I guess I know too much about Sam here – a friend gave me a bunch of info about him that I can’t really share online but basicially used the term Uncle Tom to describe him

Oh that’s alright then. As long as it was just your friend using that racist slur, then that’s fine.

The Greens will be obviously disappointed with their failure to significantly increase their vote and as you point out, much of their support is the educated, urban Pakeha.

The Maori Party will always be at loggerheads with Labour unless they can reach agreement on the Maori seats which looks unlikely at present.

And the lower income “middle NZers” appear to be less frightened by National and more worried about Labour’s social policies.

However, as some have already noted, National will score an own goal if there is a perception that they have simply carried on from where Labour left off and will drive through their own agenda regardless of the reaction.

I guess I know too much about Sam here – a friend gave me a bunch of info about him that I can’t really share online but basicially used the term Uncle Tom to describe him…

National won the election based on large demographic changes on voting patterns in South Auckland, the immigrant vote generally, lower-income Pakeha, and (via the Maori party) in the Maori seats.

gobsmacked: I think it very unlikely indeed that National’s caucus will shrink significantly in 2011. Labour increased in 2002, and even in 1987. The chance
of this being a one-term government is slim.

I think it very likely indeed that Labour’s caucus will continue to decline – partly for demographic reasons above. Look at the post-election polls and you will see ACT’s voting increasing (drawing some voters from National) while Labour is leaking voters in every direction – to National (lower income Pakeha); to the Greens (higher education Pakeha) and to the Maori party.

National’s lowest poll result – in 2002 – was clearly the result of a one-off flirtation with centre parties. Labour’s loss is much more than that – it is systemic and demographic – and consequently, much more serious, even if the numbers look better overall.

Melissa Lee and Peseta Sam Lota Iiga are representative of the changing face of New Zealand. They are young, educated, urbane and ambitious. Both have enormous potential, as do many others of the class of 2008, from right across the House. It bodes well for the future.

Opposition to the Springbok Tour simply illustrates my point. Another anti-racist movement led by progressives, opposed by conservatives. (Feel free to prove me wrong by giving us the list of right-wing anti-Tour leaders).

It has been that way throughout history. But again, thanks for following.

Can’t say the same for Winston though. Who was it who was in coalition with him last?

Ethic-diversity is at best a diversion, more important what will they do?

Please can we see honest answers to questions in parliament? This is really important. Yes you can take sides, but when the enemy asks a question, understand that they represent a good chunk of us, and have the right to a proper answer!

Three years ago National’s policy on non-Maori minorities was:

1) “My wife’s from Singapore”
2) “Er … did I mention my wife was from Singapore?”

Now John Key has pushed National to build a more diverse caucus, reflecting Mainstream New Zealand (remember that lovely little label, Nats?). But the hard part for the new MPs will be keeping their seats, when the caucus inevitably shrinks in 2011.

But good to see some righties joining the anti-racism movement. As on so many issues, we lead, and you’re always very welcome to follow, once the polls say it’s safe to do so.

ps using “insert” in a sentence with “David Benson-Pope” is already joke enough.