Too many squeezed middles, multiple elections and rugby patriotism going to political waste in the last week of campaigning

There are so many squeezed middles in this election campaign that someone, somewhere, must eventually protest:  "Unhand me, sir, What do you take me for?"

Moreover, some squeezed middles are getting more attention than others. Some squeezes will receive the lightest financial touch before the squeezer disappears into the night.  A relatively small number of others will get a proper monetary massage.    

At least this seems to be the inference from the Labour Party's attack on National's tax plans for the squeezed middles, which would seem to be far less satisfying than the National Party had in mind.  

The whole problem flowed from National's use of the modifier, "up to", when talking about the $250 tax benefit a fortnight that would make those squeezed middles feel so good. 

In the wake of the National announcement, Labour's loyal friend, the Council of Trade Unions, did some research and found only 3000 families would get the full $250 - others would get far less.  

That was fair enough, according to National, "up to" means exactly what it says - and others were bound to get less.  But they would still get something - quite a lot in fact - and plenty of voters were happily consulting the party's tax calculator to see just how much it would be. 

This issue was no sooner over and done with than a close imitator cropped up. This time, Labour argued that National had miscalculated the impact of its landlords tax. 

This proposal would restore tax deductibility on interest payments for rental properties.  

According to Labour, National had got it wrong by using out-of-date lending rates. Maybe so, said National, but more property investors would enter the market because of its policies. That means there would be more people, paying less money, which would average things out.   

Arguments like these did not so much set the tone of this election campaign, but continued it with relentless single-mindedness. 

And this is arguably a big problem. No-one, neither Sir Isaac Newton, nor my fourth form teacher, believed that maths is a debatable subject. It is either right or wrong.  Pi doesn't change, nor does the ratio of the hypotenuse.  

But arithmetic has grown to become relative these days, like tastes in music, so the outcome of an equation can vary depending on which political party you support.   

One has to hope that politics becomes a well quarantined profession, and aircraft engineers and bridge designers stay well clear of it and retain some immunity to its condition. 

The effect on school children could be serious, too, so one has to hope that Chris Bishop's warning of a second election does not eventuate.    

According to Labour's Megan Woods, Bishop and his buddies only had themselves to blame for this scenario, by saying they would be willing to pick up the phone and speak to Winston Peters, if they really had to.   

But Woods could not answer RNZ's persistent suggestion that Labour could trigger the same multiple suffrage by refusing to speak to Peters at all. 

In fact there is a strong argument for both parties to avoid a second election at all costs, because by then they will have run out of dogs to pat, icecreams to buy and shopping malls to walk through.

Meanwhile, to adapt Jane Austen to the modern age, it is a truth, universally acknowledged, that men never grow up, they just run out of excuses to play with their toys. 

Not so with politicians, though. Chris Hipkins was happily whizzing round a go kart track, only to be outdone by David Seymour in a real racing car,  as for Christopher Luxon, he sought to surpass both men by cuddling up to the space engineers at Rocket Lab.   

This leads inevitably to a multiple choice question. People will vote for (a) Hipkins, because go karts are fun, (b) Seymour, because racing cars have more grunt, (c) Luxon, because space rockets are really cool, or (d) none of the above.   

Meanwhile the National Party has been proclaiming its intention to double the value of exports in 10 years, accusing Labour of "dropping the ball" on a free trade agreement with India. 

But soon Luxon was practically kicking for goal from his own try line, by promising to get a free trade deal with India without, apparently asking the Indian Government first. 

Talking of kicking for goal, the organisers of the Rugby World Cup have made two serious errors. Far worse than putting the best teams on the same side of the qualifying draw, was scheduling a vital All Black game for the day after the election. 

This deprived the contending party leaders of competing to see who could cheer loudest for the men in black.   

This is a big failing which should be tended to. I know they used to say sport and politics should not mix, but that is ancient history.