- Date published:
5:30 pm, February 7th, 2017 - 106 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
Love the people of Romania
Must be western elites fomenting rebellion against a democratically elected government because clearly, tens of thousands of Romanians would never take to the streets to rid themselves of a corrupt regime.
Half a million people protesting the government, wow!
Sounds like it’s a protest against neo-liberalism and austerity.
And not reported in NZ’s msm.
What a surprise….
Instead from the Herald.
Polly Gillespie not on air after Facebook post
Tape Face slammed: ‘unfunny, pointless’
Amanda Knox: You probably hated me
The worst excuses for sick days
Posh flees after ‘Beckileaks’ drama
The top viewed stories on Stuff.
Polly & Grant missing from the airwaves after her attack on radio bosses
Why my wedding day was the loneliest day of my life
Queen Elizabeth II marks record 65 years on throne, but it’s tinged with sadness
Young Central Otago couple collect their $18 million Lotto win
Maybe George Carlin was right along.
So you won’t want to be branded a ‘stupid people’ and hypocrite by quoting or linking from either source ever again, will you?
Hey I’m not that bad.
I’d have to make the effort of doing a google search on this dipshit’s badly transcribed words to find the original links.
Of course if I did that then I’d probably find something that I could get annoyed about.
You do an excellent George Carlin impersonation.
You probably know it as editing. 🙂
Little reminds Labour caucus about discipline: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/323972/willie-jackson-concerns-'a-matter-for-caucus‘
Another outstanding article by Malcolm Bradbury on the subject.
Class vs Identity Politics – Why Andrew Little has no choice but to stare down the Identitarians inside Labour
Only ‘outstanding’ if you share a black/white worldview where people’s varied belongings/potentials can only fit into one box. I would rather trust that most people are capable of holding more than one position at once. It’s certainly what I’ve experienced. Life is complex. Ask any poor brown woman or queer disabled migrant.
However, practically speaking some in Labour may still need reminding that they are a team and sometimes their faction does not get to win, cos politics. Politics always seems an unfortunate reduction of life in that respect.
+ 100% Sacha.
Excerpt from Paul’s link:
If this is what happened then it makes the whole thing worse… Poto is lucky she wasn’t ‘gone by lunchtime’.
“the Labour leadership believed they had an agreement that she wouldn’t post anything, she changed her mind and then posted it anyway.”
I respect her reservations but I’d fire her for that, on the spot. Must have some factional support to protect her.
This is the crux of the problem. I, too, respect her for what are strong and genuinely held views. No decent person would quarrel with her on them. But to go ahead and defy an agreement she appears to have made with the party leadership is almost beyond comprehension.
I could be wrong, but I suspect she was encouraged – maybe even coerced – to go rogue on the agreement by person/persons whose agenda(s) were not the same as her own. If so, I hope she knows never to take their advice again.
On Checkpoint, Andrew Little said Poto Williams raised the points with Little last week. It seems that Little then went ahead and announced Jackson was going to be a candidate, without taking the issues raised by Poto to the caucus?
Am I missing something? Surely Little should have had a wider discussion with caucus, and perhaps the wider party, about the issues raised by Poto, before going public and announcing Jackson as a candidate?
Then is it surprising Williams was pissed off with Little not going through the required process and ignoring her advice?
It’s not Poto who has the problem here – it’s Little.
The authoritarian manner of his decision making is cringe worthy. I’m having very serious thoughts about him as PM.
Who do you suggest takes his place at this late stage?
I’ve heard Shaw make far more “cringing” comments than that, yet I accept people are people and can make errors of judgment, we are all capable of that, yes, all of us.
Did Shaw arbitrarily announce that he’d chosen someone to skip the list selection process? How about that many members think that someone’s recent behaviour is contrary to some of the essential principles and policies of the party?
Little doesn’t suffer from foot-in-mouth disease. His problem is that he became complacent and forgot that Labour is a democratic party that he can’t dictate to. Happens in every group organisation from time to time, the person with the vision sometimes forgets to bring people along with them for the ride, and starts unilateral action.
I think it’s recoverable, but it’s definitely something for Little to learn from.
NO, but Shaw did arbitrarily announce that he could “work with National’, I wonder how many members agreed with that decision?
Any party that states they are prepared to work with the worst scumbags to ever have the opportunity to destroy NZ, will never receive my support, that’s never.
You seem to have for gotten how important it is to keep the “dirty laundry” out of the public domain.
It’s for ALL members to learn from, making public statements that create the perception of disunity is probably the MOST UNPRODUCTIVE and DESTRUCTIVE method of getting their point across, no matter how valid the point is.
The Greens have already worked with National
That is one of the Strengths of the Green Party. They have shown that they are able to work across the political divide to advance policies that are directed towards positive ends.
If you can’t bring them along with you, then you’ve got to get rid of them otherwise, you’re going nowhere.
“NO, but Shaw did arbitrarily announce that he could “work with National’, I wonder how many members agreed with that decision?”
Wtf are you on about? The membership passed a remit at two separate AGMs allowing the party to work with National.
I’d also like to see a citation for Shaw having made that announcement arbitrarily or at all. I suspect you are talking about Russell Norman but he still had the ok from the party to do that (even though how he did it was not particularly wise).
Edit, Here’s a whole post on the Green Party’s position on working with National and not supporting them to form government, and how that decision was arrived at.
weka – Early on in his role as co-leader James did say something to that effect – but what he was saying was simply reiterating the Green position to work with National where positive action that addressed Green Party policies could be achieved.
There has been next to no area in the past few years where that has been the case. There was some hope such as with the sub-committee to investigate special needs in schooling – but in the end disappointingly that went nowhere.
I’d still like to see the citation for context. Shaw became co-leader 30 May 2015. Here he is a week later being interviewed in the media,
“What century are we talking about?”, Shaw responds when asked if the Greens are ever likely to sit around a Cabinet table with National.
“Look, I cannot see, certainly in 2017, how that could possibly function. It will be coming to the end of a third term National Government, we are miles apart (especially on the environment). The underlying economic system that produces the kind of environmental and social costs and consequences that we go on about is core to National’s way of governing. If we wanted to be in a coalition with them we would have to have a conversation with them about the nature of the economy and I can’t see them giving up on the model they’ve had for the last 30 years.”
But the Green Party is unashamedly on the hunt for National votes – and it sees no contradiction between that and its hardline position about doing a deal with any future National government.
Maybe it was in the week before that?
Yes Carolyn_nth – what you’re missing is the wider picture of WHY Willie Jackson was invited into Labour – which is that he could help connect Labour to the urban Maori and the disadvantaged Maori, and the enrolled non-voter – all vital for the Labour vote.
His mistakes were in the past, he’d apologised – several times – for them.
And yes, he’s a blokey-type jokey sort of bloke – not the sort necessarily appreciated by educated women.
Andrew Little talked to Poto Williams about these things.
Poto Williams should be “big” enough, and intelligent enough, to realise there are other matters at play in this scene ….. and personally I would have thought, as a Cook Islander (who are usually big on Christianity) that she could see the need for forgiveness in this matter.
If Jackson becomes sexist and pro-violence while he’s a candidate or an MP, then that’s a different matter – she’d be right to really get stuck into him.
But meanwhile, as an intelligent Labour woman she needs to show a bit of forgiveness and perhaps a bit of advice to him on how he should behave, and attitudes towards women.
And she needs to keep to caucus rules which she signed up to.
But didn’t Little fail to follow caucus/Labour Party rules on candidate selection before going public? Surely he should be leading by example?
As I understand it, the Labour Party systems are meant to be fairly democratic, especially with regard to candidate selection. The strategic reasoning may be sound in terms of Labour Party principles, but surely that should have been discussed more internally before Little went public on it. That is my point.
The way you describe it, the Labour Party member sounds very authoritarian.
I’m not certain about attracting urban Maori and the disadvantaged Maori because they are important to the LP vote. Surely it should be about what Labour can do for these groups, and surely the LP shouldn’t be sidelining principles about equality for all, including women (including Maori women)etc, in order to gain votes?
“The way you describe it, the Labour Party member sounds very authoritarian.”
yes, compared to the Greens, where this kind of things is incredibly rare presumably because they work with a consensus model rather than an authoritarian one. i.e. you wouldn’t get this dissent because the caucus wouldn’t disregard the opinions of one of their spokespeople like this.
His mistakes were only a few years ago.
Saying he was too casual or playing devil’s advocate is pretty mild as apologies go.
But Williams is supposed to remain silent (as Labour spokesperson on dv) and wait until after he’s been given membership, a waiver, fast-tracked up the list, made an MP, and then repeats his sort of attitudes of late 2013? Bit bloody late then.
Yeah, that’s the one. It’s not like anyone is really expecting the LP to get to grips with rape culture, but what are they thinking is going to happen when Jackson shoots his mouth off when they’re in govt? Or god forbid the month before the election (which actually might be ok if it bumps the Green vote). It’s possible that they’ve gotten an assurance from Jackson that he won’t be an arse.
Well said Jenny
“Poto Williams should be “big” enough, and intelligent enough, to realise there are other matters at play in this scene ….. and personally I would have thought, as a Cook Islander (who are usually big on Christianity) that she could see the need for forgiveness in this matter.”
Sorry Jenny – but that has to be about as offensive as Willie Jackson was to the young woman on radio.
“Cook Islander (who are usually big on Christianity) that she could see the need for forgiveness in this matter.”
This is a pretty weird and borderline racist thing to say.
It doesn’t work that way Carolyn Nth. I find Martyn Bradbury too much most of the time but, from my own knowledge and experiences in the LP, his version of what happened re- Poto Williams sounds more than a tad plausible. He has many contacts including MPs.
Of course Little consulted widely and it probably included senior union personnel as well. Its fairly obvious most approved of allowing Willie Jackson back into the party for the same reasons Little has publicly expressed. But for reasons only Poto can fully explain, she appears to have chosen to renege on an agreement she made with the Labour leadership which would have included the deputy leader and the party president at the least.
Willie Jackson knows West Aucklanders and South Aucklanders like the back of his hand. He understands them and can speak their language. Huge numbers of them don’t bother to vote. Willie is well known and trusted in these two regions and he has the power of persuasion which would be a hugely valuable tool in getting them out to vote for Labour.
Edit: Jenny Kirk above is on the button. She broke the most important caucus rule – keeping caucus matters confidential to caucus.
Well, Jackson may have an understanding of west and south Auckland men, but what about the women, given the survivors of the Roastbuster abuse were westie women?
If Williams did agree not to go public, then it is fair to criticise her for breaking that agreement. When she made that promise, did she know Little was going to go public with it in a couple of days, or did she think there’d be more discussion of it within the party?
Yes I’d like to see more people voting. But many have given up because they don’t think any politicians will do anything for them.
So what is Labour going to do for west and South Aucklanders, and urban Maori?
Why wouldnt she know when she had been in discussions about Willie Jackson?
It was the timing of her FB post that made me feel that she did indeed know.
It’s all speculation but if I had to guess I’d say what it looks like from the outside is that there was some initial discussion in caucus about brining Jackson in, Williams’ concerns were ignored, and in amongs that there are the Māori politics (in and outside the party) as well as the feeling amongs the general membership. It’s not just Williams that is upset about this whole thing.
Leftie: It was the timing of her FB post that made me feel that she did indeed know
how so? because the timing of the announcement (on a public holiday), and William’s FB response. suggests to me the possibility that she had thought the possible Jackson candidacy would be discussed more widely in the party before it was announced publicly.
So what is Labour going to do for west and South Aucklanders, and urban Maori?
Still no answer. And I have in mind that the big hole in Labour’s housing policy – ie so far nothing to directly combat the rising cost of private rentals, indicates low income westies and South Aucklanders have not been given a lot of consideration in the policies.
Spot on Anne and Jenny, you are both are right on the button.
“Edit: Jenny Kirk above is on the button. She broke the most important caucus rule – keeping caucus matters confidential to caucus.”
What if it’s a matter of conscience? I’m thinking of Marilyn Waring crossing the floor.
Labour could have had Jackson and satisfied the women in the party. Pity they didn’t do that.
From what I remember Williams had support from other Labour women.
You’re talking about a legislative vote in parliament. If Labour was happy to allow the whole of parliament to have a say in Willie Jacksons’ return to politics then someone would have to draw up legislation which would go to a select committee and their recommendations would be put to the vote in the debating chamber where both sides could debate the pros and cons. If it was a party vote controlled by the whips then she could ‘cross the floor’ and vote with the other side whoever they might be.
It would make a hilarious comedy show but somehow don’t think it would be approved by the speaker. 😎
No, I was making a comparison on matters of conscience. Nice side step though 🙂
+ 100% Anne. I don’t think you’re wrong. I suspect the same as you do.
“I could be wrong, but I suspect she was encouraged – maybe even coerced – to go rogue on the agreement by person/persons whose agenda(s) were not the same as her own.”
Interesting. Do you think the public undermining of Little is part of a larger potential leadership challenge?
Not at this stage. Andrew Little is strong and does not suffer fools gladly. Nor does he put up with people who play silly political games behind the scenes. Helen Clark was the same and she also had some enemies inside the party – at least in the initial years.
“Andrew Little is strong…”
This does seem to be an attempt to weaken him. Nevertheless, I was curious in the other agenda(s) you suspected.
Could it be related to Jackson being ex Alliance?
Not likely. Too long ago. The culprits (for want of a better word) wouldn’t have even been born. No, they have ambitions beyond what they are worth and know their chances of success while Little is leader is zilch. That’s my conclusion based on what I’ve seen and heard.
Every major political party has them.
“the Labour leadership believed they had an agreement that she wouldn’t post anything, she changed her mind and then posted it anyway.”
I respect her reservations but I’d fire her for that, on the spot. Must have some factional support to protect her.
Me too if it was true but I’m not going to use Bradbury as a useful source for what happened.
Fair call – doh. Subsequent RNZ story here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201832310/andrew-little-defends-decision-to-let-willie-jackson-stand-for-labour
thanks, can’t bring myself to listen to him, too much disappointment.
I listened to it last night. Little only says that he discussed it with Williams a few days before the announcement about Jackson, and she expressed the same injections as in her FB post. He does not indicate if Williams knew he was about to announce the candidacy in spite of Williams objections.
He does not mention that he had breached LP candidacy procedures by making an executive decision on Jackson’s candidacy.
Does the Labour Party have a process by which candidates are selected by “executive decision”?
If not, is there a rule that states the leader can’t express an opinion on the subject? Has he exceeded his mandate?
If not, why make up spurious claims (“breached LP candidacy procedures”)? Aren’t the facts of the matter sufficient grounds for concern?
Agreed. Very lucky.
Corbyn is having problems as well with ill-discipline with UK Labour and a failure to discipline such acts is costing them dearly.
And Little’s having trouble controlling a caucus of 31. No Key, English plummeting into the future that is 2002, an insane deputy PM – and the election’s still Labour’s to lose. WTF?
She was very lucky.
That’s more-or-less what Andrew said on Campbell RNZ tonight, Anne. Can’t remember the exact words, but Poto definitely stepped out of line. Any problems an MP has with whatever policy has to be discussed in caucus first, and dealt with there.
Poto is blinkin’ lucky she just got off with a mild reprimand.
My own transgression – over a much more important issue at the time – Rogernomics – resulted in three days of no-speaks by anyone – very uncomfortable to experience.
Poto – and other Labour women – need to look at the wider picture, and they also need to know what Willie Jackson has been doing in the intervening years since roadbusters. There is something underhand about this vendetta.
+100 Jenny and Andrew Little is into redemption and giving people a chance to do better.
“My own transgression – over a much more important issue at the time – Rogernomics – resulted in three days of no-speaks by anyone – very uncomfortable to experience.”
Do you regret making that stand, then?
If not, how do we evaluate the importance of an issue?
I actually read it. Probably won’t bother again.
Firstly, he reckons he knows what the leadership believed about their behind the scenes discussions with Williams. If someone’s telling him, then why isn’t he calling the leadership on the damaging leaks as much as he is Williams?
Secondly, he’s bitching about identity politics while talking about WJ getting out the “urban Maori” vote. Hypocritical, much?
Thirdly, if he thinks it’s smart that Labour undemocratically elevate a random Maori celebrity to get the urban Maori vote, does he really think that the best role model Labour can find is someone who can’t bring forward a decent apology for referring to rape as “mischief”? Seriously?
FFS. Bradbury’s a fucking tool. Maybe I forgot, and that’s why I bothered this time.
The way I see it is that Little is only bending over backwards for Willie because he is scared shitless the Maori/Mana deal will wipe out his Maori MPs. Bit of a risk really because he is alienating many Labour supporters who can’t see the merits of a talk-back host getting a free ride high on the list ahead of genuine Labour people.
I suspect less thought went into it than that – WJ was looking for a place to live and got on the O’Conner bandwagon, Little and he hammered it out themselves and nobody knew about it until it was being announced like it was a done deal.
And if WJ’s comment history even occurred to them, they probably assumed it was water under the bridge.
And now they’re in the shit. Complacency fucks folks every time.
Unless Labour’s party vote rises, there will be few of their list MPs who get in.
I remember once on my last evening in London deciding to have a feast of “Traditional English Fish and Chips”. After a night going at both ends I managed to struggle onto the plane to take me home. Fish and Chips never passed my lips again for a very long time.
Reading a Bradbury rant has much the same effect.
Despite your rather useful descriptions 🙂 I felt the need to go have a look myself (because otherwise sensible people in this thread are treating what he says about Labour as a valid source for what happened). I see he is now the Pete George of the left, having to selectively quote people on TS in order to frame his agenda. Oh dear. Might be ok if all the people that hate IP end up there though 🙂
Had to laugh at his quote of from you weka. Made me giggle, I was thinking Pete George as well LOL.
Did concern me the whole “I’m a man, so you better listen to me” vibe that ran through his whole piece. I wonder if he will get how much a sexist prick he is? Or the fact if you opposed to civil rights, you not on my side or anyone else’s who actually give a dam about people.
He quoted me the other day too. I’m not that happy to be on his radar tbh, seeing what he’s done to others. I agree a big part of this is “listen to me”. Some of that seems just ego out of control. But the anti-IP stuff that is coming up not just with him but with others, that’s lefties taking their memes not just from the like of Trotter but from the alt-right. I find it concerning and it does look to me like these are predominantly white men who are emboldened by the US election result.
The civil rights framing is good, thanks for that.
I share your concerns and it’s a step backwards. It’s been a long hard struggle to get women’s, race, LGBTI and disability issues incorporated within the dominant left organisations, policies and campaigns.
These civil rights issues were also watered down at the same time class issues were watered down within and through the neoliberal shift. But guys that seem to want to return to a largely white, heterosexual, male dominated left seem to be using the collapse of neoliberalism to push their retro agenda.
The message that I got loud and clear over at TDB, is that the left is a working class male thing and the rest of us (ie women) need to STFU
Good point Carolyn_nth. It’s like these guys don’t even know what major class A retrogrades they are being as well.
I don’t want to live in a world where people don’t have civil rights, where women, LGBTI, indigenous, and disabled are not a major part of the solution.
I know people in the US who are very scared right now. The thing that scares me here is that while I see NZ as being very different than the US politically and socially, I think we are quite capable of having our own version of authoritarianism arise here. That’s what the whole anti-IP is starting to look like. The false framing of what IP is, and the push from lefties who also support Tr*mp. I guess it’s useful to see this more honestly, but I also think we it’s likely we don’t have a lot of time to start working together. Not Bradbury, but the rest of us. If we get a hard GFC for instance and a reactive conservatism.
I’d always read Bradbury with a grain of salt, went off him with his whole emerald army thing. Gave him a break when he did waatea news show. But now he’s back to his authoritarian best – so a lost cause.
I’ve had a few tear fulled facebook conversations of late as well. Mainly over heath care for disabled friends of mine. They deeply concerned about the end of Obama care. It’s like the weakest in society, or those who have the most to lose, are the constant target of these retrograde individuals be they left or right. We have all lost since the rise of neo-liberalism, time to try somthing different.
Yeah all we got is organising ourselves, and doing it local. Did that tonight with group I work with, small steps to prepare them if it gets worse.
The Daily Blog’s moderators make that site a joke. There’s no discussion unless you toe their line.
I wrote 1 comment last night that they let through, foolishly I commented before I had read all of Bomber’s writing on Jackson (note to self- no more commenting after 2nd glass of wine) My second comment said that I wanted to withdraw what I had said about Bomber understanding the seriousness of the Roastbusters, because it looked like he was prepared to ‘throw women’s issues under a bus” . Nothing particuarly inflammatory about my comment- but no, 24 hours later, they haven’t let it through.
I wrote a pissed off comment on the Chris Trotter post- saying Trotter had done more damage to the Labour party with his columns than Poto Williams had. That one hasn’t seen the light of day either.
Thank you to the moderators at the Standard who don’t make us kiss their arses before we can get our comments published.
“Trotter had done more damage to the Labour party with his columns”
I agree with that.
awww… but he went got learned himself a fancy new word.
“Identitarians” — and he can even spell it — now just another 8 months of him breathlessly repeating it in reference to senior Labour MPs…
I suppose that makes him a Blusterfarian.
Or a Sexistprickitarian?
When did you stop believing in civil rights Paul?
Because that all that term identitarians means, and end to civil rights. When people on the left have taken on board wholesale acceptance of the rights criticism of civil rights, the illusion of any sort of freedom, becomes stark.
Prime TV- 5.30-labour getting a wack re willie in labour.Careful poto ,careful.
There have several of saying this from the start.
It is clear many in the Labour Party have not learnt the lessons they should have from Clinton’d defeat.
As Bradbury puts it so well.
“Me, me, me, I, I, I and my, my, my have replaced ‘us’ as the language of political inclusion.
Replacing class for hyper individualism makes solidarity almost impossible and creates fractures within unity, which is exactly what we are seeing happen in real time with the Labour Party right now.”
Are you a labour supporter Paul?
I am left wing.
When it’s about a large segment of the population, and the way they are treated within the system e.g. women, sexual violence survivors, etc. It’s not individualism, any more than white guys focusing about their issues…. that could just as easily be called..me, me, me…. don’t care about yous others, according to your logic.
Systemic treatment of women, rape culture etc, is a collective issue, just like class.
In my humble opinion Jackson ruled himself out of any further involvement in Political representation the day he “interviewed” that unfortunate young woman and asked her if rape was possible if the girls considered the boys to be “good looking”!
For goodness sake! He clearly, doesn’t understand the nature of sexual abuse!
An “apology” simply doesn’t cut it!
And Little thinks he would make a good candidate????
Thanks Carolyn and Macro – I too do not see an attitude of dismissal and denigration of women as Identity Politics , but more akin to a classs issue.
How is mis-treating and mis-valuing women possibly “a class issue”? It’s sexism. Already has a name, thanks.
I think “akin to a class issue”, means that they are similar in being about systemic oppression and/or discrimination of a whole group of people – not that gender oppression is a class issue per se.
But Little looked at other aspects of Jackson’s life, Macro – and saw that he had redeemed himself somewhat by finding out about womens refuges, and why they exist, and the end result of sexual abuse and violence. And that he was now running programmes at the Urban Maori Authority to help re-educate people and counter abuse and violence.
People are not just one dimensional. They’re made up of many different facets, and some are good,and some not so good – but if they get the opportunity to reflect on their not so good attributes, they can change them.
That appears to have happened in Jackson’s case – and that’s what Andrew Little saw.
And yes, from the point of view of bringing urban maori, young maori, and disadvantaged maori in to see that Labour could help them, than that makes him a good candidate.
“and saw that he had redeemed himself somewhat by finding out about womens refuges, and why they exist, and the end result of sexual abuse and violence. And that he was now running programmes at the Urban Maori Authority to help re-educate people and counter abuse and violence.”
You can link to that?
And Poto Williams was unaware of this??
Have read what you have quoted in some articles from the Herald et al, Macro. I doubt that Poto Williams was unaware of the steps Willie Jackson had taken over the last 3 years. That’s what Andrew Little is saying, that Willie Jackson is backing up his apologies with action.
I repeat what weka says below:
Working with Urban Maori is well and good – but it doesn’t suggest that he has changed the underlying problem his attitudes wrt of the denigration of women.
He hasn’t just been working with urban Maori though. It appears it doesn’t matter what he does to address the wrongful things he said in the past, for some, it will never be enough, he is damned for life.
Well that’s the way it is with rapists…
It’s a hard road back.
Now I’m not saying that Jackson is one – but his interview on Radio Live was pretty bloody horrible, and a huge apology for rape culture. That was the reason so many advertisers withdrew their support forthwith from the programme and forced Radio Live to remove him and Henare from the air.
It was a stupid and insensitive interview, and too damned right he should apologise. But even that is not enough. He really has to demonstrate, in the eyes of all abused women, that he is truly repentant – and that is going to take time and effort.
“He hasn’t just been working with urban Maori though. It appears it doesn’t matter what he does to address the wrongful things he said in the past, for some, it will never be enough, he is damned for life.”
That’s a misrepresentation of what people think Leftie. For instance, I said a few days before the Williams’ statement that for me it wasn’t about keeping Jackson out of Labour, it was about how Labour dealt with the rape culture issues. Thus far, badly, although it could have been worse.
Others believe that Jackson should never be in parliament again, and I understand why they argue that (myself, I think we should take all rape apologists out which would decimate parliament).
As for Jackson, I think you simply fail to understand what the problem is here and why his apologies have fallen flat. Anyone can say the right thing to get what they want. It’s not about that, it’s about demonstrating that he has changed. I just don’t see it.
And as Macro has been arguing, this wasn’t just a faux pas. It was a major issue around rape culture that never got resolved, hence it coming back to bite Labour now. Lots of us could have told Labour this would happen and I’d hazard a guess that Little was told and chose to ignore it. It’s on him then.
“Well that’s the way it is with rapists…
It’s a hard road back.
Now I’m not saying that Jackson is one”
Aren’t you, Macro? Because it sure sounded like that was what you were calling him.
Weka, I wasn’t referring “about keeping Jackson out of Labour” My comment is about giving someone a chance to redeem themselves. We learn through our entire lives, do we not? And I haven’t got the impression from what Andrew Little has said in the media, that he ignored concerns. There is a process to be followed, that would have been a more productive platform to raise those concerns.
I awoke this morning with the horrible realization that I had mis-named Jackson’s co-host.
Willie Jackson’s co-host was of course John Tamahere not Henare. My sincere apologies for this error, and any offense it may have caused.
As to the query raised by Leftie above the fact remains that people who encourage, or condone rape, are as much to blame as those who carry out the abuse.
Whether the girls had been drinking or not, unconsented sexual abuse is rape.
Whether or not the girls considered the boys “good looking”, unconsented sexual abuse is rape.
The fact of the matter is that many men and women in this country do not understand this, and I’m sure Jackson is one of them.
Misnamed? Frankly you shouldn’t have written it like that at all Macro, and your apology is accepted, but how about an acknowledgement on someone who said something wrong in the past and the time spent since in working to address it. Willie Jackson is backing up his apology, and at least he is trying and making effort.
Sorry, but Little and Jackson don’t get to be the ones that decide if Jackson has changed his views and beliefs about rape culture. It’s obvious that Jackson does many good things. It’s also obvious that he still doesn’t get what the problem is. Neither does Little, and it’s a shame he didn’t choose to work this in a way that was good for all sides.
Trump is said to have has lost his shit because a woman parodied Sean Spicer and apparently, in Trumps world, there’s nothing more degrading than a woman taking the piss.
The Germans stand up to corporates trying to buy and take over their national game.
The AllBlacks were sold as cash cows to transnationals without a murmur.
Their main sponsor, AIG , has enough money for them, but appears to not have enough for Christchurch.
The insurance co screwing ChCh is IAG, Insurance Australia Group, not AIG, American International Group who sponsor the All Blacks
This is interesting and coincerning.
Humans could be extinct in 9 years – scientists
well said Stunned Mullet, the correspondent who posted this link seems to have a strong attraction to alarmist drivel
“Bishops get Maori minder”
Love the click bait title, great appointment by the way.