Friday, March 23, 2018

ON NORTHCOTE

Dr (of Medicine) Jonathon Coleman has announced his intention to resign from parliament to take up a new role as CEO of the Acurity Health Group.    On a personal level I wish him well.

But, having said that, I have a strong view that if you put yourself forward as an electorate MP you should serve out your term.   You accept the good with the bad.    That was my view when Shearer quit; it remains my view.   It matters not with List MPs.   They are automatically replaced by the next name on their Party list.   Not so with electorate MPs.   By-elections cost (and a figure of $500,000 has been mentioned) and that alone should be reason enough to have MPs think carefully before they tender their resignation.   The flip side of the argument I guess is that if an MP is of a mindset where he/she thinks they cannot any more make a useful contribution to parliament then they should go.    The argument is balanced but IMHO they should serve out their term.

By-elections are fickle things (as National found out in Northland) and although Northcote can be considered a 'safe' seat for National the reality is that the coalition government should still be enjoying a post-honeymoon period (although they appear to be trying hard to turn that around).    Another factor to be considered is that the by-election will probably take place when Winston is acting PM.   Anything and everything could happen and probably will.

Dr Lance O'Sullivan has been touted by some as a possible National candidate.   I think that's people interviewing their typewriters.   O'Sullivan is not and never has been a member of the National Party although he has put out 'feelers'.   It is also a matter of record that he has talked to ACT, TOP, the Maori and Green Parties.   Seems to me he has no great ideological base and is prepared to go with the Party that offers HIM the best deal.

If Northcote is looking for another Dr to represent them then they should look no further than Dr Chris Reid.    Chris is National and has previously stood for selection.    A past elected member of the Northland  DHB and current Chair of the National Advisory Council of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners he is widely respected by the medical profession.    Chris previously served in the UK special forces (Special Boat Service) and is a successful author.    He has much to offer.


31 comments:

David said...

Veteran I am curious as to why you styled Jonathon Coleman as "Dr (of Medicine)" but not Dr Lance O'Sullivan.

reminds me a bit of the blue rinse set in the 1980's writing to The Adelaide Advertiser complaining about the SA Health Minister and referring to him as "Dr (non medical)" Cornwall. John Cornwall was entitled to the title Dr as he was a BVSc, making him far more qualified for the portfolio than the blue rise ninnies.

Anonymous said...

As Muldoon quiped "There's two kinds of Dr's, ones that make you well and others that make you sick"

Guess which category the PhD's fall into.

Mick

The Veteran said...

David ... easy. I was comparing him with his successor as Minister of Health. Dr (of Divinity) David Clark. Thought you would have picked that up.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Naaaah Vet. He's too busy making Leftist assumptions.

Anonymous said...

Vet, the candidate should come from the North Shore, preferably Northcote. Dr Reid shouldn't be flown in for the role. It's a huge risk for someone to want to be a local MP who doesn't know the local issues and doesn't live here (I'm in the electorate).

Nick K

The Veteran said...

Nick ... I agree but I understand Chris does have some local connections. You guys will pick 'your' candidate. The thrust of what I was trying to get across was that those talking up Lance O'Sullivan for National haven't looked at his history. If I were to hazard a guess I would see him standing as the TOP candidate.

alwyn said...

I agree with you opinion that MPs representing Electorates with the exception of a defeated Prime Minister.
I think that if they wish to step down and cause a by-election that is quite acceptable. Clark was an example.
Not for others though. You took the job on, you finish it.

David said...

Mick repeats the idiocy of Muldoon and then doubles down with his own attack on anyone smarter than he is.

The stupidity and cupidity of the right knows no bounds.

Many PhDs are from the fields of science and medicine, particularly research and are responsible for the growing knowledge base that is improving and saving lives.

Jealousy of intellectual prowess is a hallmark of the right.

The Veteran said...

David ... so you agree that a DD is a bit of a dud then?

Andrei said...

"Many PhDs are from the fields of science and medicine, particularly research and are responsible for the growing knowledge base that is improving and saving lives.

Jealousy of intellectual prowess is a hallmark of the right."


Ha David you are making the elementary mistake of assuming being credentialed is equivalent to being smart

I can assure you the two things are not correlated ay all

Anonymous said...

Don't worry about David. Some adult probably told him 'No' when he was a child and he's carried the hurt all his life.

Mick

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

While jealousy of common sense and commercial success is a hallmark of the left. That's why they always look so sour and sound so mean.

Paulus said...

The styled Doctor Megan Woods an Minister likes to be called Dr Woods as she has a Phd in New Zealand History.
Probably made up history after all anyway.

Psycho Milt said...

The styled Doctor Megan Woods an Minister likes to be called Dr Woods...

Perhaps that's because that's her title, just like mine is "Mr." If people started calling you "self-styled Mr so-and-so" or suggesting you weren't entitled to the honorific "Mr," you might find it insulting, for the excellent reason that it is.

The funny part about people who suggest people with PhDs aren't "real" doctors is that they're displaying their ignorance, and usually proudly displaying it to boot, as though being ignorant were some kind of aspirational goal. For the record, a doctor is someone who's achieved a doctorate. Medical practitioners are given the honorary title doctor as a mark of respect, not because they're actual doctors.

TL/DR: Megan Woods is a real doctor, Jonathan Coleman is an honorary doctor.

David said...

Milt, it goes back further than that, the original term Doctor meant teacher, but that is another class of people the right despise.

Doctor is an academic title that originates from the Latin word of the same spelling and meaning.[1] The word is originally an agentive noun of the Latin verb docēre [dɔˈkeːrɛ] 'to teach'. It has been used as an academic title in Europe since the 13th century, when the first doctorates were awarded at the University of Bologna and the University of Paris. Having become established in European universities, this usage spread around the world. Contracted "Dr" or "Dr.", it is used as a designation for a person who has obtained a Doctorate (e.g. PhD). In many parts of the world it is also used by medical practitioners, regardless of whether or not they hold a doctoral-level degree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)

David said...

The Veteran said...
David ... so you agree that a DD is a bit of a dud then?


Any study that purports to "know religious truth" is a waste of time, IMHO. However, if people wish to waste their lives pretending that fairy tales are true then who am I to stop them? Just as long as they don't scare the horses and don't fiddle the kiddies.

Andrei said...

" Any study that purports to "know religious truth" is a waste of time"

You mean like Climate "science" David?

Quakery dressed up in scienctific jargon and presented as a fundamental "truth".

Anonymous said...

Just when things get interesting Andrei does a Walter.....disrupts with another subject.
No, please don't reply.

Lord Egbut

David said...

Andrei, if you can provide testable, repeatable, proof your gods exist then I will provide you full, comprehensive proof of climate change. You first, and if you fail, then I get to tell you to STFU.

Andrei said...

"Just when things get interesting Andrei does a Walter.....disrupts with another subject.
No, please don't reply."


The topic of conversation is whether academic credentials do a good MP make Egbut

And the consensus is that many a PHD thesis is crap and that prefixing your name with the title Dr means diddly when it comes to finding practical solutions for real world problems

Talking of diversions it is my thesis that "climate change" is a very attractive proposition to charlatan politicians because it is an isuue that allows them to advance ideologies to avoid supposed consequences that wont be observable until everyone alive today are long in their graves while neglecting the harder problems of the here and now which are a bit more intractable and failure is palpable

In any case a GP with real world experience almost certainly has more to contribute in debates concerning public health say than a PHD in History can to managing Resources and Energy

Psycho Milt said...

And the consensus is that many a PHD thesis is crap and that prefixing your name with the title Dr means diddly when it comes to finding practical solutions for real world problems

Governance isn't about finding practical solutions to problems - that's what your staff are there for. High-level positions, whether cabinet ministers or CEOs, are about abstract thinking, being able to see the bigger picture instead of leaping immediately to trying to solve the problem in front of you, and being able to absorb a shitload of information and extract the most significant parts. "Prefixing your name with the title Dr" means you've proved yourself pretty good at those things. It may not make you ideal executive material but it certainly won't hinder it.

In any case a GP with real world experience almost certainly has more to contribute in debates concerning public health say than a PHD in History can to managing Resources and Energy

Well, possibly, but not "almost certainly." Someone who's done time as a GP is at significant risk of assuming they already know what they need to know about the health system, which would be both wrong and dangerous. Someone with a PhD has experience in exactly the kind of critical thinking and ability to read and understand large volumes of written content that we need from cabinet ministers. Whether the one would do better than the other as a cabinet minister is largely a matter of the individuals concerned, not the previous experience.

Andrei said...

" Governance isn't about finding practical solutions to problems"

There it is folks pearls of wisdom from a lefty - we don't vote for people who will govern this land in an orderly manner but for people who are good at " abstract thinking".

Or in other words people have their heads in the fucking clouds

Psycho Milt said...

The idea that complex problems have simple solutions is for simpletons.

Andrei said...

"The idea that complex problems have simple solutions is for simpletons."

Never said that Milt nor implied it

But the idea that someone who has obtainwed a Phd for a thesis in "Gender studies" can speak intelligently in a problem that requires facility with non linear differential equations is off the wall insane

All most Phds in the post modern world demonstrate is a facility with bullshit and double talk, which I'll grant you are good skills for a political hack to have but not so good for the electorate

Not all Phds are created equal and you don't need one `to erect a tower crane that doesn't fall over but believe me that is a highly skilled enterprisem far more skilled than producing reams of bullshit that nobody in their right mind would ever want to read

Psycho Milt said...

You've implied it throughout the thread, not least with this last comment:

Not all Phds are created equal and you don't need one `to erect a tower crane that doesn't fall over but believe me that is a highly skilled enterprisem far more skilled than producing reams of bullshit that nobody in their right mind would ever want to read

Indeed it would be foolish to ask someone with a degree in gender studies to erect a tower crane, just like it would be foolish to ask an engineer to report on pay equity issues. However, one of them's more use in government and it's not the engineer, because cabinet ministers aren't ever tasked with erecting tower cranes but are regularly tasked with analysing social issues and coming up with policy for dealing with them.

Andrei said...

... but are regularly tasked with analysing social issues and coming up with policy for dealing with them.

Therein lies your problem Milt - you believe the purpose of Government is to create Nirvana on Earth

Government drones "analysing social issues and coming up with policy for dealing with them" usually leads to greater problems - The Law of Unintended Consequences

And do you know why this is Milt? Because their policies are based upon ideology not commonsense nor a profound understanding of human nature

You want to solve "social issues" then ensure we have a robust economy where people can go about their lawful business unimpeded intrusive Government meddling or criminal elements.

Government is not about ensuring a gender balance in the nations board rooms for example - it is about ensuring that this country has the electrity generation capacity it needs 20 years from now to support its economic infrastructure, its about protecting citizens from the depredations of the criminal classes and so forth - not about inflicting some vision of a perfect society born in the ivory towers of academia upon us because that is the path to hell

Andrei said...

Here's an example Milt - The Government in its wisdom decided it was desirable to make NZ smoke free by 2025 or something

And the way to acheive this is to tax the fuck out of tobacco - brilliant

And as anyone with functioning grey matter grasps that making tobacco horrendously expensive leads to dairy robberies and black markets - and so it has turned out

The fact it was a National Government that set us off down this path is one of the reasons they are now languishing on the opposition benches - not this issue in particular, you understand, but that they are as suseptable to engaging in social engineering based on ideology as the other lot

Psycho Milt said...

And there it is again - governance is just a matter of "common sense" and "a profound understanding of human nature," otherwise known as "gut instinct." My favourite comment on people valuing their gut instinct comes from Dilbert: "When your gut was talking to you, what did it use for a mouth?"

Psycho Milt said...

The Government in its wisdom decided it was desirable to make NZ smoke free by 2025 or something

Government foolishness in trying to prevent recreational drug use is a feature of conservative and traditional societies as well as modern, liberal ones. Education can only reduce the amount of foolishness practiced by governments, it can't eradicate it.

Andrei said...

I never said "gut instinct" Milt! That is you spinning and a shabby debating tactic.

Successful leaders, real leaders, understand human nature and channel it to meet their goals both good or evil

Poor leaders try to acheive their aims by banging square pegs into round holes and end up failing and creating a lot of havoc and heartache along the way

Psycho Milt said...

Common sense and understanding human nature are just fancy terms for gut instinct. Some people's gut instinct is nearer the middle of the bell curve than others, but that's about the best you can say for it.