No reputable media organisation should be using him as a commentator.
It strikes me that several news and media organisations might do a rather thorough clean out of their go-to commentators in the light of this book.
Just a question, I guess it should be somewhere in the public domain but what is Jason Ede's salary? Or in other words what are we paying this man and why exactly should a taxpayer pay him?
Also it so happens we are currently up to episode 22 of House of Cards at home ...
Accidental bigots are so much easier to tolerate than the deliberate kind.
One day we will be allowed to vote on a list of people we DON'T want in parliament, no matter how many other people like them, once enough people say "sod off", they are gone*.
I'm personally starting a list now in hopes that the day may come soon.
Mr Gibson just made it on the list.
Accidental or not, bigots do not represent me in parliament.
*and yes I know that would make the PM job much less attractive, which may not be a bad thing.
they can’t answer on their own
There do appear to be some who can, when asked a question, deliver their own personal opinion AND the party policy all while remaining consistent with the party to which they belong.
BUT there are rather a large number of candidates who appear to have been chosen for reasons other than their ability to apply their intellect to a question and then formulate a coherent response.
And then there are the ones who are more than smart enough to think for themselves but choose not to do so and instead deliver the "message" - because, politics.
But maybe the Electoral Commission is confused
That's a high degree of confusion. I suspect it will be a tortured reading of the law that essentially comes down to "don't make fun of nice Mr Key".
No, they do not do basic research.
I don't believe that.
I believe they see the opportunity to increase their ratings and providing they don't make themselves vulnerable to legal action the media can and will say whatever the hell they think will get the ratings.
Well put James.
More crudely If JK is PM he can safely ignore any party that has less than 6-7% of the vote and he will because he doesn't need them at all. If those parties had 12% then he would need them and he would suck up to them and do deals to get their vote for the things he wants.
Essentially your minority voice will only be heard if JK thinks he needs the vote from the minority party that most represents your voice.
I've always voted for a slightly different reason.
In a democracy most people have two times in their life when they can influence the democracy.
The first is when they vote - yes the influence is small but it's the only influence you have unless you want to enter the murky waters of politics yourself.
The second is when you are on jury duty - that is the time when you actually apply the laws that the government passes and on a jury you can influence whether those laws are being applied correctly.
It would seem a pity not take part in the democracy in which we live.
Not sure that aspiring to be at the top of the OECD for tax take is something that would go over well with the focus groups, though.
I was addressing the rather silly suggestion that because we are merely 4% below the OECD average taxation that we should feel comfortable with that.
I agree we should be talking about what we want from our tax dollars and then making sure we have a high enough taxation to achieve that. But the difficulty is that there will instantly be endless people arguing ooo no we pay too much tax already and we should be talking about anything that might increase that awful terrifying number.
When in fact we pay significantly less tax than the countries we aspire to, so no I'm not going to apologise for attacking the fundamental and false assumption that taxation is bad.
Oh and just a note, while the US is listed as 24% that does not include state and city taxation at all and when you do include those you find that we pay less tax than most Americans!
low taxation results in shitty lives for the population
A direct causal link? A long bow indeed.
Go to Cambodia. No really, actually visit the country. You will see the result of near 100% tax avoidance. Schools built from foreign aid, but no teachers because there is no taxation to pay them. Police more interested in selling souvenir police uniforms than protecting women, because nobody pays them enough to live.
The relationship between taxation and quality of life is far far too strong to dismiss as merely correlation not causation. But by all means continue to smoke.