Monday, October 03, 2005
I have to give the political commentators for getting one thing correct: the special votes did go the way of Labour and the Greens. David Farrar provides the following analysis:
Labour: On the night got 40.74%. However got 44.26% of specials to get a final result of 41.10%.
National: On the night got 39.63%. However got a dismal 34.47% of specials to get a final result of 39.10%.
NZ First: On the night got 5.84%. However got only 4.64% of specials to get a final result of 5.72%
Green: On the night got 5.07%. However got 7.27% of specials to get a final result of 5.30%.
Maori: On the night got 1.98%. However got a massive 3.34% of specials to get a final result of 2.12%.
United Future: On the night got 2.72%. However got only 2.26% of specials to get a final result of 2.67%.
ACT: On the night got 1.52%. However got 1.46% of specials to get a final result of 1.51%.
Progressive: On the night got 1.21%. However got a miserly 0.78% of specials to get a final result of 1.16%
A new website has been launched to document and monitor New Zealand politics and politicians. TopSpin is a "wiki" (ie, a sort of open-ended document which can be edited by a variety of contributors). Say the authors: "We intend to document all parties and all mainstream media outlets." (TopSpin is the child of a former weblog called Labour Scandals. 'twill be interesting to see whether it maintains that tone. A plea to the originators of TopSpin, if you read this: at the moment the site is exceeding hard to make sense of. We need some frontpage pointers to the items that "the rest of us" will actually come looking for.)
Put the two following items together, draw the parallels with New Zealand (the cohabiting and ex-nuptial birth figures are worse), and you have some disturbing trends to contemplate:
"Man is a social animal – utterly dependent on forming and maintaining relationships with other people. A person who has always been truly alone is one who will be emotionally dead," writes James Q. Wilson. "Of all of the relationships into which people enter, the family is the most important. We are raised by parents, confronted with siblings, and introduced to peers through our familial roots. Indeed, human character arises out of the very commitments people make to others in their family or outside of it. Marriage, of course, is the supreme form of that commitment. When we make marriage less important, character suffers... The problem our society, and indeed any society, faces today is to reconcile character and freedom... for a good life, mere freedom is not sufficient. It must work with and support commitment, for out of commitment arises the human character that will guide the footsteps of people navigating the tantalizing opportunities that freedom offers. Freedom and character are not incompatible, but keeping them in balance is a profound challenge for any culture. One aspect of character that appears connected with marriage – and is even included in the marriage vows of many religious traditions – is loyalty... The fundamental social institution that encourages loyalty is the family..." Wilson goes on to plot how freedom fails as an inevitable consequence of the decline of marriage.
Within 25 years almost half of all UK men in their mid-forties and over a third of women will have never married, Government figures now show. And the number of cohabiting couples will have almost doubled from 2 million to 3.8 million in 2031. Jill Kirby of the Centre for Policy Studies commented that "parents moving in and out of different relationships" will have a greater impact on children in the future than divorce. She said a lot of women in their 40s and 50s will be living alone. But Robert Whelan of Civitas said the escalating numbers of babies born outside of marriage and brought up by one parent was the most serious figure. From a figure of 32 per cent in 1994, this rose to 42 per cent last year.
There is sometimes a fine line between efficient administration and bureaucratic overkill. A disaster such as Hurricane Katrina can quickly determine which is which. This New York Times story of the $100 million dollars of taxpayer money spent on unused ice should become a fable for our times.
Labour: On the night got 40.74%. However got 44.26% of specials to get a final result of 41.10%.
National: On the night got 39.63%. However got a dismal 34.47% of specials to get a final result of 39.10%.
NZ First: On the night got 5.84%. However got only 4.64% of specials to get a final result of 5.72%
Green: On the night got 5.07%. However got 7.27% of specials to get a final result of 5.30%.
Maori: On the night got 1.98%. However got a massive 3.34% of specials to get a final result of 2.12%.
United Future: On the night got 2.72%. However got only 2.26% of specials to get a final result of 2.67%.
ACT: On the night got 1.52%. However got 1.46% of specials to get a final result of 1.51%.
Progressive: On the night got 1.21%. However got a miserly 0.78% of specials to get a final result of 1.16%
A new website has been launched to document and monitor New Zealand politics and politicians. TopSpin is a "wiki" (ie, a sort of open-ended document which can be edited by a variety of contributors). Say the authors: "We intend to document all parties and all mainstream media outlets." (TopSpin is the child of a former weblog called Labour Scandals. 'twill be interesting to see whether it maintains that tone. A plea to the originators of TopSpin, if you read this: at the moment the site is exceeding hard to make sense of. We need some frontpage pointers to the items that "the rest of us" will actually come looking for.)
Put the two following items together, draw the parallels with New Zealand (the cohabiting and ex-nuptial birth figures are worse), and you have some disturbing trends to contemplate:
"Man is a social animal – utterly dependent on forming and maintaining relationships with other people. A person who has always been truly alone is one who will be emotionally dead," writes James Q. Wilson. "Of all of the relationships into which people enter, the family is the most important. We are raised by parents, confronted with siblings, and introduced to peers through our familial roots. Indeed, human character arises out of the very commitments people make to others in their family or outside of it. Marriage, of course, is the supreme form of that commitment. When we make marriage less important, character suffers... The problem our society, and indeed any society, faces today is to reconcile character and freedom... for a good life, mere freedom is not sufficient. It must work with and support commitment, for out of commitment arises the human character that will guide the footsteps of people navigating the tantalizing opportunities that freedom offers. Freedom and character are not incompatible, but keeping them in balance is a profound challenge for any culture. One aspect of character that appears connected with marriage – and is even included in the marriage vows of many religious traditions – is loyalty... The fundamental social institution that encourages loyalty is the family..." Wilson goes on to plot how freedom fails as an inevitable consequence of the decline of marriage.
Within 25 years almost half of all UK men in their mid-forties and over a third of women will have never married, Government figures now show. And the number of cohabiting couples will have almost doubled from 2 million to 3.8 million in 2031. Jill Kirby of the Centre for Policy Studies commented that "parents moving in and out of different relationships" will have a greater impact on children in the future than divorce. She said a lot of women in their 40s and 50s will be living alone. But Robert Whelan of Civitas said the escalating numbers of babies born outside of marriage and brought up by one parent was the most serious figure. From a figure of 32 per cent in 1994, this rose to 42 per cent last year.
There is sometimes a fine line between efficient administration and bureaucratic overkill. A disaster such as Hurricane Katrina can quickly determine which is which. This New York Times story of the $100 million dollars of taxpayer money spent on unused ice should become a fable for our times.
