- Date published:
1:53 pm, May 10th, 2023 - 54 comments
Categories: democracy under attack, labour, national, Politics, racism, racism, same old national - Tags:
I have very strong memories of the 2005 election.
National’s momentum was built behind a frankly racist speech given by Don Brash in Orewa in 2004. National’s polling before that was on life support. But it then surged in the polls with the next Colmar Brunton poll showing a 17 point surge for National.
Buoyed by this success National went full on racist with talks about main stream New Zealanders which excluded many of us and the infamous John Ansell billboards.
At the time then Labour Minister Steve Meharry said this:
“Don Brash keeps telling us that he stands for mainstream New Zealand,” Steve Maharey said. “What that means is that Don Brash stands against couples without children, working mothers, public servants, cultural industries, members of unions, new New Zealanders, Maori, single parents and New Zealanders who are homosexual.
“This excludes at least 1.7 million people so far from ‘mainstream New Zealand’.”
Steve Maharey said it was time for Don Brash to come clean with who he thinks mainstream New Zealand is.
“Who’s left in Don Brash’s mainstream New Zealand? He seems to have a fixed idea of who mainstream New Zealanders are, but he won’t front up and tell us. Just as with tax policy, National continues to be fuzzy on the detail and big on the talk.
“This is classic smear politics and is line with Brash’s billboards, which imply that if you’re a member of an Iwi, you aren’t a Kiwi. National’s only hope in this election is to stir-up resentment and division.
“Labour will continue to work for all New Zealanders. That’s the responsibility that comes with government.
National lost that election. I was astounded and pleased when Labour’s western activists swelled as people of all walks of life joined us to keep Brash and National out. The night started rough with a big swing to National from smaller provincial polling booths. But as the big booths from South and West Auckland, which were brimming with votes, posted their return Labour overtook National and won a third term.
And John Key veered away from this sort of tactic. And his relationship with Pita Sharples meant that National could rely on Te Maori Party support during all of its last term.
Fast forward to now and National is at it again.
Today I have announced that National has ruled out coming to any arrangement with Te Pāti Māori in forming a National-led government after the 2023 election.
We believe New Zealand is one country with one standard of citizenship, meaning one person, one vote.
— Christopher Luxon (@chrisluxonmp) May 9, 2023
It is surprising that National should rule out Te Maori Party. This party kept John Key in power for three terms.
But please note the message behind the refusal. It suggests that New Zealand is one country with only one type of citizen. Clearly the Treaty of Waitangi can be safely ignored in National’s eyes.
The dog whistle behind the “one person, one vote” message is that somehow Maori have preferential treatment because of the Maori electorate seats. This is factually nonsense, in an MMP system the only vote that really matters is the party vote and Maori and Pakeha have the exact number of votes which is one. Also in the MMP system it is actually “one person, two votes”. Surely Luxon knows this.
This election is going to get ugly. National will bait Te Maori Party every chance it gets, and I expect a muscular Te Maori Party will not hold back in its response.
Back in 2005 this tactic did not work. I like to think that with increased respect for Te Ao Maori this tactic is doomed to fail. I hope so.
But hang onto your hats. This could get ugly.
Don't forget the influence of the interference of the Exclusive Brethren in the 2005 Election. The Herald picture of that bunch of pudgy, white blokes sitting around a table admitting that they funded an anonymous campaign spreading anti Labour and anti Green Party lies on behalf of their extremist sect was worth thousands of votes for each of those parties.
Their action arguably cost National the election. There was quite a negative reaction to the relevation that a church organisation that tells their members not to vote at all was spreading lies in support of a particular political party. The election was very close and most pundits predicted National would take it. They didn't and this was possibly one of the reasons why.
Of course nowadays with the extremism right-wing fanaticism that we have seen over the last couple of years it would probably help National rather than hinder them.
Go to it National!
Show your true colours!
and the fact that National had a very disingenuous leader, maybe one of their most disingenuous leaders of modern times. "I don't know who is spreading the pamphlets, I do know it's not the National Party", the distorted and cynically slanted Kiwi/Iwi billboards and "Family man Don, my wifes from Singapore” (and his mistress is from Hamilton).
"It is surprising that National should rule out Te Maori Party. This party kept John Key in power for three terms."
No it didn't.
In 2011, Nats + Act + UF had 61 seats. National didn't need TPM.
In 2014, Nats won 60 seats on their own, and with Act had 61 seats.
The MP of today is a very different animal to the one Key comfortably partnered with.
I accept they were not necessary but they were part of the mix that kept National in power. They were insurance.
Key used the Maori Party and United Future to ensure that ACT wouldn't hold him hostage, while used ACT to ensure he could tell the Maori Party to sod off when he wanted. Much like the way Helen Clark used New Zealand First, the Greens, and United Future at various points.
As I said on GD, this was just smart politics on the part of National. That is all they need to do so far as TMP is concerned, and I doubt they will, or need to, go any further down that track. So, I disagree with Micky in that I very much doubt that this election is going to get nasty around race.
I seriously doubt TMP would go with National anyway. And I don't think the current iteration has any of the class or mana that Sharples et al had back then.
A clear alternative now. The electorate can decide between a likely National/Act coalition, and a Labour/Greens/TMP coalition, with TMP dragging the nation further down the co-governance path.
Around the water cooler at work there has been a collective sigh of relief that National has taken this position. It spikes the guns of NZ First also.
Look for the Nats to rule out working with NZ First next. Because NZ First has ruled out working with Labour, this would leave them as a pointless entity in parliament, and not giving much reason for people to vote for them.
Technically, NZ First ruled out working with Ardern. Nothing about Hipkins.
But National won't rule out NZ First. It has been a long, long time since David Farrar badmouthed Winston Peters, and ruling out the Maori Party will only help them win Peters' favour. Meanwhile, the current incarnation of Peters is headed in a kooky far-right anti-vaccine direction, which complements the current "culture war" direction of the mainstream Right very well right now. Peters' days of economic nationalism are over.
Visubversa’s reminder of the Brethren sticking their god bothering noses in is apt. Alleged non voters trying to influence how others might vote…
Mr Luxon’s message will attract the target audience like a home killed beast, bourbon basted & spit roasted. But…there is an obvious flaw in his attempt–demographic change–and the wild card as ever, turnout.
I’m not saying Curia can’t be trusted, but it is a fascinating coordination of their poll and the announcement of the facts regarding National and TPM. TPM had already ruled out National. Then we get iirc Claire Trevett saying how amazing Luxon is to return the favour. It seems rather coordinated…
Labour should rule out a coalition with TPM too.
The treaty is an unworkable mess, but in the hundred and eighty year history since NZ has developed as a country.
I read this basic defense of cogovernance as extremely radical- Maori would like to not see themselves as citizens of New Zealand:
All we’re asking for is a world in which we make our own decisions about our own lives, the government makes its own decisions about its people’s lives, and we sit together and make decisions on matters that relate to us both.
Margaret Mutu on her view of how the National Iwi Chairs defines cogovernance.
My emphasis. The only way this happens is if Maori bring much of the rest of the country on board. Which certainly won’t happen with haughty shows of bad faith like we’ve seen. Seems like a legal hokey kokey, which is based on starting in 1840, which we would not be doing.
This is a proposal to dismantle NZ as it is. There’s no way Labour can be signed up to this or in coalition with a party who has this as a core principle.
Interestingly though, the Maori party was in discussions with Brash and National in 2005 to form a government
Each side could rely on 57 seats which means National thought was absolutely certain they'd get the Maori partys four seats. All they needed was NZF.
If Brash was willing to work with the Maori party, you can bet your backside Luxon will be too, what they say before the election is just piss and vinegar.
This is all just talk, sadly it's effective, Brash very nearly won that election, going from 27 seats to 48 in three years is insane.
National will ironically do extremely well with this kind of talk with voters of colour who migrated to NZ from Asia.
National and acts war chest is beyond impressive.
The left are up shit creek.
I hope national loses the election but this is shaping up to be a 1990 "throw the bums out" election.
Don't confuse East Asians with South Asians. The former are to the Right of the latter.
That said, one might suggest that National's drift into anti-vaccination curiosity won't exactly help them in either case. New Zealand's Asian population are enthusiastic vaccinators.
A family member cruising the Vote NZ site, or whatever it is, shortly after the 2014 election, spotted the voter data by ethnicity, which, unsurprisingly, disppeared after a week. The Chinese ethnicity vote was 70% Nat.
Remind me again why NZ is the only country in the world that lets residents (who only need spend 6 months in the election year here) vote as well as citizens in national elections.
It's always been the biggest elephant in the room regarding our electoral system.
Lots of the recent Chinese migrants came here under the "buy your way in" policies of the Key government.
It will now take both Green Party and Maori Party to agree to a formal written coalition agreement if Labour are to persuade the Governor General that theirs is a more credible government coalition than the well suited National-Act combo.
No more pussyfooting from the crossbenches.
Can the left get it together in time?
is there any serious doubt that L/G/TPM can form a government if they get the votes?
Can't see the Governor-General bothering with National-Act if they don't have 61 MPs unless they have more than Labour-Greens and there is good reason to believe TPM will at least abstain.
Not at all true.
A government needs to guarantee confidence and supply. That is the minimum a governing arrangement would need to guarantee the Governor General.
If N+ACT doesn’t equal 61, TPM can vote them down.
If L + G doesn’t equal 61, but TPM agrees to support them (or possibly even abstain?) on confidence and supply they can be a minority government.
Not factoring in any overhang etc.
Why on earth would TPM abstain on giving ACT cabinet seats? You think they’re not sure how they feel about that?
Throughout the events of recent days, one man has stood out for his dignity and mana. Adrian Rurawhe, take a bow.
Predictable and it's already ugly with the dog whistle media fanning the flames on various issues.
Fraudster Damien grant going into bat for the hard done by wealthy the other week not being taxed any further etc…down to their last 6 investment properties are they.
Anything is possible with voluntary voting and this shower of an msm we have.
"one person, one vote"
I look forward to Luxon removing the ability for people with multiple properties to vote in multiple council elections.
But I won't hold my breath.
I see this line being repeated a lot. But I really don't get it.
This provision has been in place for yonks. And Labour have accepted it as much as National has. As far as I know, Labour doesn't have any policy to change that do they? I stand to be corrected on that, though. So, I really don't know what point is trying to be made.
And, I can understand why people with multiple properties are allowed to vote in multiple elections. Those voters are affected by decisions each council makes in areas they own properties. So, they should be able to have a say in that.
Such a coincidence!
IIRC, the multi-property voting system was axed by the Fourth Labour Government in the 1980s, then revived by National in the early 1990s. It hasn't been addressed since.
Hasn't he heard of MMP? We get 2 votes these days.
Just how is saying you want a democratic country where all are equal, and one man one vote is racist? The current TPM bunch are far to radicle and will take us back 50 years. Now we need Chippie to also come out and say he will not side with them.
[Please stick to your approved username, thanks – Incognito]
My first thought was that National wants to put ACT back in its place – neither of the major parties particularly want a powerful coalition partner, and ACT is polling very well right now.
What plays well to TPM's base plays poorly to the mass of voters at large.
Do you expect Luxon to ignore this productive cleavage?
Although there is no doubt that governments have served Maori poorly since colonization, the Treaty rationalizations are not innately persuasive, and make a poor vehicle for addressing the wrongs of successive administrations. Such is the arrogance of the insider clique however, that they are determined to foist this fatuous nonsense on the mass of New Zealanders with all the enthusiasm they have brought to the equally ludicrous and dangerous gender theory crap. It's going to prove costly.
Labour have bought themselves an invidious position, not unlike UK Labour and the SNP, where they are competing for a vote they have serially betrayed. TPM are a lousy partner because they are competing for the same vote, and profit from every perceived Labour failing – even to the point of creating them.
AB mentioned the three positions that dominate present discourse that goes back to the indigeneity of Māori prior to when the Pākehā settlers arrived: nothing, everything, and something (https://thestandard.org.nz/meka-whaitiri-is-moving-to-the-maori-party/#comment-1948228).
NACT are firmly in the nothing camp, as they insist on re-writing or re-interpreting The Treaty (ToW) and pretending that all NZ inhabitants are equal, have equal opportunities, and equal outcomes with the only differentiating factor being personal choice.
A few radical activists are in the everything camp. This ignores the realities of contemporary Aotearoa-New Zealand.
The something position is articulated best, not by politicians, but by only a few individuals who have thought deeply about ToW and its place in contemporary A-NZ. It avoids the artificial binary construct of Māori vs. Pākehā, as even the current political parties include Māori and non-Māori MPs (some more than others, but no need to invoke tokenism), which highlights the considerable ‘intermingling’ that has occurred over the 180 years since the ToW was signed and even before this.
Given that everybody currently living in A-NZ can claim some kind or degree of connection with the land and the other people who live and have lived here, some for many generations, the question is how to honour and respect these different connections, not in an all-or-nothing approach but in a something-for-and-with-all one.
An ugly divisive General Election won’t be helpful and could set back progress made and destroy fragile shoots coming up in various places in A-NZ. Know the agendas at play and watch what the players are saying and doing. Vote with your conscience.
I don't see any reason to take this statement more seriously than every other policy positioning statement made by Chris Luxon. Ask him again after TPM holds the balance of power if he's negotiating.
There's no benefit to him in being open to negotiating with TPM. They have made it abundantly clear that they will not form a government with a coalition which includes ACT.
In the best-case (for National) scenario after the 2023 election, they would require ACT to form a government – therefore no possibility of TPM joining.
There is no down-side to Luxon ruling out TPM – and plenty of up-side (many of his supporters and potential supporters are very wary of the TPM rhetoric).
Where's the upside? It seems to me that voters who are that 'wary of the TPM' are only likely to vote National or ACT in any case.
The upside is that Luxon is pointing out that 'he' will forming a coalition government not Seymour and that it is just as important for National to keep votes away from Act as it is to win them from the Central swing vote bloc.
Really? I don't get the impression that centrists are afraid of ACT. They're clearly more likely to vote National, but that isn't the same thing.
Nope. There's a chunk of centrist voters, who may go either Labour or National. They tend to be 'moderate' and be frightened by the perceived extremism of TPM.
These swing voters (National/Labour and back again) are what decides elections in NZ. Hence Hipkins backing away from co-governance and the more radical aspects of Ardern's policies in favour of 'bread and butter' budgets.
What are you basing that on? They didn't seem to have a problem when Key was keeping the Maori Party on board. I mean, I can understand the point you're making, but that doesn't mean that it's actually true.
Well, we have no way of knowing if it's actually true or not.
However, the existence of swing voters is demonstrably true (they swung to Labour in 2020 – giving Ardern an unprecedented Labour majority).
And, certainly the perception of this group as being potentially frighted by the more radical views of TPM – appears to be informing the current policies of both Labour (Hipkins walking back co-governance) and National (Luxon ruling out a coalition with TPM)
TPM under Sharples and TPM under Waititi are very different. TPM today is far more radical than TPM in 2008. Just look at the rhetoric in the reported speeches.
I'm not quite sure what level of evidence would convince you.
But, if you want to argue that both Hipkins and Luxon don't know what they're doing in terms of policy – then have at it!
If Chris Luxon allows this kind of shit to happen again, then that makes a mockery of his self-described "Christian beliefs". Brash had no scruples about telling porkies, he still does under the banner Hobsons Pledge, so you could expect that.
What else would you expect from a skinhead.
Many of todays "Christians" aren't what we'd expect people with so-called "Christian beliefs" to be. Just take a look at many of the U.S. "Christians", they're extremist nutters!
In my experience, Christians tend to be deeply immoral. Certainly less moral than the average.
I note that no-one in this entire thread thought it appropriate to reference or debate any actual TPM policy.
And what specifically in their policies concerns you?
I was reflecting on the fact that whenever I have attempted to discuss TPM policy elsewhere there really wasn't much interest.
The other obvious conclusion to be drawn from this thread is that any opposition or criticism of the wonderful TPM is ipso facto 'racist dog-whistling'.
Frankly it's too late at night for any of that.
Or, most likely, RedLogix, other posters are ignoring you because the miniscule political power TMP would have as a minor coalition partner in a Labour-led government will cut the more extreme of TMP's policy wishlist to realistic size.
TMP's policy platform and its recent high visibility in the media is targetted to their own voting base, not to non-Maori. Labour has sucessfully pushed through much Maori-positive legislation, and supported Te Reo Maori without involving TMP. So it is desperate to highlight its USP to Maori voters.
Sorry, 'legislation' should be 'policy', primarily.
It seems to be off topic, since it doesn't seem to have any thing to do with Luxon's stated reason for ruling the party out. In fact, I find it considerably more telling that you borught it up than that others didn't.
Why would a party's policy positions are somehow 'off-topic' – when considering possible post-election coalitions?
But maybe you are right – considering the thread policy has become irrelevant. Maybe I should just stick to attacking the personalities like most others.
Policy positions will become important when after policies are all announced and updated, and then after the election the parties involved in discussions then decide what is 'die in a ditch'. what is preferable, what is possible and negotiate accordingly.
What I did notice on Wednesday was the reaction in the House as Debbie Ngarewa-Packer spoke at the end of introducing her private member's bill on ending seabed mining. She told National based on their contributions- "When I heard somebody to my right saying, "And this is why we don't support you and why we won't do business with—", well, you remember that on 15 October. Don't you dare ring me, sitting there saying to me."
The post doesn't seem to be considering 'post-election coalitions'. It is referring to Luxon's ruling out a single, specific coalition, apparently not on the basis of policy. If you want to explain the connection to Maori Party policy, then away you go, but I don't really see the relevance of asking why others aren't doing so.
I agree with you Red. National doesn't have to engage in racist attacks or any such thing. All National needs do is quote from the MP policy document. For instance, I am sure their policy to:
will go down a treat with voters who are considering whether a Labour/Greens/TMP coalition is what they want.
Yes I'll put something up tomorrow just on Maori Party policy.
IWI KIWI 2.0.
It began with the Orewa speech, then to EB funding to National (despite Brash being an atheist), Don Brash making mention of the PM not having children (some gall given National's tax cuts across the board focused on more to the haves while Labour targeted tax credits to lower income families) then the campaign closed with the Herald demanding there be no coalition involving the Greens in the most obnoxious editorial in a generation. And then ended with NZF'S leader WP saying they were going with Labour, as they had the most votes (he had said they would go with the largest party).
A government in power for two terms faced with National identifying itself as militantly white and middle class and the Herald getting in behind.
It will something like this in 2023.
IWI KIWI 2.0
The landlord class and those advantaged by tax scale adjustments trying to sell a place as one of the priviliged to the rentier generation via “equal citizenship” unity against the indigenous people.