Ben Uffindell: Is this really much fun for you, John?

Prime Minister John Key. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Those of us who enjoy competitive video or board gaming often refer to a thing called "balance."

If a game is well "balanced", it means both players are on a relatively even footing from the beginning and that the game is likely to be determined by skilful execution of the victor, rather than by inherent advantage.

If one player plays better and outwits his opponent, he should win. This is the very definition of a well-balanced game.

Politics, especially at election time, is a game. This is true whether we like it or not.

If this election were a board game, it would be considered one with extremely poor balance.

Whoever was lucky enough to be the "National" player would cruise to victory, while the "Labour" player would struggle to find motivation to even play a game they've already lost.

If anyone had any doubts that the current political landscape is stacked against Labour, the past couple of weeks have thoroughly proven it.

How is it that National could have one of the worst political fortnights imaginable and be up in the polls at the end of it?

The right wing of politics often likes to refer to the country as a household, because a household, much like a Government, has revenue and expenditure, a sizeable military arsenal, elected representation, and a diverse collection of socioeconomic groups with vastly different upbringings.

If you've ever lived in a household, chances are you've played a game called Monopoly, a faux contest where families set out to ruin the free market by establishing unfair wealth distribution and enacting strange laws that force people to sleep at the nearest hotel and pay rent for a bizarre number of houses against their will. In real life, we call this "Auckland."

I've played enough games of Monopoly to know that, at some point, someone gets so far ahead that everyone gets extremely bored.

It's then common practice for the winner to do something outrageously stupid to make the game more competitive and keep everyone else interested.

Prime Minister: if the Government is truly a household, then it's time for you to be that guy.

Because I often wonder, John, can this really be any fun for you? Are you the kind of person who enjoys beating your children at complex games of strategy? Surely not.

Clearly gifting the campaign of their dreams to your opponents, while having allegations drip-fed against your Government, and a senior minister resigning, simply wasn't enough.

If you're going to make this a fair contest, you're going to have to step your game up and do the equivalent of mortgaging all your properties to buy back the electric company.

Hell, why don't you literally buy back the electric company? Punch a kid live on television? Film a series of ads in which you endorse David Cunliffe? Take up smoking? Not tobacco; meth.

Just something. Please. Anything.

A poorly balanced game is bad for everyone, because if the contest already feels decided, people are a lot less likely to engage in it.

This actually usually works out for whoever's ahead, but for the country as a whole? Not so much.