There has been much discussion lately about the National and ACT party lists.
A focus has been on the ethnic and sexual make up of the candidates.
National's list 'promotes strength and diversity' says party president Judy Kirk, but there was still predictable criticism of National from the left.
Indeed, the obsession with diversity even infects the ACT Party, despite it supposedly having beliefs in the power of the individual rather than the sexual or ethnic collective.
Outside the top 4, ACT's party list seems largely a list of lightweight unknowns.
What does a trade union activist who wrote policy for the Greens bring to ACT at number 10 on the party list? Is it simply because he's an Asian face? My mind boggles as to what?
Likewise with the Maori novelist with the Russian-sounding name most of us will never have heard of.
Indeed, what a bunch of unknowns. What a bunch of lightweights.
Rodney and Heather talk about these candidates been 'committed ACT-ivists.'
But where did they come from? Where were they hiding until now? If they were that committed, surely they would be better known.
In the meantime, those who are well known, and have shown their value and worth, are well and truly shafted by the ACT selection board.
Lindsay Mitchell is not alone, but her case highlights some of the issues with ACT and already how she has been treated has caused much upset and outrage on the right, with Blair Mulholland for example, now demanding Lindsay fill the vacant Number 5 spot.
Apparantly, however, according to the New Zealand Herald, ACT is seeking 'young blood' for this top 5 spot- 'possibly a young woman to counterbalance Sir Roger,' it says.
So, despite Lindsay and others deserving recognition and ranking on merit, ACT's following of the diversity mantra looks set to continue , with the deserving cast aside, again.
What a shame Lindsay isn't a 20-something, one-legged Pasifika lesbian. If she was, I'm sure she'd be a shoe-in!