And on the "Epsom dilemma", it is as Christopher Dempsey says.
The Nats have certainly figured it out. I got a letter from Richard Worth this week headed "This election - give your party vote to National." The last line reads, "Choose a brighter future - this election, give your party vote to National", with the last six words underlined. Then, at the bottom is, "PS -- Make sure you give your party vote to National to change the government", with the words "party vote to National" underlined. No other words are underlined. Nowhere does Worth ask for the electorate vote. Get it?
I am staggered that there are still some people on the left that still can't figure this out. Usually we're the smart ones, right? But if you still don't understand, I posted a short summary on progblog, who were also having trouble getting their head around the intricacies of MMP: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3971499996691266005&postID=6154681028599336194&isPopup=true
"... Bradford (who, in saltier days, I referred to as "a platinum-plated prick")"
This is most unfair to ... platinum.
"... a Biden annihilation of Palin ... will not happen. Whatever Palin's credentials she isn't that stupid (really) and she can talk."
I'm with Don. Obama's campaign have been circulating a video of Palin debating in the gubernatorial contest in Alaska. Apparently the pitbull with lipstick thing works in the debating forum. All she has to do is sound convinced and remember the lines that she's been madly rehearsing these past few weeks.
You don't have to be that clever to win a debate. Remember Reagan drawling, "There he goes again"? Many Americans thought that ws masterful.
Late to the thread, Russell, but to balance out the criticism... I thought that the strengths of the media7 episode far outweighed Simon's focus on drag queens -- and your comment at the very end about getting more lesbians next time, which did make me cringe.
The programme, like many of the others in the series, was intelligent and informative, rare qualities in television programming these days. Okay, it may seem superficial to anyone who has been closely involved in the gay scene for a time, but who was the target audience?
On Simon's interview with the literary theorist, I not only did I not see the condescension, but the woman who I was with -- who has taught literary theory at the university -- thought the segment went really well. If you take risks like Simon, sometimes you're not going to get it completely right. He does a great job.
Lyndon Hood @ 2.23pm
We-ll, firstly he's only announced his intention to run so far AFAIK.
Secondly I heard (Andrew Little?) on the radio saying that given the amount of time involved he would have had to ask permission. And that if it were some more amenable political party said request might have been seen more favourably.
That last bit didn't strike me as a very clever thing to say.
Nope. He has been announced as the number ten candidate on the ACT Party list. He did not seek the consent of his employer to do so, and this is required by his collective employment agreement. The EPMU is reviewing this breach of the CEA (not seeking the Union's consent), as any party to any contract is entitled
If one party to a contract breaks their part of the deal, then surely the other party must consider whether it still wants to be a party to the contract.
On Little's comments, I think that it would be very strange for a trained lawyer, as Little is, to say something that on the face of it indicates an intention to discriminate in respect of the terms and conditions of employment on the grounds of political opinion. I'd like to see a transcript of the whole interview. If he meant to communicate that he would discriminate in that manner, I'm very much inclined to agree with you about it not being clever. That would be an understatement.
The question of whether it is morally wrong for any employer to refuse soemone consent -- including large amounts of unpaid leave -- that is another matter, albeit related. I/S's original post included a whole lot of stuff about the HRA, and seemed rather confused as a result.
What FletcherB says. I've just been accused of being a "party hack", though I think that the number of posts critical of the Government, CTU and, yes, Andrew Little, says otherwise.
I'm inclined to agree with Prog-Blog, who, when confronted by a reprimand from Idiot Savant for not calling Winston peters to account responded inter alia:
You know what is really tiring about the left? It is when the reactionary left decides that the views of others on the left are not sufficiently left enough. Anyone who disagrees with Idiot is an ACT supporter. Yeah yeah. When they need to resort to that kind of intellectual dishonesty, and old fashioned splitism, they haven't got anything to say at all.
"Peter: I certainly hope the EPMU believes there's due process involved in addressing alleged breeches of contract. If not..."
Craig, it's my understanding that this is why the EPMU is in mediation with Tan.
Note also that, in accordance with accepted protocols, the EPMU has not commented publicly about the process, but that Tan, his party leader and his employment advocate have all been very forthcoming. Which party is taking the process seriously?
And a counter question to the EPMU -- do they think it's unreasonable to expect a trade union to be, well, at least as scrupulous about its employment practices as the companies that employ its members. I guess we will see how it all washes out in the Employment Court, but the irony is rather delicious.
Craig, you're jumping the gun here. The scrupulousness or otherwise of the EPMU's employment processes has yet to be determined. At the moment we have a few, contradictory details and a lot of comment from Tan, Hide and his anti-workers' rights advocate. Or, perhaps you believe Hide's assertion that it's really about racial discrimination?
Have you read my post?
"There are people far better qualified than me to comment on the employment law dimensions of Shawn Tan's future with the EPMU as an Act party candidate."
Hope you don't mind if I point people at one of those posts, Russell: http://jafapete.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/memo-to-epmu-what-to-do/
"Absent any other factors, I would tend to agree with No Right Turn that he has a democratic right to do so."
No-one is suggesting that he doesn't have a democratic right to stand for Parliament. It's whether he has the right to ignore the provision in the collective employment agreement under which he works. And that provision is about an employer maintaining its operations given that standing for Parliament requires serious time off work.
As the law stands, only public sector employers have to provide leave for their employees should they stand for public office. (And that provision in the Electoral Act is about the political neutrality of the public service, and to protect any government from having to rely upon people who are actively campaigning against it.)
Idiot Savant is free to campaign for a law change to mandate employers having to provide large amounts of leave to any of their employees who decide to stand for Parliament. But I suggest that it would inevitably finish up with a proviso similar to that in the Parental Leave Act to cover situations where it is unreasonable or unduly burdensome on employers to provide leave, keep the position open, etc. Which would bring us back to where we are at the moment.
A final point. ACT wouldn't support such a law change for a second -- just think compliance costs. Why doesn't someone ask them whether they would extend the requirement that they are asking of the EPMU to all employers?
I am beginning to think that it would be possible to have a worse president than Dubya. McCain.
I am a little reluctant to bring this whaleism to the discussion, but today Slater posted:
"I bet the scumbag actually went and asked for his Mum to die so she could distract everyone from what is abundantly clear to even the most stupid of observers."
A media7 show on the bottom-dwelling wingnut right-wing bloggers would be entertaining and probably get an audience...