Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I would imagine that they reported it, or were aware it had been reported, by making an entry in the project risk register, on the meeting minutes, or, if using Agile, in crayon on a piece of brightly coloured paper stuck to the wall of the meeting room, which will subsequently have fallen on the floor and been hoovered up by the cleaner*
Either way it was reported. Management would have then failed to understand it and ignored it.
Well to quote Keith [referring to Boyle]:
But he did make clear that the decisions didn’t get escalated properly – i.e. Senior managers weren’t involved. He also said that it simply “dropped off the radar” – that it wasn’t a matter of cost-cutting, it was a matter of WTF.
That may be incorrect, but if it is, pushing all the blame up the chain clearly isn't valid. What 'escalated properly' means... quite possibly there's blame above and below.
-
This might have the info?
-
And you can map network resources through the printer dialogue (let me know if I’m wrong about this).
No you're right, at least in Windows 7. Go to print, click find printer, up pops an explorer window, right click on your computer and map away. Not very intuitive however, if someone told most people that you wouldn't think having access to printers gave you access to the entire network.
The poor fuckers who will cop the shellacking will have chosen to ignore the security warnings not from negligence, but for the simple reason that was the only option available to them in circumstances where they were under orders to deliver n kiosks for x dollars.
I think some people are making a big jump here. Problem was identified by DD and given to MSD. Problem wasn't escalated to senior management, so some grunts on the ground and/or lower level managers have chosen not to push it up the line.
There may be cultural/structural reasons for that, which indicate that some blame needs to flow up, but the answer may actually be that some people close to the ground fucked up. Difficult to tell but at the face of it, if they were made aware of this problem, and didn't inform their superiors or fix it, they haven't done very well.
-
comes on cassette, because that’s what all the cool kids are pretending to listen to these days
I might be finally showing that I'm not really down with the kids, but... why?
-
We may indeed end up with six parties in the house , as you suggest, but only four are of significant numbers (more than one or two).
But it's not necessarily numbers that make parties significant. Act, United Future, and the Maori Party are all tiny, but without them Key would have had to hold his nose and go talk to Winston Peters. Obviously more MPs tends to make parties more significant, but those three parties have just over a third of the number of MPs of the Green Party, yet they're clearly more significant in this electoral term, so it's not an absolute rule.
We face the likelihood of losing Act next term, but possibly picking up a conservative party if National think there are votes there that they otherwise wouldn't pick up. And the break of the Maori electorates from Labour, first to NZ First and now to the Maori Party and Mana is one of the most significant things to happen under MMP.
-
What I was endeavoring to show is that in the MMP era, the share of seats going to the major parties, Nat/ Labour, is increasing. The share therefore going to ’other parties is decreasing. In theory, MMP should have delivered the a result opposite to this.
Why should MMP over time, in theory, have resulted in something opposite to that trend? MMP increased diversity over FPP. You'd expect it to vary and trend election to election compared with itself.
-
The facts illustrate we are heading towards a four party parliament, who as you suggest will be more ‘populist’.
That bit where you jumped from "we have eight parties now" and ended up at "we will have four parties" is total guesswork. Personally I think we'll end up at 6, but it could just as easily be any other number.
Here's the results year by year since MMP came in:
1996: 6
1999: 7
2002: 7
2005: 8
2008: 7
2011: 8I'm not sure of a way to graph that to indicate that we're heading "towards 4".
-
How does this make the Royal Commissions, and arguably Electoral Commissions, desire to see MMP create opportunities for new parties to enter parliament through elections? 4 out of 10, I would (generously) give them – fail.
I think it's worked quite well. Regardless of the fact that parties typically form around or because of someone splitting from another party, we have more parties represented in parliament as a result of MMP. All MPs end up in parliament via elections after all.
-
I don’t see going to 4% from 5% is a drop Ben.
Can I point out, it doesn't matter what you say after this if this is your lead off hitter, maths and all that.
-
Dunne, of course, didn’t defect under MMP.
He did really. MMP was approved in 1993 for the 1996 election. He left Labour in 1994, so certainly the different nature of the next election was in his mind. Though I think it wasn't until 2002 that he got in on Party votes (the famous worm), other elections he was always there on his electorate vote.