My 2cents worth: I’ve put your combined list below, and expanded it slightly.

I added “or ECE worker” to Teacher and added in a “Engineer or Research Scientist” category (a combination what would have most scientists and engineers I know spitting, but what the hey). In memory of Rob Muldoon and to round out your list of traditional professions I also added “Accountant”. I even found a polite phrase for “Writer, Painter, Artist, Potter, Musician or other arty-farty type”.

I don’t know what you meant by “public sector”. There are public sector managers, public sector IT workers, public sector accountants… if what you mean is “public sector manager or policy analyist” then you’d best say so.

But people just don’t pigeonhole well. Take that both as a political philosophy and as a reason why this sort of thing is hard:

* Farmer
* Lawyer
* Accountant
* Journalist / broadcaster / Media worker etc.
* Teacher or ECE worker
* University lecturer
* Business Owner
* Private Sector Manager
* Public Sector
* Engineer or research scientist
* IT Professional
* Other Professional
* Unionist
* Other Community/NGO Manager/Staff
* Labourer
* Artist, Musician, Craft worker or similar
* Home maker

JayDee (8) Says: Ross, The $80k donation offer has been made to ACT (foolishly in writing).

Source? I mean, you’ve been relying on this throughout this entire thread. Just curious where you got this information, or whether you’re just making shit up as you go along, that’s all.

You are saying that the ACT Asian Chapter is an “interest group” My understanding is that the Asian Chapter is just that, the Asian Chapter of the ACT Party – an internal component of the ACT Party like ACT on Campus. They are represented on the Board as a wing of the party. They are not an “interest group”.

I would also point out that (it is my understanding) that ACT is one of only two parties that allow their members to vote. All other parties have their Board or other powerful cliques process the entire list. I think it is admirable that ACT allows people to vote at all. I’d love for National to do something similar.

ACT does not disclose (even to its own candidates!) how members ranked the list placings. There is a very good reason for this; there’s very little correlation between the Board list ranking and the members ranking. The ACT list is in effect done by appointment by a small Board, not selection by party members. If it were the latter, there would be no concern and no grounds to suggest impropriety. If ACT is to continue with this degree of non-disclosure about its selection process it needs to be more transparent about the source of its political donations. It needs to do what it is asking other parties to do.

So where is the evidence of this 80k in writing again?

JayDee (8) Says: Ross, The $80k donation offer has been made to ACT (foolishly in writing).

Voting National is hardly a vote for change. Only ACT is going to deliver New Zealand economic salvation.

I thought Kenneth became an MP after Donna was removed? Did Richard not stay a MP until the election?

This is a rather borning list, which is a very good idea for National. It has some talent further down and will not scare the horses. It was also great to see Franks down so low, he would have been a pain in the ass in cacus.

What a joke. $80k is nothing, and I would have thought such a suggestion would be laughed at.

One position it might buy though – last. I heard that ACT candidates (used to?) bid on the last spot on the list – a perverse sort of honour. Garry Mallett coughs up quite a few thousand for it apparently

Any claimed association with a list position is just that – claimed. No it’s less than that, just cheapshot scuttlebutt which says more about how the claimant does his or her bitter little life. It’s factually false, worthy of ignoring except that in this instance I thought it was a slight against our Asian Chapter community, I have friends there and if you think I’m taking this a little personally you could be right.

All the Police reports and witnesses said that the breath tester was never visible and that the Commissioner never said “that won’t be necessary”.

The SST journalist and editor both swore under oath in court that Helen told them these facts. And you can’t claim the SST is a right leaning paper.

She got someone sacked because he didn’t fit under her mould.

“I will not ever be bullied into defending accusations such as those you make in your second last paragraph”

LOL

Southern Raider: Spit it out, man!
WHAT about Clark’s relationship with Davis would so horrify the voters that “Labour would go down quicker than a Zepplin”???