to air.

In his speech Phil Goff referred to David Cunliffe as David Caygill – even with Cunliffe sitting literally in front of him when he said it.

I guess after 30 years in politics, it gets hard to connect the right names with the right people, as you’ve worked with so many different people.

John Key has announced:

Prime Minister John Key today announced that Hekia Parata is to be appointed a Minister in Cabinet.

“Ms Parata takes over the Ethnic Affairs and Women’s Affairs portfolios previously held by Pansy Wong. She will also be Associate Minister for ACC, of Energy and Resources and for the Community and Voluntary Sector,” Mr Key says.

Ms Parata’s role as Associate Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector follows discussions with Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Tariana Turia, who requested an associate in this portfolio. It is no longer considered necessary to have an associate in Mrs Turia’s Disability Issues portfolio.

Ms Parata will be sworn in on Wednesday afternoon by Her Excellency the Administrator of the Government.

“Ms Parata has a strong background in the public service and has also been a successful businesswoman.

A well deserved promotion, and I predict Hekia will shine as a Minister.

A good cause:

Air New Zealand is a proud sponsor of Make-A-Wish® New Zealand which works to grant the cherished wishes of children with life threatening medical conditions.  Today they’re celebrating that partnership with the launch of a fun new way to feel better about life’s little slip ups and raise money for Make-A-Wish at the same time.

We all have moments in life that we’d rather forget – it could be overlooking a friend’s birthday, causing a fender bender, or sneaking that last piece of chocolate cake.  Whatever it is that makes you think “I wish I hadn’t … “, you can now balance the ledger by sharing your “wish” at www.iwishihadnt.co.nz and donating to Make-A-Wish at the same time.

Now we’re inviting all Air New Zealanders to get on board by confessing their misgivings and supporting this great cause.  If you need inspiration, you can go online and check out the moments others would rather forget – including some classics from high profile New Zealanders such as:

• April Ieremia – I wish I hadn’t given him my phone number …
• Richie McCaw – I wish I hadn’t told Ali…
• Bevan Docherty – I wish I hadn’t run the lawn mower without any oil …
• Phil Keoghan – I wish I hadn’t forgotten to put the lid on the blender …

Donations can also be made from your mobile phone – great for those feeling bad about sneaky texting while driving!  Just send your name and wish to 3181 to make an automatic $3 donation.

My wish was “I wish I hadn’t sent that fax”.  enjoy reading the other wishes, and hopefully make one yourself to help the Make A Wish Foundation.

Last week it was announced:

An Auckland secondary teacher, who has transformed the teaching of junior science by using new technology to create online lessons and inspiring students to higher levels of achievement, has won New Zealand’s top teaching prize.

Steve Martin, of Howick College, has created virtual science lessons to encourage students to think for themselves, learn at their own pace and use new technology, which he says tricks them into learning by having fun.

His outstanding teaching has won him the 2010 Prime Minister’s Science Teacher Prize worth $150,000, with Steve receiving $50,000 and the remainder going to the Howick College.

The Prime Minister’s Science Prizes were introduced in 2009 to raise the profile and prestige of science among New Zealanders. The five prizes combine recognition and reward, with total prize money of $1 million spread across five awards.

The 41 year old joined Howick College as Head of Junior Science in 2005. Since then, he has rewritten all the junior science programmes and developed new resources including a wealth of activities, videos, worksheets and PowerPoint presentations.

The idea of rewriting junior science programmes and delivering them on a digital platform through the school’s intranet was fuelled by frustration with students falling behind with their work while away from school for sports tournaments, family commitments and holidays.

Through his ‘Virtual Classroom’, students can access their lessons at any time, extending their learning beyond the classroom and enabling them to study at times to suit. Netbooks, laptops and mobile phones replace pen and paper. Students can access resources, instantly message to share information or post questions, ask Steve for help and get instant feedback, all online. They can create cartoons, videos and digital posters to demonstrate their understanding of a topic.

Surveys of Steve’s students during the past three years show a significant increase in academic achievement, motivation, understanding of science and ability to think more creatively. The number of students achieving excellence in their end-of-unit tests has increased from three percent to 53 percent. …

“Those type of teachers are like gold and don’t come around very often,” says Mr Ropati. Steve is also involved in professional coaching and development, with his work helping to improve teaching practices throughout the school.

Steve has a Bachelor of Science (Hons) and a Masters in Education leadership and management. He was last year named a Microsoft Distinguished Teacher.

Isn’t that a great example of how one teacher can make a huge difference.

Teachers like Steve should be on at least $150,000 a year. Probably worth $200,000  a year.

He is obviously a rare find.

Sadly the entrenched interests are against performance pay which would allow a school to pay its best teachers enough to keep the top teachers in teaching.

I do not believe there should be a national scale for teachers pay. I think a school should be bulk funded and they should be able to pay the top teachers $150,000 and the bottom teachers $40,000.

We need a system with genuine flexibility.

Metro magazine have released their annual ratings for the 43 Auckland MPs. You need to buy the magazine for the full ratings, but some extracts are:

• Mean rating 4.5/10
• Averages per party are 5.7 Maori, 4.8 National, 4.2 Labour, 3.5 ACT and 3.5 Green
• Top five MPs are Steven Joyce 8.2, John Key 7.8, Phil Goff 7.5, Judith Collins 7.4 and Keith Locke 7.3
• Bottom two are Chris Carter 0.9 and Ashraf Choudary 1.5
• Top three National backbenchers are Tau Henare 5.9, Nikki Kaye 5.5 and Sam Lotu-Iiga 4.1
• Top Labour MPs are Phil Goff 7.5, David Cunliffe 7.1 and Phil Twyford 6.8

Note these are the ratings of the unnamed panel Metro uses, not my own.

I’ve been sent a copy of an OIA response from the Ministry of Health about how many organisations receive taxpayer funding for anti-smoking programmes, and to what level. The OIA is embedded below.

MOH OIA – Tobacco Spend for Period 200809 200910 201011

As one can see there is a nice wee industry out there all funded by the taxpayer. Around 100 organisations getting around $50 million between them.

Now I’ve not got an issue with the total amount of funding. Smoking is highly addictive and helping people to quit or not start can be a good use of Vote Health dollars.

It is more the sheer number of groups that get funded. I’d rather have a few dedicated highly professional groups, than 100 or so. A large number appear to be Maori groups. Again, I’d rather fund one or two groups with a proven track record in reducing Maori smoking rates, than the 35 that have been getting funding.

The cynic in me wonders how much of the funding goes on lobbying for more money, and reporting on what they have done.

MacDoctor highlights this HoS story:

The Australian Transport Council this week released a discussion document calling for the national alcohol limit to be reduced to 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. Some states, such as Victoria, already have a limit of 50mg, which is 30mg lower than New Zealand’s 80mg.

The council called for a “major shift in thinking by governments and the community”. It said in Sweden there was a 10 per cent reduction in drink-driving fatalities when the limit was cut from 50mg to 20mg.

At 20 mg, a woman who had a single glass of wine probably become a criminal if she drove afterwards. A male who had 2 beers over two hours would also probably be a criminal.

A lengthy article on political donations by Jenni McManus in the Dom Post:

Corporate donations – once the financial lifeblood of political parties – have slumped significantly since tough new electoral rules were enacted in 2007.

Not necessarily. Donations over the disclosure limit of $10,000 have slumped, but that does not mean total donations have decreased. The law about to be passed by Parliament will shed some light on this, as it will require reporting of total donations in bands, not just those over $10,000.

Labour’s subsequent law change introduced new rules and a $120,000 cap on such third-party spending.

It also laid down a new disclosure regime for individual and corporate donations, and for anonymous and foreign donors.

For New Zealanders, anything above $10,000 had to be disclosed in the party’s annual return. Multiple donations from a single person or entity above $20,000 had to be reported within 10 days of receipt.

The $10,000 disclosure limit predates the EFA. That has been the law for many years.

So what do corporates hope to gain from donations? And what are they promised for their money? Very little, it seems, in a country the size of New Zealand when big payments to political parties confer no right to dictate policy – or even to be part of the policy- making process.

A large party will spend around $5 million in election year. So a $10,000 donation is just 0.2% of total income. This is why I think $10,000 is a good level for disclosure – it is impossible to think of policies being purchased at such a level.

It’s all about influence and access, says one National Party insider. “They think they become a ‘mate’ of the politicians – that they get on the government’s speed-dial. It puffs them up – gives them a vignette into a secret world, makes them feel part of an inner circle.

“But nothing is explicit. It’s a sort of code among the rich that if you give money, John [Key] is more likely to take your call.”

This type of donor is part of a small, select group. “It’s not your factory owner in South Auckland.”

The insider says it is “complete crap” that Kiwi MPs can be bought: “But the business community wants to be heard and [donations] are a way of ensuring this.”

And for many donors, it is supporting a party’s policies, because they think they are good for New Zealand and/or their business.

John Key and his wife are regular diners at Antoine’s, an exclusive Parnell restaurant owned by National Party supporter Tony Astle.

Astle says Antoine’s donated $105,000 in June this year to the Nats because he “hated the Labour government of the past nine years” and had never been slow in coming forward to express this view.

“It almost ruined by business,” he says. “I was very optimistic about the National Party and that’s why I organised a fundraising dinner for them. It was my opportunity to do something.

A damn generous donation.

Susan Chou (also known as Suzhen Zhou), of Bucklands Beach, has emerged as the National Party’s biggest single donor.

What no one has reported is that she has also donated to Labour – $18,000 in May 2008.

The Electoral Commission has also just reported another large donation – $25,000 in late November from Graeme Douglas.

A fascinating letter turned up in the post the other day. It was a copy of a letter from the Labour Party’s Te Atatu Electorate Committee (LEC) to Party President Andrew Little.

The letter has the unanimous support of the LEC and expresses their “disgust” at the way Chris Carter was treated by Labour.

It is to be expected that they are supportive of their former MP, but what is exceptional about the letter is the explicit statement of no confidence in Phil Goff.

They specifically state Goff’s leadership is uninspiring, and that they are concerned about his policy flip-flops. They attack him for his attacks on Helen Clark’s legacy and say he is betraying the legacy of a popular and successful Labour Government.

They go on to say that they have been expressing these concerns over Goff’s leadership for many months, including to their area representative.

Now remember that this is a letter agreed to unanimously by the LEC. It shows that this is not just an issue about Carter’s travel, but that there is serious discontent with Goff’s leadership in this solid red electorate.

In National over the years I’ve seen electorates get unhappy over various issues and write to the Board about them. I’ve never seen an electorate committee use the harshness of language about the leader, that the Te Atatu LEC is using – its is unprecedented.

The letter is below. You can click twice on each page to see them full size.

I found the references to Goff betraying Helen Clark’s legacy especially interesting – they indicate to me that the Clark loyalists will roll Goff straight after the 2011 election, unless he wins.

Every year or so, I like to compare the number of staff in ministerial office to see how it has increased over time.

Under Labour ministerial staff numbers blew up from 188 to 286 – a 52% increase. This included a 76% increase in communications staff and a 40% increase in portfolio advisors.

I divide staff into five categories, with descriptions of each here. Let us see what staff numbers were in May 2008, July 2009 and November 2010 (incl Pansy Wong Office).

• Total staff: 286 to 277 to 272, so a 5% decrease on May 2008
• Managers: 28 to 28 to 28 – constant a one SPS per office
• Communicators: 45 to 34 to 39, so 13% down on 2008 but up from 2009
• Portfolio Advisors: 111 to 112 to 113 – almost constant
• Political Advisors: 35 to 42 to 36 – almost constant
• Administrators: 67 to 61 to 56 – 16% down on 2008

So overall none of the growth seen under Labour – in fact decline in comms and admin staff. But what about individual offices?

• PMO from 31 to 26 to 27, so 13% down on 2008
• PMO comms staff from 10 to 5 to 7  – well below what Helen Clark had
• Largest drop in staff – Tim Groser has gone from 10 staff in Jul 09 to 6 staff in Nov 10.
• Smallest office – John Boscawen with five staff

The median number of staff is nine, and the median per category is 1 comms staff, 1 manager, 4 portfolio staff, 1 political advisor and 1 admin staffer.

A reader pointed this out to me:

Philanthropic support totalling $120 million has been given for research and learning at The University of Auckland since 2006, the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon, announced tonight.

The University’s “Leading the Way” fundraising Campaign aims to raise $150 million by the end of 2012, an achievement that would make it as successful as any campaign in Australasian university history. Originally set at $100 million, the Campaign target was raised as philanthropic funds given through the University’s advancement, research, and scholarships offices were pooled.

Globally, the most successful universities always have graduates who are willing to donate back to the university they went to. It is good to see Auckland University doing so well.

Over the years 11 families, organisations, and individuals have each given more than $5 million to support the University, including: the Goodfellow family, who established the Maclaurin Chapel and have supported healthcare education and many other activities; the Neal and Annette Plowman family, who established an endowment fund to support business growth and innovation; and the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, funders of ophthalmology and child health research.

Also included are several New Zealand organisations: the Auckland Medical Research Foundation; the Cancer Society Auckland; the ASB Community Trust; the Neurological Foundation and the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board; as well as high-profile philanthropist Owen Glenn, who has funded improvements in business education, marine science and cancer research, and who was in Auckland for the event. …

A further 35 donors, each of whom has made gifts totalling between $1 million and $5 million, were named members of the Sir George Fowlds Society, after a former Minister of Education and Chair of Auckland University College.

A third group, the 179 donors who have each given between $100,000 and $1 million, were honoured as members of the Sir Douglas Robb Society. Sir Douglas was the primary force behind establishing the School of Medicine in Auckland.

So 11 families have given more than $5 million, 46 have given more than $1 million and 225 have given more than $100,000. That’s fantastic philanthropy.

Fresh from the PR triumph of attacking Sir Peter Jackson, the CTU continues its strategy of winning over the public by targeting Peter Whittall.

The Press reports:

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly told a Canterbury Workers Educational Association function in Christchurch on Friday that Whittall should have apologised for the tragedy.

“He’s now been called a national hero, but he’s the CEO of that company and he hasn’t apologised,” she said.

“Even if the company did everything right, if it was me, I’d say: `I’m the employer. This has happened and I’m really sorry. I don’t know why, but I’m going to find out why’. But he hasn’t said that.”

Questions about what happened had not been asked, Kelly said.

“This is a very serious event. That mine was open for just over a year. There are 29 miners dead. We’ve got to be more mature about who we honour, how we think about things, what we demand. If that had been public Department of Conservation [land] we would have gone after them and said what had happened.

“But because it’s a company and because the CEO gets to sit next to the Prime Minister at the memorial service, the hard questions have not been asked.”

The CTU just don’t get it. Peter Whittall would not have insisted he be on the stage and one of the speakers at the memorial service. The PM would not have decided who the speakers are. I’m bet you that it was at the request of the miners families, that Whittall was on the stage as one of the speakers.

I’ve remarked on radio how unusual it is that the CEO of the mine where 29 people died has become a national hero. This must be very frustrating for the unions. But the reality is it is the way Whittall conducted himself that has won people over.

But he would know, that admiration for his post-explosion performance, will not protect him if it transpires that Pike River Coal has some culpability for what happened. Admiration for fronting up does not remove accountability and responsibility.

But this is why we have a Royal Commission – to establish the facts. I think it is unwise for various unions to already be trying to denigrate Whittall.

They have not been alone there. Cindy Baxter of Greenpeace facebooked soon after the tragedy a list of Pike River Directors, labelling them “the people who developed the mine that just killed 29 people”. An extra-ordinary rush to judgement.

We also had a Labour MP on day one of the explosion tweet about how the company must be asked the hard questions to prevent a cover-up and how the unions are key to this. This was before we even knew if anyone was dead.

Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) national secretary Andrew Little acknowledged Whittall had not sought hero status, but said failures on the part of mine managers or “the guys underground” could have caused the disaster.

“We need to reserve judgment until we get credible answers to questions about why it all happened.

“The company has been treated as somewhat heroic and in a way I think it’s somewhat undeserving.”

Little is correct in saying we need to reserve judgement. My admiration for Whittall’s response to the explosion in no way means that Pike River Coal should not be held accountable if the facts warrant it.

I think Andrew is wrong though in saying the company has been treated as somewhat heroic. Whittall has been, but he is not the company. People have empathised with the fact he knew every single miner killed – in fact had employed them all, and so obviously grieved for them.

In yesterday’s HoS, Matt McCarten had the same theme:

under his watch, 29 men were killed and still lie entombed. Family members and friends of the dead have been robbed of a loved one. Many other workers, as a result of the explosion, will lose their livelihoods.

Unbelievably, the chief executive of this company becomes a media darling.

He did not become a “media darling” for what happened. He gained respect because he did what so many people say they want CEOs to do – he fronted up constantly, he did not spin, he did not lie, he told the truth. He was real.

If you have followed the media coverage you’d think the whole tragedy was just an unavoidable accident.

On the contrary, I think no such thing.

A new satirical website, The Pigeon.

An example from a week or so ago:

At its recent party conference, the Labour party promised “bold, new” policies before the next election. “Our old policies were printed in rather bland fonts” said Phil Goff, “the citizens of New Zealand deserve better”.

Mr Goff went on to outline a plan to break away from the “Times” font that has characterised Labour policy documents since the 1980s reforms under Lange, to replace it with bold, Times New Roman in all Labour party policy documentation. “We are always looking for new ways to promote diversity, so we might even add in some Courier New, or Comic Sans, just to mix things up a bit,” continued Goff.

Critics of the new font argue that the move is not enough to differentiate Labour and position it as the party of the future. “If you look at Len Brown’s recent campaign, one of the things that set him apart from Banks was his willingness to push the envelope into sans serif fonts, and edgier colour schemes,” said one of the party faithful who asked to remain anonymous. Although others outside the conference building were more optimistic, pointing out that Times New Romans was websafe, bold made its policies look more confident, and that in addition to the font change, Phil Goff had hinted that he might be looking to further update the party’s image among voters by getting a makeover and updating his tie collection.

I’ve added them to my blogroll.

Barack Obama established a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to come up with ways to reduce the huge fiscal deficit. They have 18 members – 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans on it.

So what has this bipartisan group recommended:

• $200 billion of domestic and defence savings by 2015
• Tax reform that reduces rates, simplifies the code and broadens the base to reduce the deficit
• Measures to control long-term health cost growth
• Mandatory savings from farm subsidies, military and civil service retirement
• Ensure social security solvency for next 75 years

This would achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction by 2020, reduce the deficit to 2.2% of GDP by 2015 and caps revenue at 21% of GDP (note NZ is well over 30%).

Obama, to his credit, has not rejected it. Sadly Congressional Democrats look likely to – which will impose future generations with horrific levels of debt and interest on the debt.

The situation in NZ is not so dire, but we still need bold measures to stop borrowing $250 million a week.

Sarah Harvey in the SST reports:

THE COUNTRY’S next prime minister could be decided by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.

A new poll has cast Peters as kingmaker. The 65-year-old left parliament after 30 years as an MP when he lost in Tauranga to Simon Bridges and New Zealand First failed to pass the 5% party list MP threshold in the last election.

The Horizon poll of almost 2000 intending voters shows the often-controversial MP could have the power to decide whether National’s John Key or Labour’s Phil Goff leads the country after the 2011 elections.

In 2008 New Zealand First captured just over 4% of the vote, but the Horizon poll, conducted from November 16-22, shows the party is back in the game with 6% support.

In the same poll National recorded 34.7% support, Labour 28.3%, the Greens 7.9%, Act 2.6%, the Maori Party 1.2%, Jim Anderton’s Progressives 1.2%, United Future 0.2% and other parties 1.6%.

That left undecided at 8.1% and those who preferred not to say at 8.2%.

A key thing to note here in Horizon use an online panel to do their polling. Online panels are growing in usage, but the reliability of them varies greatly.

I am sure Horizon, like almost all polling companies, tries its utmost to be as accurate as possible. Any criticism of their results, is not a suggestion that they are not applying professional standards. It is a reflection that online panels pose extra challenges in terms of how the panel is recruited, how large it is, what topics they are given etc etc.

In trying to assess reliability, one often looks at a couple of things – how do polls stack up against known results, and against other polling companies.

In terms of known results, their final exit poll for the Auckland Council did predict correctly Len Brown would win, but the margin was well off.

Mr Brown has 53.7% support among those who have cast votes. John Banks has 23.8%, Colin Craig 10.4%, others 6.4% and 4.6% will not say who they have voted for.

Taking away the 4.6% who would not say, that is 56.3% for Brown, 24.9% for Banks and 10.0% for Craig. Projected margin was 31%.

The final result was Brown 49.2%, Banks 35.6% and Craig 8.8%  a margin of 14%. The support for Banks especially was significantly under-reported. Now to be fair to Horizon, this may have been due to a last minute surge in Banks voting.

In Sep they released a poll saying National had 30%, Labour 22%, and 27% were not voting, unsure ore refused to say. Removing the 27% to get a % of decided voters (to allow comparisons to other polls), and you have the poll saying National has only 41% of decided voters and Labour 305 of decided voters.

That 41% for National is a figure well away from any other poll. In August and September there were seven other public polls released – the average had National at 51%.

Then we have the latest poll. It has National 34.7%, Labour 28.3%, Green 7.9%, NZ First 6.0%. This translates to a share of decided voters being National 41.5%, Labour 33.8%, Green 9.4%, NZ First 7.2%, ACT 3.1%, Progressives 1.4%.

By contrast the latest Roy Morgan has National 51%, Lab 33%, Green 7%, NZ First 3%, ACT 1%.

There is no sure fire way of saying this poll is definitely accurate or inaccurate. I wish there was.

But I find it very hard to give reliance to the Horizon results. They have twice shown National at 41% – around 10% below where everyone else has them.

They have NZ First at 7% of decided voters – I have not seen anything to indicate that, or any events to explain that.

I even have problems with the result showing Progressives at 1.4% considering they are not standing again.

I do give credit to Horizon for a couple of things. They show the results for both all voters and decided voters. The level of undecided voters is important. Many companies only give out the decided vote share.

They also probe people who are undecided to see which way they are leaning. This is done by most public policy companies, but not 100%.

But I do not think NZ First is at 7% of decided voters. I do think that you can not rule out NZ First making 5% in 2011 if for example Michael Laws is a candidate for them, as Michael would appeal to a considerable following in talkback land. But at this stage it doesn’t look like Laws is standing for them – but never say never.

If you want some laughs go to TV3 and watch Tim Shadbolt on 7 Days. He comes on at 9:30 (you can move the indicator to it). Shadbolt’s replies are so funny he has the comedians in stitches.

Hat Tip: Lindsay Mitchell

Dave G at Education Directions has noted this interesting issue from the Search and Rescue newsletter:

LandSAR received a letter from Tai Poutini Polytechnic (TPP) last month indicating that the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) funding that used to cover courses overseen by SARINZ will no longer cover the full cost of services and a $10 per credit fee will be charged to LandSAR in the New Year. This is not $10 per course but is based on the total credits value given to each course which could range from 10 or more per person per year. Based roughly on the course credits received from the 96 SARINZ Courses held over the last two years, this could cost LandSAR up to $250,000 or more in the next calendar year.

… The LandSAR Board reviewed the overall issue stated and we stress that this is not solely a TPP concern. They are simply making it clear that our industry or sector has to pay its way and they can see no other solution that imposing such a fee.

LandSAR has to now look at all options going forward…. Our industry is not commercial, it is not for profit and as such should be funded as a core function of Central Government. …LandSAR fundamentally believes that volunteers should not have to pay for the training required to remain capable of delivering an emergency service to the communities of NZ. We believe volunteers, without hesitation, give enough of their time, professional skills and personal equipment; to expect them to pay for training for that service would become a bridge to far on the overall goodwill standings.

Over the next few months we will be talking to our members and the sector – as we believe this will eventually affect all of the emergency sector (Civil Defence, CoastGuard, Rural Fire, Surf Life Saving, etc) and our key partners (NZ Police, RCCNZ and NZSAR)…

Dave G notes:

Search and rescue work is pretty hard to fault – whether the person who is lost is experienced or an idiot who didn’t look at a weather forecast, I’m enormously happy that people are willing to drop their normal lives to head out into the bush to find someone. Other than a few coordinators, they are essentially volunteers too. In that environment, I wonder how realistic it is to expect them to meet increasing training requirements out of their own pockets.

There are lots of things I am unhappy about funding as a taxpayer. Training for volunteer search and rescue teams is not one of them. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than having a professionally staffed search and rescue service run by the Government.