Why is a small party with a few votes allocated the most air times when the governing party is allocated less? But it's a blessing because most of the time allocated to the governing party is primarily negative reporting.

Thus the media determines the so-called democratic representation and status quo projections of views and opinions.

Well, we don't know if there is a measure of air time each party is allocated, but the truth remains there are more private sector media outlets than public ones. You know the story, its kind of weird for private sector media to support a left wing party.

It is natural for the private sector to promote right wing agenda pursued by right wing parties such as Act, NZFirst and National. Most of these outlets spend 24/7 promoting right wing ideologies and at the expense of running down left wing parties.

So accordingly, majority opinions should rest on the right of centre. Therefore it seems impossible for a left lenient party to gain any votes and win elections.

Ok, the latest media polls showed differing projections. TV1 poll favoured right wing; TV3 poll favoured left wing. And this is somewhat contradictory to the above claim.

TV1 is a state owned enterprise and TV3 is a private operation. Poll results should reflect their political followings where TV1 in the centre and TV3 on the right of centre.

The old theory of research follows that the pollster knows the outcome and the polling therefore is designed to reflect that outcome.

While the outcome doesn't reside well with my private sector right wing leniency claim, it still supports the design factor of achieving a predetermined outcome. So if you leave out the private sector right wing claim, then its true that polls are designed to achieve the desired outcome.

However, the problem with polling is its psychological phenomenon. Popular opinions is also a subjective phenomenon. The two phenomena now weighs the poll down to invalidity grounds.

You see, polls were design to collect public opinions to formulate outcomes and projections for a future event. But because of the subjective and psychological nature of opinions and the media's drive to influence those same opinions, it sinks further down the black box.

Now, subjective populations of groups are formed by their selfish attachments; individuals follow others to be recognised and be popular. So, polls are designed to appeal to this subjective nature and therefore produce a popular outcome.

And popular outcomes are not stable and can change in any time. These are like temporary perishable nature that if you leave an ice cream out for a few minutes, it would melt. And the whole popular projection goes down with it.

This doesn't say popular opinions polls don't work. For as long as the relationship is stabilised I guess by eating a lot of ice cream. It is still a valid opinion no matter how subjective it is.

Anyway, this subjective nature of polling also appeal to the more serious voters. For example, genuine left wing followers may be motivated by populous poll they are encouraged to do something about it. The same is true for right wing followers.

That is why its important to know what's been asked of the population. My guess is, the TV1 poll may have been conducted in an affluent area while the TV3 poll may have involved a few young people. You see, this is true of the private sector right wing leniency as well as for populous attachments to young people.

In any case, the poll reflects sector behaviour associated with the generation gap.

This generation gap is surfaced when the leader of the Act Party, the most right wing Party in New Zealand Mr. David Seymour publicly announced he will appeal human rights to allow people to say whatever they like.

This comes in time for Folau's persecution for stating his belief. And in so doing, he was sacked by Australian Rugby for condemning gay and lesbian persons. Now you see, the younger generation has grown up with modern sexual orientation but some of which remain off-limits with the older generation.

Does the leader of the Act Party condone verbal abuse, which leads to emotional and psychological harm?

Really, if the majority of the population is young, then there's your research done and dusted. Pollsters are out-of-whack with the modern and sticking with the old pedagogic. They need to be more dynamic and real with modern reality.

Some of the old views considered ideal for political stability include sound government, economic growth, employment, health and wellbeing for citizens. This is now considered boring in the modern when leaders are more human, in touch with the population, and hear what the people are saying.

And its true in reality when no other time I can remember in New Zealand politics have witnessed so many workers among public servants and their families put their hand out for help. This is like folks have finally emerged from under a big rock to breathe and see daylight.

And this is right on target with the PM's response as she gets her feedback directly from the people. How many other leaders can say that with confident without scaring the children away?

As for stable politics: the economy can be easily run by a smart machine; economic growth has lost its meaning if any for when the economy was considered a rock star, workers among the poor became homeless; health and wellbeing are social outcomes of targeted policies, but social obligation was also neglected and pushed out on the street. As for employment, well I think it requires a transformation of belief. Change your mind and change your lifestyle.