But to be fair to Conrad it is a very common mistake. I have corrected dozens of people who have that belief. The bottom line is proportionality only applies on election night.
Conrad is wrong.
I don't regard ACT as far right. Remember ACT came from Labour and Phil Goff and Annette King were very loyal lieutenants to Roger Douglas.
And Russell - considering Labour label anything that involves using the private sector as "privatisation" you can hardly complain when Key does exactly what Labour has done hundreds of times. Instead of a sensible debate about competition in workplace accident insurance we hear every day about privatising ACC as if it was to be sold off to the private sector.
I would welcome a climate where greater use of the private sector can be debated without cries of privatisation. But Labour keep referring to privatising prisons for example also.
I have praised Shearer for his work around the globe - "David has a massive amount of respect for his aid work over the last two decades. And not as an administrator, but actually out there on the front lines making a huge difference to the life of many people." I think it is because he has seen first hand the suffering, that he is prepared to throw away ideology and support a role for private mercenary armies in protecting people. I don't think he is far right - I wish we had more MPs like him in Labour.
Of course it will be very very difficult for Labour to harp on about privatisation when one if their new MPs has advocated the use of the private sector in the most core of government functions - the military.
And it does beg the questions, if you agree with Shearer that the private sector can be used in armed conflicts (so long as it provides a better outcome than using the public sector), why would you not apply the same test to Corrections?
Eddie - I have criticised the use of urgency three or four times now.
The paranoia over the comments is as George D notes, misplaced. I always turn off comments when linking to my weekly NBR column, so people comment over there.
As for tax cuts and bureaucracy, Lyndon correctly notes the tax cuts are already funded.
Maybe the term should be the "Presumptive Prime Minister". He isn't technically the Prime Minister designate as no one has designated him.
A fair call Russell and others. Unlike the PM, I do do regrets, and I should have left the video alone.
In my defence I would have done an identical video of John key slipping up, and probably run a caption contest on it. But I should have known that it is a bit different with Clark as it would attract comments that go beyond the pale.
I also agree some of the comments should have been deleted but to put it mildly I have a severe shortage of time. Think around 20 blog posts in arrears and hundreds of emails. Plus the travel has made it hard to be online - demerits and bans works best when you do them early in a thread.
Post election I am going to try and get more assistance with some of the editorial/moderation side. The last experiment with moderators didn't work that well but I am going to try something different. Having said that with 12,000 comments a month there is a real limit on how much one can do.
I said "So while the announcement is a bold move in response to the credit crisis, it is one which causes me some concern."
Also "Ever since the Cullen Fund was established, I have had fears that as it grows larger, politicians would want to start directing where it is invested.
I doubt "the team" would see that as taking one for them. Yes I use mild language when criticising National, but I don't think many people would read my post as supportive.
I did not know, so please do not make statements along the lines of "I can't believe he didn't know".
Yes I could have taken the time to go to her Wikipedia page and check the edit history. But I didn't think to do that, and that really wasn't the issue. I have had malicious editing on my wikipedia page, but that doesn't mean I call for the Government to pass a law about it.
Simon G: :-)