The Telegraph reports:

Sir Tom Hunter praised the freedom to innovate and academic success at academy schools south of the Border, which are outside local authority control, and asked the First Minister “why we wouldn’t give our kids a chance to have this?”

Speaking during a programme broadcast by BBC Scotland tonight, Mr Sturgeon repeated her insistence that her drive to close the gulf between the best and worst state schools was not limited by political ideology.

Robert Epstein at Aeon writes:

Late in 2012, I began to wonder whether highly ranked search results could be impacting more than consumer choices. Perhaps, I speculated, a top search result could have a small impact on people’s opinions about things. Early in 2013, with my associate Ronald E Robertson of theAmerican Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in Vista, California, I put this idea to a test by conducting an experiment in which 102 people from the San Diego area were randomly assigned to one of three groups. In one group, people saw search results that favoured one political candidate – that is, results that linked to web pages that made this candidate look better than his or her opponent. In a second group, people saw search rankings that favoured the opposing candidate, and in the third group – the control group – people saw a mix of rankings that favoured neither candidate. The same search results and web pages were used in each group; the only thing that differed for the three groups was the ordering of the search results.

To make our experiment realistic, we used real search results that linked to real web pages. We also used a real election – the 2010 election for the prime minister of Australia. We used a foreign election to make sure that our participants were ‘undecided’. Their lack of familiarity with the candidates assured this. Through advertisements, we also recruited an ethnically diverse group of registered voters over a wide age range in order to match key demographic characteristics of the US voting population.

All participants were first given brief descriptions of the candidates and then asked to rate them in various ways, as well as to indicate which candidate they would vote for; as you might expect, participants initially favoured neither candidate on any of the five measures we used, and the vote was evenly split in all three groups. Then the participants were given up to 15 minutes in which to conduct an online search using ‘Kadoodle’, our mock search engine, which gave them access to five pages of search results that linked to web pages. People could move freely between search results and web pages, just as we do when using Google. When participants completed their search, we asked them to rate the candidates again, and we also asked them again who they would vote for.

We predicted that the opinions and voting preferences of 2 or 3 per cent of the people in the two bias groups – the groups in which people were seeing rankings favouring one candidate – would shift toward that candidate. What we actually found was astonishing. The proportion of people favouring the search engine’s top-ranked candidate increased by48.4 per cent, and all five of our measures shifted toward that candidate. What’s more, 75 per cent of the people in the bias groups seemed to have been completely unaware that they were viewing biased search rankings. In the control group, opinions did not shift significantly.

It’s a small sample size but quite an astonishing result. Obviously this is on candidates where nothing else is known on them, but it still shows how powerful search engine results can be.

An unofficial guide to left-wingers:

Many left-wing people have a very nice life, but they like to be sad. To help with this, they choose to be sad for other people. Sometimes these people are far away and sometimes they are nearby, but different to them.

In the olden days, left-wing people tried to make it better for other people. Nowadays, they like to protect them by being offended when a working-class person person doesn’t behave properly.

Left-wing like to help other people by being offended on their behalf. This means that the other people can carry on with their lives and the left-wing people do all the work. This isn’t really fair, but the left-wing people seem to carry on doing it, so they must enjoy it. 

Being offended on behalf of others is always a good sign.

Left-wing people care so much, it makes them hate people who don’t show that they care. These people are right-wing people. Left-wing people have given them a name, it is “Tory scum”. Left-wing people like to shout at the right-wing people and tell them that they are scum, even when they aren’t listening.

Shouting at the Tories is another way to show that they care. Caring is very important to left-wing people.

Left-wing people care so deeply that they don’t have time for thinking and convincing. They use their precious time for shouting about caring.

Also, working-class people don’t know what left-wing people are saying, so it is helpful when they point to the right-wing people and shout “scum”. They think that working-class people do understand shouting and caring.

And a test:

If you have observed someone and you are not sure if they are a left-wing person, seek their opinion on “the Tories”. If they start to shout and care, they are left-wing.

In NZ, just ask about John Key!

Left-wing activists are left-wing people who have an internet connection. They make the internet very loud.

Left-wing activists help other people care on the internet. They are very helpful in pointing out when people have forgotten to show that they care. They help people in many ways – watching videos, commenting on things and clicking on buttons called “start a petition”. Left-wing activists sometimes go outside their houses and meet other left-wing people and they care together and shout at the Tory scum.

I think I have started two petitions over ten years! Some seem to start then every month.

Chief Censor Andrew Jack writes:

Alively, competitive entertainment industry is important for New Zealanders. Competition ensures the widest variety of entertainment and a profitable industry ensures we can continue to enjoy our favourite movies, shows and programmes into the future.

Films, DVD/Blu-ray, games and video on demand are big, highly profitable businesses pulling in $600 million in New Zealand sales each year (at a conservative estimate).

And it’s a growing industry. Despite the growth in on-demand services such as Netflix, the film and game industries are continuing to enjoy increased sales.

Compare that $600 million in sales with the cost of New Zealand’s light touch labelling and classification system, which costs the industry around $2 million a year – less than a half of 1 per cent of industry revenue – and wonder, why is the entertainment industry complaining to the Government that it pays too much for labelling and classification?

$2 million is the direct cost. There are indirect costs also such as staff time, and delays in being able to sell immediately.

Big business also complains that New Zealand’s labelling and classification of films and shows is slow. That’s also untrue. Shows arriving from overseas have been examined and classified in a matter of hours – ensuring New Zealanders can enjoy them the same day as their overseas release.

That’s good to hear, but what is the average time?

Industry submissions on the Government’s recent discussion document “Content Regulation in a Converged World” provide a chorus of complaints over any official interference in their business.

But behind the industry’s smokescreen lies a desire for bigger profits. Every time an age restriction is applied to a film or programme, the potential audience gets smaller and the potential revenue for big business is cut – through, for example, reduced ticket sales or fewer subscriptions for on-demand content.

That’s why industry are currently lobbying the Government harder than ever before to be allowed to classify their own material. No doubt the entertainment industry’s profits would be even larger if the Government grants their wish. Other industries would also love preferential treatment.

This suggests it is a binary decision between Government regulation and industry classification.

As I understand it 99% of material has already been classified in the country it is produced. If it is a country we trust such as the US, UK, Australia, Canada or the EU then why not just use their ratings? How often does a NZ rating differ from the rating of the home country?

Stuff reports:

Wellington City Council is swapping law firms for a court battle over its living wage policy, after its usual lawyers warned it may be acting illegally.

Emails from council chief executive Kevin Lavery to councillors showed that its legal team for a judicial review was switching from DLA Piper to Simpson Grierson 

The council, which has been paying its own staff a living wage since 2013, voted in October to require its security services contractors do the same.

This was despite a report from Lavery saying DLA Piper had given legal advice that doing so could breach the the Local Government Act, which prohibits councils from paying more than necessary for services without any corresponding benefit.

They have no choice but to swap lawyers as their lawyers told them their actions would probably be illegal. They decided to ignore them and proceed anyway.

If the Council loses the judicial review, I believe the Councillors who voted to proceed against legal advice should be personally liable for the costs.

The Dom Post reports:

Even Paul Eagle can see the humour in his support of mayoral candidate Justin Lester after he had supported another candidate, Nicola Young, last year. 

Lester and Eagle, both Wellington City councillors, this week announced they would be standing on a joint Labour ticket as mayor and deputy mayor in the October local body elections.

It’s not Eagle’s first time at the joint ticket rodeo – last April he announced publicly he would back Young, despite her right-wing tendencies. 

He said the flip-flop wasn’t as bad as it might appear, but he could see the funny side. 

“At the time it was important to send a signal about change and there was no Labour candidate and no sign the party would stand a candidate,” he said. 

“In hindsight I should have gone to the party first.” 

Lester, 37, announced in December he would be running for mayor. He said he was not fazed by Eagle’s history and said Eagle was the best man to have by his side. 

“We love Wellington and we believe it’s time for fresh leadership,” he said. 

“We want a council that Wellingtonians have confidence in, one that clearly articulates its vision and has the skills to implement it.” 

Eagle, 44, said there was no bad blood between him and Young. 

“I still get along with her, which is important. 

“But when you belong to a political party you are part of that team.” 

He said he wouldn’t rule out being deputy mayor if Young was to be elected mayor and asked him. 

“That would be up to her.” 

Young said she wouldn’t rule it out either. 

“That’s a decision I will make once the votes are in,” she said. 

Young said Eagle remained a close colleague and friend. 

“Paul is a really good proactive councillor who I admire.” 

I’d say Paul will be Deputy Mayor regardless of who wins. Of course he really wants to be MP for Rongotai, and Annette wants him to be also. But now Little is Leader, they can’t stop him taking it.

Gareth Morgan writes:

During the recent TPP furore, Labour made much of the threat to Pharmac from American drug multinationals. And now, just weeks after signing the TPP, the greatest threat to our independent drug buyer comes from Labour itself. …

In 2009 we wrote Health Cheque – the truth we should all know about New Zealand’s public health system. This found that Pharmac was the envy of every health system in the world. The follow up Prescription for Change found that if anything the Pharmac approach – getting the politicians out of decision making and leaving it to the experts – should be expanded across the rest of the health sector.

Instead it is once again under threat from meddling politicians. …

It seems that every three elections Pharmac becomes an issue. Last time around it was the National Party in 2008 arguing for Herceptin to be funded. Late last year Health Minister Jonathan Coleman admitted that Prime Minister John Key had “made a mistake” over his promise to fund Herceptin. Of course back then National were in Opposition and wanted to win an election. This ensured Mr Key was impervious to the uproar over his Herceptin hypocrisy at the time. He was not making a mistake at all, it was pure politicking that led to his call to undermine Pharmac at that time.

Now it’s Andrew Little’s turn. Despite the Helen Clark Government holding the line on Herceptin in 2008, Mr Little is cynical enough to accuse Mr Key of being cycnical and in the same sentence then say that this melanoma drug Keytruda should be funded by Pharmac. He acknowledges that Pharmac is an independent body, but says that sometimes it needs to be overridden. Apparently it’s okay for the pot to call the kettle black.

When the heat comes on in politics, principles go out the window. – we need to all remember that when it comes to assessing the validity of politicians’ utterances.

Both National and Labour have erred here.

The focus by the media has gone on the effectiveness of Keytruda, using some anecdotes of early successes. Pharmac has responded that it is way too early to consider the long term efficacy of Keytruda and they will announce when they think they have enough data to make an informed decision.

The other side of the coin of course is cost. These drugs are hugely expensive, and so to meet Pharmac’s value of money criteria they need to be outstandingly effective. That is the harsh reality that melanoma sufferers – along with several other categories of cancer patients have to face. Pharmac has limited funds (now that is the role of the political process), and its job is to get the most health benefit from that as possible.

We need to bear in mind that Pharmac are negotiating with profit seeking companies here. The more politicians meddle with that, the more the drug companies will milk it. In other words if we keep throwing money at this problem, they will keep putting their prices up.

Yep.

Mr Little argued that there could be a separate fund for temporarily funding experimental new drugs while we work out if they are effective. This is a ridiculous idea. When in the history of government has it ever been able to stop funding a drug once they start? He also points out that other countries are funding Keytruda. Yes – and a host of other drugs besides, different countries have different funding models.

Keytruda is the first of many such next generation drugs that help people’s immune system to fight cancer – so their own immune system does the heavy lifting in getting rid of the cancer. All these drugs are going to be expensive, and the technology will take a while to be proven. We have to let Pharmac do its job, otherwise we will be having this conversation every few months, politicians will keep running interference in order to covet special interest votes, and our drugs bill will explode.

Unless taxpayers are happy to fund every drug on earth at any price, politicians need to get back in their cages, let Pharmac do its job of allocating the budget. The only political decision should be the size of their budget.

A rare post in which I agree with everything Gareth Morgan says.

Stuff reports:

Nine of every 10 gang members in New Zealand have received a benefit or other welfare, costing the country $525 million between 1993 and 2014, a new report reveals.

Sixty per cent of children born to gang parents were abused or neglected, the report, by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), also found.

In total, cycles of violence within gang families will cost New Zealand’s welfare system $714 million over their lifetimes.

The child abuse stat is very very sad, if not entirely surprising.

The challenge is not to demonise gangs, but to look at how one can can make gang life less attractive to its members or have gangs less involved in crime, more involved in work and less harmful to youth.

Police and Corrections Minister Judith Collins said gangs were a “huge driver” of child deaths and family violence, and tackling gangs would make a big difference to New Zealand’s poor record.

“If you…look at the number of people in jail, they are almost invariably victims of family violence themselves somewhere along the line, and that’s what breeds violence.

“If we’re going to really make a dent in those figures….and help people save their lives, we’re going to have to deal with those gangs.”

With the nationwide prison muster reaching record levels, and over 30 per cent of the prison population affiliated with a gang, Collins said the Government’s work could also help to reduce the prison population.

You can’t (and shouldn’t) outlaw gangs. As Collins says the cycle is often generational. If you can provide the right incentives for gang members to get legal jobs and away from crime, then their kids will have a better chance.

You can see KDS in full flight with comments on a You Tube video promoting a flag change. The highlights or lowlights are:

• These people are supporting the evil Jew who is withholding funding for the Melanoma wonder drug Pembrolizumab in order to pay for his precious flag. Shame shame shame on you!!!
• More “Dirty Politics”- You fascists never give up the ghost hahaha. #KOF. # Lose John ‘Wall St. ‘ Key!
• Don’t vote for the tea towel. This is a precursor to ratifying the TPPA. With the union jack on our flag, they can’t sell out our sovereignty to corporations because of a pre-existing agreement with the Crown.

Not sure what is worst – the racist anti-semite or the nutter who believes the design of our flag has some sort of legal force. It’s like moron meets stupid.

There are many good reasons to oppose changing the flag. Sadly there are many bad ones also.

The Herald reports:

A New York judge says the U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to locked iPhone data in a routine Brooklyn drug case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled Tuesday (NZ time). The decision follows a California magistrate judge’s order requiring Apple to create software to help the U.S. hack the iPhone of a shooter in the December 2 killing of 14 people in San Bernardino, California.

As different judges have made different rulings it seems inevitable it will be appealed to a Court of Appeals and if they differ, then eventually the Supreme Court.

The Telegraph reports:

The unnamed man has been targeting shoppers and commuters in Wolverhampton, where he been making the equivalent of £2,500 a week.

I’m away for the next four days tramping the Kepler Track in Fiordland. Will be a few pre-timed posts appearing but any breaking news is unlikely to be covered until Monday. Enjoy. I will be.

Stuff reports:

Award-winning investigative journalists Paula Penfold, Eugene Bingham and Toby Longbottom have joined Fairfax Media.

They add to the existing line-up of Fairfax investigative and special projects journalists around the country and their appointments reflect a focus on increased investment in high quality journalism, Fairfax executive editor Sinead Boucher said.

“Paula, Toby and Eugene are an exceptionally talented team who have created some of the most compelling journalism in New Zealand.

“Their flair for hard-hitting investigative journalism and innovative storytelling will be a real asset to our audiences and I am thrilled they have chosen to join forces with us.”

They are the team behind the three-year investigation into the Teina Pora miscarriage of justice case that exposed faults in key evidence in the case and was credited with helping him get released from prison and having his convictions quashed.

This is very good news – not just for the journalists concerned, but for Fairfax. As the commercial media model gets harder, the focus for many is on sensationalism and clickbait. Having some high quality investigative journalists who may spends weeks or months on a worthy story, rather than have to only focus on getting three stories done by 5 pm, is a good thing.

Trump has won seven, and maybe eight of the 11 states on Super Tuesday. It is hard to see him not ending up with the most delegates at the convention. However he may not get a majority.

The best chance of stopping him is to make it a two horse race. But as Rubio and Cruz both won states, they will both be in until at least Florida. If Rubio loses Florida, he may quit. But even if it becomes a two horse race, some of the votes of candidates dropping out may go to Trump. There is a path to victory for Rubio, and possibly Cruz, but it is a difficult one.

On the Democratic side it is almost all over. Sanders won four out of eleven and will stay in probably until Clinton gets a majority, but there is no credible path for him to beat her, unless she is charged by the FBI.

The current count on the Democratic side is Clinton 984 and Sanders 347. You need 2,383 for a majority. Clinton is 41% of the way there. Sanders would need to win 60% of the remaining delegates.

On the Republican side it is Trump 302, Cruz 142, Rubio 78, Kasich 24 and Carson 8. You need 1,237 to win so Trump is 24% of the way there.

Trump needs to get 49% of the remaining delegates to win. Cruz needs 57%, Rubio 60% and Kasich 63%.

The next dates for the Republicans are:

• 5th – Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine
• 6th – Puerto Rico
• 8th – Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan and Mississippi
• 12th – DC and Guam
• 15th – Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Mariana Islands, North Carolina and Ohio

The 15th is the next really significant date. It is where Rubio may live or die, and possibly the last chance to stop Trump.

Al Jazeera report:

A nanny beheaded a young girl in her care and brandished her severed head at a metro station in Moscow before being arrested at the scene.

The veiled woman, dressed in all black, shouted on Monday that she was “a terrorist”, but police said they suspect she is mentally unsound.

“According to preliminary information, the child’s nanny – a native of one of the Central Asian countries, born in 1977 – waited until the parents left the apartment with their elder child and – guided by unknown motives – killed the little one, set the apartment on fire and left the scene,” the police investigative committee said in a statement. …

Polina Nikolskaya, a reporter at the RBC daily newspaper, saw the women on the street. 

“She was standing near the metro entrance and caught my attention because she was screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’,” she told the Reuters news agency. 

This is why Donald Trump may win the Republican nomination. His policy to ban Muslim immigration is wrong and repulsive on multiple levels, but people are scared when they read stories like this. Now it seems she is mentally unwell, and may not even be that religious. But the sad reality is that for many people, the most scary two words they can hear is someone yelling out loudly “Allahu Akbar”.

News.com.au reports:

On Monday, NBNCo, the Government organisation tasked with creating one of Australia’s most ambitious — and at $46 billion, one of its most expensive — pieces of infrastructure, was forced to deny claims the project was heavily behind schedule.

According to Fairfax Media an “internal progress report” said the project was two-thirds short on its benchmark construction timetable, and had only approved connections to 663,000 premises, rather than the 1.4 million planned.

In a statement, the NBNCo said it had met or exceeded every key target for six quarters in a row. This included having 2.6 million homes “ready for service” by year’s end, one million homes using the network and more than $300 million in revenue.

The company said it would not be drawn on “alleged internal documents” but admitted, “this is an incredibly complex project unlike any infrastructure build anywhere in the world.”

The squabbling over how many homes have been connected and how much the project has cost is all a long way from the Coalition’s glittery launch of its NBN policy in 2013.

United on a Sydney stage, then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Mr Turnbull promised that the Coalition’s version of the NBN would, by this year, deliver minimum download speeds of 25 megabits per second, possibly as much as 100mbps, for just $30 billion. Hardly the kind of coin you find down the back of the sofa, but significantly less than the $44 billion Labor was predicting their system would cost.

“There will be billions of dollars that Labor has wasted that we cannot recover but we will save many billions of dollars, at least $60 billion, by taking the approach we have described,” said Mr Turnbull at the time.

Labor’s fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) proposal would take that fibre all the way to the home while the Coalition’s cost saving was to be made by cutting back on important chunks of infrastructure. Called fibre-to-the-node (FTTN), Turnbull’s NBN would see the fibre cables — a veritable motorway of data — halting on the street corner. The last leg would take all those tunes, films, images and Skype calls down the picturesque side road of the more limited copper network.

The latest audited circulation figures are out, and lots of change.

If we look just at the change in the past year, then those suffering double digit declines are the Dom Post and the two Fairfax Sunday papers. The Dom Post should be very concerned to lose one in seven subscriptions in a year. I do wonder if their new editorial stance is responsible for some of that.

NBR is the only paper to grow, but off a very small base. However better than shrinking. They also have a successful paywall model.

If one looks at the change since 2008, then the Herald on Sunday looks very good – actually growing 3.2%. The Sunday News has lost over two thirds of its circulation, the Dom Post and Press around one third and the Herald a quarter.

NewstalkZB reports:

The Labour Party’s made a last minute change, agreeing to support the Government’s legislation to end zero hour contracts.

The Maori Party and United Future remain unhappy with how the Employment Standards Bill has come back from Select Committee, particularly with what’s known as the availability clause, which leaves employees waiting around for work.

However, they would no longer be needed to get the bill through a vote.

Workplace Relations Minister Michael Woodhouse earlier said opposition parties misunderstood the legislation, and would be holding meetings to reassure them that the bill “is in very good shape”.

Labour leader Andrew Little said the back room meetings with the Government have produced change on the parts they were worried about.

“The rules around availability and short-notice termination of offers of short-term work, those are the areas we were concerned about.

“The original legislation looked like it was entrenching the worst aspects of zero-hours contracts.”

It wasn’t. The legislation was clearly getting rid of them, but if some clarifications have got Labour on board, that’s a good thing. Both parties agree with the principle that if an employee has no guaranteed hours, then they shouldn’t be able to be forced to work. In other words it should either be a genuinely casual contract (no obligations on ether side) or have a minimum hours guarantee in return for obligation of availability.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Has the Minister received advice on how many children’s lives would be saved and how many child hospital admissions would be prevented by a rental housing warrant of fitness; if yes, what are those figures?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, given the Student Loan Scheme Annual Report 2015 forecasts student loan debt will hit $15.458 billion this year?
3. MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing the New Zealand economy is strengthening and exports are diversifying despite uncertainty in the global economic outlook?
4. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Revenue: When was he first advised that employers owed $29.3 million in contributions to KiwiSaver accounts, and what action has he taken in response to this?
5. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What is the Government doing to increase log processing in New Zealand to maximise wealth for the regions that produce them?
6. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress is being made to train more of the skilled graduates needed by New Zealand’s growing ICT industry?
7. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Justice: Is she satisfied with all of the outcomes of her predecessor’s family law reforms?
8. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Housing: What announcements has she made about increasing emergency housing places in Auckland?
9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with his Government’s reported comments that it is unrealistic for New Zealand’s rivers to be swimmable all the time, and does he think that represents an acceptable and aspirational vision for New Zealand’s waterways?
10. DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What has been the return on equity for Landcorp over the past three years?
11. MEKA WHAITIRI to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he believe the recent consultation hui on Te Ture Whenua Māori Reform has given him a mandate for land reform; if so, why?
12. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership support new and emerging primary industries?

National: Four questions on the economy, ICt industry, Aucklanfd housing and TPP

Labour: Four questions on student debt, KiwiSaver, family law reforms, and Te Ture Whenua Māori Reform

Greens: Two questions on rental properties and water

NZ First: One question on log precessing

ACT: One question on Landcorp

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

12 speeches of five minutes each for a maximum of one hour.

Private Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm

• Introduced: July 2015
• 1st reading: August 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: December 2015, supported unanimously

Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill describes the relationship between Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board, the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and tangata whenua of Wairarapa and establishes a more robust nomination process of board members; provides a fairer distribution of funds for tangata whenua of Wairarapa; and facilitates the long-term development of lands. It is in the name of Wairarapa MP Alistair Scott.

• Introduced: December 2015

Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill

This bill will repeal the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002, which is now spent. It is in the name of Nicky Wagner.

• Introduced: December 2015

Members’ Bill 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Stuff reports:

A third resignation has rocked National Party ranks in MP Todd Barclay’s Clutha-Southland electorate.

The party’s electorate chairman Stuart Davie resigned on Sunday evening.

He said on Monday it was “untenable” for him to carry on at this time.

Davie declined to comment further, but his departure raises further questions about 25-year-old Barclay’s relationship with his staff and party members in his electorate.

Davie’s resignation follows on the heels of Barclay’s Gore-based senior electorate agent Glenys Dickson resigning this month, with a party figure saying it was due to an “employment problem” between Dickson and Barclay.

Dickson was a respected figure in the electorate and her departure is understood to have caused disquiet among many people in National Party ranks.

I don’t know anything beyond what has been reported, but fair to say not a good look. They may all be unconnected, but regardless would be very unhelpful to have any further departures.