But they're not, are they. They're generally an odd mix of conservative and libertarian policies, but they come with rational explanations for them. We may strongly disagree with the rational explanations or consider them based on completely false premises, but we don't have to act like it's Kiwiblog and someone just mentioned the Green Party.
...for all those who acted as an accessory to the offence by voting for them.
Not that I'm a fan of ACT, but why does the mere mention of its name cause otherwise sane people to immediately issue a stream of deranged gibberish?
It's kind of depressing that this was something that needed explaining, but thank you for doing it. This post is a beautiful piece of work.
Has Lindsay Mitchell explained it in Gordon Campbell's comments section, difference between "continuous" and "average all-up duration" as she calls it ?
Maybe. MSD reported just over half of DPB recipients in a 10-year period had been supported by a main benefit for 80% of the period observed (said period apparently not being 10 years in every case). But if you call it around 8 years out of the 10, that still doesn't mean 8 continuous years, just 8 years total. I clocked up around 13 months on benefits over a 2-year period when I was younger, but was never on one for longer than a few months - so I was either on a benefit for over half the period in question, or only ever briefly on a benefit, depending on how it suits you to juke the stats.
Even taking that into account, it strains credibility that 43% of beneficiaries have been on one for 10 years continuously - that's got to be an error, surely.
Looks like you called it - split age drops out immediately due to the majority favouring keeping it 18 or raising it to 20.
Can't say I'm disappointed - split age was a stupid compromise, making the purchasing age a lot more complicated for the sole purpose of allowing MPs to use the word "compromise." Their voting procedure may have been a poor one, but I'm not complaining about the outcome.
Campbell comes back
Cool! I recall his pieces in the Listener preceding the invasion of Afghanistan, warning that if we pick a fight with those guys we'd better be ready for a permanent engagement. How wrong he was, eh?
Too bad he's not back at the Listener. Speaking of which:
Whenever I want coverage of breast implants, suburban house prices or Princess Diana they're my first port of call.
Danyl, you are so wrong. They do investment advice and current middle class health scares as well.
Sorry, I was absent-mindedly using old in-group slang - should pay more attention to what I'm writing. "Mutie" as in "crazed mutants," a regular feature of lurid SF comics in my now-distant childhood.
"If I want to be shouted at and abused, just for having a different opinion, I can go over to No Minister any old time..."
Having written a post at No Minister disagreeing with your view, and reaped a bumper crop of abusive trolls as a result, I can fully understand any reluctance you might feel to drop by and argue the point. It doesn't change my view that the blogosphere has to be shared with its mutier participants, but I can appreciate why you also wouldn't change yours.
"...but a number of political blogs, including No Minister and Michael Earley's blog are."
Surely that should be No Minister?
Well hey, there was nothing in the user agreement about not engaging in shameless blog-whoring...