Kick er in the guts, it'll kick back.

No. Despite what those at the top - like yourself (and a certain Mr. Henry) - tend to believe, New Zealander's are not stupid Mr. Farrar.

Things are not as they seem. New Zealanders are hanging onto National by a thread. They're not clinging to the right-wing party they voted in, they're clinging to the hope inherit in the image National painted. And National better deliver.

I hope that our government shows more concern for democracy and the wellbeing of our citizenry than you do. You have openly endorsed a government to follow radical policies on which they were not elected. Policies which New Zealanders are tired of, which have proven to be destructive, and which would ultimately just make you richer.

You attempt to legitimize your position by saying "I don't mean do stuff you (National) said you would not do". Unfortunately that still leaves pretty much everything on the table, including what David Cunliffe calls 'p' word: privatization. National's pre-election policies were a lolly scramble of "er, well yes, we'll get to that when we get to that. But hey, economic growth!". By not saying what they would do, there is nothing National said they would not do. As far as privatization is concerned, the rhetoric from Key has been "I have never said I am philosophically opposed to asset sales. It does not form a part of the government agenda for this term."

The reality is that should John Key at any time even snore "privatisation" in his sleep, he would drop dramatically in the polls. New Zealanders are not stupid.

I used to think they were, to be honest. But I have been proven wrong. They think hard about issues. They are a decent, hopeful, and faithful people. They are not a nation of people who - as you presume - simply do not listen to the opposition ("the public is not listening to [Labour]"). We cannot assume New Zealanders are so ignorant to not listen to the opposition. They are listening, but Labour is not being heard. Instead of blaming the public perhaps we should - for once - hold those whose job it is to be the communicators and interpreters responsible.

New Zealanders are not stupid. They are waiting to see if National delivers on the change it promised and, more importantly the change they believed they were voting for. They are waiting for Phil Goff to "come out of his shell" and "develop". The vote is not weighing to National at the moment because they're doing such a standup job. It is stuck in a holding pattern: status quo until we see how this lot turn out.

So, Mr Farrar, you have given your endorsement for a democratically elected government to exploit the votes and faith of the people and follow a radical agenda. If this is what you long for, fuck off to Zimbabwe.

Actually, you know what? Let National follow these radical policies you are so eager for, let them test the intelligence and sensibilities of the nation. Go on, "rev it up, and take it out for a spin". Let's see how long they last when private companies begin drilling in Fiordland. Let us see if your audacity is sustainable then. I, unlike you, understand that everything - wealth, the environment, the economy - is temporary. There is nothing you can accomplish from this other than gifting National a very short spell in office.

So let them off the leash and privatize away. Make your money my friend... I'll enjoy watching the shit fall from a great height.

Confessions of a Pollster: Fear

Another night on the phones, and a depressing one. There is nothing to get you down more than a night of "Keys... Keys again... erm, well, I hope Keys..." after every question.

When I first heard Thom Yorke's The Eraser in 2006, I began to feel the negative energy that must have been brewing in the UK after the beginning of the Iraq War and as Blair's career begin to spiral downwards in a maelstrom of secrets and conspiracies. Especially on the track Harrowdown Hill, which questions the 'suicide' of UN Weapons Inspector Dr. David Kelly, I began to understand the darkness of an untruthful conservative world and the dangers of a suppressed public, unable to control the actions of their government.

I am starting to feel this in New Zealand for the first time. The energy coming from the right is vitriolic, threatening, and - especially when considering environmental issues - harmful beyond repair. It is the energy of fear, the same aura which turn the public towards the Conservative vote to begin with. I'm beginning to feel it every time I hang up the phone. Those who have experienced a National government before (I was too young in the nineties) will probably tell me that this is to be expected.

In the polls, I hear people say 'National', but not as certainly as the media would have you think, and more importantly, you can sense the persons fear. They are hanging onto their vote with a thread of hope. They are not receiving the change they believed they were voting for. I have warmth towards the New Zealand public for displaying patience and hope, but despair at the dead end we ultimately face. I am beginning to understand that the New Zealand centre is not one ultimately leaning to the right, it is the establishment that is grounded to the right, and the vote is easily led that way by fear. I have known this for some time in theory, but this is my first real life experience of it.

The sad thing is, there is more of this to come. Back to the phones tonight.

Confessions of a Pollster

Without saying too much, I will state now that polls are extremely easy to bias towards any party or individual in a way that is veiled when the results are viewed on the six o'clock news. For now, I have three insights:

1) Questions based on policy to receive a desired answer

Many questions are designed to receive an obvious answer. That is, the citizen stating a Party or individual in response to the question, regardless of whether or not they would vote for them. Many of these questions are focussed around party policy. For example, let's pretend in a hypothetical poll that somebody is asked 'who do you trust to lower tax rates?'. Based purely on policy the answer is always going to be John Key and National (or ACT, but people tend to focus on the major parties in polls), even if the individual had not voted for National in 2008 and had no intention to 2011. Yet, their answer counts towards John Key and his poll numbers look happier on the news. I would find this phenomenon much more fascinating should I encounter the question "who do you think is more likely to sell off state assets to foreign and private organizations?" You tell me what the difference is.

2) Polls veil hesitancy

In my experience a great number of 'pollees' have displayed enormous hesitancy when answering questions where a choice was offered between Labour and National - except of course if the question is designed in a manner similar to point 1. There is greater public doubt towards the Government than polls are portraying, at least enough to begin to balance the weight of incompetence placed on Goff. It is often expressed that one really cannot tell at the moment, and would have to wait and see if Goff matures as a leader before they decide their vote. This is a very warming display by the New Zealand public. Yet once pushed into a choice they go with the fuzzy newly elected PM they've seen on Letterman, and hesistantly 'well... if I had to make a choice... National.' Another point for National at Six O'clock.

3) Polls can be racially unbalanced

This is down to the person conducting the poll. It is easier to phone a sheet of 'Brown's, 'Gough's, and 'Anderson's than 'Ogbonmwan's, 'Dhambizao's, and 'Venkatarama's. That is just the way it is. You are unsure whether the person answering will be able to speak much English, and the fear of struggling with culture differences over the phone can force one to move on to a more Anglo-Saxon list. This is, sadly, the way it is.