How often do people beg you for money walking around NZ?

Every day. A window into poverty that comes with every city-centre apartment!

I suspect they don't mention that in the Property Press.

I am surprised at this terrible news, and at being moved to tears in response.

I remember Paul's distinctive voice and tone as a commentator on National Radio - unfailingly worth listening to, even for the elitist teenage geek I was.

I later noticed his voice turning up at public lectures. I meant to thank him for his radio work. Now I will not have that chance.

I did not really know him, and I will miss him.

Why does a threshold need to be in percentage terms anyway? We could set it 60,000 votes, and let that number mean whatever it means in any election, or set it at a number of MPs. Do the divvying up of seats as though there was no threshold, and all those the parties that get enough votes for 3 MPs get to keep them.

I guess my question is not "why should be a threshold?", but "why should there be a threshold as high a 5%?"

Or indeed, why do the various roles of MPs have to be defined as they currently are?

There might be useful role for non-voting representatives. They would speak in Parliament, and contribute to Select Committee research and discussion.

Such a role could split the difference between completely proportional representation and stability of government.

On my rough first model, a further 10 seats would be added to Parliament for non-voting representatives. These would be allocated proportionally to the top 10 parties below 5%.

This would give minorities a Parliamentary voice, without jeopardising stable government. If the non-voting members make sense, good luck to them. If not, they can be safely ignored.