While Nigeria isn't Francophone, the countries surrounding it are, and Boko Haram melts across the borders to avoid Nigerian pursuit.So getting them cooperating could help reduce Boko Haram's effectiveness - although last week's agreement was mainly "agreeing to talk" AFAIK.

It looked to me (from what you quoted) like she was focusing on value add more than, say, exam results. She was also stressing how it was complicated and that there wasn't a simple answer. It looked like she was being quite conceptual and kicking ideas around. That is not a useful thing to do in a media interview, but quite a useful thing for a Minister to do overall. Overall, it seems to me that the media reaction earlier in the week was more about what sort of thoughts people might want to ascribe to the Minister, rather than what she was actually doing. That said, a loose interview gave people lots of ammo.

I believe Campbell Live is biased against power and towards the left, but I still watch it. There's room in the media for a range of editorial positions, just as there should be critique of those positions. And Campbell Live doesn't aspire to be a neutral journal/media outlet of record, so it's not trying to hide its approach. If it adds a byline of Fair and Balanced, that would be another story.

Ta - a very good read

The example you put up is pointless, as the runners-up were running in a first past the post competition in the weekend's election, so someone like Gareth Hughes (a quality candidate) told people he only wanted the party vote (as did Katrina Shanks) so Ohariu became a Labour-United Future competition. Under the system you are examining, the campaign would be different as would be the demand by candidates for seats with a high Green vote.

Tom, I find the Panel broadly leftwing, but whatever political complexion it is on the day, it's not the stage for our finest political and social debate.

Graeme, I really value your fact checking, but you seem to be parsing opinions here rather than checking specific facts. And your second reviewed comment, by Matt Nippert, takes him to task for an implication that MMP requires more than 50% voter support to get things done, but the comment from Nippert doesn't have any such clear implication. And anyway, do we really hold The Panel to any serious standard of discussion or debate?