Don’t dream, it’s over

Written By: Steve Pierson - Date published: 3:58 pm, October 23rd, 2008 - 76 comments
Categories: election 2008, maori party, national, slippery - Tags:

I’ve always regarded the possibility of a National-Maori Party governing arrangement as absurd, even grotesque. The interests of the Maori people, who are predominantly working-class, are clearly best represented by the Left.

Under National in the 1990s, Maori unemployment reached 25% and incomes plummeted. Today it is 7.7%, and Maori incomes are rising as fast as other groups, albeit from a lower base. Maori would be among those to suffer most from National’s anti-worker, anti-poor policies. Indeed, many Maori (those on incomes between $14,000 and $24,000, those on a benefit or receiving Working for Families, and those in Kiwisaver) would pay more tax under National than they would under Labour. The Maori Party’s leadership universally comes from a left-wing, often extreme Left, background with a natural distrust of right-wing politics (Hone Harawira calls John Key a smiling snake). Their supporters overwhelming favour a Labour-led government and most will give their party votes to Labour. Only Tariana Turia, deluded Nats, and the more excitable journos ever thought there could be a deal with National. Even they have now woken up.

I think it’s interesting to remember how the myth of a possible coalition was destroyed.

In private meetings, John Key made a secret concession to Pita Sharples: National would be willing to drop its policy to abolish the Maori seats. That was incredibly foolish of Key, he effectively handed one of his best bargaining chips over to Sharples, he didn’t gain anything in return for this secret concession, apparently, and he put himself at the mercy of Sharples, who could now reveal this politically damaging double-dealing by Key whenever he wanted. Sharples didn’t have to reveal Key’s concession, he could have kept it to himself, but he repeatedly reported it in the media. What interest could Sharples have had in doing that? Only undermining the prospects of a National-led government and a National-Maori Party coalition. Key got played for a sucker by Sharples. His response, calling Sharples a liar and repudiating the deal, just made things worse.

The Maori Party’s choice to follow up on the debacle by making entrenchment of the Maori seats a bottom-line, Sharples’ comments that he would prefer to work with Labour, and Lockwood Smith’s racist comments just hammered the final nails into the coffin. But it was Sharples who chose to put the chance of a deal in the coffin in the first place.

76 comments on “Don’t dream, it’s over ”

Comments are now closed

Felix 1

23 October 2008 at 4:28 pm

“Hone Harawira calls John Key a slippery snake”

I think he calls him a “smiling snake” which is far more pointed IMO.

I’ve never believed a Nat-MP coalition was a real possibility for the simple reason that the MP has to get a mandate from their supporters through the post-election hui process they’ve outlined, and the vast majority of MP supporters wouldn’t touch the Nats with a shitty stick.
dave 2

23 October 2008 at 4:33 pm

Steve, with respect I don’t think you`re reading the situation all that well. The Maori Party was never likely to go into coalition with anyone, and that was clear as far back as the beggining of September when Pita Sharples said he was not looking for a coalition partner, he was looking for a treaty partner.

He still is. And he is still looking for Ministerial positions.

Also you have no evidence that Key made a concession to drop the Maori seats policy. None whatsoever. I doubt Sharples intended to undermine prospects of a Maori Party coalition with National when, in his mind, there were no prospects of such a coalition in the first place.

You may think a National – Maori Party governing arrangement as absurd, but there is nothing to stop it happening outside of a formal coalition – Sharples could be a minister outside cabinet. The Maori Party will be going into coalition with nobody, unless a party is to agree to entrenchment of the Maori seats, or the MP rescind from making it a bottom line.

I think it’s interesting to remember how the myth of a possible coalition was destroyed

Probably more interesting is how it was initiated in the first place, and why you guys believed the myth could be a reality. The Maori Party will be going into formal coalition with nobody. And that has been my position for some time now.

That may be news to you.
lprent 3

23 October 2008 at 4:37 pm

That has been evident to me ever since I looked at party vs electorate vote for the Maori seats.

That being said, I think that the MP’s wish to get a 75% majority in parliament to change the electoral act was why they were looking to get the Nay’s onside. That is the only way that they can entrench the seats.

It obviously isn’t going to happen without the Nay’s support and percentage (unless they dropped down to the 2002 Bill English led debacle).
Steve Pierson 4

23 October 2008 at 4:38 pm

“Pita Sharples said he was not looking for a coalition partner, he was looking or a treaty partner.”

– what does that actually mean though Dave? Nothing substantially different from some kind of governing arrangement. I know I’ve used coalition as a short-hand through the article but the first mention I say governing arrangement, and the idea of any governing arrangement with National is absurd

“Also you have no evidence that Key made a concession toi drop the Maor seats policy. None whatsoever”

– um, apart from Sharples consistently saying so.

I never pedddled the idea, I always said it was stupid – it has been turia, National, and the media running it.
Lew 5

23 October 2008 at 4:40 pm

Dave: It depends how much either of the Big Two needs seven extra votes. I expect Labour would be amenable to supporting entrenchment the MÄori seats (`giving them the same protection as the general seats’ is excellent rhetoric), and I expect the mÄori party would be amenable to scrapping the requirement that all MÄori be entered on the MÄori roll in exchange. That, to me, is the big stumbling block for Labour – not the entrenchment.

National would not be amenable to either requirement – and indeed, they couldn’t be amenable to either without alienating a large proportion of their base.

L
dave 6

23 October 2008 at 4:42 pm

Sharples’ comments that he would prefer to work with Labour, and Lockwood Smith’s racist comments just hammered the final nails into the coffin.

Wrong. The nails were already hammered before the comments were made.
lprent 7

23 October 2008 at 4:43 pm

dave: I don’t think that Labour would have too much problem with supporting a bill to ‘entrenching’ the Maori seats for the foreseeable future. That is pretty much policy already.

It’d be more of a push to say that people of Maori descent must go on the Maori roll. I think that the current option at the census is sufficient.

However I think that getting the act passed could be a problem. However that would really be an issue for the MP to get other parties support.
Lew 8

23 October 2008 at 5:00 pm

Lynn: We concur entirely.

L
dave 9

23 October 2008 at 5:00 pm

what does that actually mean though Dave?
I commented on that early last month before Chris Trotter found out and asked the same question you are asking. Partnership is a key principle for the MP, who want to see the Maori people as partners not as subordinates.

Basically a treaty partner in Sharples’ context, as I understand it, is about furthering Maori aspirations and development, working in with the Crown to provide mana motuhake and Maori autonomy, based on tino rangitiratanga. Of course, any Maori Party minister is part of the crown but Sharples appears to be trying to say that the Maori Party sees itself as separate from the crown but wanting some of its members to be part of it

I know its an unusual concept, but this is MMP. Does that answer the Q, Steve?
Lew 10

23 October 2008 at 5:13 pm

Dave: This matter (Treaty partner, rather than coalition partner) isn’t driven so much by the parliamentary party as by the political party itself, and specifically by Whatarangi Winiata.

Winiata argues that, because they represent the electoral will of the MÄori people, the MÄori seats represent the tangata whenua signatory to the Treaty, and all the other seats represent the tau iwi signatory. On those grounds, the party who holds the MÄori seats represents tangata whenua in the (notionally equal) Treaty relationship.

As for implementation, he has cited the model used by the Anglican church: the church itself is the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, and has three branches, each of which are represented in its governance, each representing their own (quite distinct) traditions within the church. This might (once the seats are entrenched, etc.) mean further constitutional change; an upper house, etc, but more likely in the medium term is the mÄori party requesting power of veto (or something approaching it) over issues directly concerning the Treaty or tangata whenua.

(Brief rundown of Winiata’s ideas here: http://waatea.blogspot.com/2008/09/hat-trick-of-settlements-in-urgency.html )

L
gobsmacked 11

23 October 2008 at 5:33 pm

The problem isn’t the Maori Party going with National. It’s “which National?”

Fake National are popular, because they are not in government. They are the soft option, the vehicle for change, for giving us better everything, without pain, the ultimate wish-list-party. Hence: 50% support (give or take).

It’s difficult to fight a fantasy. Explaining won’t work. Experience will.

So the best strategy for the Maori Party would be abstaining & allowing National to govern. To become real. To make decisions. To break promises. To go to 40% by March, 35% by the first budget, and so on.

This collapse in support is absolutely inevitable, because of National’s dumb, desperate strategy of promising voters everything except the hard bits. No government has ever managed to deliver that, even in good economic times. In tough times, it’s suicide.

After a year or so of this mess, pull the rug out. (National’s caucus will have replaced their floundering leader already, so it won’t be seen as anything worse than what National have already done).

Put Labour in power, with or without a new election.

This would mean:

1) Major concessions from National for abstaining in the first place
2) Kudos for “respecting the will of the people” in 2008 (that’s just media spin, but the Maori Party will benefit)
3) Retaining some independence
4) More concessions from Labour when they get into power, and more compatible partners
4) A Labour-Green-Maori government from 2009 to 2020, while the Nats have a civil war.

Result!
randal 12

23 October 2008 at 5:44 pm

the anglican church has gone soft in the centre and the maori party is soft in the head too if it thinks the rest of the copuntry will put up with this sort of anti democratic nonsense
dave 13

23 October 2008 at 5:49 pm

This matter (Treaty partner, rather than coalition partner) isn’t driven so much by the parliamentary party as by the political party

Yeah, that’s what I meant. I am aware of Winiata’s views, but they relate to places like the Anglican Church more so than the Maori political party, although Winiata is aiming to translate his views across to the political party. Although the holders of the Maori seats reflect the political will of the Maori electorate, it cannot be said it reflects the political will of Maori per se as Maori in the general electorate have chosen to remain on the general roll. Consequently the seats don’t reflect the political will of all Maori and they don’t represent the tangata whenua signatory of the Treaty as the seats are not a Treaty right. I have no doubt that Sharples does not want a power of veto Neither does Winiata as you`ll see here, Rather than veto, it is merely a group of Maori MPs represented by the Maori caucus. Sharples’ comments can be interpreted as decision by consensus, not majority.You should really stop believing what Chris Trotter writes. And Randal, piss off, or learn how to spell and punctuate and contribute something, we`re having a good discussion here.
Daveski 14

23 October 2008 at 5:52 pm

If so, this is undoubtedly bad news for NZ.

I understand your rationale but I also find it a little hard to accept that Maori’s interest can only be met by Labour.

At least being a left winger, you can’t be accused of being racist. Otherwise there would be more of a sniff of patronising attitudes here …

Maori needs long term will be better meet by a business focus (the emerging brown economy) than the benefit. Fundamentally, benefits are just another form of colonialism – Maori were highly entrepreneurial in the early days of settlement and indeed without the significant trading made possible by Maori, European settlement would have struggled.

Neither will it be easy to balance the Greens view of the environment with Maori aspirations to use THEIR land for economic benefit.

Sadly for me, I am also being self serving as it would revolutionise the National party, something that SP is likely terrified of.

What a pity – a MP/National alliance would have done more for NZ than the safety of the status quo.
toad 15

23 October 2008 at 5:59 pm

Felix said: …the vast majority of MP supporters wouldn’t touch the Nats with a shitty stick.

I doubt they would touch them with a sticky shit either Felix!
Ianmac 16

23 October 2008 at 6:34 pm

Sharples always said he was looking for “something” other than a coalition. Hasn’t Winston’s position (or was)been along the lines that Sharples is looking for? Did Wnston guarantee confidence and supply? The Greens stayed out and abstained from co/supply.
randal 17

23 October 2008 at 6:38 pm

d4j…with dialogue like that you should get an agent!
Scribe 18

23 October 2008 at 6:40 pm

POSTED THIS ON ANOTHER THREAD

BTW, the TV3 poll has come out. The poll has National on 45 and Labour on 37, which is exactly where I’ve predicted they would be on polling day (not that anyone listens).

Has the Greens on 8+, meaning National vs Labour/Greens is all tied up, though ACT/UF give the centre/right a slight edge.

Maori Party, with these numbers, would indeed be kingmakers.

Still 16 days to go, though, so things could go either way a couple of times yet. And this poll may not be all that accurate. Who knows?

16 intriguing days ahead. Put on your cycle helmets! (Helmets ‘may be deterring cyclists’).

[lprent: If you’re going to put in a link, then make sure it is a link damnit! Fixed]
Ianmac 19

23 October 2008 at 6:40 pm

D4J: I have met you in the public bar. You stagger around challenging all for a fight, swing, stagger, fall on your face, and everyone turns away, leaving you choking on your own vomit. Then you stumble down the street into the darkness muttering, ” I smashed the bastard commies. I did. I did. Wunder where I’ll sleep tonight. Urppppp.”
dad4justice 20

23 October 2008 at 6:41 pm

“d4j with dialogue like that you should get an agent!”

I was breast fed agent orange in Nam.
Lew 21

23 October 2008 at 6:43 pm

dave: “Although the holders of the Maori seats reflect the political will of the Maori electorate, it cannot be said it reflects the political will of Maori per se as Maori in the general electorate have chosen to remain on the general roll.”

This, I believe, is the impetus behind the mÄori party’s wish that all MÄori electors be automatically entered on the MÄori roll, at which point the claim of representation would become much stronger. However, there’s a dynamic equilibrium between Labour and the mÄori party here – if the mÄori party get all seven and do a poor job by Labour, I think we might see a branch of Labour-voting MÄori switch from the general to the MÄori roll to try and turn the tide. Likewise, if they do well, we might see Labour-voting MÄori cede the MÄori electorates to that party in order to better fight their general constituency battles.

Obviously, a party can strictly only claim to represent those who actually vote for it. However in a more abstract sense I think the mÄori party already has a fairly strong (though certainly not unassailable) claim to represent MÄori on the grounds that they, and nobody else, explicitly operate on the basis of tikanga and kaupapa MÄori and seek (and gain) mandate by extra-electoral methods such as hui in addition to the vote. They argue that they’re doing what MÄori MPs throughout history (some notable exceptions admitted) have been prevented from doing by their allegiance to a PÄkehÄ party, its principles and policies.

“Sharples’ comments can be interpreted as decision by consensus, not majority.You should really stop believing what Chris Trotter writes”

Actually, the party’s constitution declares that they will make decisions by consensus – and thn they define `consensus’ as being `the will of the majority 🙂

But it’s not that I’ve just believed Chris Trotter on this matter; that address of Winiata’s was the one I was after, but unable to lay a hand on as I was heading out. Thanks.

Daveski: “I understand your rationale but I also find it a little hard to accept that Maori’s interest can only be met by Labour. ”

Actually, Sharples et al (and I largely agree with them) argue that the needs of MÄori can only be met by the mÄori party. In this sense, I think the game Turia is playing is an invitation to change rather than a foregone conclusion – she’s asking each major party (perhaps somewhat cheekily) `are you with us, or not?’

Incidentally, the question of what PÄkehÄ think (I presume that includes you since you use the third person – my apologies if it’s not so) is irrelevant. MÄori have had tau iwi making their decisions for them for quite long enough – it’s what they care about which matters. The mÄori party is an attempt to consolidate those desires into a viable political power bloc, and so far it appears to be working.

“Maori needs long term will be better meet by a business focus (the emerging brown economy) than the benefit. Fundamentally, benefits are just another form of colonialism”

This (especially the bit in italics) is core mÄori party boilerplate – I’ve heard their people say the same plenty of times. I don’t thik anyone is arguing against a business focus in the long term – but the problem with moving too quickly is that you set people up to fail – as some of the early Treaty settlement recipients did, to great public shame. The purpose of the focus on beneficiaries, low-wage and low-skill workers isn’t to keep them dependent; it’s to give them opportunity. Whether it will work or not is a different matter, but I don’t think you can credibly argue that Turia and Sharples are trying to keep their people poor, sick and uneducated.

L
randal 22

23 October 2008 at 6:51 pm

looks like maori leaders are getting as good as pakehas at talk talk talk talk. thats all they ever do. hone harawiria spent more time in australia last year than new zealand and there has not been one peep out of the maoir party except all this high falutin garf about big deals with treaty funds. if they want some support they should outline some detail or do they think that is above us all too. at the moment they appear to be just another bunch of selfish hogs waiting to be fed from the pork barel
dad4justice 23

23 October 2008 at 6:57 pm

“looks like maori leaders’ ………….are going to attack Australian child abuse statistics again when we are gold medalists at it? What hypercritical @ jerks!
Pat 24

23 October 2008 at 6:58 pm

Turis said a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for the Maori Party – nothing more, nothing less.

Except, in this election (and maybe in future elections to come) the Maori Party will ultimately determine who will govern the country.

I think Turia and Sharples are up to the challenge and the responsibility. But nobody should take their support for granted.
Phil 25

23 October 2008 at 6:59 pm

Steve et al,

“Don’t dream” is good advice – you should pay attention to your own words more often!
This has NEVER, EVER, been about the MP choosing Lab vs Nat – I think we all know which way they’ll go in that case, which is fine – that’s democracy in action.

Based on current polling – which is up for debate re: accuracy, but still the best we’ve got to go on – the choice for the MP is National OR Labour+Greens+NZF. That scenario, far more probable, brings up a whole new kettle of fish, which even an experienced negotiator like Helen may struggle to juggle, with the cards she’s dealt (apologies for the mashing of three cliches).
Pat 26

23 October 2008 at 7:00 pm

I vote randal to represent the Left in post-election negotiations with the MP.
toad 27

23 October 2008 at 7:03 pm

d4j said: …don’t point your arse at me you faggot jerk!

Ah, not just misogynist but homophobic as well d4j.

I was actually just suggesting farting in your general direction – not taking a hard one from you (perish the thought)!

[lprent: WTF! If I’d seen that comment (looks like it has been zapped), then d4j would not be livening up the pages for the next few weeks. Way too far over the top]
Lew 28

23 October 2008 at 7:03 pm

Pat: “nobody should take their support for granted.”

This is why they aren’t ruling out working with the Nats, or just not working with anyone.

“I vote randal to represent the Left in post-election negotiations with the MP.”

Even though he can’t spell, form a complete sentence or use capital letters?

L
dad4justice 29

23 October 2008 at 7:03 pm

A vote for the Maori party is like driving a car 1000km in reverse. You deserve the insanity New Zealand !

Edit – Toad get f##ked you queer Utopian creep.
randal 30

23 October 2008 at 7:07 pm

Randal represents sanity and not the angry divisive politics of racial hatred sublimated into destructive attacks on democracy.
Pat 31

23 October 2008 at 7:08 pm

Does anyone know if Helen and Turiana are on speaking terms? Or does Sharples get the job of discussions with Labour.
Steve Pierson 32

23 October 2008 at 7:11 pm

toad, please don’t reply in kind to D4J, in the words of Margaret Wilson ‘such comments tend to lead to disorder’, and D4J just thrives off it.. incidentally, did you know he’s the Republican Party’s candidate for Christchurch Central? Whenever I worry that the Greens or Labour are short in talent, I like to remember that fact.

I’m chuffed with your post over on g blog, btw. Cheers. Credit to Felix who’s comment that kids have even smaller hands sparked the idea for my instilling the work ethic early post.
gobsmacked 33

23 October 2008 at 7:14 pm

Phil

On current polling, NZ First won’t be there. That makes it National/ACT versus Labour/Greens, and Maori Party choosing between them (Dunne & Anderton are irrelevant really, just non-threatening add-ons for each team). That’s very different from the “hydra-headed monster” that National are pushing as a nightmare alternative to clean, decisive single-party National gov’t.

I understand why they’re pushing that line as a scare tactic, but it’s only credible if Winston is there.
toad 34

23 October 2008 at 7:15 pm

d4j said: Toad get f##ked you queer Utopian creep.

If we were the only two people lest in the country, I still wouldn’t go there. Not that I’m homophobic – just that you are very definitely not my type d4j.

Mind you, I guess mouths do tend to stop spouting right wing shit if they have something in them. Just not mine though mate!
Lampie 35

23 October 2008 at 7:17 pm

“I vote randal to represent the Left in post-election negotiations with the MP.’

Even though he can’t spell, form a complete sentence or use capital letters?

least he won’t bore them to death and someone you would enjoy having a beer with afterwards.

Go Randal

Lew, you really should leave Mummy’s and get out there and enjoy what life has to offer. Fort St could be a start.
toad 36

23 October 2008 at 7:20 pm

Steve Pierson said: toad, please don’t reply in kind to D4J…

Yeah, sometimes I can’t resist – the guy is such a Neanderthal. But, okay Steve, I will cease and desist, at least on this thread, from here on in.
dad4justice 37

23 October 2008 at 7:22 pm

You are very,very sick Toad and the reason I will obliterate the greens in due course you cockamamie communist coward.Got Aids yet Toad you poisonous creature? Hey spineless Toad creep how about a face to face meeting, you name the place and I ‘ll kick your arse !

[Tane: Dad, you’re banned. Come back after the election.]
Lew 38

23 October 2008 at 7:23 pm

Lampie: Finding new ways to make a virtue out of idiotude, I see. But even I must admit D4J has nothing to fear from you in the great race to the bottom of the blogosphere.
Lampie 39

23 October 2008 at 7:26 pm

Lew, the only person who even left and right still can call a pompus arse

L
dad4justice 40

23 October 2008 at 7:31 pm

Lew – try and get a backbone one day Mr Not Nice Freak ( egotistical wet dreamer)
randal 41

23 October 2008 at 7:34 pm

fanx lampie…at least someone gets the point. the rest of these tightarses need to get the carrots removed from their backsides so they can think about something real instead of all the crap they cant bear to let go of.
Quoth the Raven 42

23 October 2008 at 7:36 pm

d4j – You said something about the greens and dreaming – How are your republicanz or whatever it was going? 2% sorry 2 votes is it?
randal 43

23 October 2008 at 7:40 pm

he is going to do a bomd with the “collected thoughts of dad” to pay for his deposit and campaign expenses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dad4justice 44

23 October 2008 at 7:41 pm

I am not standing for any political party you demented f##kwits!
I could run this country on $1 an hour you weirdos.
randal 45

23 October 2008 at 7:45 pm

gee… is a weirdo something likea beatnik?
toad 46

23 October 2008 at 8:01 pm

like this randal:

You’ve got to pick up every stitch,
Beatnicks are out to make it rich,
Oh no, must be the season of the witch.

[Donovan, 1966]
jake 47

23 October 2008 at 8:05 pm

So the hope for the future is a fourth Labour-led government comprised of half a dozen warring factions, united only by the hunger of their leaders for ministerial posts? Now THAT sounds like a vision for New Zealand. [ cap: Goddess New ]
Quoth the Raven 48

23 October 2008 at 8:09 pm

d4j – You didn’t deny it back here. Maybe they got rid of you.
dad4justice 49

23 October 2008 at 8:11 pm

Make up what story you like ,you creeps, because I couldn’t give a toss.
Hi fugley!!
rave 50

23 October 2008 at 8:22 pm

No righties what is happening is the wider mass of the broad left which is the majority is discovering that they are facing Rogernomics mk 2 rushed through by the rotting visage of Roger himself under urgency facing a world meltdown master minded by Lord Ashcroft.

What you find among the LPGM mix is the usual divisions on the left that arise out of the pressures of capitalism, different sections of the working class and middle class pushing different agendas, like Labour’s cosmopolitan vs MP’s ethnic politics. But when Keys push comes to Rogers shovel they are re-discovering some comradely class unity under the baton of the long running Lord Keynes.
appleboy 51

23 October 2008 at 8:27 pm

Oh now d4j…what are you so uptight about? Poll results? Lockwood? Maurice?key flip flops? and by the way…re your post that Labour would slide to 25% on that immigration story – you know, the one where the guy actually met with John key three times , and where Pansy wrote him a support letter and National accepted $5K in donations!! still no comments ..perhaps you just want to let that one pass by and we’d not remember …well sorry …but I will keep reminding you until November 8 every time you rear your head here…nothing personal..not attacking you personally just keeping it to the topic you posted ..how about you try and reply without abuse?
gobsmacked 52

23 October 2008 at 8:27 pm

Jake

How about you read my comment above, instead of parroting Nat falsehoods? You’d save yourself from looking a fool.

Once more, slowly for you:

Labour plus Greens. plus Anderton.

National plus Act, plus Dunne.

Maori Party decides.

What’s the difference?
Lew 53

23 October 2008 at 8:28 pm

Jake: That’s democracy. At least under MMP it’s not half a dozen warring factions within the same party.

L
forgetaboutthelastone 54

23 October 2008 at 8:36 pm

“At least under MMP it’s not half a dozen warring factions _within the same party_.”

Unless you are the National Party – who coincidentally don’t like MMP. National should split into their “Labour +” and “red-kneck” factions. cake-and-eat-it!
Lew 55

23 October 2008 at 8:41 pm

FATLO: … and the `Roger and Key’ faction (with apologies to Mr Moore, and damn, but don’t they seem to be out in the cold).

L
randal 56

23 October 2008 at 8:49 pm

wait until the war is over
say a prayer for the unknown soldier
ah umm
the doors: 1968
Alexandra 57

23 October 2008 at 9:19 pm

I dont think a final nail has been expressed between the Maori Party and the Nats. Pita sharples preference for labour is not new. What is perceived as Pita’s political coming out, should not be interpreted as a diliberate attempt to show the party is steering the waka left. Rather his remark should be seen for what it is, an unguarded remark from an honest man. Tariana too is honest, when she espouses her admiration for national. I believe Turia is desparate, not to work with labour and her blind loyalty to national, despite the parties ongoing expressions of racism, undermines all that she stands for. Turia’s ability to ‘move on’ and forgive National MP”S for offensive conduct seems at odds with her inablility to forgive labour for past mistakes.
As for the future of the Maori seats. The idea of the Maori Party negotiating with the Nats to retain the seats is unessasary and repugnant.
illuminatedtiger 58

23 October 2008 at 9:31 pm

Can someone boot this D4J idiot? I don’t come here for redneck comments like that.
randal 59

23 October 2008 at 9:40 pm

its more like post modern entertainment
Felix 60

23 October 2008 at 9:54 pm

SP,
“Credit to Felix who’s comment that kids have even smaller hands sparked the idea for my instilling the work ethic early post.”

I think it might have been one of the Bills who said that.
Akldnut 61

23 October 2008 at 10:55 pm

Alexandra – Tariana too is honest, when she espouses her admiration for national……..Turia is desparate, not to work with labour and her blind loyalty to national.

Not sure if you realise that she was a List MP for Labour
dad4justice 62

24 October 2008 at 4:56 am

“Can someone boot this D4J idiot?”

Oh too be an inadequate internet coward , you are such a back stabber glowing tiger maybe you should use your real name, eh Ms Simpson ! People like you are responsible for the wholesale corruption that has tainted our international reputation. You are a disgrace to yourself and every New Zealander. Leave this country alone you twisted bitch.
Lampie 63

24 October 2008 at 7:59 am

fanx lampie at least someone gets the point. the rest of these tightarses need to get the carrots removed from their backsides so they can think about something real instead of all the crap they cant bear to let go of.

Absolutely
dave 64

24 October 2008 at 9:58 am

What a shame…the beginning of the thread had the potential to turn into a good discussion for a while, then the standard left and the kiwiblog right started fighting with each other. Is this the kind of standard you want, Steve? BTW the latest MSD stats are out – and 11,300 MORE people are on a benefit in the past three months, with 5000 more on the dole.

Time for another graph.
dad4justice 65

24 October 2008 at 10:01 am

[Tane: Dad, you’re still banned until after the election. Please respect this or it will become a life ban.]
Steve Pierson 66

24 October 2008 at 10:37 am

cheers dave, when i find my spreadsheet, i’ll get an updated graph up.B
randal 67

24 October 2008 at 11:32 am

dave this is the kind of standard you get. stop bleating about human perfidy. the discussion was going quite well untill the trolls arrived from the right.
all they do is write crosbytext gibberish or engage others in long pointless arguments to no purpose while the so called experst,pundits, whatever they call themselves flump around on the margins.in the meantime support ias firming for the left and labour will win. yep
KiwiGirl 68

24 October 2008 at 2:22 pm

I haven’t taken the time to read all the posts – so sorry if I repeat what someone else has already written.

“The interests of the Maori people, who are predominantly working-class”

Isn’t that as racist as saying that Asians have smaller hands?
NeillR 69

24 October 2008 at 2:58 pm

It should be a hyphen instead of a comma.
vidiot 70

24 October 2008 at 3:02 pm

It should be a hyphen instead of a comma.

rofl, took a minute for me to figure out what you were on about, very subtle.
illuminatedtiger 71

24 October 2008 at 9:20 pm

Why does FD think I’m Heather Simpson?
Lew 72

24 October 2008 at 9:35 pm

IT: Because you disagree with him, and are therefore a freedom-hating stalinist dyke. Notwithstanding that HS is neither.

L
ohdear 73

10 November 2008 at 8:43 am

Labour has no entrenched right to their claim of special relationship with Maori in general, and in fact their lack of relationship was the cause of the breakaway to form the Maori Party.

If the Maori Party have the chance to gain Ministerial influence under a Key led government, in say a Welfare portfolio, they would be simply crazy not to take it. In terms of what could be achieved in real terms, in Mana enhancement and in the long-term in terms of Party growing, I fail to see how staying on the cross benches would be an alternative.
Alexandra 74

10 November 2008 at 9:48 am

Akldnut
Yes of course I know that Tariana began her political career as a labour list MP and very familiar with the reasons why the Maori party was formed. Hence the reason for her very obvious preference for working with National.
Ohdear
I think it will be a big mistake for the Maori Party to prop up a national government, because it will lesson their chances next election. I hope the parties goal is not to control the welfare purse strings. If that is the case then that represents a shift in master, rather that getting at the core areas of social and economic development. Nationals Industrial, justice, privitisation agenda will do Maori no favours and that will become apparent in time. The policy to abolish the Maori seats, signals Nationals long term agenda to undermine maori influence in parliament. Given the MP have removed all bottom lines, they will be better placed by maintaining their independant voice in parliament and voting as such.
Lew 75

10 November 2008 at 10:02 am

ohdear: The arrangement you describe implies a cabinet position: there’s a major problem with that – collective responsibility. If the mÄori party are in cabinet they’ll be whipped, they’ll have to sign their name to the entire government agenda, and before that’ll happen, the new government will have to rule out a bunch of things – scrapping the mÄori seats, for one; there’ll be a lot of other legislation they will want to circumscribe. I see a faint change of a minister outside cabinet, but I think it’s more likely we’ll see a relationship like Labour had with the Greens in the last term.

We’ll see.

L