Newshub/Reid research poll – similar results

The latest Newshub/Reid Research political poll is quite similar to the recent 1 News/Colmar Brunton poll, suggesting they are not far off the mark, for now at least.

  • Labour 50.1% (down 10.8) – CB 48%
  • National 29.6% (up 4.5) – CB 31%
  • Greens 6.5% (up 0.8) – CB 6%
  • ACT 6.3% (up 3) – CB 7%
  • New Conservatives 2.1% (up 1.2) – CB 1.6%
  • NZ First 1.9% (down 0.1) – CB 2.4%
  • Maori Party 1.5% (up 1.1) – CB 0.9%
  • TOP 0.9% (up 0.5) – 1.1%

Reid Research – interviewing between 16-23 September 2020, and 1000 people were surveyed – 700 by telephone and 300 by internet panel. It has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

Colmar Brunton – interviewing from Thursday 17 to Monday 22 September 2020. Sample size 1008, sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95% confidence level.

On the ‘margin of error’ (CB): This is the sampling error for a result around 50%. Results higher and lower than 50% have a smaller sampling error. For example, results around 10% and 5% have sampling errors of approximately ±1.9%-points and ±1.4%-points, respectively, at the 95% confidence level.

Labour – on current polls they could govern alone, but their support is slipping. They haven’t indicated that if they have a sole majority whether they would include the Greens in Government or not.

National are failing to get traction after a slump during Covid and two leadership changes. There’s no sign of things changing significantly for them. They are copping ongoing damaging flak for errors in their economic plan.

ACT continue to do very well, partly presumably at National’s expense, but also due to a successful term and a strong campaign from David Seymour. They’re looking likely to having several MPs again.

Greens have recovered from sub-threshold results and are looking more likely to survive in Parliament, probably as support for Labour slips, but the amount of leverage they get will depend on whether Labour needs them to form a government or not.

NZ First continue to fail to attract anywhere enough support. Winston Peters seems to have lost his midas touch and mojo. In contrast to Jacinda Ardern he looks last century.

Maori Party will have to rely on a surprise electorate victory to get back into Parliament.

NZ Conservatives have picked up support but probably nowhere near enough to make the threshold.

TOP is at the bottom.

Advance NZ don’t appear in the Reid Research poll.

Voting starts this coming Saturday (3 October) through to election day two weeks later on 17 October.

With early voting becoming more popular and also encouraged due to Covid time is running out for any parties to substantially change their support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2020_New_Zealand_general_election

Previous Post
Leave a comment

72 Comments

  1. Richard Harman:

    Though National Leader Judith Collins was yesterday claiming National’s own polls showed a different level of support to the 29.5 per cent in the Newshub poll, POLITIK has been told by National insiders that the poll is not all that far away from the party’s own polls.

    https://www.politik.co.nz/2020/09/28/labour-walking-away-with-it/

    Reply
  2. Patzcuaro

     /  28th September 2020

    David Farrar has gone quiet in regard to outlier or rogue polls, his internal polling for National must be in line with the independent polls. His polling for National back in July must have been the outlier, apparently even reputable polling companies get outlier polls.

    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/07/latest_poll-77.html

    “Now Reid Research is a very good polling company, but even the best polling company will get results outside the normal margin of error. When you say there is 95% confidence that the poll results are within 3% of the actual, that means there is a 5% chance they are not (putting aside non sampling errors).

    I do not believe this poll is even close to reflecting the actual situation. There is no way there is a 36% gap between the parties. The numerous polls I have seen and done have it way way closer.”

    Reply
    • That was in July. All he says this time is “Again an exceptionally good result for Labour, but some comfort in the trend for the centre-right. National and ACT are up 7.5%.”

      https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/latest_poll-79.html

      So no argument with the general levels of polling this time.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  28th September 2020

        Last time he had to stick to the party line…. Collins is now just saying- from pre-pared talking points- its the usual variation in figures. Indeed it would be very strange if the different polls were even within 1% of each other.
        The first stage of grief on kiwiblog commentators – denial, will be too much.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  28th September 2020

          Seems Tova is sticking to party lines – she said National was in a death spiral.

          Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  28th September 2020

        I imagine that Curia’s polling was saying something similar to the Reid Research poll, maybe slightly more favourable to National back in July. Farrar was wearing his National Party hat and was doing a bit of political spin in the hope the numbers would improve. Unfortunately for National the gap between National and Labour remains large and all other polls are similar. You can only spin so far.

        Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  28th September 2020

      ….and the latest poll show National at around 30%, with Labour on 50%. Still a clear win to Ardern based on those numbers – and yet again this is her election to snatch defeat from the jaws of overwhelming victory – but nowhere near a 36% gap. And it means National retains some talent for the 2020-23 term. so looks like Farrar was right. Hence today:

      https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/

      Mind you, given that National seems to have nothing like its talent and competence of 2008-17, they could maybe do with a clean-out. And elevating a performer like Nicola Willis and Louise Upston. And dropping Paul Goldsmith from the key Finance role.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  28th September 2020

        The battle between the National liberal and conservative factions after the election will prevent any talk of competence. Collins will reverse herself over the 35% step down level, as she will wish to hang on to power within the party.
        Forget about Willis she wont be back on the list, and Bishop will lose his marginal seat . Auckland City will swing back to labour
        Did you notice how Collins promoted the ‘useless’ Maureen Pugh ? …shell be gone on election night too.
        If he turnout this election is too low, the Nats might only have 2 or 3 list Mps

        Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  28th September 2020

          Yep, is a possible scenario. Happened in 2002 and years after.

          But a massive win by Labour brings in people who are not really up to it, and who destabilise the show with lack of discipline and ideological agendas. As occurred with National after their 1999 landslide.

          Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  28th September 2020

          1990

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  28th September 2020

            Nationals ‘bad seeds’ were very obvious from 2008 onwards
            Competance forgets about Brownlee and Nick Smith and a whole tranche of fellow travellors, the list Mps can be gotten rid of easily enough but those with seats are much harder , eg Todd Barclay, Jami-Lee Ross and a tranche of others who stayed below the radar ( including one we arent allowed to talk about)….it was politely called dead wood.
            Bill English first years as a minister ( for Crown health Enterprises, predecessor of DHB) were a shocker, as the relevant health minister he wanted to restrict expensive treatment by the CHEs for the elderly and infirm

            Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  28th September 2020

    So over the next three exciting years what can we expect to be banned and what new bureaucracies will be created to make doing anything harder and more costly?

    I expect the list will be depressingly long and won’t stop at plastic straws and apple stickers.

    Reply
    • Ardern was on RNZ this morning talking about continued ‘incremental change’. Whether Labour do that, if on their own or with Greens, we will just have to wait and find out.

      Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  28th September 2020

      Am really worried about that anti religious “hate speech” legislation they are proposing. Is anti-blasphemy laws by stealth.

      Am a Calvinist myself, but in the public square it the prerogative of anyone to criticise, ridicule, mock, satirise and contemptuously dismiss it to their heart’s content, in a reasonable or unfair manner if they so choose.

      Don’t need your protection, Jacinda, don’t want it and no person of faith, ideology or conscience-held belief should either.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  28th September 2020

        Ah yes …those white males , middle aged never see the need for protections “for themselves” , so why should a minority get it.
        Werent Calvinists burnt at the stake or something , yes you would say they were a minority in less tolerant times…… yep

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  28th September 2020

          It was the Calvinists in Geneva who Burnt Servetus the Spanish theologian on a pile of books ….ouch

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  28th September 2020

            And damn right Calvinists including Calvin himself burned Servetus at the stake.

            Hence I don’t want anyone, be they Calvinist, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, atheist, agnostic or even the Rotarians administering what are quasi-blasphemy laws. In the hands of fallible and finite human nature, the potential for abuse is just too great.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  28th September 2020

              So you agree that Judith Collins Harmful Digital Communications Act would open it up to being used for real abuse ( it has civil and 2 new criminal offences)
              In your mind because its there means it can be abused…in a typical inversion of the reality.
              Every listed offence can be abused in a prosecution and are
              People get charged with a homicide who didnt do it either in an abuse of process by the Police.
              https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/117707265/no-evidence-auckland-father-killed-baby-son-with-fatal-blow
              An amazing case where a hospital doctor testified for prosecution about the accidental injury ‘could never happen that way’. Yet the defence had a scientific paper by the same specialist where similar injuries had happened accidentally and were caught on camera. Iprent from The Standard said he was on that jury

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  28th September 2020

              @Duker, the distinction is that a homicide trial has a real victim rather than nebulous hurt pride or subjective offence.

            • Blazer

               /  28th September 2020

              ‘ In the hands of fallible and finite human nature, the potential for abuse is just too great.’

              So who would you choose to be the arbiter….Martians?

            • Duker

               /  28th September 2020

              The prosecution was an abuse of the evidence – one doctors view- on an accident.
              My point is that every crime even one you would think had the most checks and balances can be abused in a prosecution.
              So that is no reason not to have them of course… but find a better excuse and one that doesnt apply to HDCA as well

            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              @ Blazer

              So who would you choose to be the arbiter….Martins?

              You don’t read very well – no one. Just as witchcraft laws were abolished because they were abused by self-interested and subjective judgement, I’m not in favour of neo-blasphemy laws by stealth.

          • Blazer

             /  28th September 2020

            I read very well thanks.
            Society could not function without law.

            Your metaphysical ideology awaits you in..Heaven…perhaps.

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              Yes, and it functions even better when we don’t have bad laws that will almost inevitably cause more harm than the good they purport to do courtesy of unintended consequences, and quasi Fascists who will abuse them.

            • Blazer

               /  28th September 2020

              So who is the arbiter of what constitutes ‘good’ law as opposed to ‘bad’…law?

            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              Good question and a deserved uptick from me, although it is better phrased as “what makes a good law?” I would suggest.

              Will give it some serious thought and get back to you. In the meantime what are your thoughts on the matter?

              Cheers,

              Kimbo

        • Kimbo

           /  28th September 2020

          Indeed they were burnt at the stake, and in the case of Servetus burned one themselves. And drowned Anabaptists.

          Yes, we do live in more tolerant times. And I’d prefer to keep it that way by protecting is all from the intolerant who, in the guise of protecting tolerance are pushing upon us a Trojan Horse to take away our hard-won existing liberties, religious and otherwise, concerning freedom of speech. Incitement to violence is already covered in our existing laws and it is sufficient.

          More to the point, no anti-religion hate speech law would likely have stopped the ChCh mosque murderer. Mind you, the police applying the law concerning his referees (and not two he had “met” on an Internet chat) at the time he applied for his firearms licence likely could have!

          So if the Plods were so inept then, why would you think they could rightfully discern religious hate speech?!

          According to Islam/the Quran my belief in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are damnable blasphemies that will consign me to hell unless I forsake them. Don’t care, and I applaud and uphold my Muslim neighbour’s freedom to propagate that belief peacefully in the public square. It’s when either of us step beyond the line of lawful persuasion and into coercion and threatened and actual violence that there is a problem. And we already have laws to address that!

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  28th September 2020

            “And we already have laws to address that!”
            No we dont. we just dont. You are speaking from a position of ignorance, which is fine, but you know it

            “The hate speech laws in New Zealand are limited in
            scope.
            The HRA provides both civil and criminal remedies for
            hate speech, but only in relation to hate speech directed
            at race, colour, ethnic or national origins. The full
            range of protected characteristics listed in the HRA are
            not covered under the current hate speech provisions
            in the HRA. Characteristics such as disability, sex,
            sexual orientation, religious belief, age, family status,
            employment status and political opinion are absent. ”
            Law commision report on current legal framework on hate speech

            And it was only covering ‘person to person’ communications but the judges have moved it a bit by case law to ‘groups’
            The broadcasting Acts and the existing censorship laws can cover some areas. Very little of Summary offences Act is broad enough

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              No, you didn’t read what I wrote. We already have laws against coercion and threats of and the incitement to violence. That is all that religious people – or the non-religious need.

              And no, hate speech laws against religion would NOT have stopped the mosque murderer.

          • Duker

             /  28th September 2020

            “More to the point, no anti-religion hate speech law would likely have stopped the ChCh mosque murderer. ”
            Thats for the gun laws to fix

            Your white privilege is showing here.
            Many minorities here face every day appalling abuse from the 2% of the population who engage in such stuff
            The Muslims were saying before the mosque shootings of the abuse the received. Ive seen people spit at chinese in the street , and Im in a privledged bubble like you who dont face this personally.
            Your rights wont be infringed since you are educated rational person and dont descend to that level.
            Its crazy to think there isnt the 2% out there who do so on a sustained basis.

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              Being spat on in the street is assault. And how do you know what “abuse” I and my family suffer? Someone so presumptuous is a good reason why anti religion laws should not be enacted.

            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              Why should more gun laws solve the problem of future prospective parachute-in terrorists like the ChCh mosque murderer (who was radicalised and planned his crime while offshore, btw)

              …when the cops didn’t properly administer the existing firearms law that could have stopped him?!

              I’m not against reform of those laws in principle btw, but as usual, the innocent are affected and the guilty still act with impunity.

              I do not trust a bureaucrat to distinguish the difference between hate speech and spirited debate over theological niceties that yes, idiots may let descend into verbal insults as happens lots in life…as is their prerogative. Highlights their stupidity if they do, and sensible people take note and ostracise them socially accordingly.

            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              Oh yes, and

              Your white privilege is showing there…

              Skol! 🤣

              For the vast majority of us who view life as being more complex than the neo-Marxist dialectical recipe that progressives insist is the only prism through which to judge reality, you lose the argument as soon as you say it.

            • Dukeofurl

               /  28th September 2020

              There you go with baseless claims of the ‘laws will be abused’ … when its the courts that decide not people like you – faceless bureaucrats are more like you than you think.
              Ive already demolished the ‘laws will be abused’ argument …people go to prison with very little evidence – not often but it happens.
              Accept that you need a better argument than ‘Ive got a tinfoil hat on AND they will be coming after me.’

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  28th September 2020

              You appear to overlook the fact that by the time you get to court you have already been punished both financially and psychologically. Even Nigel Farage has had the police knocking on his door late at night to threaten him for saying something someone disliked.

            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              Yeah, but Nigel Farage is unaware of his “white privilege”, so he deserved it! // 😳😂

            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              Shouldn’t joke actually, because that is likely the reason he and others are being harassed. But being in the opinion of others unpopular, unlikeable and/or obnoxious should not be reasons to fall foul of the law.

              Religious hate/speech laws are a Pandora’s Box of trouble, just awaiting the meddling of political ideologues and officious police bureaucrats.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  28th September 2020

              Farage is well able to tell the police to get lost and write a newpaper column about it. Most people can’t.

            • Duker

               /  28th September 2020

              “Even Nigel Farage has had the police knocking on his door late at night”

              For a covid lockdown breach.
              Some people have complained about his words in speeches , but he didnt get ‘a late night call’. The Police didnt think his comments about ‘a knife to Whitehall’ were a criminal act.
              It seems you are confused

      • Patzcuaro

         /  28th September 2020

        I imagine the Muslims in Christchurch might be a little sensitive to being criticised, ridiculed and mocked.

        Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  28th September 2020

          Yes, I’m sure they are.

          Nonetheless it is the occasional price one pays for living with freedom of speech. And more to the point, the social ostracism and opprobrium that came the way of those who did was more than sufficient to address it.

          You want to be free from criticism, ridicule and mocking over your religious faith? Then you want to live in a land without true religious freedom. Not the NZ I want for me or my Muslim neighbours. Or anyone of free conscience.

          Reply
          • Hate speech laws are a two-edged sword (to use a well-worn phrase)

            As long as incitement to violence, slander, libel and other such things are covered by law, do we need someone deciding what is and isn’t hate speech ?

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  28th September 2020

              The phrase is ‘double edged sword’…… 😦

            • Duker

               /  28th September 2020

              We already have the Harmful Digital Communications Act…. which punishes people for what they say under the criminal law ..Judith Collins pushed that through.
              Why didnt those laws you mention cover that……
              There are civil enforcement but also new criminal snactions

              *Creating a new offence of posting a harmful digital communication the intent of causing harm.
              It would apply to communications that are grossly offensive or indecent,
              obscene, menacing or knowingly false. The offence will also cover serious instances of intimate recordings being published online without a person’s consent.
              *Making it an offence to incite a person to commit suicide, in situations when they do not attempt to take their own life.

              Funnily enough it was a female National MP who was investigated over the last offence. The facts seem to indicate she did so, but she might win a judge/jurys sympathy and escape conviction.

              There is some extreme hate speech out there – those here who participate in other political blogs in NZ would be aware of this, and we have seen it directed at Muslims as a community

            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              Duker, nothing personal but I don’t respect your judgement, as evidenced here on Your NZ at any rate, to discern what is and isn’t hate speech.

              And I sure don’t trust Ardern, Andrew Little, the rest of the current government and most especially our Plods to decide it either!

            • Blazer; the expression is two-edged sword OR double-edged sword. Two-edged has been in use for centuries. Do buy a dictionary.

            • Duker

               /  28th September 2020

              You said a new law ‘could be abused’ , yet we had a new one recently which meant ‘things people said ‘ could be a new criminal offence.

              What you really meant that Nationals hate speech laws good , labours not good.

          • Blazer

             /  28th September 2020

            You’re on your way to Heaven…Kimbo.

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  28th September 2020

              And aren’t you glad that there isn’t an anti-religion hate speech law that could embolden me to claim your sarcasm is oppressive, hurtful and harmful to my well-being and the public toleration of Calvinists?

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  28th September 2020

          Patz, I’m over sensitive about being told to be sensitive to sensitive people. I don’t see why I should be sensitive to them when they are not sensitive to me.

          We’ve all got victim cards to play if we want. I don’t give them any weight.

          Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  28th September 2020

        Dead right, Kimbo. That is one of the nastiest likelihoods and already causing havoc in the UK. The last thing I want is to be ruled by other people’s gods.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  28th September 2020

          We already have vilification laws
          ‘The Human Rights Act 1993 provides protection from hate speech directed at race, colour, ethnic or national origins – but sexual orientation, age, disability, religious belief and many more human characteristics are not included.”

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  28th September 2020

            And the existing laws are a farce, why add to them? Stale, pale, white male somehow doesn’t trigger them but nigger is beyond the pale even when not directed at anyone in a historical discussion.

            Reply
  4. Tom Hunter

     /  28th September 2020

    Winston Peters seems to have lost his midsas touch and mojo.

    True, but I think this overlooks the leverage he’s lost as a result of National publically telling him to stick it. I think he was suffering the same weaknesses in 2017 as now, but the refusal of National to push him away gave him a wedge to widen. He might still have made 5% that year, but it would have been a lot closer with his Right-Wing Give-National-A-Spine voters being forced to either turn away or accept a Labour-led coalition government.

    It’s one of my eternal annoyances with Bill English that he did not grasp this nettle in 2017. But then he never was that good a politician, even though he did much better than I expected that year, and certainly far better than in 2002.

    Back to Winston. I already wrote him off in 2008 and he crawled back from the dead. After that I’m not going to count him out again. He looks like he’s a goner this year but there’s always 2023 and aside from the money and power-without-work he also lives for this game. Fishing and horse-racing are hobbies and they’re not enough for him. He’ll be back on the hustings; it’ll depend on circumstances and his still-aging voters as to whether that means he’ll be back in Parliament.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  28th September 2020

      Hooton thinks we will miss Peters and NZF when they are gone…..most countries have far right leaders who fill that vacuum and we have some real kooks here who might fill the gap

      Reply
  5. Pete – again what is the number of undecided? If is around 15% like the other one most of these are actually Centre right voters that can’t decide what to do. What is sure is that they will vote. Unlike there are still 20% of young people not enrolled to vote that will have made up their mind but if they aren’t enrolled they can’t vote! This is why the greens alway underperform their polling figures.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  28th September 2020

      “one most of these are actually Centre right voters that can’t decide what to do.”
      Thats baseless. You arent doing opinion surveys to know what anyone other than what your goodself thinks
      the reality is ‘major’ polls get it fairly right in last week. Unenrolled , undecided – never means much or their questions exclude them anyway.

      Just deep breath….National 30% ….exhale….

      Reply
      • Why I’m just telling you what some private polls have.. that I’ve been told. As they ask the undecideds ‘who did you vote for last time…’ which is a sensible question to ask…the two main polling companies don’t.

        Reply
      • Why I’m just telling you what some private polls have.. that I’ve been told. As they ask the undecideds ‘who did you vote for last time…’ which is a sensible question to ask…the two main polling companies don’t.

        Reply
      • Kiwi Dave

         /  28th September 2020

        Duker – wrong again. As one of the 15%+ I dont like any of the mixed offerings from ANY of the parties. I may vote, but only because I wouldn’t be able to deride political parties if I didn’t!

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  28th September 2020

          The idea that ‘15% are centre right’ who cant decide is blithering rubbish….clutching at straws…. hoping against hope.
          nats are stuck around 30% mark ….it is what it is…. shes the modern day Hilary Clinton, too much baggage from the past but with much lower nationwide voting appeal

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  28th September 2020

            Duker!!!

            You’ve forgotten the script!!!

            Hilary was robbed – Russians, collusion!! 😳😂

            Reply
  6. John J Harrison

     /  28th September 2020

    Pete, what I find astounding is the partisan Tova was dancing around stating that National was in a “ death spiral.”
    The poll showed Labour down 11% and National up 5%.
    Worse for the left is the fact the poll closed one day after the demolition derby where Ardern got thrashed by Collins.
    If taken a few days later the poll could have demonstrated a further decline in the Labour numbers.
    TV One tonight should be interesting!

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  28th September 2020

      Dance on Tova. She should get Seymour to duet with her to placate those threatening to blow their foo-foo valves at the tragic performance of Judith, she who was to be their Darling saviour.

      Reply
      • John J Harrison

         /  28th September 2020

        O dear.
        The trend is ebbing for Labour according to TV One.
        Cannot rule alone.
        Meanwhile ACT and National both up.

        Reply
  7. duperez

     /  28th September 2020

    Speaking of Judith Collins. Sometimes minor incidents say a lot, express many things.

    A lovely telling moment of politics was when Collins made a remark about the polls when interviewed on TV on Sunday night. It was risible yet wondrous at the same time. It was probably beyond those desperately searching for The Crusher to emerge to give them that straw to cling to.

    (Paraphrased) “The figures don’t match our figures.” What? 🤔

    I would be absolutely amazed if their figures said “Labour 50.1%, National 29.6%, ACT 6.3%, Green 6.5%.”

    Maybe their figures say “Labour 49.9%, National 34.9%, ACT 5.3%, Green 6.7%.”
    Maybe their figures say “Labour 54.7%, National 26.9 %, ACT 6.1%, Green 5.2%.”

    If they were at 39.6 would she have said, “We are on the cusp of 40%?”

    Under her regime are internal results still not shared with caucus? Or have the years of leaks killed that? That in itself raises an interesting angle. With all the departures is it considered that leakers still remain? The high trust environment of a team selling itself as a strong team?

    Are internal poll results being kept under wraps vital in a battle for someone who set themselves a target?

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11994559

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s