Daily review 26/01/2023

55 comments on “Daily review 26/01/2023 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. adam 1

   26 January 2023 at 5:48 pm

   Sheesh stuff has gone full stright-to-pay over the act leader.

   It's a wee bit ugly, I mean if you boycott a event, why go to them to get comment on what was said there – unless it's…

   [This comment belongs where it came from: the sewer. Care to explain what it is about but without the vileness this time? After all, you have commenting privileges on a political blog with a kaupapa of robust (political) debate – Incognito]
   • Incognito 1.1

     26 January 2023 at 6:32 pm

     Mod note
     • Muttonbird 1.1.1

       26 January 2023 at 8:24 pm

       Not sure what the link is about but ACT did boycott Rātana, presumably with the intention to eventually destroy the celebration.

       I think this is part of a wider strategy by NACT to minimalise and trivialise Māori Crown relations. The National Party leader again today questioning the legitimacy of Māori seats. You can read about that in Mickey’s post today if you haven’t already.

       I certainly understand why people are angry about this explicit racism.
       • Chuck nz 1.1.1.1

         26 January 2023 at 8:27 pm

         Why is celebrating church an important part of our culture. People complain about Luxon belonging to a church and the power it might hold, but this church is different?
         • Muttonbird 1.1.1.1.1

           26 January 2023 at 8:39 pm

           Do you take time off at Easter and Christmas to spend time with your family?

           Will ACT cancel this too? I suspect not because it is a white tradition.
         • tinderdry6 1.1.1.1.2

           26 January 2023 at 9:02 pm

           Rātana (the event) is not about celebrating 'church'; the celebration is about the man. Rātana was a remarkable leader, who fought against injustices promulgated against Māori, and held considerable political influence, particularly within the Labour Party of the 1930's.
         • Shanreagh 1.1.1.1.3

           26 January 2023 at 9:56 pm

           Hey, good idea for you.

           Why don't you read up about the Ratana church, its founder Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana, links to Labour Party, the fact that politicians have been going up there for years. But no you have just found out and seem, on my reading, to have a problem with it. Then come back and have a discussion with us.

           https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131046506/what-is-rtana-the-p-that-brings-together-faith-and-politics

           Luxon's church on the other hand is a patriarchal church believing in the concept of the rapture, prosperity scripture.

           It is my view that the severely limited view on womens' issues from this church/upbringing was the reason he believes that women in power do not get harsher treatment from SM that men. I guess in those churches women are not supposed to be in the workplace but somewhere else being someone's helpmeet.
       • Incognito 1.1.1.2

         26 January 2023 at 8:42 pm

         Trumpian polarisation and division aka divide and conquer.
       • tinderdry6 1.1.1.3

         26 January 2023 at 8:47 pm

         There are many people who champion Māori aspiration and renaissance who also question the separatism associated with dual representation. David Seymour is one such person, who also happens to be Māori. Questioning Māori electoral options is not racism, it is part of a worthwhile discussion how about we best enfranchise all New Zealander's, particularly Māori, given that in 2020, across all age demographics Māori turnout was lower than their non-Māori counterparts.
         • Muttonbird 1.1.1.3.1

           26 January 2023 at 8:50 pm

           What's the dual representation bit?

           *And for future reference, it is New Zealanders (plural), not New Zealander’s (possessive) in that context.
           • tinderdry6 1.1.1.3.1.1

             26 January 2023 at 9:06 pm

             Dual representation is the idea that separate Māori seats are an anachronism because Māori have exactly the same representation and voting rights via the general seats.
             • Muttonbird …

               26 January 2023 at 9:12 pm

               That is not dual representation. They party vote like anyone and vote in their electorate like anyone. Maori on the Maori electoral role do not have multiple voting rights despite what your KKK friends might say.
               • tinderdry6 …

                 26 January 2023 at 9:51 pm

                 It is 'dual' in the sense that there are two bites of the cherry. Māori have a choice that no other citizen of the country has. In the case of seats on local council's, Māori effectively have two votes. And your KKK comment is silly. The 1986 Royal Commission recommended the separate seats be abolished if MMP was adopted.
                 • tinderdry6 …

                   26 January 2023 at 10:03 pm

                   Apologies for no link:

                   Effect of Māori seats – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand
                   • Drowsy M. Kram …

                     27 January 2023 at 3:49 am

                     https://www.whichroll.co.nz/

                     Māori roll or general roll – how did you choose?
                     [25 July 2022]

                     But they have a choice no other NZ'er has. – td6 @11:18 pm

                     Is that so bad? I'm fine with it, although it's really not up to me.

                     Now is there is a tangible and clear benefit to Maori from that, then I would support that, as I do many other inistiatives targeted at and for Maori.

                     Representation, identity and indigeneity: changes in Māori roll choice in Aotearoa-New Zealand
                     [7 April 2022]

                     Imho, it's best left to Māori to articulate whether they feel there are clear benefits. In 2018, roughly half a million Kiwis of Māori descent were on either the Māori roll or the general electoral roll, with a small preference for the former.

                     Calls for abolition
                     Periodically there have been calls for the abolition of the Māori electorates. The electorates aroused controversy even at the time of their origin, and given their intended temporary nature, there have been a number of attempts to abolish them. The reasoning behind these attempts has varied – some have seen the electorates as an unfair or unnecessary advantage for Māori, while others have seen them as discriminatory and offensive.

                     Given the varied reasoning behind calls for abolition, it's amazing they've survived. Imho the number of Kiwis on the Māori roll will only increase – less sure about the future of calls for abolition.

                     Page 3. Controversy over Māori seats
                     Arguments for retention
                     Those in favour of retaining the Māori seats argue that the seats have directly contributed to greater participation by Māori in Parliament. There have been proportionately more indigenous politicians in New Zealand than in any of the other former British colonies where indigenous peoples are a minority. Since the advent of MMP (mixed-member proportional representation) in 1996 the proportion of MPs who identify as Māori has increased, although not all MPs of Māori descent necessarily represent Māori interests.

                     Not the only argument, and not a bad political safeguard – for Māori.
                 • Muttonbird …

                   26 January 2023 at 10:03 pm

                   I'll be patient.

                   1. You don't need to put dual in single quote marks.
                   2. Maori choose one or the other, not both.
                   3. It's local councils, not local council's. I just explained that. Where the fuck did you go to school?
                   4. The 1986 Royal commission sounds like a bunch of racist ACT voters to me.
                   5. You are welcome!
                   • tinderdry6 …

                     26 January 2023 at 10:07 pm

                     1. I am quoting from a previous post.
                     2. A choice no-one else has.

                     (Edit: Most Maori choose to vote on the general roll. Perhaps eventually the decision will be made by maori themselves).

                     3. Actually, they were bang on.

                     "With the introduction of MMP in 1996, the proportion of Māori in Parliament increased from 8% to 14%, a total of 17 MPs. In 2011, 22 MPs (18%) were Māori; the number increased to 28 (23%) in 2017, but fell to 25 (21%) in 2020, when no New Zealand First MPs were re-elected."
                   • Muttonbird …

                     26 January 2023 at 10:13 pm

                     Maori are not represented twice, despite your claim.

                     You are one of Finlayson's KKK brigade:

                     the “sour right”. They don’t really understand tangata whenua. They don’t like change.

                     There are always going to be people like that, and you have to be reasonably charitable towards them for a while — and then just ignore them and get on with things.
                   • tinderdry6 …

                     26 January 2023 at 11:32 pm

                     "Maori are not represented twice, despite your claim."

                     I'm not sure I claimed they were represented twice, rather that they have a choice non-Māori do not.

                     [Here you go again and this reminds me that you are still under Moderation and why – I will deal with that over the weekend. You are making ambiguous and confusing comments, deliberately or accidentally. The fact is that you don’t want to clarify them in a consistent manner and prefer circular arguments – others have also noticed and noted – suggests that it is deliberate and that you are not a good faith commenter, which is the impression of you that I formed some time ago.

                     You stated that people on the Māori roll have dual representation. The word “dual” means both/and, e.g., as in dual citizenship. Then you mentioned “choice”, which is binary, either/or, not dual, both/and. Each eligible voter on the Māori roll has only one vote for one MP.

                     BTW, candidates who stand in Māori Electorates do not have to be Māori.

                     However, you state that they have “two bites of the cherry” and “Māori effectively have two votes”, i.e., both/and. This is incorrect, one man, one vote, for one man – the principle of democratic equality stays intact.

                     Now you walk back your previous claim “I’m not sure I claimed they were represented twice, rather that they have a choice non-Māori do not” [my italics]. Well, you did and if you are not sure what you claimed how could we be sure what you meant? You should re-read your own words and be consistent.

                     Banned for a week for this offence – Incognito]
                   • Incognito []

                     27 January 2023 at 1:12 pm

                     Mod note
                   • tinderdry6 …

                     26 January 2023 at 11:36 pm

                     "You are one of Finlayson's KKK brigade:"

                     I have little time for Finlayson. He has used the crown construct of mana whenua to screw Māori over time and again. You can throw names around all you like, but I'd be interested to see if you can explain what is racist about questioning what the Māori seats are actually doing for Māori.
                 • Shanreagh …

                   26 January 2023 at 10:12 pm

                   It is actually only one bite of the cherry.

                   Opt onto General roll – vote party/person

                   or

                   Opt on the Maori roll – vote party/person

                   It is not as if they can vote on both rolls.

                   I find this circular racism a bit puzzling.

                   I call it circular as it requires being envious of someone who has had to get special treatment because their needs are greater than yours – in a bad way.

                   So Maori as an ethnic group have poor health status so particular ways are thought of to bring the health of Maori up to the prevailing averages for non Maori. This might entail special targetted treatment/access for those suffering from ill health.

                   Some of these might involve delivery of Maori health needs at marae or even, to get the full breadth of the health system working for Maori, special contracting for purchasing needs (the RHA model in the mid90s) or the Te Aka Wai Ora/MHA model today.

                   So Pakeha become jealous of these forgetting that surely, whatever race you are, it would be so much better if you did not have to access these special set-ups…….so in effect they are jealous of the ill health of Maori as a whole. How weird can you get?
                   • tinderdry6 …

                     26 January 2023 at 10:21 pm

                     "It is not as if they can vote on both rolls."

                     That is a choice only open to Maori.

                     "I call it circular as it requires being envious of someone who has had to get special treatment because their needs are greater than yours – in a bad way."

                     No, it's about taking a critical view of the system that permits this, when MMP has been effective in increasing Maori represenation in Parliament.

                     Investing in health and education on the basis of need is an excellent idea. But what is the need that separate electoral seats is meeting? Certainly not under representation in the Parliament.

                     "With the introduction of MMP in 1996, the proportion of Māori in Parliament increased from 8% to 14%, a total of 17 MPs. In 2011, 22 MPs (18%) were Māori; the number increased to 28 (23%) in 2017, but fell to 25 (21%) in 2020, when no New Zealand First MPs were re-elected."
                 • Shanreagh …

                   26 January 2023 at 10:16 pm

                   Are you talking about Maori Wards*? Are you correct?

                   * Don't forget to cover the Maori wards that Chantelle Baker found at hospitals.
                 • Shanreagh …

                   26 January 2023 at 10:22 pm

                   The 1986 Royal Commission recommended the separate seats be abolished if MMP was adopted.

                   I think the world has moved on since then with the emphasis on the Treaty, righting wrongs, encouraging Te Reo. etc.

                   Don't forget even relatively recent past history (37 years ago) can fall into this idea of

                   ''The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.' (LP Hartley)
                   • Shanreagh …

                     26 January 2023 at 10:32 pm

                     TD…..

                     So you do know that Maori get the same number of votes as any other NZer? You seem to be still a little confused or perhaps ambiguous.

                     I look at it totally differently……until Maori figures in everything that makes a good society are the equal of everyone else's I wouldn't mind if there were twice or three times as many Maori seats as well as encouraging everyone who wants, incl Maori. to stand in the general seats.

                     As I have said before a work colleague (now chair of a Maori entity in BoP) once said to me:

                     When Maori do well (meaning hit all those markers in a positive way), NZ society as a whole does well.
                   • tinderdry6 …

                     26 January 2023 at 11:18 pm

                     "I think the world has moved on since then with the emphasis on the Treaty, righting wrongs, encouraging Te Reo. etc."

                     It isn't good enough to simply argue every issue with 'but the Treaty'. What is the tangible benefit to Maori from having seperate Maori seats?

                     "So you do know that Maori get the same number of votes as any other NZer? "

                     Absolutely I do. But they have a choice no other NZ'er has. Now is there is a tangible and clear benefit to Maori from that, then I would support that, as I do many other inistiatives targeted at and for Maori.
         • SPC 1.1.1.3.2

           26 January 2023 at 9:17 pm

           Maori electorates enable a continuance of chieftainship within the parliamentary system.

           Because the Treaty was dishonoured self governance of iwi came to an end and Maori have to appeal for/seek out compensation within the "settler government" system.

           Given the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the alternative options to Maori seats, such as a Maori Upper House (or otherwise rejection of parliamentary governance), National would be wise to not to dig a hole that would be noticed around the world.

           PS The loss of the seats might result in greater Maori nationalism/separatism – and either a reduction in participation in the electoral process or an increase in number of Maori voting for a party with a separatist agenda.
           • tinderdry6 1.1.1.3.2.1

             26 January 2023 at 9:57 pm

             " and the alternative options to Maori seats, such as a Maori Upper House (or otherwise rejection of parliamentary governance), "

             …or acceptance of parliamentary governance as envisaged by the Royal Comission.

             "PS The loss…"

             These comments are thought provoking, thanks, however the Royal Comission found that the Māori seats had not helped Māori, and that Māori would be better served via a system of proportional representation.
         • observer 1.1.1.3.3

           26 January 2023 at 9:29 pm

           Questioning Māori electoral options is not racism, it is part of a worthwhile discussion how about we best enfranchise all New Zealander's, particularly Māori

           Sure, it's a worthwhile discussion, like any electoral/constitutional issue … if it's sincere. But you'd have to be incredibly naive (and have a very short memory) to believe that National raise the issue because they want a serious discussion about the country's constitutional arrangements.

           They couldn't care less. Proof: 9 years in government, never needing the Maori seats for their majority … and did nothing. Not even a conference, a dialogue, a working group. Diddly squat.

           They only discover the issue in opposition. If you really don't know why they play this game, I can't help you.
           • tinderdry6 1.1.1.3.3.1

             26 January 2023 at 10:00 pm

             I'm not that interested in the 'game', which is why I haven't commented on Luxon's speech. I'm pushing back on the idea that opposition to the Māori seats is somehow racist, which seemed to me to be the point Muttonbird was making. It's both lazy and patronising.
           • Shanreagh 1.1.1.3.3.2

             26 January 2023 at 10:59 pm

             Yes Observer I too doubt the bona fides of raising the issue. .

             It is an out and out dog whistle.

             Now the 'pretty little Communist' has gone let's get underway on the other issue of concern "maaris".
         • Shanreagh 1.1.1.3.4

           26 January 2023 at 10:46 pm

           Go for it TD, link in to the old separatist/apartheid shibboleths.

           Sometimes in life we have to put aside our own personal beliefs for the good of all or to keep dialogue up. Politicians particularly often have to do this.

           I view Seymour's non attendance as rude politically and even ruder personally.

           Have you asked yourself why Luxon is stirring up? Do you think it is for the good of the country or for the good of Mr Luxon and his cronies, some of whom are undoubtedly from the far right and eagerly listening for a shepherd to dog whistle hard enough.

           In short I don't believe he has a bona fide purpose in raising this issue (of co-governance) Hon Finlayson National Party has said that the Nats actually introduced co governance.
           • tinderdry6 1.1.1.3.4.1

             26 January 2023 at 11:23 pm

             "I view Seymour's non attendance as rude politically and even ruder personally"

             So do I. For all his faults, Luxon attended and addressed the comments directed at him about co-governance head on. Kanohi ki te kanohi.
         • tWiggle 1.1.1.3.5

           27 January 2023 at 5:13 pm

           The simplest motivation of all for NACTs wanting the Māori seats gone: a miniscule chance of them winning any.

           Interestingly, dumping Māori seats not an issue in the anti cogovernance movement initially, as seen on this website (no info on website owners anywhere, but hey, donate). I found many of the arguments noxious.

           https://www.stopcogovernance.kiwi/why/
           • Muttonbird 1.1.1.3.5.1

             27 January 2023 at 6:59 pm

             NACT don't like Maori seats because they see them as free seats for Labour and/or a sub 5% entry to parliament for the Labour friendly Maori Party.

             In 2008 Epsom acted similarly to a Maori seat with respect to the second point for ACT (1.51% part vote) and one Rodney Hide.

             In 2008 Epsom again acted similarly to a Maori seat with respect to the second point for ACT (3.65% part vote) and one Rodney Hide.

             In 2011 Epsom acted similarly to a Maori seat with respect to the second point for ACT (1.07% party vote) and one John Banks.

             In 2014 Epsom acted similarly to a Maori seat with respect to the second point for ACT (0.69% party vote) and one David Seymour.

             In 2017 Epsom again acted similarly to a Maori seat with respect to the second point for ACT (0.50% party vote) and one David Seymour.

             ACT and David Seymour owe their continued existence to the same system which delivers the Maori Party representation in parliament.

             If we are to get rid of the Maori seats we should get rid of Epsom too…because ‘it doesn’t make a lot of sense’.
     • adam 1.1.2

       26 January 2023 at 9:23 pm

       1. The fact that stuff got comment from the act leader when he was boycotting.

       2. Feeds from stuff have been actively pushing anything the act leader says for the last few weeks.

       3. Dog shit racism from both act and national are all over stuff.

       4 Dirty politics is back, I'm calling it out how it should be called out – to paraphrase you "For the sewer of vileness that it is". Stuff is leading the charge on dirty politics once again.

       5. My reference to male sex work is all bound up in stuff having free will in this, what they are publishing, and how. Also any reference towards sex and gay sex in particular has a tendency to really upset a certain conservative age group – So win win.
       • Incognito 1.1.2.1

         26 January 2023 at 9:54 pm

         Ad 1: no link(s)

         Ad 2: no link(s)

         Ad 3: no link(s)

         Ad 4: no link(s)

         Ad 5: vile and unnecessary and not a political point for debate

         PS: we do not read minds here so say what you mean and mean what you say.

         Thanks in advance for not wasting Mod time!
         • adam 1.1.2.1.1

           26 January 2023 at 10:24 pm

           So stuff having free will to publish what it wants is not up for debate? OK
           • Incognito 1.1.2.1.1.1

             27 January 2023 at 4:52 pm

             Your conclusion, your words.

             BTW, have you heard of free press?
       • Shanreagh 1.1.2.2

         26 January 2023 at 10:50 pm

         Adam, I was puzzled by your sex ref but accept unreservedly your points 1-4.

         On the twitter cesspit as well.
2. Joe90 2

   26 January 2023 at 6:07 pm

   I was a kid when I first heard this and I recall being struck by just how beautiful it was.

   Same today.

   "Yesterday" – The Beatles (Live, 1965) pic.twitter.com/1Wdg08LcZw

   — The Beatles (@BeatlesEarth) January 25, 2023
   • Shanreagh 2.1

     26 January 2023 at 7:46 pm

     Joe 90, I agree about 'Yesterday'

     Just thinking about beauty I always look at the Daily Review image, the beautiful sunset and think a day is over, I'm lucky to have had it and all the great thinkers, writer and minds on TS to post to…

     Well I don't think that every single day….. most days. Today especially I am/have been enjoying the thread on Matauranga Maori with all the different views.

     I also liked that paper I posted in Open Mike today comparing the language/communication styles of Trump & Ardern in the early days of the pandemic.
3. Shanreagh 3

   26 January 2023 at 8:15 pm

   Oh well…I just started scanning the feeds and came across this Point of Order one and the cartoon.

   https://pointofordernz.wordpress.com/category/cartoons/

   Now I used to see lots of Garrick Tremain cartoons and had the odd laugh. They seem quite waspish/sarcastic/heavy handed now. I wonder if some of these will grace the walls of the National Library in an exhibition? Not many perhaps.

   How long has this been happening?

   The site Points of Order says it is a follow on from TransTasman.

   In the olden days I enjoyed to enjoy Transtasman but I again I don't remember it being grumpy/waspish (again).

   I like that we have access to all these views.

   Yours in naivety……..
   • observer 3.1

     26 January 2023 at 8:52 pm

     I think that's a very good question. What is the reason for the Standard giving a platform to right wing rubbish?

     The answer is obviously not "because all opinions are welcome" since the site doesn't host links to Kiwiblog and the rest of the right wing sewer. That's a conscious editorial decision (and I think that's fine, though I accept of course that it's not mine to make).

     So … why this one?
4. SPC 4

   26 January 2023 at 9:02 pm

   Quite an instructive debate about incomes and cost of living

   https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/01/minimum-wage-too-high-to-increase-further-without-fuelling-inflation-national-s-nicola-willis.html

   Labour have increased the MW by 35% 2017-2022 (15.75 to $21.20 an hour) and will do another in April this year. Rents rose 32 % in that time (and seem to have peaked in Auckland and Wellington).

   National (Willis) say the 35% was too much and there should be no more.

   Base Job Seeker benefit went up 34% (237 to $315). (the amount one can earn before abatement from 90 to $160), the Power Income Supplement and the 2018 AS adjustment on top of that.

   Not part of the debate is that in some industries there have not been much if an increase in wages – so the recent fair pay legislation or industry awards will be important in the year ahead.

   Comparison 2012-2017 rents went up 24%

   MW 13.50 (2012) an hour to $15.75 (2017) is 16.6%

   So under National, rents went up faster than MW and under Labour this changed.

   Base benefit

   204.96 (2012) to $237 (2017) is 15.6%

   So under National, rents went up faster than the base benefit and under Labour this also changed.
5. tWiggle 5

   26 January 2023 at 9:08 pm

   An Aussie-based journo defending Ardern's economic record. Interesting stats.

   https://michaelwest.com.au/murdochs-wailing-old-white-man-scribes-get-jacinda-ardern-dead-wrong-again/
   • Muttonbird 5.1

     26 January 2023 at 9:38 pm

     Australia sucks big time.

     Tory Humm suggested to other day all civil service IT workers should jump the ditch.

     Fine, do that if you want feather your own single white man nest and accelerate AGW.
   • ianmac 5.2

     26 January 2023 at 10:04 pm

     Thanks tWiggle. If only the Government could get those truths into the minds of the people. In the vacuum the journalists and Opposition MPs tell lies repeatedly without the need to be accountable. Damn it! Hope Chris and Grant have dissemination high on the agenda.
6. Muttonbird 6

   26 January 2023 at 9:53 pm

   Great. Former Nazis now sending tanks to current Nazis.

   https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2023/01/ukraine-invasion-how-conflict-will-change-now-germany-is-sending-tanks-to-ukraine.html
   • Higherstandard 6.1

     26 January 2023 at 10:08 pm

     Best not to post comments while tipsy.

     [Best not to post inflaming comments. Banned for 4 weeks – Incognito]
     • Muttonbird 6.1.1

       26 January 2023 at 10:15 pm

       Well, it's not a good look, is it?
       • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.1.1.1

         27 January 2023 at 2:07 pm

         It is an EXCELLENT look and will help prevent further murder of Ukrainians by Russians.
     • Incognito 6.1.2

       26 January 2023 at 10:21 pm

       Mod note
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.2

     27 January 2023 at 2:05 pm

     Country formerly guilty of fascist imperialist invasions now sends tanks to oppose a fascist imperialist invasion.

     Countries that were victims of the former fascist invasions also send tanks to help.

     FIFY

     Oh – and the idea that Ukraine is a Nazi country and that is the reason Russia invaded – is bullshit.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS