web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

Epsom’s “choice” – first crook, now nutter

Written By: - Date published: 9:34 pm, July 31st, 2014 - 207 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

John Key says he wants to “give Epsom voters a choice.” Some choice. First a crook, now a nutter. More like Hobson’s choice, and a broken-down nag at that in both cases. Colin Craig was a bridge too far for Key, but Jamie Whyte sounds just as bad. I think this reliance on the unwanted parties will hurt Key; it’s beginning to feel like 1984 and 1990, where the governing party betrayed the voters’ choice.  Covert or overt, before the election or after, it’s still a rort. People don’t like it.

Among the many ironies, he thinks Maori are legally privileged because they have their own roll and their own seats in Parliament – yet he aims to get himself into Parliament courtesy of the National Party, rather than because of the policies of his rapidly diminishing and increasingly confused ACT Party. If the National government hd done what the people wanted and the Electoral Commission recommended, his wacky ideas would give him no chance of a Parliamentary salary.

And then there’s the Maori-bashing, for which Dame Susan Devoy has rightly given him a caning. To think that our laws may depend on him is beyond belief. It’s also wrong.

207 comments on “Epsom’s “choice” – first crook, now nutter”

  1. Weepus beard 1

    Dr Jamie Whyte made Colin Craig look like an ordinary Kiwi bloke today. What a frightful screw up he is.

  2. Nordy 2

    Nicely put Mike.

    I was glad to see Devoy finally finding her voice – well done!

    If it wasn’t for their track record I might feel some sympathy for the voters in Epsom.

    Keep up the posting – yours are always worth a read.

  3. Te Reo Putake 3

    “I once saw an advertisement for a book that would apparently reveal the secret of making a profit in the foreign exchange markets. I did not buy it. Someone who knew such a secret could use it to make billions for himself. He would not sell his secret, and thereby render it worthless, for £9.99.

    You should be sceptical of those who claim to be giving away something very valuable, including their extraordinary knowledge or skills”

    Jamie Whyte

    That’s one of the more useful things he’s said. Obviously, we should apply some scepticism to Whyte himself. He’s not wanting to get into parliament for altruistic reasons. He’s in it for himself. So far, so typical ACT. However, he probably needs to look at Key’s gifting of Epsom to ACT in the same light. Key doesn’t make friends, he buys them. If ACT win Epsom and Whyte scrapes in on the list, both he and David Seymour are bought men. Rodney Hyde didn’t much care. David Garrett’s not bright enough to know why he should care. But I reckon John Banks knew what it really meant.

    ACT accepting charity renders them completely impotent. They can rant and rave, but National know they will never bite the hand that feeds. Still, the money’s so good …

    • Weepus beard 3.1

      Mate, this country is toast if that guy sits in parliament.

    • miravox 3.2

      Useful but I dunno. Typical randist that Whyte is, he wouldn’t allow for this guy’s way of sharing knowledge, for example.

      But yeah, because Whyte seems to only understand humans in terms of an individual’s opportunity to make profitable transactions it can be guaranteed that he’s a bought man.

  4. Chooky 4

    Just to rub the salt in a bit more..

    ‘Jamie Whyte loses the plot and why this is Dame Devoy’s finest hour’

    By Martyn Bradbury / July 31, 2014

    If Whyte has his way, not only will he abolish the Maori seats, he will remove the Race Relations Commissioner. How would such an astoundingly racist move committed without the acceptance or agreement of the indigenous peoples who use those rights and see their up holding as vital for the peace of the country going to react?…

    • Tamati 4.1

      I bet Jamie Whyte is just thrilled that Susan Devoy lashed out at him. Kept the story in the news for another 48 hours. Expect to see Act hit 2% on the next poll.

  5. Weepus beard 5

    This shit is being courted by our own government.

  6. disturbed 6

    End of Parliament today and guess what shonkey was absent!!!

    It was comical to see labour and Winston tormenting the leftovers, as they looked around like a groom to be wondering where the bride to be was.

    He must have got a chill after the Roy Morgan poll came out?
    To much negativity to handle for him.

    It’s not in his DNA to be tormented as he usually likes to be the only one dishing it out to the opposition side, so we wouldn’t be surprised he has left for US to get some free pre election adverts again at Warner Studio’s as a payback for the $40 million he gave them of our taxpayer money to curry favour.

    Maybe after he will go sit on the wall St exchange, or go play golf with his mate Obama.

    He even may have gone to Switzerland to the Bilderberg group for help and sit at their table of Global those powerful elitists he loves to rub shoulders with as they plot to control every corner of the Globe.

    What a fascinating shadowy dark character he is.

    • Hami Shearlie 6.1

      OR, Jonkey was meeting the FBI deputy head so they could plot their next move against Kim Dot.Com! Didn’t Chris Finlayson look rattled when the press gallery got hold of the details of HIS meeting with the guy from the FBI! Postively waspish and desperate to change the subject!

  7. srylands 7

    Is this the best you can do?

    The guy won the UK IEA award for excellence in economic analysis.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/political-party-leader-wins-prestigious-seldon-award

    He is one of the few New Zealanders who regularly writes for top shelf journals like the FT and WSJ.

    And you call him a nutter. That is pretty rich coming from an author on this site.

    I wonder who history will remember with aclaim, Dr Whyte or Mike Smith from hicksville calling people names?

    “Still, the money’s so good …” Seriously you think that Jamie Whyte is doing this so he can enter Parliament on 150K? I don’t think so.

    Even for The Standard this is an absolutely pathetic excuse for political commentary.

    • McFlock 7.1

      “excellence in economic analysis.”

      Now there’s a contradiction in terms.

    • miravox 7.2

      “Seriously you think that Jamie Whyte is doing this so he can enter Parliament on 150K?”

      No. Do you seriously think $150K is all he expects?

    • Te Reo Putake 7.3

      “The guy won the UK IEA award for excellence in economic analysis.”

      Hahahaha. He won an award that only the institute that awards it thinks is prestigious.* And that joint is nowadays just a front for the tobacco industry.

      *OK, ACT apparently also put out a press release, but only morons pay attention to those. Where did you find out, Shilllands? Whoops, think I answered my own question.

      • amirite 7.3.1

        ‘The mission of the Institute of Economic Affairs is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problem.’

        Yup, the magical free market fairy will solve all our economic and social problems.
        How insane is that?

    • Macro 7.4

      Self adulation is very unbecoming Slands.
      That patsy of an “award” from a small group of idiots to an even bigger idiot is meaningless and only the idiots of Act would think it any thing else.

    • tricledrown 7.5

      5 eyed spylands the Financial Timesand the Wall Street Journal are both Murdocracy papers .
      No wonder your defending them as they push the propaganda your paid to repeat like a witless zombie.

      • Pascals bookie 7.5.1

        And the WSJ’s opinion pages have been a widely mocked wasteland for decades, most famous for hosting arguments the premisses of which can be demolished in the WSJ news section.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.6

      The guy won the UK IEA award for excellence in economic analysis.

      He is one of the few New Zealanders who regularly writes for top shelf journals like the FT and WSJ.

      Even more and better reasons for ignoring the nutter. He’s as delusional as you are.

      • Gosman 7.6.1

        Coming from someone who thinks we not only can but should produce our own computers with associated software that is a bit rich.

      • srylands 7.6.2

        You think writing for the FT and WSJ are signs of delusion? Fuck says it all about you. At least you are not a vaccine denier like your mates.

        • tricledrown 7.6.2.1

          5 eyed spylands if you think delusional is following the Murdoch cult blindly with out question and getting paid for spreading cynical unscientific mythical free Market utopc elitist BS you are Right on the money.
          you 2 should be in colon Craigs party!

        • Puddleglum 7.6.2.2

          Whatever the Wall Street Journal (despite its name) and the Financial Times are, they are not journals in any peer-reviewed, academic sense of the term.

          Writing for them is not quite the same as publishing in Nature (as Whyte would presumably understand).

          And they don’t feature in a list of economic journals.

    • Molly 7.7

      Apart from the fact the award was given by (likely neo-lib) economics institute – the following pearls of wisdom are in his award winning report….

      “…Recent examples of flawed evidence-based policy include the proposal to introduce a minimum alcohol price, the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and attempts to increase gross national happiness….”

      “A frequent error is to ignore the costs resulting from the policy. For example, minimum alcohol price plans do
not consider the welfare losses associated with reduced consumption among recreational drinkers. The benefits of alcohol consumption, and hence the cost of reducing it, are simply ignored in the analysis.”

      “The external costs of harmful activities are central to the arguments for state intervention but often cannot be calculated with any certainty. To estimate the external cost
of carbon emissions, for example, we would need to know
the subjective preferences of people around the world, and somehow weigh them against each other. We would also need to make assumptions about the preferences of people living many decades in the future.”

      “. Climate scientists, for example, are experts on hardly any of the issues that determine which climate polices are best. They have no special knowledge of how businesses will respond to taxes or the relative welfare costs of reduced growth.”

      Didn’t want to pay the required 10 pounds for the actual article, which seems likely to just be more of the same – a long-winded whinge about evidence based policy that doesn’t meet his own prejudices and beliefs.

    • bad12 7.8

      SSLands,Regarding your comment at (7), you best become more aware of exactly what it is that your fingers are typing do you not think,

      Your latest spew of invective reads to me as if you are directly stating that the Authors here at the Standard are ”Nutters”,

      Perhaps you would like to take up an invitation to clarify and/or apologize for what appears to be Pointless Abuse…

    • lurgee 7.9

      The guy won the UK IEA award for excellence in economic analysis.

      The IEA’s Seldon award is a prize awarded by the IEA to someone for something they wrote for the IEA. The IEA is a libertarian organisation, so it is likely to publish work sympathetic to libertarian viewpoint. So it is hardly a prestigious award won against a truly global field of brilliance.

      Bit like me giving myself a prize for being person I find most agreeable, really.

    • David H 7.10

      Are you serious? I read the article and then I asked myself if they could be the same man? And the more I thought about it, and re read bits of the article, the answer I gave myself is NO.

  8. Weepus beard 8

    He’s a fleewee who has spent too long in England. What contribution has he made to this country, his own country, in the last 20 years other than this divisive hate speech?

  9. Phil Williams 9

    Oh my Srylands, getting a dose of reality from the latest polls? Auckland Docks On The Hill has a long established history of crims and mad men representing it, Wyhte is just another incarnation…bit like Dr Who?

  10. Weepus beard 10

    Just read Dr Whyte’s Quack Policy summary, srylands.

    It’s full of typos, and it doesn’t take long for a layperson like myself to see that Dr Whyte’s mo is to reduce absolutely every human action to one of economic gain or loss. Some monster tore the last remnants of empathy from his stupid, Pommy chest.

    The guy is divisive poison to our great land. From the Aro valley, please admit it.

  11. appleboy 11

    ACT are morons trying racism to score votes from the red necks.

    To them and Right Whinging Nut Jobs round here – do you want to treat everyone the same?

    Then answer me this. If two kids were in a class, and one had dyslexia, you don’t believe they should get extra help?

    Maori – let’s see. Ripped off in their own land, marginalised their language, delivered them the ‘privilege’ of lower life expectancy, across the board lower achievement in health and education.

    Clearly they have not been treated like everyone else of we wouldn’t have such a disgraceful situation.

    • Steve Wrathall 11.1

      Please explain how calling for equality before the law is “racist”. Giving any group in society an unfair subsidy contains within it the seeds of that group’s destruction. Instead of them trying to strive on an equal footing they embrace the victim mentality which justifies the subsidy.
      And you’re trying to tell me this guy is a racist? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4118427718512&set=t.1182222622&type=3&theater

      • Te Reo Putake 11.1.1

        Yep, he’s a racist. That he prefers his racism to apply in wider society not in his own family just makes him a hypocrite as well.

        • Phil Williams 11.1.1.1

          yep he’s a racist

          • Weepus beard 11.1.1.1.1

            He’s a complete racist, and unproductive to our society. For some reason he thought he could bring his essays and Nobel prizes to the people of Remuera and they would just roll over.

            • Gosman 11.1.1.1.1.1

              How is he a racist exactly? Is it because he expresses a desire for all people to be treated equally under the law regardless of race? That seems to be the opposite of racism and is similar to what people such as Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr campaigned on during their life time.

              • Weepus beard

                I’m yet to see proof of this legal privilege. Please state it.

                • Gosman

                  Now that is a much better argument and one Mr Whyte was not very good at addressing on the radio. However in his speech he did identify the issue of people being able to get in to education as a result of quotas and also having to be consulted in resource consent issues.

                  • McFlock

                    The two arguments go hand in hand.

                    If Whyte sees ethnically-based “legal privilege” where none exists, that would go a long way to proving that he is, in fact, racist.

                    • Gosman

                      Is not the RMA requirments for consultation legal privilege?

                    • Pascals bookie

                      The RMA requires people to consult with all sorts of people with property interests. Why single out Maori?

                    • McFlock

                      Exactly, PB.

                      I recall at uni every so often a young tory would bitch about Maori admission “quotas” into second year law. Apparently what it turned out they were bitching about was that when some university buildings were built on Maori-owned land, the local iwi leaders were canny enough to have something like admission criteria (the students still need to pass to qualify, so no change in quality of trained lawyers) adjusted for their descendants as part-payment for the land. Nothing at all to do even with the Treaty or “preferential” treatment for different ethnicities. I could cut exactly the same deal today if I had something that the university really needed.

                    • Gosman

                      I believe that is part of Whyte’s position. I believe he believes the RMA shouldn’t require any consultation regardless of who is involved and it shouldn’t certainly require consultation with groups based on ethnicity. Activites should either be allowed or not allowed. You shouldn’t need to get others permission.

                    • McFlock

                      don’t slide.

                      RMA consultation isn’t a “privilege” based solely on ethnicity, it’s exactly the same as every other requirement to consult with interested parties.
                      So that is you seeing ethnically-based privilege where none exists.

                      You are welcome to demonstrate any actual instance of “legal privilege” for Maori. Hell, if you did I might even agree with you and whyte that the discrimination should be ended.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      ” and it shouldn’t certainly require consultation with groups based on ethnicity.”

                      yeah, but we haven;t actually established that this is what’s happening.

                      Let’s say someone from Ngāti Tūwharetoa buys a place down on the West Coast. Guess how much say their ethnicity will get them.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      I’ll give you a hint: ” “.

              • adam

                Sorry Gosman, but your media spun views on Dr King and Mr Mandela are wrong. Try reading the Long Road to Freedom. Or Martin Luther King Jr speeches. Doing this, you will find they both understood the principles of institutionalised racism and what the power of the dominate group, means for for people of colour who are not in positions of power. It is the spin of casual racist who thinks Maori have any sort of privilege over the rest of society.

                And Gosman it’s pretty cheap to parrot this crap out of the US, your smarter than that.

                • Tracey

                  he thinks he is smarter adam which is the problem. he considers his learning at an end.

                • Gosman

                  Considering your knowledge of History seems to be seriously lacking in regard to the Maori invasion of the Chatham Islands I’m not sure your views on other aspects are warrented much respect.

      • tricledrown 11.1.2

        SW.
        I suppose 170 years of denying the rights Maori were given by the treaty of Waitangi where they were given the rights of British citizens to equal justice under the law which were denied right up till bastion point. 1975.
        When New Zealanders were given the right to vote in their own parliament Europeans realized that their were more Maori so confined Maori to voting in just 2 Maori seats so they could carry on taking what ever they wanted without hindrance as less than 10% of Maori could understand the laws as they were written in English only.Maori were deliberately kept from voting as well no notification of voting rights was published or broad cast in Maori therefore undermining the legal document called the treaty of Waitangi.
        Today we call that insider trading something an ACT supporter would call legal!
        The serious fraud office would have anyone caught prosecuted.
        Whyte racist supremacists would applaud

        • Steve Wrathall 11.1.2.1

          You obvoiusly have not even read what Jamie said, as he explicitly said
          “…New Zealand law makes a citizen’s rights depend on her race.

          The reparations made to iwi by the Waitangi Tribunal are NOT an example of this. The Treaty of Waitangi gave Maori property rights over the land they occupied. Many violations of these rights followed. The remedies provided by the Waitangi Tribunal are not a case of race-based favouritism. They are recognition of property rights and, therefore, something that we in ACT wholeheartedly support.”

          http://www.act.org.nz/posts/speech-race-has-no-place-in-the-law
          http://www.act.org.nz/posts/we-need-a-civilised-discussion-about-racial-law
          http://www.act.org.nz/posts/act-leader-dr-jamie-whyte-calls-for-resignation-of-dame-susan-devoy

          You simply seemed to have swallowed the talking point of the usual suspects that Dr Whyte’s comments are racism, and therefore no further mental or investigative effort on your part is required. Sad, really.

          • Gosman 11.1.2.1.1

            Agreed. Essentially the negative response to Mr Whyte’s speech is as predictable as they would like to claim racists responded to it.

          • tricledrown 11.1.2.1.2

            Pity ACT wasn,t around in the 1840 to 1975 period when they could have had a huge Maori following as ACT are supposed to protect the letter of the law and land ownership rights .

            • Gosman 11.1.2.1.2.1

              ACT is on record as claiming that Maori shoiuld have their property rights protected and also be compensated if they have not been.

              • thatguynz

                Would they compensate to 100% of the market value of said land or just the 10% that seems to have been the benchmark for settlements to date?

                I’m sure that if a deal was being done to claim the land under Whyte’s house he would expect 100% or greater no?

              • tricledrown

                Gosman being reasonable now how long is that going to continue!
                The reason Maori have agreed to only 3% compensation is that it would damage our economy if Maori got full compensation.
                So they agreed to that so long as Maori were compensated in other areas such as education under achievement through years and generation of deprivement by not having the value and income from confiscated and stole land my dear goosy.
                The income that land would have provided would bring the value of compensation required to well over $100 billion worth of compensation needed to remedy such an injustice.
                Maori have been very generous in not pursuing this figure in recognition of the damage it would do for the rest of New Zealand having to pay so much money.
                Not only that Wellington Maori gifted a considerable amount of conservation land back to all New Zealanders from some of the the land that was returned to them
                GENEROSITY that could not be found would not be found from any ACT Right Wing Racist Nut Jobs !

                • Gosman

                  I don’t remember any negotiation that involved giving up an amount in return for additional privileges. Can you please point out one settlement that allowed for individual Maori to gain rights that non Maori don’t have?

                  • tricledrown

                    European have denied those rights and we have a moral duty to bring Maori up to at least the same education income health and housing we have denied Maori for 170years.
                    The denigration of Maori by the likes of ACT and other Whyte racist supremacists on top of the insult of having to live in poverty should also be taken into account and Parties who continue deny the compensation and continue to promulgate and foster hatred for a few votes they will get from white power and the National front like Act should have to pay directly out of their party funds!
                    God you idiots don’t get it with all the power compliant media and money you have you still can’t muster more than 1%.
                    Financial and racial fundamentalists.

                    • Gosman

                      That is your position but it isn’t one shared by the majority I would suggest. Certainly disagreeing with your view does not automnatically make one a racist.

                    • Tracey

                      do the majority determine the partnership between maori and the crown detailed in the Treaty? are there other legal partnership documents rendered irrelevant by a non party majority?

                    • Gosman

                      We are discussing whether someone has a moral obligation to provide extra to a group of people based on enthnicity. I would suggest to try and enact that you would need the support of a majority of people.

                    • McFlock

                      We are discussing whether someone has a moral obligation to provide extra to a group of people based on enthnicity.

                      No, we’re still discussing whether extra has been provided in the first place.

          • Pascal's bookie 11.1.2.1.3

            “The reparations made to iwi by the Waitangi Tribunal are NOT an example of this. The Treaty of Waitangi gave Maori property rights over the land they occupied. Many violations of these rights followed. The remedies provided by the Waitangi Tribunal are not a case of race-based favouritism. They are recognition of property rights and, therefore, something that we in ACT wholeheartedly support.”

            Right. So this is a prepared speech, and press release, from a philosopher who cares deeply about property rights, and is not at all racist. We can assume it was written with some care.

            Can you see the problem with the bolded part?

            Hint: It is false in a rather telling way.

          • Tracey 11.1.2.1.4

            !the treaty did not just confer property rights. Perhaps this is the basis for misunderstanding.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.2.1.4.1

              The property rights were not established by the treaty. They existed before Cook was discovered sailing around these shores.

              • Tracey

                I was saying that many are commenting as though the treaty was only about property. that is a false premise.

      • Macro 11.1.3

        “Giving any group in society an unfair subsidy contains within it the seeds of that group’s destruction”

        Yes subsidies to the wealthy are definitely the seeds of their destruction. :)

        But you haven’t shown how subsidies to others are unfair – nor have you demonstrated what you consider to be unfair.

        I’m sure Dr Whyte would be very disappointed in this argument of yours if he was marking it in his philosophy class.

        • Steve Wrathall 11.1.3.1

          That’s right, and we oppose subsidies to the wealthy ticket-clippers, whether they be movie makers, luxury yacht builders or sailors, or fund managers in search of bail outs. The political left though seems to support these. Strange really.

          • tricledrown 11.1.3.1.1

            Steve Wrathall you would be at home in mana .
            But the yacht and boat building industry would still be only producing a $120 million to the economy each year but because of the investment in team New Zealand our technology in boat building and software is world leading and now produces nearly $3 billion a year in GDP .
            You are a fundamentalist F/Wit!
            People on the extremes of politics like your self and Goosemen are proven through scientific research to be Mentally ill you being in the less than 1% support are in that category all that inbreeding the whyte racist supremacists i would say!

          • Macro 11.1.3.1.2

            Can’t answer my question Steve?

            Thought not.

            As for your opinion of the left regarding unfair subsidies – its just as wrong-headed as the rest of your “thinking”. And the left actually do have a definition of what constitutes “fair”, whereas the right appear to have none.

          • framu 11.1.3.1.3

            “That’s right, and we oppose subsidies to the wealthy ticket-clippers, ”

            thats rubbish steve – “supprting and promoting wealthy ticket clippers” is acts sole purpose

            but im still wondering why there are so many criminals in act?

          • Tracey 11.1.3.1.4

            can you explain why 17% of sitting (historical because ACT has no current sitting MPs) ACT MPs have convictions for dishonesty?

            • alwyn 11.1.3.1.4.1

              Was it that they were not the Government and therefore weren’t in a position to pass laws that legalised their actions after the event, but before prosecutions were brought?

          • Macro 11.1.3.1.5

            So called Charter Schools – of course have had no unfair subsidies what so ever!

            Steve these useless articles wouldn’t be in existence if it wasn’t for ACT demanding National introduce them with no political mandate whatsoever (you cannot argue that a 1.0 zip % of the voting public represents a political mandate!) And how much public money has been syphoned off from the public purse and deprived from genuine educational establishments who employ only fully qualified and registered teachers for these “dame schools”? Around $23m in the last year! Talk about hypocrites..

      • Weepus beard 11.1.4

        Don’t post pictures of his family here you freak. They are not involved.

        His views on Maori privilege being like pre revolution French aristocracy are certainly up for discussion though.

      • Clemgeopin 11.1.5

        Did the British who invaded/occupied/usurped New Zealand and scores of other foreign nations, do all that on the basis of what you so eloquently describe as, ‘an equal footing’?

        • Gosman 11.1.5.1

          What does that actually mean? Did the Maori who invaded the Chatham Islands in the 1830’s do so on an equal footing?

          • tricledrown 11.1.5.1.1

            Goosman Maori were extradited to the Chathams as punishment by european settlers you idiot funny that!

            • Gosman 11.1.5.1.1.1

              Ummm…. I think you should check up on your history. Maori forced the captain of a British ship to take them to the Chathams where they attacked and enslaved the local people there.

              • adam

                Arrrggg, there was no forcing, they paid him. Gosman if your going to quote from history, get it right. One Maori group saw a way to get to the Chatham’s and get some women, fight a war, and get some Utu in a simpler way then in a big old war cannon. The Chathams war was Utu. In was a tiny event blown out of proportion to justify colonialism. Wars happened all the time, sheesh any more colonial myth making you want to use to support you frail position?

                • Gosman

                  You really don’t know your history at all.

                  Ngatiawa boarded the British ship ‘The Rodney’ under false pretense and then threatened the safety of the crew until the Captain agreed to take then to the Chathams.

                  The reason they decided to proceed to the Chathams was not Utu as you suggest but because they wanted to conquer the people.

                  It was not a small operation either as it involved over 900 people, a substantial amount for the Maori (as well as Europeans in the area) at the time.

                  http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document//Volume_1_1892/Volume_1,No._3,_1892/The_occupation_of_the_Chatham_Islands_by_the_Maoris_in_1835%3A_Part_II-_The_migration_of_Ngatiawa_to_Chatham_Island,_by_A._Shand,_p154-163/p1

              • Tracey

                did the chatham islanders enter into a treaty with maori or were they conquered like the brits did in aussie, south africa, india etc etc

                • Gosman

                  Do you think what the British did in relation to Australia, India, and Africa, was morally and ethically justifiable?

              • tricledrown

                you to goose they did not invade the Chathams they initially sailed to the chathams and stayed in peace their initially when Morori realized they weren’t going to leave the Moriori moved away and separated from Maori. Maori then began an ethnic cleansing annihilating Moriori down from 2,000 to 160 Moriori this was dealt with by our government where Moriori were compensated.

                • Gosman

                  Umm… no. If you read the link I provided it was clear that the aim of the Ngatiawa from the get go was to sail to the Chathams and take over the lands and enslave the locals. There was no idea of trying to live peacefully with them.

      • hoom 11.1.6

        If someone stole your car then some time later both the crook & the car are located you’d expect the car to be returned no matter how many times it has been on-sold since (any sale of stolen property is invalid) right?
        You might even get some compensation from the crook.

        But if you are Tainui & most of the Waikato/King Country was stolen from you for 100 years, or Ngati Whatua & most of Auckland was stolen from you for 100 years, what happens then is you get discriminated against.

        Maori are expected by the people & required by discriminatory law to settle for little more than beads & blankets in the form of a public apology, a couple of hundred million $$$, a tiny bit of land (mainly only nominal ownership & only from what little land has remained in posession of the crook) & some nebulous fluff like seats on boards.

        The true cost of actual equal treatment of historical wrongs against Maori property rights would be catastrophically severe financially for the Crown and would cause massive upheaval of NZ society as we know it.

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.6.1

          But if you are Tainui & most of the Waikato/King Country was stolen from you for 100 years, or Ngati Whatua & most of Auckland was stolen from you for 100 years, what happens then is you get discriminated against.

          Yep, I always wonder how far Act’s support of private property goes as I’m pretty sure that they would not support returning ~80% of NZ to its rightful owners.

          • Gosman 11.1.6.1.1

            They support negotiated settlements such as what has been happening.

            • Pascals bookie 11.1.6.1.1.1

              But ACT seems to think Iwi are getting too much. They’ve called the Tribunal a ‘gravy train’ for example, and Whyte seems to think the the recognition of Iwi property rights in things like the RMA are illegitimate.

              • Gosman

                No. Whyte has stated that Maori as a group should not get more rights under the RMA than any other group. He pointed out why this causes problems as well. It encourages rent seeking behaviour. This is ironic as rent seeking behaviour is sonmething you lefties usually abhor.

                • Pascal's bookie

                  cite where ‘Maori as a group’ get these rights plz.

                  Surely it is iwi and hapu that are consulted? In recognition of certain property rights that they hold and are protected in the Treaty.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Shhh! Gosman and Unclecousin don’t need your facts muffling their vile dogwhistles.

        • Gosman 11.1.6.2

          Negotiated settlements occur all the time in relation to property. You might think you are entitled to more compensation but if you are negotiating with the Crown if you agree with a settlement then you accept that is what you will get.

          • Macro 11.1.6.2.1

            Gosman – it was the bloody “Crown” that stole the property in the first place! Might is not always right.

            • Gosman 11.1.6.2.1.1

              Maori are free not to negotiate.

              • tricledrown

                There is unequal power those with all the money have all the power.
                Maori are negotiating from a position of weakness maybe the ACT party will stick up for their property rights and loss of income and loss of status for Maori as you have pointed out that ACT is a party of protecting property rights!

                • Gosman

                  Maori are not being forved to negotiate. Noone I am aware of (other than a small band of hard core lefties such as yourself) are aqrguing that the Treat of Waitangi negotiations are taking place in anything oither than good faith.

              • Macro

                “Maori are free not to negotiate.”

                And that makes it right !!??

                Gezz you’re a twisted soul!

                Opps sorry your not into souls..

                Your a sad lot gosman – a sad sad lot.

      • Murray Olsen 11.1.7

        You’re a sick piece of garbage, Steve Wrathall, posting pictures of the guy’s family. We’re discussing the policy positions he promotes, not his poor family.

        • tricledrown 11.1.7.1

          Murray Gosman is one of The whyte supremacists inbred supporters next he will be doing a 3 way hand shake with Brain Fade Key.
          Hey Gooseman it would be Ironic if the Maori party had 2 seats in the next parliament and Whyte had to eat a dead rat and go into coalition with them haha!
          Next Gooseman and Steve ratales the Maori seats were created by Europeans in 1856 to prevent Maori from out voting the minority European land owning voters of the time so the white minority could control parliament as only land owners could vote at that time most Maori wer still land owners at that time. very few Europeans were land owners .
          Now Jamie inbred Whyte wants to undo something his elitist mates put in place to deny Maori their rights as equal under British law of the day under the treaty of Waitangi.
          Uphold the Land owner ship law ACT.
          Maori are only getting an average of 3% compensation for land stolen by breaking the the laws ACT vehemently stand for no wonder you inbred whyte suprmicists only have less than 1% support and have do do an incestuous relationship with National!

          • Gosman 11.1.7.1.1

            Iwi are voluntary agreeing with the compensation being offered. It is irrelevant whether you think they should get more or not. If they think they deserve more then they should negotiate for more.

            • Clemgeopin 11.1.7.1.1.1

              Negotiate for more against the all powerful government and its machinery and resources? Negotiate for another 1,000 years?

              • Gosman

                Yep. That is the way negotiations work. You might prefer another mechanism but unfortunately we don’t have one. Maori could hold out for some better situation. Do you think that they should?

                • Macro

                  “That is the way negotiations work”

                  So you say…

                  Actually Gosman – there are many forms of negotiation – they don’t all have to be adversarial – but that is the way you want to paint it – being a black and whyte sort of a person.

            • tricledrown 11.1.7.1.1.2

              we owe it to Maori to bring them out of poverty as we have denied Maori .
              if we do we will reap the benefits of having a group of continually under performing people who have been screwed over by selfish fuck/wits such as yourself and you other whyte racist inbred supremacists.
              For example if Maori had the same privileged in education housing health outcomes we would be the best educated and one of the wealthiest nations on earth !
              instead we are well down the ladder that bastards like you have pulled up you are not team player you are a bunch of selfish narcissistic poorly educated fringe F/wits with a lot of money.
              If Maori had the same income and privileges the money put back into the economy would make the rest of New Zealand a lot wealthier to!

              • Gosman

                What a typically left wing patronising view of the world. “We” apparently owe it to Maori to save them from poverty. . The Crown has a responsibility to right the wrongs it cause Maori it is true. Maori individually and as a group should be free to deal with the matters of poverty in ways they see fit such as mobilising their own resources for this end.

                • tricledrown

                  If they had all the resources that were denied them which you have benefited from!
                  they wouldn’t need help!
                  Resources urban Maori don’t have the resources because it was taken from them you idiot.
                  a rental property is a liability not a resource especially as most of the rentals are owned by slum landlords who vote ACT and push the liability of overcrowding leaky damp houses in poor suburbs with no aspirations back onto taxpayer like myself who pay for prisons govt welfare payments crowded hospitals .when if Maori had full compensation they wouldn’t be needing to rent from slum landlords face poor health and education outcomes!
                  While the like of you and your 1%ters have all the benefits of privilege living in wealthy suburbs in high quality housing going to elite schools isolating yourselves from the poor peasants and telling them to get over it .
                  probably living on stolen or confiscated land.

                  • Gosman

                    Maori have plenty of resources. The problem they have is more to do with unlocking the potential of those resources through effective use of capital. The settlement process is allowing them access to that capital. It is up to them to utilise this to further their own material and social wellbeing.

            • Tracey 11.1.7.1.1.3

              do you believe that once property disputes are finalised the treaty is basically irrelevant thereafter?

            • Puddleglum 11.1.7.1.1.4

              If someone was burgled would you advocate negotiations between the burglar and the burgled to resolve the situation and work out how much property gets returned?

              Or, alternatively, would you argue that the burglar should return all the property under legal and coercive sanction?

              At what point in time should a successful burglar be granted legitimate ownership of what has been burgled?

              Property rights are the darndest things – when you look at history.

      • Minarch 11.1.8

        He appears to be the most dangerous kind of racist

        an educated intelligent one with the ability to rationalize his racism and convince the less educated or sophisticated of the (false) validity of his philosophy

        you usually find one of these guys at the wheel of most racist organisations ,

        Like Nick Griffin (BNP ) and his law degree from Cambridge..

        where Mr Whyte Lectured philosophy…

      • Tracey 11.1.9

        He is misguided and speaking from ignorance. The assumption that everyone begins at the same point on the startline is his fundamental flaw in his proposition.

        Can you explain why ACT considers this to be the most important issue facing kiwis?

      • Puddleglum 11.1.10

        Steve,

        We’re talking about two distinct groups which, historically, came together via a Treaty arrangement. Your mantra of ‘equality before the law’ confronts a disturbing fact that a Treaty is a legal document.

        Which body of law are we equal before (including members of the two groups which, historically, contracted to a Treaty)?

    • Gosman 11.2

      Answer me this question . If two kids in a class had dyslexia and one was Maori and one was European would you agree the Maori one should receive more extra help than the European one?

      • tricledrown 11.2.1

        Gooseman if 2 people owned some land one owner was Maori and one owner European , they both had their land stolen but the European had the law on his side and got all his land back but the Maori and generations of his family had to live in poverty for seven generations while the European prospered then the Maori need more than the 3% compensation denied for 170years while the European kids could go to private elite schools while the Maori ended up being poorly paid itinerant workers the Europeans had a ball with the stolen land!

      • Molly 11.2.2

        Link to where this policy exists.

        And having been acquainted with many families with dyslexia, dyspraxia and children on the Autism spectrum, I know from their experiences that getting a diagnosis is fraught with costs and difficulties – and even when it is finally diagnosed – access to support is often limited or non-existent regardless of ethnicity.

        • Weepus beard 11.2.2.1

          Molly, Gosman just picked this analogy out of thin air in order to dog whistle, to try to prove a non-provable point, to use over simplified and unrelated comparisons to hoodwink unwary opponents.

          This is exactly what Jamie Whyte did right throughout his Waikato speech and I presume has done throughout his esteemed academic career.

      • framu 11.2.3

        thats called a straw man

  12. Weepus beard 12

    No mate. This is not “ACT” policy because “ACT” do not exist. This is some know it all fleewee come back to town to sink Maori culture once and for all.

    • Clemgeopin 12.1

      Richard ‘Mad Dog’ Prebble is their election ‘agent and strategist’ for this election. He is probably trying to earn his huge moola from these ACT/NAT bozos by hoping to get a few racist red neck NACT votes is all!

  13. Tom Jackson 13

    So after reading so much about it, I actually bothered to read Whyte’s notorious speech.

    I agree with hardly any of it, yet it’s obvious on having read it, that the critiques are for the most part caricatures of what he actually said, including pulling quotes that sound reasonable in context but odd on their own. I’ve complained when this has been done to Cunliffe. It’s no more justifiable in this case.

    This election is shaping up to be weapons-grade stupid.

    • Weepus beard 13.1

      I don’t think David Cunliffe would err in the territory that Dr Jamie Whyte did. This guy seems to have no grasp of the New Zealand dynamic. That’s what happens when you spend so long overseas.

    • Hanswurst 13.2

      I agree with the par t about the election campaign being weapons-grade stupid.

      However, I don’t think that the characterisations of Whyte’s speech (by Devoy, for instance) are too far wrong. Whyte does indeed go on to qualify his French Aristocrat analogy by conceding that the latter had privilege that most Maori lack (great observation, Einstein), but that simply underlines the question as to why he draws a very superficial parallel with a highly privileged group in order to attack concessions to Maori. What particular outcome or evil is he trying to highlight as being identical in each case? If he were to make a subtle and brilliant argument for how they were the same, then all power to him. However, he just toots it out like the dog-whistle it is. Much has been made of his academic credentials as a philosopher. If he is what he is cracked upto be on that front, then that analogy is well beneath him.

      I agree with the characterisations of the speech as racist and misrepresenting issues, too, and most of that boils down to sleights of hand like the above, which reflect faulty thinking if one is generous, and simply being colossally disingenuous if one isn’t.

      • Lanthanide 13.2.1

        +1

      • Gosman 13.2.2

        He explains this in great detail in his speech.

      • Tom Jackson 13.2.3

        It’s not a superficial parallel if you take it as he meant it, which is simply that Maori have some entrenched legal privilege. Complaining that the comparison exaggerates the level of Maori privilege is pointless if that is not the comparison Whyte intended to make, and it is clear from the context that he intended only to make the base comparison, not a comparison of degree.

        The best summary of Whyte’s argument is that he is claiming that Maori have some legal privilege, that the main reason for the existence of this legal privilege is to correct for injustices or lack of privilege elsewhere, and that this is, in Whyte’s view, the worst way to correct for it, because (a) equality before the law is a more significant value, and (b) equality before the law will do more to correct for it in the long run.

        Only an idiot of elephantine proportions would deny the first two claims outright. The last two claims are highly contentious, and I can’t say I agree (especially with (b)). Instead of people making accusations of racism, it would be worth engaging with his argument as stated. Why bother accusing him of racism, when it’s a reasonably simple matter to prove him wrong on the facts?

        • Gosman 13.2.3.1

          You raise a good point in terms of engaging him on his points rather than creating the stawman of racism to try and stiffle the discussion.

          However he did provide a couple of interesting examples of how not being equal before the law can work against groups even for the people who are supposedly advantaged by such laws. The example of if the Blues Super 15 team was given an advantage of 5 more points per try would benefit them in the short run it is true but he pointed out it is likely lead to a situation where the Blues players don’t put as much effort in to win and therefore they are less likely to be selected for the All Blacks. That seemed to me to capture much of the problem with providing a legal advantage for any group. They no longer have to try as hard and therefore will likely fall behind others who do.

          • Molly 13.2.3.1.1

            Analogies are good for explaining ideas – they are not justifications of them.

            For example, I could use your logic to say that someone earning 5% more compound interest than someone else is ultimately poorer because they would not be encouraged to go out and earn more income… but I’m guessing they’ll just take that extra 5% and go on and do what they wanted to anyway, with just a little bit more in their pocket.

            • Tracey 13.2.3.1.1.1

              It is fascinating watching someone like gosman, who has mocked cunliffe, even when cunliffe is taken out of context, defending mr whyte so hard.

              • Gosman

                Mr Whyte doen’t require me to defend him. The reason he raised this was for political purposes. It is playing the race card and it generally works. I myself don’t like that sort of tactics but I am pointing out that the comments in of themselves are not racist.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Apart from the total misrepresentation of the purpose of the Treaty, and the lies about legal privileges, all none of them, and the desire to foment resentment against Māori, not racist at all, no.

                  • Gosman

                    You disagree with him on the point of the Treaty. That does not make him Racist.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Mr. Unclecousin is mistaken in point of fact, not opinion. I don’t make a distinction between racists and people who blow dogwhistles at them.

          • tricledrown 13.2.3.1.2

            So if Maori had full compensation for all land stolen and the income lost during that time all Maori could afford to go to private elite schools pay for high quality tutoring and would probably all vote for ACT but they have been down trodden for 170yrs so instead of being at the top of the pile they are on the bottom.

        • Puddleglum 13.2.3.2

          Hi Tom Jackson,

          The comparison with the French Aristocracy connotes far more than the ‘base comparison’. It’s a bit like saying that comparing National to the Na*i party simply to highlight their commitment to efficient transport timetables shouldn’t be seen as attempting to connote anything further.

          We are talking about an academic who is, presumably, skilled in connoting through language far more than he is willing to be held to account for. That is the ‘art’ of much intellectual writing – for better or worse.

          Whyte does not strike me as the kind of person who is naive and innocent in regard to these sorts of skills.

          The comparison to the French Aristocracy could have been substituted by comparisons with Native Americans, African Americans or Aborigines (in which some form of legally-entrenched ‘affirmative action’ has occurred) – if he simply wished to make the ‘base comparison’.

          For some reason those comparisons appeared to have slipped his mind. All he was left with, it seems, was the French Aristocracy.

    • I agree with hardly any of it, yet it’s obvious on having read it, that the critiques are for the most part caricatures of what he actually said, including pulling quotes that sound reasonable in context but odd on their own. I’ve complained when this has been done to Cunliffe. It’s no more justifiable in this case.

      Fuck yes. It’s par for the course for left bloggers writing about ACT (witness the rank idiocy Martyn Bradbury offers in this post about it), and totally unlikely to persuade anyone not already sharing their visceral loathing of ACT, ie anyone even remotely likely to vote for them.

      Susan Devoy’s comments on this suggest she either hasn’t read what she’s criticising or tried to read it but didn’t understand it. Given that she’s been assigned to a position requiring academic skills on the basis of being very good at playing squash, either is plausible. Either way, it’s just embarrassing – it makes Jamie Whyte look the smart man in a contest of intellectual pygmies.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.4

      The speech is certainly weapons-grade stupid in its implicit pretence that Te Tiriti O Waitangi is a property agreement when it is in fact a treaty between nations. To date, neither nation has ceased to exist, nor has either been subsumed by the other – not for want of trying, I might add.

      Discussing the matter with Guyon Espiner on RNZ, Mr. Unclecousin was hard pressed to provide a single example of the race-based law he claims we are “awash with”.

      The timing is of interest. ACT playing the race card in an election campaign.

      This charmless man.

      • Tom Jackson 13.4.1

        Isn’t the salient point that the signers of the Treaty recognise Maori property rights as valid, whether or not they have independent validity being a moot point, since the Treaty signers agree they exist?

      • Gosman 13.4.2

        The British didn’t usually make a habit of offering British Subject status unless they also gained sovereignty over the nation in question.

        • Tracey 13.4.2.1

          ours is one of the few countries they entered a treaty with, by far the majority of their MO was conquest. In any event you havent addressed OABs comment.

          • Gosman 13.4.2.1.1

            OAB stated that the Treaty was between nations and that the two nations still existed. I pointed out that the British didn’t offer British Subject status to people on the understanding that they would still be a sovereign nation. The Maori gave up their rights to be an independent sovereign nation when they agreed to become British Subjects. If that is not addressing his point I don’t know what is.

            • McFlock 13.4.2.1.1.1

              Well, maybe the British should have written that in the version of the Treaty they translated into Maori.

              But they didn’t. Hence the conflict.

              • Gosman

                Rather irrelevant as in terms of international recognition no other nation disputed the British taking sovereignty over the country and there was and is no international disputes tribunal that Maori can turn to to try and adjudicate on what the meaning of the Treaty on this point is. Essentially the rest of the World saw the Treaty as granting the British Sovereignty and the British themselves saw it as granting Sovereignty. The British then acted accordingly. Additionally if the Maori who signed the Treaty had actually not agreed that it granted them sovereingty then they would have complained when the British formally declared sovereignty shortly after the Treaty was signed. Instead it was a number of years before the Maori actively fought against actions of the British in the country.

                • McFlock

                  there was and is no international disputes tribunal that Maori can turn to to try and adjudicate on what the meaning of the Treaty on this point is

                  Why do we need an “internation” tribunal, even if the UN agreed with you?
                  We have an adequate tribunal in NZ for exactly that.

                  Additionally if the Maori who signed the Treaty had actually not agreed that it granted them sovereingty then they would have complained when the British formally declared sovereignty shortly after the Treaty was signed.

                  Indeed. If they’d been at all misled they would have started protests or even armed resistance. That never happened so you must be right /sarc

                  • Gosman

                    The British (under Hobson) formally declared Sovereignty over both the North and South Islands on the 21st of May 1840. Not one Maori Chief who signed the Treaty objected to him doing this as far as I am aware. They were well aware of what British Sovereignty entailed as many had been to New South Wales. What you are implying is this great insult to their Mana if in fact they had not granted sovereignty did not stir them to make representation to the Governor and not cause a war until much later. That is just not feasible

                    • McFlock

                      Again, the full meaning might not have been evident at the time.
                      But it was within a couple of years. Armed conflict within five years.

                      Dissatisfaction with the Treaty is not a recent grievance.

                    • Gosman

                      You don’t seem to grasp the fact that the British responded to the Treaty by declaring sovereignty over the nation and noone objected. Imagine if all the Politicians in the country signed say the TPPA and then the United States FORMALLY declared sovereignty over us. I am sure some might keep quiet due to self interest or embarrassment but it is inconceivable that ALL would not object. That is what you are expecting us to believe happened when the British declared sovereignty over New Zealand and no Maori Chiefs who signed the Treaty spoke out against it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      “No-one objected” = armed conflict within five years on Planet Gosman.

                      On Earth, we have reality’s Liberal bias.

                    • Gosman

                      The reason for armed conflict was not because of a formal declaration of sovereignty but because of various actions undertaken by the Crown or the European Settlers. If it was in relation to the declaration of sovereignty it should have occured in 1840.

                    • McFlock

                      indeed, OAB.

                      Gosman doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that he’s telling an outright lie so obvious that it’s utterance is an insult.

                      All to distract from the fact that whyte sees ethnically-based “legal privilege” where none exists, which in turn strongly supports the assertion that whyte is a racist.

                      I would call gos a racist, too, but I don’t think he has the integrity to hold any belief other than “national must win and make me rich”.

                    • McFlock

                      The reason for armed conflict was not because of a formal declaration of sovereignty but because of various actions undertaken by the Crown or the European Settlers.

                      Yeah, actions like shifting capitals, imposing levies, and executing Maori under British law. The actions of a sovereign.

                      But of course, if Maori had a problem with ceding sovereignty your position is that they should have said so at the time of signing the Treaty.

                      Shit, it’s almost as if the Treaty they signed didn’t cede sovereignty at all. It’s almost as if the copy the British operated under was different to the version the Maori understood.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Nonsense. The Crown recognised He Whakaputanga, and that recognition is why Te Tiriti has meaning, and it puts the burden of Kawanatanga – not some other thing you’d like it to – on the Crown.

                  • Gosman

                    Sorry but Hobson declared Sovereignty over New Zealand after he had got what he regarded as enough signatures to the Treaty and no Maori Chief who had signed then repudiated the Treaty by stating that that is not what they gave up.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      Bully for him though.

                      this argument always ends up where? With the overruled notion that the Treaty is a legal nullity.

                      We’ve decided, as a nation, against the legal nullity theory, and in favour of the ‘honouring the treaty’ idea.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I’d rather have whining losers than right wing hate crimes, no, wait, we have those too.

                    • Gosman

                      We can only honour the Treaty if we one – understand what it means and two – accept that the nation is sovereign so as to enable us to resolve differences between people living here.

                    • Pascals bookie

                      Be careful you don’t beg the question in point two though. It’s a trap.

                      Sovereignty in NZ is determined by what the Treaty means.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Yeah, your opinions have no legal standing and your ignorance is willful and one-sided.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.4.2.1.1.2

              Gosman’s hypothetical situation did not in fact occur. The British did in fact offer to govern New Zealand, while guaranteeing tino rangatiratanga to Māori. It’s right there in black and white, and they signed up to it.

              Gosman, Unclecousin and the Titfords can pack as big a howlybag as they like, those are the facts.

            • Tracey 13.4.2.1.1.3

              its simple. If there is a dispute over which version is correct, the party drafting the agreement has it construed against them. You have no idea what anyone did or did not know when signing. These is a dispute over a number of clauses between the english and maori version.

              You have nothing to back that statement other than your reliance on the english version which is in dispute against the maori version.

              Your statement at 3:32 is also misguided and unfounded. Name these other countries that gave” the british sovereignty, most were conquered by conquest and force, no sovereignty offered it was imposed

              You seem to be saying that regardless of what a document says at law if one party announces it means what suits them, case closed

              FOG

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.4.2.2

          Yeah whatever Gosman: they signed a document that gave them kawanatanga, not sovereignty. Under international law, this document has primacy. If they wanted mana or rangatiratanga they should have said so.

          • Tracey 13.4.2.2.1

            yup. contra proferentum bro.

            everything whyte complains of stems from the principles of the treaty being implemented as per the crowns obligations. the law imposes those oblivations. that law is the one law for all he demands in action but it doesnt LOOK the way he wants it to.

          • Gosman 13.4.2.2.2

            Give me another example of where the British crown granted the rights of British Subjects to an entire nation of people and did not assume sovereigty over the land that they lived in. Being a British Subject was a huge deal in the 19th Century. It was not given away lightly.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.4.2.2.2.1

              “…assume…”

              Yes, indeed, the Crown acted under the assumption that they had sovereignty, which the treaty they signed did not in fact grant, and now the Crown has to pay compensation for doing so, and rightly so.

              How the British acted in the Nineteenth Century is a role model for nothing.

              • Gosman

                No, the Crown is not paying for a lack of sovereignty. That is not what the Treaty of Waitangi disputes tribunal is about. Indeed the whole process only has legitimacy IF the Crown has Sovereignty over the nation.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Baby steps Gosman, they are paying compensation for their actions, hence “acted under the assumption that…”

                  Still, I might have phrased it better to avoid these simple misunderstandings.

  14. Penny Bright 14

    Historic sentencing of John Banks –
    TOMORROW:

    Friday 1 August 2014
    9am (note early start!)

    Auckland High Court, Waterloo Quadrant .

    Some of us intend to be there from 8.30am.

    The Courtroom is likely to be packed.

    Cheers!

    Penny Bright

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    PS: Wonder if Jamie Whyte will be supporting ‘one law for all’ when it comes to the sentencing of John Banks, remembering that former Labour Party Minister and MP Taito Phillip Field was sentenced for SIX years for ‘bribery and corruption of an MP’ and ‘attempting to pervert the course of justice’.

    Not identical charges – but Banks’ QC did state in Court that this was ‘corruption’ but it wasn’t his client that was corrupt …… whatever ……. the rest, as they say – is history

  15. tricledrown 15

    The rats will be jumping off the sinking ship that is Association of Corrupt Tax dodgers.
    Key must be getting sick of swallowing dead rats next on the menu is crazy Colin Craig.
    Brain Fade key has swallowed the Winston Rat.(I will never do a deal with Wintson brain fade)

  16. Weepus beard 16

    I’d like to see an ankle collar fitted to John Banks so we could all see where he was at any given time via an app. He is a criminal, after all.

  17. Clemgeopin 17

    Here is a philosophical thought for Jamie Whyte and his ACT sympathisers:

    ‘A narrow minded entity and its mana are soon parted!’……Clemgeopin.

    • Mainlander 17.1

      Thats gold Clemgeopin i think thats a line Kim Schmitz should bear in mind as well

  18. newsense 18

    Cunliffe should call on Key to distance himself from Whyte’s comments or rule out working with Whyte.

  19. tricledrown 19

    If The Maori Party get 2 seats and ACT only one Brain Fade KEY will have to decide which dead rat he can swallow with ACT polling so low Key would be better ditching the three way handshake in epsom.

  20. Clemgeopin 20

    With this Whyte’s fiasco against Maori and with the John Bank’s conviction today, I think it is safe to say that the real winner in all this will be Paul Goldsmith in Epsom. How cool is that!

  21. Puckish Rogue 21

    National dealing with Act = bad but this will probably pass without a comment: http://www.3news.co.nz/Annette-Sykes-chasing-Waiariki-deal/tabid/1607/articleID/354778/Default.aspx

    Internet Mana candidate Annette Sykes says Labour’s done a secret Epsom-style electorate deal with Hone Harawira.

    She’s also calling on Labour to do a deal for her – in the Maori seat of Waiariki.

    • Weepus beard 21.1

      IMP currently polling 600% higher than ACT. Makes their case for accurate representation in parliament far more worthy.

      And you know it.

      • Puckish Rogue 21.1.1

        thought so :)

        • Weepus beard 21.1.1.1

          Labour has denied it – they’ve categorically stated they will not be doing deals. The right wing’s favourite Labour candidate, Kelvin Davis, has spent a lot of energy in making it known he’s fighting for the seat. If a deal is not signalled or advertised to the voters, how are they supposed to do what Labour and IMP have supposedly cooked up? Talk about conspiracy theories.

          • Puckish Rogue 21.1.1.1.1

            So Annette Sykes is telling lies or is she merely mistaken?

            • Pascals bookie 21.1.1.1.1.1

              I dunno, but if Colin Craig came out saying that ‘ackshully ackshully ackshully the PM had done a deal with him in ECB and that Murray wasn’t really wanting electorate votes he’s just saying that’, then what would you reckon?

              • Puckish Rogue

                That craigs trying to drum up dwindling support but thats ok its all part of the game, a negative story comes out about the right and the left crow about it and then a story comes out about the left and the right crow about that…its all good

            • Hanswurst 21.1.1.1.1.2

              Considering that the only quote they provide from Sykes in support of such a deal is, “I think it’s already happening there […].”It’s been informally signalled.”, I would say that it is TV3 that is telling porkies in a transparent attempt to smear Labour. Claiming that it has been “informally signalled” is a direct statement that the wider labour-voting electorate has not been formally asked to give their electorate vote to Harawira, which would be the requirement for an “Epsom-style” deal. End of story.

              I also note that it is colossally stupid to refer to a “secret”, Epsom-style deal, since the nature of the deal in Epsom is that it is public. It’s yet another example of a journalist throwing words out there without even a basic consideration for what they mean.

    • framu 21.2

      youve said that in two different threads now – are you on commision or something?

  22. Molly 22

    Toby Manhire’s article in today’s Herald provides a good indication on where Whyte is coming from in his own words:

    “A few weeks ago I interviewed Whyte – coming tomorrow to a Weekend Herald near you – and suggested that small parties’ struggle to get media attention very often saw them gravitate towards the fruity, shouty excesses.

    “You’re absolutely right, this is a very serious problem,” he said. “Fortunately, most of the things we truly believe in are considered mad by other people. Therefore it’s not such a problem for me. I just say what I honestly believe, and people say, ‘did you hear what he just said?'”

    In those terms, it is hard to know what to make of Whyte’s self-made maelstrom around race and privilege in New Zealand law.”

    • Weepus beard 22.1

      Says to me he accepts he’s fringe and not fit to make legislative decisions. Also apparent is Toby Manhire bested him in an interview and drew out in an ambush that self defeating statement – from a supposed intellectual.

      • Lanthanide 22.1.1

        drew out in an ambush that self defeating statement – from a supposed intellectual.

        It’s exactly the same problem Brash had – being totally principled and honest, without realising that in politics your principles are always going to upset someone, so you have to be very careful about what you say, to whom, and how it is said.

        • Populuxe1 22.1.1.1

          ^This.
          He’s not a nutter, he just doesn’t get politics or understand people’s sensitivities outside of a very rarified Oxbridge environment. He’s a bit like Tricky Dicky Dawkins in that regard – tin ear and two left feet.
          Criticise his position by all means, but this ad hominem bullshit is tacky – or has Mr Smith forgotten all of the “out of touch, pointy headed academics” jibes National has forever directed at Labour?

        • Gosman 22.1.1.2

          Why should he care if he upsets even the majority of the population. He is aiming for his message to reach the 10 to 15 % that is susceptable to it.

          • Pascals bookie 22.1.1.2.1

            “He is aiming for his message to reach the 10 to 15 % that is susceptable to it.”

            Yeah. The racists.

          • Lanthanide 22.1.1.2.2

            I mean, that is why he was quite happy to say to Toby Manhire that many people find his ideas mad.

            He doesn’t have the political nous to realise that labelling your ideas as mad is not actually conducive to escaping ‘minor party’ status… ever.

            The Greens have moderated their hippie attitudes markedly from 2008, hence why they’re now consistently polling over 10%.

  23. Richard McGrath 23

    “Among the many ironies, he thinks Maori are legally privileged because they have their own roll and their own seats in Parliament – yet he aims to get himself into Parliament courtesy of the National Party”

    Maori are legally privileged because of the race based seats. There are no seats reserved for candidates of other races, or for candidates of any political party. Your comparison is invalid.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1

      How are people on the Māori roll legally privileged? They have an electorate vote and a party vote like everyone else.

      We’re “awash” in it, though, so you will have lots and lots more examples of race based law – and you’ll be able to point to the relevant legislation rather than vague blather.

      The whole thing is a dogwhistle to Titford supporters.

    • Daveosaurus 23.2

      Aucklanders are legally privileged because of Auckland based seats reserved for Aucklanders. Other places in New Zealand such as Morrinsville, Makikihi or Martinborough don’t get special seats reserved for them. Aucklanders should have to go onto a general roll and vote in some little town miles from anywhere, like other New Zealanders.

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere