Herald calls win for Hide

43 comments on “Herald calls win for Hide ”

• Comments are now closed

1. infused 1

   24 August 2009 at 10:18 am

   About time we stop this one rule for us, one for them bullshit. They are quite capable of getting their message across.

   No more special treatment.
   • bill brown 1.1

     24 August 2009 at 10:31 am

     Who’s us and who’s them?
     • infused 1.1.1

       24 August 2009 at 10:39 am

       I was in a rush, but don’t be dumb.
       • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1

         24 August 2009 at 11:06 am

         So do you want to renegotiate the treaty, or just set fire to it?

         (And yes, I know the Treaty doesn”t mention seats, but the seats are a partial fulfillment of things that are promised in the treaty. If you want to get rid of the seats, you need to fulfill those promises in some other way.)
         • infused 1.1.1.1.1

           24 August 2009 at 9:09 pm

           The seats wont do anything. Maori should be elected like everyone else.

           You should also know the treaty is in no way legally binding to anything.
2. Tim Ellis 2

   24 August 2009 at 10:39 am

   Yawn. This diatribe from a person who supports the party that kept Winston Peters in his baubles. Talking about swallowing a dead rat, Eddie.
   • Tigger 2.1

     24 August 2009 at 10:53 am

     TE, argue the point or try posting somewhere your type of whining is appreciated.
   • snoozer 2.2

     24 August 2009 at 11:09 am

     Wow, so now we have to oppose Labour because Winston was just stood down, not fired?

     Do you oppose National because their leader lied about his tranzrail shares, the deputy leader is rorting the housing allowance, and various other members are under investigation or have resigned in mysterious circumstances?

     No? Well get off the high horse then.
3. Eric C. 3

   24 August 2009 at 10:46 am

   Great move from a political perspective for that nice John Key and his mate Rodney.

   Wonder what Labour’s response will be?

   Sit quietly on the sidelines and pray the media see something to write about that doesn’t follow National’s spin?
   • Pascal's bookie 3.1

     24 August 2009 at 10:58 am

     It’ll be interesting to see how the Herald’s editorialists deal with it. On Saturday they reckoned Key should accept Hide’s resignation
4. marty mars 4

   24 August 2009 at 10:49 am

   “The Maori Party have pinned all their pride on showing they can work with the Right.”

   Ummm don’t think so. You may think that but it’s not my reading of the maori party and where they believe their pride comes from.

   “The Maori Party, on the other hand, can’t risk even the appearance of a major split with National.”

   Don’t agree with that either. They can risk a split, when a split is needed to further move ahead the maori agenda.

   The maori party know that like labour, the nats will lower their principles, by appeasing the racists, to get more votes. So what – the maori party are working to a different agenda and they will be judged like them all, at the next election.

   Be interesting to see the upsurge in party votes for the maori party, at that time.
5. James Barber 5

   24 August 2009 at 11:06 am

   To say that the Maori party will “bow and take whatever they’re given”
   seems odd considering they VOTED AGAINST THE SUPERCITY LEGISLATION and will probably vote against one which does not include maori seats.

   You can’t blame them for wanting to get something, atleast, achieved under the current government.

   Would you rather ACT and the Maori Party with confidence and supply agreements with National, or just ACT?
   • snoozer 5.1

     24 August 2009 at 11:13 am

     I for one would rather the Maroi Party was staying true to its principles and not voting supply and confidence for a government that’s working against the interests of Maori and working people in general.

     The Maori Party should stand up and say ‘we won’t support a government that works against our people’s interests’. It’s not sufficent to vote against individual bills but vote for the Budget and for the Government in confidence votes.
     • Tigger 5.1.1

       24 August 2009 at 11:25 am

       Agreed snoozer, they’re not just working within the system and trying to change it – they’re actually creating the system itself (by keeping the government in power).
   • Tim Ellis 5.2

     24 August 2009 at 11:19 am

     Good point, Mr Barber.

     The Maori Party apparently support mana whenua seats, which the royal commission advocated but the Labour Party opposes. If the Labour Party had formed a governing arrangement with the Maori Party (which seems unlikely to happen in the near future, because Labour seem determined to attack the Maori Party at every turn) then Labour wouldn’t have been able to deliver what the Maori Party want either.

     By Eddie’s standard, the Maori Party should spit the dummy every time they don’t get what he thinks they want. Seems to me not a very good strategy to keep a long term governing arrangement going. Then again Mr Key seems to be more concerned about building a government based on respect and trust than the dishonesty that was at the heart of the Labour-NZ First relationship.
     • Bright Red 5.2.1

       24 August 2009 at 11:26 am

       The Maori party were willing to comprimise on just elected Maori seats, which Labour says it supports.

       At some point, you’ve got to say bowing down isn’t worth it. The Maori Party is giving the National Government legitimacy, the appearence of broad support and crucial votes – what is it getting in return?

       captcha: none
       • Tim Ellis 5.2.1.1

         24 August 2009 at 11:30 am

         By the same token BR the Labour Party gave Mr Peters legitimacy by defending him to the bitter end.

         The National Party gets its legitimacy actually by receiving the largest number of votes at the election and being in a position to form a government.
         • Bright Red 5.2.1.1.1

           24 August 2009 at 12:24 pm

           “The National Party gets its legitimacy actually by receiving the largest number of votes at the election and being in a position to form a government.”

           No argument there, but the Maori Party shouldn’t add to that legitimacy at the cost of its principles.

           You’ve already had your smackdown on Winston for today. Maybe you should just get over it because no-one’s buying the spin.
     • r0b 5.2.2

       24 August 2009 at 11:35 am

       The Maori Party apparently support mana whenua seats, which the royal commission advocated but the Labour Party opposes.

       Got a source for that there claim Tim? Because it looks like another of your apparently endless lies.

       Mr Goff is scathing of the Government’s handling of the Super City and says the select committee process is a belated chance for Aucklanders to have a say. “Labour has always supported the idea of a unitary council, but supports stronger, more effective second-tier representation and all councillors elected by wards,” he said. “It also supports Maori seats.”
       • Tim Ellis 5.2.2.1

         24 August 2009 at 11:59 am

         Oh yes I’m quite used to you calling me an endless liar and then going off into some obscure linguistic avenue where you split hairs r0b. Like the time you called me a liar when I suggested that UMR might have had questions proposed from the Labour Party in Eddie’s post about Len Brown’s mayoral chances, only to find a couple of weeks later Mr Twyford admitting that Labour had proposed super city questions to UMR.

         On this point however, r0b, Labour does not support mana whenua seats. They support elected seats with Maori consituencies, but not of the mana whenua kind proposed by the royal commission. I suggest you read Labour’s stated policy on this, if you can find it. I know Labour has been quite confused about what they believe on the super city issue at various times, but they certainly don’t support now iwi-appointed seats as advocated by the royal commission.
         • r0b 5.2.2.1.1

           24 August 2009 at 12:18 pm

           some obscure linguistic avenue where you split hairs r0b.

           Your standard whine whenever you are called on your lies Tim.

           Like the time you called me a liar when I suggested that UMR might have had questions proposed from the Labour Party

           You mean this one where you are calling it an “internal labour party poll”? Pants on fire Tim!

           On this point however, r0b, Labour does not support mana whenua seats. They support elected seats with Maori consituencies, but not of the mana whenua kind proposed by the royal commission.

           Speaking of splitting hairs Tim, you are still wrong. You said that Labour opposes such seats. Source please?

           I suggest you read Labour’s stated policy on this, if you can find it.

           Sure, here it is (gee that was hard):

           Labour seeks to guarantee Maori seats on Super City

           Labour will today move an amendment to the Bill setting up the new Super City which guarantees Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council, says Labour’s Maori Affairs spokesman Parekura Horomia. “Labour believes the Government should have adopted the Royal Commission’s proposals to include Maori seats on the council, but it hasn’t.
           …
           “Just how that is reflected and how potential mana whenua seats might complement elected Maori seats is an issue which the select committee will hear submissions on and we will pay attention to this.

           Now just how do you twist this in your mind to the claim that Labour opposes mana whenua seats Tim? Do you have a source, or was it just an outright lie?
     • Pascal's bookie 5.2.3

       24 August 2009 at 11:39 am

       “Then again Mr Key seems to be more concerned about building a government based on respect for Rodney 1%, and fuck everyone else”

       Fixed.

       Timmeh, care to talk about this years news mate?
   • Craig Glen Eden 5.3

     24 August 2009 at 11:27 am

     James I expect the Maori Party to better for Maori than Labour did for them. Because thats the mantra they went about spouting off, Labour bad our new Maori brand good, Labour has never done any thing for us , seabed and foreshore Bla Bla Bloody bla.

     So we should see less Maori unemployment, better Health care, increased achievement levels in education less Maori on benefits because the bad Labour Party have trapped Maori on benefits you know. Any thing less is Bullshit no excuses, (because Labour was not allowed any) lets see them deliver.

     Guess what James I bet they don’t!
6. mickysavage 6

   24 August 2009 at 11:11 am

   The Maori party is wedged between a rock and a proverbial hard place.

   I just relooked at the photos of the Hikoi protest. I was fortunate to be there on the day. There was intense passion and concern amongst Maori about the issue and this has not been abated.

   Turia and Sharples will ignore this at their peril. They are opening themselves to the complaint that they are just compliant poodles, there for the limos but not doing anything for Maori aspirations.

   Interesing that these leaks are happening. Helen would not have tolerated it.
7. Jcw 7

   24 August 2009 at 11:34 am

   I don’t understand why maori seats should be legislated, surely maori candidaes are capable of being elected? And surely maori councillors would be taken more seriously and have more impact if voted in by the constituency rather than if they got in by the word of law. I for ne wouldn’t be against voting in a maori councillor, provided they are good quality, and there are enough maori in auckland to be able to vote in maori representatives – at the very least for at large seats.
8. The Voice of Reason 8

   24 August 2009 at 11:48 am

   If this turns out as predicted, it will be a great day for the Maori Party, but a shocker for their MP’s. Tariana and the other bludgers need to be reminded that they are there for their constituents, not their mortgage brokers.

   If this is the wake up call to stop pandering to Mr Floppy and to start looking for a way to represent tangat whenua without selling out, then it’s a small price to pay. My prediction? The next Labour led government will legislate for the seats and deliver for all Maori, rather than deliver for four Maori.
   • Tim Ellis 8.1

     24 August 2009 at 12:01 pm

     You mean the same way that Labour’s maori MPs voted with the Labour Party whip to introduce the foreshore and seabed legislation, which led to the rise of the Maori Party in the first place?

     Somehow I think the Maori Party are much more closely aligned to the interests of Maori voters than the Labour Party has ever been.
     • Zaphod Beeblebrox 8.1.1

       24 August 2009 at 12:26 pm

       What was the Labour List vote in the Maori seats last election? Can’t remember off the top of my head, but it was pretty high.
     • ak 8.1.2

       24 August 2009 at 12:41 pm

       Funny how actual Maori voters disagree, Tim. But keep up the fantasies, always good for a grin.
9. Adolf Fiinkensein 9

   24 August 2009 at 12:33 pm

   How tiresome it must be to be part of a mob of losers desperate to manufacture some issue, any issue, to reverse their decline in the polls.

   Wake up fellers. This ain’t going anywhere. Maori seats on Auckland City Council will be decided by Auckland rate payers, not some bunch of tossers from Wellington.

   This part Maori rate payer will vote “NO”
10. J 10

    24 August 2009 at 12:43 pm

    It’s the treaty of waitangi bro,…it’s a treaty and it means Maori can pretty much have all the assurances that they will not be the weaker partner, it was a deal.
11. gobsmacked 11

    24 August 2009 at 1:06 pm

    Audrey Young in the Herald today has nailed the real issue. Sadly, most of the media seem to have missed it.

    Key has been asked for months about why Aucklanders are not being consulted on the Super City. His response has been consistent: the select committe process is the consultation. Wait for the outcome.

    But now we know the select committee was a sham.

    And the Maori Party have been taken for fools.

    Here’s Hansard:

    4. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Attorney-General: Has he received any advice on whether constitutional rights and obligations of partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi apply between the Crown and the mana whenua who gifted land on which Auckland City is built; if so, what was that advice?

    Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : No, I have not received any such advice. However, I note that the principle of partnership was first identified explicitly in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Manukau reportin 1985, when the tribunal emphasised the obligation on both parties to act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith.

    Te Ururoa Flavell: How is the Government giving effect to those rights and responsibilities in the legislation to enable the new Auckland City governance arrangements?

    Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The first thing that the Government has done is to support the establishment of a special select committee, which will consider the Auckland governance legislation. Everyone will have an opportunity to make submissions to it. There is also ongoing dialogue between the co-leaders of the Māori Party and the Government on this issue. The Prime Minister recently stated that nothing is off the table until the final legislation is drafted. This reflects the Government’s commitment to acting reasonably, honourably, and in good faith..

    (end)

    Key has not waited for the select committee. Its report is irrelevant. The submissions were a waste of time.

    There was no good faith.
12. Adolf Fiinkensein 12

    24 August 2009 at 1:07 pm

    Psssssssttttttttttttt ! ! !

    Wanna know a secret? Straight frm GHQ Gnats?

    Lord Mayor John Banks will conduct a non binding referendum of Auckland City rate payers on the matter of reserved Maori seats on Council. The referendum will be timed to play out about three months before the general election in 2011.

    You blokes can then go for your lives supporting your beloved Maori seats and watch yourselves overtaken in the only poll that matters by none other than The Greens.
    • wtl 12.1

      24 August 2009 at 3:53 pm

      How is that going to work? The Auckland City Council is going to cease to exist in October 2010, unless you know something we don’t about the supercity implementation being delayed.
    • Rex Widerstrom 12.2

      24 August 2009 at 7:05 pm

      “Non binding referendum” = pointless & expensive opinion poll.

      I’ve agreed with others before that the very concept of the “Supercity” ought to be subject of a binding referendum, and then, assuming it’s approved, the various questions of it’s make-up the subject of follow-up referenda.

      But the only thing more arrogant than a politician who won’t permit a referendum on an issue is one who permits one and then dismisses the outcome.

      Thing is, if Adolf is right and Banks holds a referendum, the majority votes for Maori seats but Banks then ignores it, I wonder if the referendum denialists that populate The Standard will give him a pass like they’re giving Key on the smacking referendum?

      Or will ignoring that one be outrageous because the intent behind it meets with their approval?
      • wtl 12.2.1

        24 August 2009 at 7:25 pm

        Well, if the question is “Should reserved Maori seats, as part of good governance of the Auckland region, be part of the Auckland City Council?”…
        • felix 12.2.1.1

          24 August 2009 at 7:59 pm

          “reserved Maori seats” is way too precise.

          How about “Should enhanced maori participation, as part of…”
          • Rex Widerstrom 12.2.1.1.1

            24 August 2009 at 9:18 pm

            Ahhhh… so you’re saying, then, wtl and felix, that despite widespread publicity on the issue (which would increase exponentially if a referendum was held) that NZers would, in the main, be too dumb to know what it is they were voting for even if the drafters of the question were imprecise?

            Because I don’t think they would. Just as I don’t think 1.4 million people were that dumb last weekend. And I think their voices ought to be respected, regardless of whether or not I agree with them.

            Gawd knows, I currently live in a state that keeps voting no in referenda on daylight saving, late night shopping and anything else that risks acknowledging it’s no longer 1954. I’d like to stab most of them every time I realise I can’t buy something when I want to because they all think I should be home in bed by 7. Democracy can drive you to frustration, but that’s no justification for ignoring it.
            • wtl 12.2.1.1.1.1

              24 August 2009 at 10:10 pm

              Its nothing to do with people being ‘dumb’ – when you ask a leading question, you influence the answer. Yes, even if the issue is well publicised, there will still be some effect of the question. Besides, do you really think they everyone will be informed enough about the issue to know, even with it being well publicised? What proportion of people in Auckland don’t keep up to date with the news? I suspect that it is a significant proportion. When faced with a question such as “Should enhanced maori participation, as part of good governance of the Auckland region, be part of the Auckland City Council?” (thanks felix!), people will be inclined to say yes.
            • Rex Widerstrom 12.2.1.1.1.2

              24 August 2009 at 10:46 pm

              So what’s the alternative wtl? Deny people a voice? We give them a vote every three years… I doubt many of them could comprehensively outline the policies of the party for which they vote or what makes the person to whom they’re giving their electorate vote a better MP than the other candidates.

              Isn’t “the people of Auckland aren’t capable of assessing issues of this complexity” the very excuse being used by Hide and Key?
            • felix 12.2.1.1.1.3

              24 August 2009 at 11:34 pm

              What the hell are you talking about, Rex?

              It was an example of a dishonest, leading, practically meaningless question. If anyone seriously asks a question like that about Auckland of course the resulting answers should be disregarded.
            • wtl 12.2.1.1.1.4

              24 August 2009 at 11:47 pm

              Yes, my point wasn’t that referenda are useless, but that they need to be conducted properly to ensure meaningful answers. And to be honest, my initial comment which started all this off (about the question) was actually just a bit of a joke.

              I don’t agree that the Maori seats issue should be decided by a referendum put to the the general population, as the general population cannot be trusted to provide a fair result for a minority. But I would support the issue being put as a referendum to those on the Maori role.

              As for the whole supercity issue, I would say that a binding referendum must be be carried out before any changes are made to the governance of Auckland.
13. the sprout 13

    24 August 2009 at 1:50 pm

    “‘… you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater’. Well, Pita, I see the bathwater, but I don’t see any baby”

    yeah that’s what i thought when i heard it. for any baby they’ve spawned, it’s so horribly mis-shapen the humane thing would be to let it pass over.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS