An interesting graphic from Bloomberg showing how fast social change has happened in the US on various issues.

Inter-racial marriage bans took 180 years to abolish, with around 35 states doing so until the Supreme Court ruled in 1967.

Prohibition took 75 years to get over-turned.

It took around 30 years from the first state to allow women the vote, to the 20th amendment.

It took only a few years for states to start allowing abortion, before Roe v Wade in 1973. arguably that is still so hotly contested as federal action occurred at a time when less than 20 states allowed it.

Same sex marriage has gone from 0 to 36 states in just a few years. And we will get a Supreme Court decision on it this year.

The final results for the UK election are:

1. Conservatives 331 (+24)
2. Labour 232 (-26)
3. SNP 56 (+50)
4. Lib Dems 8 (-49)
5. DUP 8
6. Sinn Fein 4 (-1)
7. Plaid Cymru 3
8. SDLP 3
9. UUP 2 (+2)
10. UKIP 1 (+1)
11. Greens 1
12. Others 1
13. Alliance 0 (-1)

Now looking at that you might think the Conservatives won their seats off Labour and the SNP off the Lib Dems. But far more complicated. Here are the seat changes:

1. SNP won 40 seats off Labour
2. Conservatives won 27 seats off the Lib Dems
3. Labour won 12 seats off the Lib Dems
4. Conservatives won 10 seats off Labour
5. SNP won 10 seats off the Lib Dems
6. Labour won 8 seats off the Conservatives
7. UKIP won 1 seat off the Conservatives
8. UUP won 1 seat off the DUP
9. UUP won 1 seat off Sinn Fein
10. DUP won 1 seat off the Alliance

So Conservatives gained a net two seats directly off Labour.

The Lib Dems lost 27 seats to the Conservatives, 12 to Labour and 10 to the SNP.

And the SNP took 40 off Labour.

They key to the Conservatives getting a majority was that they won so many seats off the Lib Dems, and Labour failed to pick up (net) seats from the Conservatives.

Stuff reports:

A Christchurch mother is fighting an “archaic, discriminatory and sexist” clean-shaven rule that meant her 16-year-old son has been banned from school for more than a week.

Kay Peebles says her high-achieving year 12 son was sent home from Hornby High School about noon on April 30 and told not to come back until he removed his facial stubble. Its school rules state that pupils must be clean-shaven.

How is it sexist? I’m pretty sure a girl with a beard would be told to shave it also!

Kids his age could drive or decide to be parents, she said, “but are treated like kindergarteners when it comes to their facial hair”.

If you don’t like the rules, go elsewhere.

Correspondence school was not an option, since he had not been suspended or expelled, and she said the more liberal Hagley College did not have room on its roll.

He’s in Year 12 and presumably has been there for four years,knowing the rules. They could have enrolled him in Hagley College from the beginning, rather than try a mid-year transfer.

She had contacted various agencies for help but while she waited for responses, her son was not in school.

“The dead ends have made it clear it doesn’t matter how good your grades or behaviour is, if you have a hairy face you will forfeit an education, a facist rule,” she said.

Does she mean facist or fascist? Either way, rather silly.

Labour is against work for the dole, but they are promoting enrol for the dole!

The Herald reports:

Labour has proposed withholding state support such as tax credits and Working For Families from people who are not enrolled to vote.

The measure could be justified if it lifts New Zealand’s low voter turnout, the party says.

So no welfare payments if you don’t enrol.

Labour has strongly criticised National for linking state support to obligations, including requiring beneficiaries to take pre-employment drug tests, and potentially cutting benefits if parents do not have children in early childhood education.

You don’t need to work for the dole but you do need to enrol they’re saying!

Low voter turnout tends to hurt the left more. In 2011, about 39,000 people were on the electoral roll in Mangere, whose voters favour Labour, compared to 48,000 in National stronghold Epsom.

That difference is not just about enrolment rates. Electorates have roughly the same number of people, but not the same number of adults. Mangere is an area with many more children than Epson, so hence they have less adults living there eligible to enrol.

As you can see the UK pre-election polls were wrong. Quite massively wrong. The Conservatives beat Labour by 6% and have won a clear majority. Only one poll of of the several dozen in the last few weeks got close to this. The poll were near unanimous that the Conservatives and Labour would be tied in the vote, and Conservatives would get only a few more seats. Instead they got 98 more.

So why were the polls do wrong? Not one poll, but almost all of them. There three broad plausible explanations – which are not mutually exclusive.

1 – People lie to the pollsters

Someone tweeted that the British have shown the one thing they’re really good at is lying to their pollsters.  A more polite version of this is what the Guardian calls Shy Tories. People don’t like to admit they are voting for a party. One has seen this in the US when one candidate is African-American. Also in NZ to a degree where I suspect one of the reasons NZ First often exceeds the polls, is people don’t like to admit they are voting for them.

But I think it is unlikely this explains most or even much of what happened.

2 – People change their mind

Either the undecideds decide to vote a certain way disproportional to the already decideds, or some decideds change their mind. One reason for this is tactical voting. This is why ACT keep winning Epsom despite poll after poll showing them behind. People only get tactical at the last minute.

Major newspapers published guides as to how to tactically vote to maximise the outcome for your preferred PM. This could have had quite an impact.

However while I think this may have been some of it, I don’t think it was the major factor. Even in seats where there was no ability to vote tactically (no major third party), you saw the Conservatives pick up seats off Labour.

3 – Turnout was different

Turnout was higher than expected in many areas. If one side does better at turning out their supporters, this can have a big impact.

In NZ the impact of Dotcom was to so enrage Government supporters, they advance voted in record numbers – determined to keep him out.

If you look at the motivations to vote in the UK for Conservative and Labour voters, they were quite different. Conservative voters had a pretty strong motivation to vote to keep Ed Miliband out, and to stop a party which wants to dissolve the United Kingdom, from holding the balance of power. A Mliband Government propped up by the SNP was very scary to many.

However if you are a Labour supporter, your best outcome was a Labour minority government that could only govern with the SNP’s votes. This is hardly motivating stuff.

So I suspect (we’ll know more as we get more data) that the major difference was turnout.

Of some interest is that in several elections now, it has been the more right wing parties that have exceeded their polls. In Israel Likud did massively better than the polls, as did the Conservatives in the UK. In the 2014 US mid-terms the Republicans did far better in the Senate than projected. And even in NZ National did better than the polls (but within margin of error). I’m not saying this is significant – just that it could be. Or it could just be chance. In one Victorian state election the Liberal Party did far far worse than the polls, and in NZ in 2011 National did a bit worse than the polls. But

Stuff reports:

A row has broken out between Nepal and some international agencies over the handling of aid that poured into the country after last month’s devastating earthquake, with each side blaming the other for confusion and delays in getting help to victims.

Relief efforts have been slow to reach many people affected by Nepal’s worst disaster in more than 80 years, leaving an unknown number of people stranded, injured and hungry for days.

The 7.8 magnitude quake, which struck 10 days ago, has killed more than 7500 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless.

Relief material initially piled up at the airport as Nepalese customs officials checked each crate that came in so commercial goods did not slip through.

Senior government officials said customs checks were necessary, because they did not know what was coming into the country.

That’s idiotic. You’ve had a major disaster and people are dying waiting for relief. What is more important? Even if a small amount of commercial goods did slip through, what is the impact of that compared to delaying vital supplies at the border for days and days?

Supplies included goods that Nepal did not need and many relief workers arrived without proper documents to enter the country, complicating efforts to move the aid effort along, officials said.

Again, so what? Again what is the bigger problem – a few forms not filled in, or getting relief workers in quickly to where they are needed?

The Nepalese Government is generally known to be incompetent, but this takes things to a new level.

The ODT reports:

The embattled Southern District Health Board has approved a 15-year deal with a multinational corporation for food services after facing down an acrimonious public at a board meeting in Dunedin yesterday. …

The move is expected to save about $466,666 every year for 15 years.

Those who are fighting this move are actually advocating for fewer people to get healthcare such as surgery.

There is a fixed amount available for each DHB. There is no magic money tree. The more money a DHB saves on administration and support services, the more they have available for doctors, nurses, operations etc.

I’m very glad to see a DHB making a hard decision and putting the interest of patients over the interests of the union.

Stuff reports:

The pay may be good, but many of our MPs face death threats and attacks on their homes, staff and families.

A study based on an anonymous survey of 102 sitting MPs found nearly all of them had been subjected to unwanted harassment. More than one in 10 had been assaulted, and a similar number had been stalked, or had received deaths threats.

One in three had suffered property damage at the hands of angry constituents, and half had been physically confronted by their harassers. Most had been harassed more than once.

Sadly this study doesn’t surprise me. Quite a few mentally ill people get obsessed with an MP, or MPs, and bizarre threatening things.

When I worked in the PMs Office, I would often see crazy letters alleging various MPs were aliens etc. I actually wanted to collate them and publish a book of the 100 craziest letters sent to MPs.

One received 1080 poison in the mail, another had their back door smashed and a bullet thrown through the window of their family home, terrifying their daughter and partner.

Attacks have involved a gun, a molotov cocktail, sticks and placards.

The authors of the study have called for better monitoring of threats to MPs, warning they are often lightning rods for a small group of severely mentally ill people who pose a serious risk to the public at large.

Sensible.

Conservation and Housing Minister Nick Smith has endured several death threats. In 2005, someone blew up his caravan with a molotov cocktail, while his young children were inside the family house nearby.

“My daughter had a lot of nightmares at the time, it was pretty dramatic,” he said.

“It’s one of those things that discourages people from choosing a career in the public light.”

He has also been threatened by people saying they would attack his family with a chainsaw, and poison his children with 1080.

I recall in the mid 90s a pharmaceutical lobby group ran an aggressive campaign against the Government over drug funding policies, with ads exhorting people claiming people would die and urging letters to the then Health Minister. Some of those letters were vile, including a threat to inject his children with AIDs.

MPs UNDER ATTACK

2012:  A Canterbury earthquake refugee living at Waikanae Beach was charged with threatening to kill Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee and an unnamed parliamentary staffer.

2011:  A Palmerston North man was found guilty of threatening to kill Prime Minister John Key and his wife. The diagnosed schizophrenic said he would become a suicide bomber and blow the PM up because he was “attempting to poison everyone”.

2009:  Key’s Helensville electorate office was attacked with a firebomb, and a staff member’s car was deliberately damaged.

2007: Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove’s life threatened on a website after he said he would crack down on boy racers.

2007:  Green MP Sue Bradford received a death threat over her anti-smacking bill.

2005: National MP Nick Smith’s caravan was destroyed in a molotov cocktail attack.

The threats are bad enough, but the attacks by firebombs are of course even worse.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand-born businessman and rich-lister Stephen Jennings has launched defamation action against Fairfax Media and a senior journalist.

Jennings, estimated to be worth around $950 million according to the National Business Review, was once seen as the country’s richest man. …

In March, Fairfax Media – which owns stuff.co.nz and a string of newspapers around New Zealand – published a story written by senior journalist Michael Field about Jennings’ business activities in Russia and Kenya.

Around a week later Fairfax published a retraction and apology which said the article “may have been interpreted as implying that Mr Jennings’ business activities in those countries were unethical and open to criticism”.

“It also implied that Mr Jennings was a business rival to Bill Browder, a well known American businessman, and wanted to destroy him.

Stuff.co.nz accepts that none of these statements or implications have any factual basis or legitimacy,” the retraction said.

“No attempt was made to contact Mr Jennings prior to publication, and we accept that had we done so, the article would not have contained those statements or implications.”

I recall at the time thinking this was the most grovelling retraction I’d seen. They must have realised how badly they had stuffed up.

If it proceeds to court, it will be an interesting case. It could cost Fairfax a lot of money, but they tend to have defamation insurance, so in fact their insurer is the one who ends up getting pinged.

News.com.au reports:

Tony Abbott has become embroiled in an ugly diplomatic incident that’s seen his office accused of being homophobic after an Australian Ambassador’s same-sex partner was told to “wait in the car” rather than greet the Prime Minister on his arrival to Paris.

Following Anzac Day centenary commemorations in Gallipoli, Mr Abbott flew to a private airport in Paris where he was to be greeted by Stephen Brady, the Ambassador to France.

Mr Brady’s partner of 34 years, Peter Stephens, was reportedly told he wouldn’t be part of the welcoming party on the tarmac by a protocol officer, much to the upset of the Ambassador who refused the request and had Mr Stephens accompany him as the RAAF plane arrived.

The “bizarre” incident caused so much offence to the career diplomat he was said to be “literally screaming” at the protocol officer who delivered the request, according to Fairfax, and he later offered his resignation over the incident.

The media are painting this as Abbott being so homophobic that he couldn’t even bear to have a same sex partner meet him. But Andrew Bolt provides details many media left out:

Mr Abbott hosted a farewell dinner for Mr Brady and Mr Stephens when the couple left Canberra to take up the Paris job.  The prime minister also invited them to a staff dinner in Paris on April 26.

So Abbott had specifically hosted them for a farewell dinner in Canberra. So what happened:

the order was not driven by homophobia but – I am informed – a fussy insistence of the usual protocol, that the prime minister travelling alone is met by the Ambassador without partner. Only when the Prime Minister is accompanied by his wife is he greeted by the Ambassador with his partner, too.

Now it may be a silly protocol, but it is the protocol. It has nothing to do with Abbott or the sex of the partner. But most people in Australia will have no idea of this.

Bolt notes:

Hartcher’s suggestion of homophobia is based on zero evidence, and is on the face of it is preposterous. Hartcher seriously believes the Prime Ministers gets someone to ring ahead to make sure no gays greet him at the airport? Really?

Demented.

The Herald reports:

Housing Minister Nick Smith is reminding Auckland Council of Government’s power to override local government if it does not co-operate on speeding up the supply of affordable housing.

The construction of between 2000 to 3000 homes in northwest Auckland has hit a roadblock after Auckland Council refused consents for three special housing areas.

The council wanted central government to first commit to improving transport infrastructure at the greenfield sites before there was any further growth in the region.

So the Auckland Council wants taxpayers in Dunedin to pay for their local roads in Auckland?

The Council gains significant revenue from new sub-divisions. They get a one off from developer fees (and these have increased massively) and they get rates income from new properties. These fees and rates are to pay for local infrastructure.

If the Auckland Council tries to extort money from the rest of us for their core responsibilities, the Government should tell them where to go.

The Guardian reports:

The Independent newspaper has backed the continuation of a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government if Thursday’s general election produces the expected hung parliament.

In a verdict that took many Westminster observers by surprise, the newspaper said in an editorial that a minority Labour administration reliant on the support of the SNP would be “a disaster for the country”.

Not only did Ed Miliband’s opposition appear “unready for government” in too many policy areas, there would be “justified fury” if nationalists seeking the breakup of the UK were to hold sway, it said.

This is unexpected.

Most UK newspapers endorse the party that reflects their readership and ideology.

But The Independent is regarded as coming from the centre-left. For them to endorse the Conservatives as well as the Lib Dems is significant. But not sure how much weight endorsements carry.

Results should start to be known from around now onwards.

Claire Trevett writes in the NZ Herald:

This is where Labour comes in, apparently determined to sabotage the process. Labour is a relatively pro-republic party in which most MPs favour a change of flag. Despite that, it has set about political point-scoring, even if doing so undermines the very process that might result in that flag change.

Their primary objection is the order of the questions in the referendums. They argue New Zealanders should first be asked whether they want a change – and have a second referendum only if the majority want change.

Labour claims it is an effort to save money. What codswallop. Labour’s objections are an effort to rain on the Prime Minister’s parade and get headlines.

The Ministry of Justice advised against putting the change question first. That was because for many people not entrenched in either camp, the final decision will depend on what the alternative is.

Absolutely. I made this point to the select committee. The proposed question is Do you want this flag or this flag – a simple binary choice between two flags. Labour want it to be Do you want to change the flag, without defining what the change is.This is not about asking Do you prefer Flag A to Flag B, but do you think Flag B is a bad flag. They’re quite different questions.

If we’re going to spend money on a referendum, it should be one with a meaningful question, not a meaningless one.

Had the Government gone against that advice, Labour would probably now be accusing it of penny pinching over a matter of national identity. Labour’s approach is rather selfish and short-sighted and if it has the effect of tainting the entire process, the party might rue it.

Labour short-sighted? Never.

Labour has also taken to feeding the perception that it is a “vanity project” for John Key. This primarily comes down to sour grapes. Labour wants a new flag. But they don’t want Key to be the one whose name is linked to it. They want it for themselves.

Indeed.

Questioning referendums is one thing, but trying to influence people’s votes out of puerile political spite is a different matter. It may be true that Key is keen on a legacy, but it should be irrelevant. The referendums are on the flag, not on the political parties or personalities.

In reality, Key has a better chance of securing the change than Labour would. Key is a monarchist so there is far less suspicion about his longer-term motives. It is not being seen as the thin end of the wedge to republicanism. Labour’s current leader, Andrew Little, favours a flag change as part of a wider move towards a republic. Yet NZ is likely to inch towards republicanism rather than gallop.

The referendums will allow New Zealanders an opportunity to vote on the design of our flag for the first time in our history. A real pity that Labour are trying to prevent this.

The referendum process is now before a select committee and the Flag Consideration Panel has started its work of consulting about an alternative. This is the first chance New Zealanders have had to vote on the flag. The politicians would do New Zealand a favour by simply shutting up and letting the public get on with it for themselves.

Instead you had the farcical sight of MPs such as Trevor Mallard and Winston Peters lining up to submit to the select committee (I was scheduled in between them!), despite the fact they get to debate the bill at the four House considerations. Peters demanded he gets more time than every one else, which delayed things so much other submitters were told that they had to come back another day – despite having been scheduled on, and taken time off work.

Time indeed for the politicians to allow the public their say.

Stuff reports:

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully has told MPs not to attend events involving the controversial spiritual movement Falun Gong later this month because the Chinese Embassy will monitor them and lodge official protests.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice, circulated by McCully’s office, was aimed at National MPs but leaked after it was sent in error to other MPs. “Given the sensitivities of this event, MFAT advice to ministers and MPs should not attend World Falun Dafa Day events,” the email said.

It is one things for Ministers not to attend, as they represent the Government, but I think it is not appropriate to warn off backbench MPs.

I have no liking for Falun Gong. But the more China demonises them, the more it makes me want to support them.

The ODT reports:

Prime Minister John Key has rejected calls by Labour to stand down a minister whose brother is facing indecency charges.

Mr Key said the minister informed him on April 1 about the charges and offered to stand down.

The Prime Minister sought advice from the Cabinet Office as to whether a conflict of interest existed.

He said “further, deeper advice” was sought by the Cabinet Office and that advice confirmed there was no conflict of interest.

He would not say where the further advice came from but it could have been from the Solicitor General, a QC, an academic or another specialist in such matters. “I am quite confident the position is correctly assessed and thorough,” Mr Key said. …

Labour leader Andrew Little said if the public thought there was a conflict of interest, then the Prime Minister should act accordingly.

“If a family member is embroiled in an issue which may be seen by the public as conflict of interest, the Prime Minister must take every action required as soon as possible.”

Once again Andrew Little is wrong, and it is very disappointing he uses the fact a sibling of a politician has been charged as a way to score political points.

Most people accept you should not stand down a Minister because a family member has done something wrong. Would you argue John Tamihere should not have been a Minister because his brother was in jail for murder? No.

Now a few have argued that it is different if the Minister holds a portfolio in the justice sector, such as Justice, Police, Corrections etc. Again, they are wrong. They are not wrong that it may create a conflict that needs managing, but they are absolutely wrong that the way you manage that is by the Minister standing down.

Let’s say the person charged is the brother of the Minister of Justice. Should they stand down because their brother has been charged? Well if you stand down the Minister of Justice because their brother has been prosecuted, then you’re saying that they may have been able to interfere in the case if they had not stood down.

Now that is wrong. The Police and Crown Law have statutory independence in their functions (apart from a few small areas where the Attorney-General plays a role). No Minister can interfere in decisions around police investigations, charges, bail, prosecutions, trials, convictions, sentencing, or parole.

The proof of an independent justice system is when (as has happened here) the Police can and do investigate the sibling of a cabinet minister, and do decide to prosecute them and charge them. The fact this happens while the Minister remains in office is a strength, not a weakness.

If a minister who holds a portfolio in the justice sector has a family member charged with an offence, the only thing that needs to be done is to make sure that the Minister is not briefed or in the loop in any way on the prosecution. As Ministers are not briefed on such things anyway, that should not be difficult.

Let’s hold Ministers responsible for what they do. Not for what family members may do.

The Greens “starved” themselves on Tuesday because their latest prediction is that people will starve as food becomes unaffordable globally.

A reader pointed out to me that the UN FAO has in fact recorded food prices have been massively dropping in the last four years.

In fact food prices have dropped every month for the last 15 months!

This is of course a crisis, and requires us to shoot one in five cows, in order to stop this starvation.

Stuff reports:

First they pushed to tax soft drinks. Now public health advocates want a salt tax slapped on everything from hot chips to cheese.

In a paper published in the Plos One international journal, Otago University of Wellington academics, including health experts and economists, argue we need to be weaned off our salt-heavy diet.

This could include limiting supply of salt, enforcing salt reductions, or taxing the ingredient before it is even added to your food.

The food industry has quickly bagged the proposals, claiming they would hit the poorest hardest.

“The same academics have called for fat taxes, sugar taxes and now a tax on salt. These are all regressive taxes that hit the poor hardest,” Food & Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich said.

Won’t stop there. There is no end to the things they want to tax or ban.

But associate professor Nick Wilson, a co-author of the report, said by reducing salt consumption of the average New Zealander from 1.5 to 1 teaspoon a day, people could gain decades of life and save the health system $1.1 billion over a generation.

Note the could. In reality it won’t reduce salt consumption at all, and just result in hundreds of millions in new taxes to fund the public health activists.

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman said he had not yet seen the research, but added:  “We have no plans to introduce a salt tax. We see the Government’s role as providing information and support for people on healthy eating.

Indeed.

Also the Taxpayers’ Union calculated:

Research by the Taxpayers’ Union indicates that the $450 million tax revenue suggested by Otago University Associate Professor Nick Wilson from a salt tax would result in a 2,500% increase in the price of salt for Kiwi consumers.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, says:

“The vast majority of the salt manufactured in New Zealand is used for pharmaceutical and agricultural purposes, with only around 30,000 tonnes being used for food products. Professor Wilson’s $450 million over 30,000 tonnes is $15,000 in tax per tonne. A tonne of food grade salt is currently worth around $600 in the wholesale market.”

Sigh.

The Herald reports:

Auckland councillors have voted 15-7 for a 9.9 per cent rates increase for households from July.

Earlier, the Council released the full details of rates rises, showing the overall rates rise for households is 9.9 per cent.

Overall rates will rise by 6.9 per cent, but because of valuations and a move to lower business rates the effect on households is higher.

This is a fiscally incontinent Council that must be sacked. The 15 who voted for a 9.95 increase should be targeted for removal at the next election.

The details show the impact of a flat targeted rate to top up spending on transport will hit the poorest suburbs in Auckland hard.

And from a Council controlled by the left.

Here’s the increase by suburb, in order from biggest to smallest:

• Mangere-Otahuhu 16.9%
• Kaipatiki 16.1%
• Whau 15.7%
• Albert-Eden 14.9%
• Maungakiekie-Tamaki 14.9%
• Puketepapa 14.5%
• Otara-Papatoetoe 12.2%
• Henderson-Massey 11.6%
• Howick 9.9%
• Upper Harbour 9.9%
• Manurewa 9.5%
• Orakei 8.5%
• Devonport-Takapuna 7.9%
• Waitemata 7.7%
• Hibiscus and Bays 6.3%
• Waitakere Ranges 5.4%
• Franklin 4.4%
• Papakura 3.3%
• Rodney -1.4%
• Waiheke -2.8%
• Great Barrier -13%

So Mangere and Otahuhu up 17%, Otara up 12%. And this comes from the people who cry about struggling families and poverty. This is a Council chaired by a Labour Party member, that has just hit the poorest residents with a 17% rates increase.

Shameful.

UPDATE: The guilty Councillors are:

• Len Brown
• Penny Hulse
• Penny Webster
• Arthur Anae
• Cathy Casey
• Bill Cashmore
• Linda Cooper
• Chris Darby
• Alf Filipaina
• Chris Fletcher
• Mike Lee
• Calum Penrose
• Wayne Walker

The seat forecast site I use the most is May 2015. They have their own forecast and also list five other ones.

Here’s what their final pre-election forecast is:

• Conservatives 273 (33.6%)
• Labour 268 (33.3%)
• SNP 56 (4.4%)
• Lib Dems 28 (8.8%)
• DUP 8
• Sinn Fein 5
• SDLP 3
• Plaid Cymru 3
• UKIP 2 (13.4%)
• Greens 1 (4.8%)
• George Galloway 1

Of the 650 seats, you need 326 to govern. But Sinn Fein tend not to vote or turn up so of 645 votes in play you need 323.

If we look at rough blocs you have:

Right – Conservatives 273 + DUP 8 + UKIP 2 = 283

Left – Labour 268 + SNP 56 + SDLP 3 + Plaid Cymru 3 + Greens 1 + Galloway 1 = 332

Centre – Lib Dems 28

Labour is definitely in a preferred position. Even if the Conservatives get Lib Dems support they are 311 – 12 seats short. They need to beat the poll predictions by 12 seats.

Labour can’t govern without SNP support. Without them they are 276 and even f Lib Dems support are 304.

The SNP has said they will not vote confidence in a Conservative government. Labour have said they will not do any deal with SNP, either coalition or confidence and supply. So SNP has to back a Labour Govt even if no policy deal, or force another election.

It is interesting to consider what the result would be if the UK had proportional representation. Based on the polls, a proportional Parliament (excluding 18 Irish seats) would be:

• Conservatives 212 (vs 273)
• Labour 210 (vs 268)
• UKIP 85 (vs 2)
• SDP 56 (vs 29)
• Greens 30 (vs 1)
• SNP 27 (vs 56)
• Others 11

So a proportional system would see UKIP gain the most, followed by Greens and SDP. The losers would be the SNP, Conservatives and Labour.

However a Conservative government would be more likely, as the blocs would be:

Right – Conservatives 212 + UKIP 85 = 297

Left – Labour 210 + SNP 27 + Greens 30 = 267

Centre – Lib Dems 56

It will be interesting to see the results tomorrow. I’ll be at the UK High Commission and will do a bit of blogging and tweeting during the day. As it is FPP, you should take the projections with caution. There are rarely national swings, and while there has been a lot of electorate polling, some of this is now quite dated. Also turnout motivation may be higher on the right – to stop the SNP having the balance of power.

Jonathan Coleman announced:

An extra $98 million will be invested in Budget 2015 to provide more New Zealanders with timely elective surgery, and to improve the prevention and treatment of orthopaedic conditions, Health Minister Jonathan Coleman says.

“Access to elective surgery is a top priority for the Government. Elective surgery makes a real difference to patients and their families – it reduces pain, increases independence, and improves quality of life,” Dr Coleman says.

“The number of patients receiving elective surgery has increased from 118,000 in 2007/08 to 162,000 in 2013/14. That’s 44,000 more operations – a 37 per cent increase.

Considering the fiscal circumstances of the last few years, that’s a very significant increase. There will always be unmet demand, but there has been significant extra funding over the years to increase capacity.

Liam Hehir writes:

More recently, however, traditionalists have also been bolstered by a growing force within the political Left: Key Derangement Syndrome.

This is a case of strange bedfellows in many ways, because those who loathe Key are also apt to resent the supposed colonial overtones of the Blue Ensign.

What has become clear, however, is that for many self-styled progressives, this concern simply cannot compete with the desire to thwart the Prime Minister.

Correctly perceiving that a new flag would be the visible legacy of his premiership, Key’s detractors are not going to let consistency get in the way of attempting to frustrate him.

Former advocates of state profligacy have been transformed into guardians of the public purse, criticizing the cost of the referendums.

People usually obsessed on the minutiae of Wellington politics now condemn symbolic navel gazing about our identity as a distraction from the things that really matter.

Of course, those positions will naturally change if the next Labour Prime Minister wants a new flag.

It has been interesting watching many on the left become determined to prevent a successful referendum on changing the flag – simply because John Key proposed it. You know that if Helen Clark had proposed it, they’d be praising her for her nationbuilding efforts.