Posts by John McCormick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I guess it's a bit morbid to talk about death, but it's highly relevant to politics. Let's talk about ill health instead. If Winston were to become ill and have to step down as leader, it would have a major impact on the election.
In my view there isn't really a NZ First party, there's a Winston Peters party. How many NZ First voters could name even one other NZ First candidate? When Winston finally steps down, the party will limp along to the next election, miss the 5% threshhold by miles and then vanish.
What happens next is hard to tell. Many NZ First voters despise National, but they're not too keen on Labour either. Perhaps the remnants of NZ First and the Conservatives could combine to form a viable party? It will be fascinating to find out.
I think it is highly likely that Winston will continue into the 2017 election, but 2020, not so sure. Sooner or later both National and Labour will have to grapple with a post-Winston world.
-
I worked in the transport section of the old Auckland City Council when there was a "scandal" about procurement of contracts. A council manager went to a Christmas party given by the incumbent contractor. His job was to manage this contract so he spent all his time working with them. At the end of the party he was given a ham. This was a few months before the contract was up for tender. The manager was one of 4 people on the procurement panel.
Bernard Orsman and the Herald published this as a major scandal. The theory was that he would jeopardise his career and try to influence a multi-million dollar contract award because of a $50 ham. Hard to believe it was anything other than a personal vendetta against the council.
-
Forty didn't bother me at all, just an excuse for a party, but 50! Not that it's bad, more a sense of disbelief. "I can't be 50, surely some mistake". That's mature, sensible, responsible. I don't even feel properly grown up yet, let alone old.
That said, it's rather nice. From years of planning holidays around school holidays, when it's hard to get accomodation and even harder to find things to keep the child amused, we're now at the stage of 'We're off, see you in a week". I'm still enjoying the novelty.
I haven't changed the world, and probably won't now, but I've also stopped worrying about that. I still follow politics, but with a detached interest rather than a passion. Increasingly, politics seems divorced from substance. There are serious issues to deal with, but politics is all spin and show and fluff. I find it hard to take it seriously any more.
-
I was a counsellor for Lifeline in the late 1990s. Ideas may have changed, but the theory then was that reporting of suicide can "normalise" it. For someone who is already depressed, the more they hear/read/see about suicide, the more it comes to seem like an acceptable solution. Copy-cat suicides did occur, and they seemed to be more common the more detailed and explicit the reports were. That's why methods of suicide are generally not reported.
I haven't seen the programme so I'm only going on the comments here. If it is people talking openly about their feelings that seems like a good thing. If it goes into detail about actual suicides that could be risky. To say that the rates are not falling, so we have to do something different is not a justification for any particular action. There are many factors at play and new approaches should be carefully planned to reduce the risk that they could make things worse. No criticism intended, just wanting to say that there are good reasons for being cautious around reporting of suicide.
-
I predict that the Republican nominee for president will be either a conservative posturing as a lunatic, or a genuine lunatic. The nominating process pretty much guarantees it.
-
Hard News: Haphazardly to war, in reply to Steve Barnes,
On that logic the NZ military could never do anything, anywhere, because no military action is without risk.
-
I think the discussion of what NZ troops can achieve misses the point. If we sent every military resource we have available it would still be a drop in the ocean. The decision is about symbollism, and symbollism matters. This decision affects how we are seen in the world more than it affects the outcome in Iraq/Syria. But the NZ PM can't just come out and say "Our troops won't make any difference but we're going to send them anyway", so he plays the diplomatic game.
We shouldn't support this just because it is American led, but we shouldn't reject it for that reason either. The question is, is this the right thing to do? America largely created the problem with it's disastrous invasion of Iraq, is it not right that it should do what it can to reduce the damage?
I don't see much political upside for Obama in this action, it seems likely that he is genuinely trying to do the right thing. Of course there are grave dangers in sending troops, but there are grave dangers to doing nothing as well. ISIS has trumpeted their barbarity and the more territory they get the more people will be subjected to it. And to say that we need a comprehensive peace plan is to say do nothing, I doubt we'll see that in my lifetime. The question then is, is this action better than doing nothing?
On balance, I believe it is not. ISIS is trying to provoke an invasion so they can widen the conflict and draw more recruits. However if America is going to do this, the more support they have the less it looks like just an American action and the more chance of some form of success. While NZ's role is marginal in both military and political terms, I think suporting the action is better than not.
-
Thanks Russell, I have enjoyed following your coverage, both here and on Twitter (I am one of your new followers). I think you have got the tone right, you have clear opinions, sometimes forcefully expressed, but not overstepping into personal abuse.
I will vote tomorrow, I like the sense of occasion doing it on the day. My daughter is 17 so can’t vote this time, but she will be all go for 2017.