What’s Kim Dotcom’s end game here?

SCCZEN_167514604_620x310

I find the idea of Kim Dotcom forming a political party a fascinating plot in this years drama that is the 2014 election.

I want to know what Kim’s end game is, and I wonder if there is a chance that his involvement with the election this year will aid National in being re-elected, so I ponder again what his end game is.

I see now that Russell Norman has asked the same questions as it was revealed on Newstalk ZB yesterday that he twice approached Mr. Dotcom asking him not to form a party as it would split the vote on the left. An astute observation by Dr. Norman who is fast becoming one of the more enlightened MPs we have in parliament.

There is such an interesting sub-text here that will only be revealed if the questions are put to Mr. Dotcom himself.

  • Why are you bankrolling a political party when you cannot be elected to parliament?
  • What are you main ambitions behind the party?
  • Are you wanting a change of government?
  • If so are you not concerned that your party will take votes away from the left, especially some of the Greens youth vote?

Comedian Chris Brain pondered at the end of 2013 during the year in review episode of The Slightly Correct Political Show why the left has held up Kim Dotcom as a hero saying it strange that they would hold up someone as a poster boy who is ‘a free market capitalist who doesn’t believe particularly in protecting intellectual property.’ Think what the left has stood up for in the past term with protests against legislation around movie making, Helen Clark’s famous connection to the art and grants has intertwined the artistic community with the left. That on top of his connections with the right via John Banks and ACT makes this, to me, a salacious part of the political year.

I think it pretty fair to assume that no one from the right of the political spectrum will be voting for the Internet Party, which means that in the very likely scenario that the Internet Party doesn’t make 5% (and they likely won’t) that Dr. Russell Norman is completely correct, it will be youth votes, that would normally be associated with Mana and the Greens and maybe to a lesser extent Labour that will become non-votes perhaps making it easier to allow John Key to get a third term as Prime Minister

So again I ponder what is the end game here. Kim Dotcom has apparently surrounded himself with talented, albeit far far left, political consultants like Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury, who is talented and smart (and a nice guy all in all) but has an overwhelming dislike for the right and is an ideologue and a zealot whose perceptions sometimes clouds his judgements. ‘Bomber’ is someone that John Key could rightfully label someone with a ‘far left agenda’ and my boggle is to see how that can possibly work to oust the incumbent government.

So if we agree (and you might now) that the Internet Party will attract young left voters, and if one of Kim Dotcom’s ambitions is to see a change of government then the stars do not seem to align…so is it that I am wrong thinking the Internet Party will fall short, is it that the Internet Party is deluded in what they are thinking, or is it that Kim Dotcom has an ulterior agenda with his apparent right wing, free market, connections.

Full disclosure. I connected with Vikram Kumar and Finn Batato about helping Mr. Dotcom with some ideas and they’ve obviously chosen to go a different way which is fine…but they way they are now travelling is…confusing…to say the least.

I just don’t know what’s going to happen from here…but I am intrigued!

Happy 30th Birthday Apple Macintosh

A ground breaking Super Bowl advert, an Orwellian novel reference and Apple was born.

Happy 30th birthday Apple (as I write this post on an HP touch-screen) and we celebrate with the original advert that launched it all

A delightful Pixar Short – La Luna

Recorded a short film off Sky Movies last week and just got to watch it with the kids. It is one of the most delightful short films I have seen in a long time, subsequent research then taught me that it was nominated for an Oscar at the 2012 Academy Awards. Rightfully so…enjoy!

“Yes to Colin…and mmmaybe to Winston” says Mr. Key

John Key will signal in a speech in few minutes that if the people of NZ want to continue with the status quo he’s happy to oblige. Mr Key will say that “given the right electoral circumstances, his preference would be to continue working with the current three partners to the Government, which are ACT, the Māori Party and United Future.”

Mr. Key also sees a scenario where the Conservatives could be an option even though he’ll acknowledge that they have “policy differences” it doesn’t mean they also couldn’t find some common ground.

Unsurprisingly the Prime Minister will rule out Labour, The Greens and Mana as potential coalition partners however with regards to NZ First there is the hint of a slight softening. Mr Key will say that a “relationship was very unlikely” but ultimately he will not rule out the possibility entirely prior to the election.

See the full speech from JohnKey.co.nz below

Prime Minister John Key today set out his decision on which parties National will consider working with following this year’s General Election.

“MMP makes it likely that every election will be a tight contest,” Mr Key says.

“That means it’s also likely that following the election we will need to work collaboratively with other parties to form a stable Government.

“First and foremost, National will be campaigning hard for every party vote it can win, because that puts us in the best position to continue the positive policy direction New Zealand is on.

“Put simply, the higher National’s party vote, the more options we have.

“I know that post the 2014 election, National will almost certainly need to work constructively with other political parties to form a stable Government.

“Since November 2008, we have shown that we can lead a stable Government with other political parties involved, even when those parties have different outlooks and policies.

“Looking ahead, it is most likely that the nature of these working relationships will be via Confidence and Supply Agreements, as these have worked well in the past two Parliamentary terms.

“In the end it is the public who largely determine the make-up of the Government by voting in parties to Parliament,” says Mr Key.

Mr Key says that given the right electoral circumstances, his preference would be to continue working with the current three partners to the Government, which are ACT, the Māori Party and United Future.

“I believe there is also a scenario where it would be possible to add the Conservative Party to this group.

“While National has of course had differences with ACT, the Māori Party and United Future, together our four parties have formed a stable and successful Government since late 2008,” Mr Key says.

“We also have policy differences with the Conservative Party, however it is likely that there would be enough common ground to work with them in Government.”

In terms of other parliamentary parties, Mr Key ruled out working with Labour, the Greens and Mana on the basis that there is insufficient common ground to achieve a stable and successful working relationship.

“These parties represent a far left wing agenda that we do not believe is good for New Zealand,” says Mr Key.

With regard to New Zealand First, Mr Key said that he believed a post-election working relationship was very unlikely; however he would not rule the possibility out ahead of the election.

“In 2008 we ruled them out because we were unable to reconcile some of their statements on the Glenn donation matter. Six years has passed and, should New Zealand First be returned to Parliament, we would not rule out a discussion after the election.”

To smack or not to smack? (psst. the answer is ‘not to smack’)

The topic of smacking is again in the headlines and I am trying to figure out why a particular political party is still pushing this issue.

In response to someone who potentially will be in parliament at the end of this year stating that he breaks the law because he thinks the law is ‘silly‘ Kyle MacDonald of the NZ Association of Psychotherapists released a statement saying amongst other things that the ” physical punishment — including spanking, hitting and other means of causing pain — can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behaviour, physical injury and mental health problems for children.”

Further to that professional opinion, based on studies and research, I also wanted to mention an interview I did when I was involved with a radio show with Petra Bagust a couple of years ago. We interviewed Dr Russell Wills, now Children’s Commissioner, who was then the head of the Paediatrics Society of NZ and asked him if smacking was a gateway to abuse, his response was that ‘there’s no question about that of course it is.’

You can hear a two and a half minute section of the interview here

I have not cherry picked a couple of academics here either, the vast majority of child care experts agree that smacking, even ‘inconsequential’ smacking can be harmful long term. We live in a country where is something can be harmful it is often outlawed. Our laws work by the majority of us, who know where the line is, giving up some freedoms because the small minority can’t figure that ‘line’ out. You and I don’t need to be told not to murder…but we need specific legislation there so the handful of people who do need to be told, can be legislated against. I guess the one difference here is everyone knows murder is not acceptable but as for smacking we have the vast majority of experts in issues around children almost speaking with one voice saying ‘don’t smack’ and in response some sectors of the public are giving that position the middle finger think we know better than people who work in these fields every day, who see the downstream effects of what we’re talking about, who make the longitudinal studies that we then choose to ignore. It just makes no sense.

Look you can choose to think what you like, but here is something that I read yesterday that I think demonstrates to me what it means to be a parent and what we should be doing, in our own Western way, to raise our children.

Here is a tribe in Africa where the birth date of a child is counted not from when they were born, nor from when they are conceived but from the day that the child was a thought in its mother’s mind. And when a woman decides that she will have a child, she goes off and sits under a tree, by herself, and she listens until she can hear the song of the child that wants to come. And after she’s heard the song of this child, she comes back to the man who will be the child’s father, and teaches it to him. And then, when they make love to physically conceive the child, some of that time they sing the song of the child, as a way to invite it.

And then, when the mother is pregnant, the mother teaches that child’s song to the midwives and the old women of the village, so that when the child is born, the old women and the people around her sing the child’s song to welcome it. And then, as the child grows up, the other villagers are taught the child’s song. If the child falls, or hurts its knee, someone picks it up and sings its song to it. Or perhaps the child does something wonderful, or goes through the rites of puberty, then as a way of honoring this person, the people of the village sing his or her song.

In the African tribe there is one other occasion upon which the villagers sing to the child. If at any time during his or her life, the person commits a crime or aberrant social act, the individual is called to the center of the village and the people in the community form a circle around them. Then they sing their song to them.

The tribe recognizes that the correction for antisocial behaviour is not punishment; it is love and the remembrance of identity. When you recognize your own song, you have no desire or need to do anything that would hurt another.

And it goes this way through their life. In marriage, the songs are sung, together. And finally, when this child is lying in bed, ready to die, all the villagers know his or her song, and they sing—for the last time—the song to that person.

Lets just state that bit again

The tribe recognizes that the correction for antisocial behaviour is not punishment; it is love and the remembrance of identity. When you recognize your own song, you have no desire or need to do anything that would hurt another.

Even a tribe, in a third world country, who doesn’t have the access to anywhere near the same resources we do when it comes to education and expert opinion, has this figured this out.

But then again, maybe you think the law is ‘Silly’ so you’ll keep smacking your kids because “two thirds of NZ agree with you.”