Kaupapa Pākehā

Written By: - Date published: 10:50 am, February 22nd, 2017 - 329 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, election 2017, greens, labour, mana, Maori Issues, maori party, Maori seats, Politics, uncategorized - Tags: ,

Hang on, did the Leader of the Opposition, the Pākehā man that should be Prime Minister of New Zealand in 8 months time, just say that some Māori aren’t real Māori? I think it’s unlikely that Andrew Little meant to come across like that, and listening to the RNZ interview, it was Susie Ferguson that raised the issue,

But is there also a hunger from the voters in those seats, to have an electorate MP who is from a kaupapa Māori party?

To which Andrew Little’s responded,

Well the Māori Party is not kaupapa Māori, we know that. It has conceded on every important issue affecting Māori…

The context was the Māori Party and Mana working together to gain the Māori seats back from Labour. It looks like Little was responding in the moment rather than bringing forth a Labour Party position on kaupapa Māori. I hope so, but it does raise the issue of why Little would respond in such a whitesplaining way. I’d like to be generous here and put it down to one of Little’s occasional slip ups in the media but maybe I’m being naive and this really is how Little and Labour see things.

Let’s back up a bit here, and look at what kaupapa Māori is. This from Māmari Stephens at Sparrowhawkkarearea,

OK, for those of you who may be unsure as to what is meant by the phrase ‘kaupapa Māori’ in the first place, here is Te Aka’s definition:

Māori approach, Māori topic, Māori customary practice, Māori institution, Māori agenda, Māori principles, Māori ideology – a philosophical doctrine, incorporating the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of Māori society.

It’s a pretty broad set of ideas. Others have said kaupapa Māori is a way of doing things from a Māori worldview. Operating from a kaupapa Māori perspective then has nothing whatsoever to do with the battles you win or lose, but more with the way you think, act and make decisions. Kaupapa Māori can be exercised by individuals and groups, but will obviously have more impact when collectively undertaken. In fact, have a look at the Māori Party constitution if you want to get a sense of what operating from a base of kaupapa Māori can involve.

And this from Morgan Godfrey,

what the hell is kaupapa māori politics, anyway? here are three features, as i understand them…

1. kaupapa māori politics understands power relations through tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga, not sovereignty or monism or the like

2. kaupapa māori politics says sites of power – institutions etc – should operate according to tikanga (see the māori party constitution)

3. and any ideology and praxis needs a desired future. under kaupapa māori politics its democratic pluralism secured through mana motuhake

Looking at what has happened in the past few days, and listening to Little in the RNZ audio, I’m also getting a sense of kaupapa Labour. It looks like Labour are willing to bash those they see as being in their way politically. Not that that is unusual in NZ politics, but nevertheless it grates and makes me as a Pākehā leftie cringe when I see it being done to Māori, our treaty partners who are entitled to their own politics.

I understand why Labour need to be pragmatic around the Māori seats. Not only is this traditional Labour territory, it will be important to the Māori MPs in the party. There’s mana at stake. But technically Labour don’t need to win the Māori seats to govern. They could lose the six of the seven seats they hold and it wouldn’t affect the number of Labour MPs in parliament, because Labour get their MP total off the list vote.

It would affect the balance of MPs across the house (in part to do with the overhang issue), and I’m sure Labour have been crunching the numbers, but there are other ways that this could play out. Labour don’t need the Māori seats, but they do need coalition partners.

I can also understand why Labour wouldn’t be wanting to embrace the Māori Party with open arms, given its voting record in the past 9 years. But National hasn’t needed the Māori Party to govern, and it’s arguable that it is Labour’s own actions that stabilised National’s ability to do so. Had Labour been willing to work with the Greens prior to 2016, it’s likely that Peter Dunne wouldn’t have held Ōhāriu and that alone would have changed the way things played out in the past 3 years. And had they also placed Kelvin Davis high on the list and let Hone Harawira keep Te Tai Tokerau, then National and Act wouldn’t have had a majority.

See how this antagonistic, blame things works? Labour says it’s the Māori Party that are at fault, but isn’t that throwing stones from a glass house? And are Māori Party and Mana policies something that Labour can work with or not? Is kaupapa Pākehā based on power not on relationships? In an MMP world, wouldn’t supporting the widest range of representation better serve us all? Shouldn’t we be trying to work together? What would happen if our politics were based on relationships not power?

My question now is this. What will happen if Labour need the Māori Party and/or Mana to form government in September? Has that bridge been burnt? Or is this Labour’s business as usual politics where you go hard against people until you realise you  might actually need them?

329 comments on “Kaupapa Pākehā”

  1. Nope 1

    Kelvin Davis and Willie Jackson have both backed up Little’s comments. Frankly the Maori Party have chosen to vote with National on anti-Maori policies even where their vote wasn’t needed for supply and confidence.

    Little is absolutely right to go the Maori Party on their record and is simply reflecting the view of his Maori MPs and party members when he calls them out for hiding behind kaupapa Maori when they kick their own people.

    It’s astonishing to see some argue that the Maori Party can never be called out for their record. They have made it clear in a number of forums that their preference is National as they represent the iwi elites.

    Labour represents most ordinary Maori who are still missing out and who overwhelmingly voted Labour last election (6 out of 7 seats and a majority of the party vote).

    Labour has far more credibility than the Maori Party when it comes to Maori issues.

    • Infused 1.1

      Well, according to Kiwiblog:

      Actually in the 49th Parliament the Maori Party voted more often with Labour than National. They voted with National 50% of the time and Labour 57% of the time.

      http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/parliaments/49

      • Macro 1.1.1

        50% of the time + 57% of the time ??
        Has the Mp suddenly discovered a time machine?
        Or is “they work for you” in need of a remedial math course

        • Andrew 1.1.1.1

          It’s perfectly valid. The MP vote WITH National 50% of the time and WITH Labour 57% of the time.

          The numbers don’t say they vote with National 50% of the time and against them 57% of the time like you are suggesting.

          • Macro 1.1.1.1.1

            If that were the case then the original statement is highly ambiguous.
            The only way that they could have voted with National 50% of the time and with Labour 57% of the time is if National Labour and Mp all voted together at least 7% of the time. This would occur when there was a unanimous vote on an issue. However if that is the case then they would actually have voted with National and against Labour 43% of the time to make the 50% voting with National. and 50% of the time voting solely with Labour and against National to make the 57% voting with Labour.
            A far more accurate statement would have been
            43% voting with National.
            50% voting with Labour
            7% voting both with National and Labour on issues where all three parties agreed.

    • weka 1.2

      “Frankly the Maori Party have chosen to vote with National on anti-Maori policies even where their vote wasn’t needed for supply and confidence.”

      Can you please give 3 examples so I know what kind of thing you mean?

      “It’s astonishing to see some argue that the Maori Party can never be called out for their record.”

      I’d also like to see some examples of that thanks.

    • Enough is Enough 1.3

      What anti Maori policies have the Maori party voted for?

      • michelle 1.3.1

        selling state housing is one of the worst I can think of
        changes to the RMA
        privatising public education
        part privatisation of prisons
        social investment policies that make money from others misery
        Shifting Maori TV to Te Ururoas area
        MSD control of state housing

        and I see lots of our Te Arawa whanau now have broadcasting jobs thanks to Te Ururoa

        im sure I can think of more is that enough enough

        • weka 1.3.1.1

          Shall we roll out a list of Labour’s as well? 😉

          Those are fair criticisms (although I bet we could pick them apart a bit too). The thing that bothers me is the relentless attack on the Mp from the left as if the left have been angels on this. Not you, just what’s been going on on TS for a long time. A bit more nuance to the analysis would be good.

          • Nope 1.3.1.1.1

            Seriously Weka, please do compare Labour’s voting record with the Maori Party’s. You’ll find that for all the bluster by some Labour’s record and it’s policy package is actually very progressive.

            • weka 1.3.1.1.1.1

              Off the top of my head then,

              Foreshore and Seabed
              Removal of Special Benefit
              Not reinstating benefit levels to those before the cuts in the 90s.
              Removing funding from community programmes targeted for Māori.
              Working for Families excluding beneficiaries
              Introducing work testing for Invalid’s Beneficiaries

              Leader Shearer’s painter on the roof bene bashing (not a vote granted, but very significant from a nominally left wing party).

              Clark’s haters and wreckers comment has to be up there too.

              And just to be really clear, because apparently some people think I’m here to bash Labour, I don’t like a lot of what the Mp. What I’m objecting to is (a) Little’s whitesplaining and (b) the whole Mp as irredeemably evil who’ve never done no good rhetoric and (c) the misleading thing around National not being able without the Mp (not true), and (d) the subtext that Māori aren’t entitled to their own politics.

              How about you answer my questions now?

          • michelle 1.3.1.1.2

            weka labour ain’t in power and labour aren’t responsible for the demise of our country other the last 9 years. In the last 9 years we have seen more homelessness, a p epidemic john said he would fix, begging , higher imprisonment rates, more crime, mentally ill on the streets shall I keep going . You should be critiquing those in power as they are the only ones running this country down the toilet the ones that are sucking up to America who have a sick and loopy leader. Now yes I do agree the left have a lot to answer foreshore because they haven’t been true to their roots the left they have been centrist to me you are either one or the other. To be centrist is a bit like sitting on the fence and that is why we need a new leader as we don’t have one now and we haven’t had one for 9 years.

            • weka 1.3.1.1.2.1

              I’m generally pro-Little, and I hope Labour do well at the election and the Greens even more so. What I’m objecting to is the idea that the Mp made all these bad things happen, because as far as I can tell for the most party National didn’t need them to pass that legislation. I’d like to see a good analysis of it though, maybe I am wrong and the Mp have indeed been critical to it all.

              I see that no-one has answered by question about what will happen if Labour needs the Mp or Mana to form govt. Which makes me suspect that many have missed the point of the post.

              • Nope

                You say you’re pro-Little but then you just engage in an attack that seems pretty flimsy at best IMHO. He has an absolute obligation to hold the Maori Party to account for their record and for their defence of and participation in this govt. Anything less would be untenable and would actually be failing Maori.

                • weka

                  Yes, and my criticism is of how he did that.

                  I don’t recognise your name, and haven’t looked to see if you are new here, but please read the Policy and About, and understand that this particular author takes exception to her views being misrepresented. I’m really happy to debate this with you, and having someone new who is engaged politically is great, you just need to understand that as an author there’s a limit to how many times I will correct mis-statements about my views before I put on the moderator hat.

                  To give you an example. If you think my criticism of Little is flimsy, by all means make that argument. Maybe it is and I need to up my game. But don’t make out that I’ve said Labour can’t criticise the Mp, unless you can point specifically to where I have done that.

                  If Little, or anyone, wants to criticise the Mp on their voting record, that’s great (might help if they actually linked to the voting record too). If you don’t understand the post, it’s on you to seek clarification.

              • michelle

                Compromise, find common ground and a M. O. U
                I think parties are silly to say they will and won’t work with others its not about them it is about us so put those egos aside and start thinking of the people and our country first. There will always be disagreement it’s about how it is handled/managed.

        • Enough is Enough 1.3.1.2

          Thanks Michelle

          I am not sure the MP voted in favour of those but in any case you can be certain that National’s reforms would have been unbearable for Maori had it not been for Pita Sharple, Tarian Turia. etc been at the table tempering the racist instincts of National.

          The Maori Party has achieved infinitely more for their people from within government, than they would have sitting next to Labour in opposition.

          • weka 1.3.1.2.1

            I would love to see a well researched analysis of what you have just said. There is a lot of talk about how terrible the Mp are, I’d like to see that reality tested.

            • Enough is Enough 1.3.1.2.1.1

              I agree. It would be fascinating

              Their general approach from day one with National was it is better to be inside the tent trying to influence them, rather than being outside in opposition being totally ignored.

              The amount of policy that they were ever going to get implemented was minimal due to the way the numbers have stacked up. But any allowances from National were a win in my opinion.

              I understand why Labour felt this was a betrayal, but in an MMP environment, small parties have to operate like the Maori Party have to gain influence and actually achieve something in parliament.

              I don’t speak for them but I feel that they will have no regrets and given the chance they would do it again, with National or Labour.

          • Leftie 1.3.1.2.2

            Yes the Maori party did vote in favour EIE.

            SaveNZ wrote “Under National and The Maori party, Maori are worse off in every statistic.”

            That’s what Hone said last year, Save NZ.

            <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX_GT99nbpI

            [That’s a 30 min video. If you want to use it to back up something, you will need to (a) name the thing you are backing up, and (b) say at what time it is in the video. You may very well be right, you just need to do the mahi on that – weka]

            • Leftie 1.3.1.2.2.1

              Interview from last year. See 9:28 at link above.

              Hone ” When the Maori party first got into a relationship with National, Maori were at the bottom of the ladder in terms of health, justice, housing, employment and education, right? in every one of those statistics 6 years later things have got worse, they’ve actually gotten worse, and regardless, and no offence to Marama and to the maori party, but the connection has not changed those statistics one iota, we continue to suffer in every single one of those key areas.”
              “It’s not about agreeing with me it’s what those statistics say”

              • michelle

                yes leftie I work in public health and the health stats are worse for Maori and they always get worse under the tories cause they cut the safety net and our health services so who suffers and goes without

        • Leftie 1.3.1.3

          Ethica 10.2.3
          20 February 2017 at 9:27 pm

          MP voted to remove disability rights and then denied it.

          <a href="/maori-mana-deal-in-te-tai-tokerau/

          [a couple of things. One is that linking to a random comment on the internet isn’t back up for a point. Ethica made a claim but we don’t know if it’s true or not. Two, if you click on the date stamp of the comment you can then cut and paste from the address bar. This will give a direct link to the comment. Not sure what you do with links but they all turn up with the href tag, maybe just try doing the link without the tag? – weka]

          • Leftie 1.3.1.3.1

            Ok thanks for that, will click on the date stamp to link to comments in the future, but the way I put up links to articles etc is the way I have have always done it.

          • Ethica 1.3.1.3.2

            The Public Health and Disability Amendment Act 2013 was such an attack on our human rights legislation that it appears as an example of why we need a constitution in the recent book by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. This act provided the most grudging, minimal and complex grounds to pay family members for caring for their disabled family member. Families had fought for years to be paid, winning case after case in the courts. Finally, Tony Ryall as minister of health brought in a very mean and flawed act with the 2013 Budget. The sting in the tail was that it overrode all our human rights law and there was no grounds to appeal any of it through our Bill of Rights or Human Rights Acts. The Maori Party voted for it, ensuring it passed into law, but later denied that they had supported it.

      • Siobhan 1.3.2

        Well, the Selling of State Houses.
        Charter schools. Which may (or may not) help their students achieve. But leaves the majority of Maori students in a weakened State system.

        But I think the point being made here is, assuming we can all agree that National is not good for the poor, the young, the disenfranchised, the mentally unwell, and the generally vulnerable.
        And that Maori are disproportionately represented in those groups.
        Ergo….by helping to maintain Nationals power the Maori Party are, by default, hurting their own constituents.
        National Policies are, to my mind, ‘anti’ anyone not on the winning team.

        The so called ‘wins’ for Maori need to be balanced alongside the massive losses.

        And sure, in my opinion Labour aren’t all that, I certainly do not see anything in their policies that I consider as being a game changer.
        But, to put it in another, possibly more extremem context, you wouldn’t say its okay to support Trump, just because the Democrats are also pretty darned rotten.

      • AB 1.3.3

        Haven’t they have given confidence and supply to National?
        By perpetuating National governments, that alone is indirectly voting for social and economic policy that although not explicitly anti-Maori, is terrible for a lot of Maori. Terrible for a lot of non-Maori too, but proportionately more Maori because of their socioeconomic status.

    • Leftie 1.4

      +1000 and a lot more, Nope.

    • weka 2.1

      Did you listen to the audio? That’s WJ and Sandra Lee being interviewed.

      Lee said “all this strategic maneuvering is not about ideology or a single piece of maori policy. It’s all about opportunity and ego”

      • Nope 2.1.1

        Yes, she also attacked the Maori Party for its failure and said Labour needed to wipe them out. As did Willie, which is why he jumped to Labour.

        I’m astounded some who are on the left are arguing Labour should hold back and not criticise the Maori Party for its appalling record in government.

        I prefer to listen to actual Maori voters who overwhelming voted Labour over the Maori Party last election and look set to again in September.

        • weka 2.1.1.1

          “I’m astounded some who are on the left are arguing Labour should hold back and not criticise the Maori Party for its appalling record in government.”

          I will ask you again, who has said that?

          • Violet 2.1.1.1.1

            As is usual with discussions/arguments, it is often the tone and the language used that reflect the view being expressed, rather than the exact words written.
            To me, when you say things like
            “It looks like Labour are willing to bash those they see as being in their way politically.”,
            a. using “bash”, which the Cambridge dictionary defines as “criticise severely” and particularly in NZ implies violence, and
            b. given that the reality of politics in NZ means that any other party than your own is “being in their way politically”,
            then you are saying that “Labour should not criticise the Maori Party”.

            Like you, I would rather politics in New Zealand was a lot more collaborative and respectful, however the reality is a long, long way from that.

            And if National had only been in power for one, or maybe two even, terms, and if the opposition parties were polling much closer to National, then I would be right behind you in many of the views you express here.

            However, the reality is a long way from that. It still looks quite likely that National will continue as government after the next election. And right now, after three terms in government, another 3 years of National causes me great concern, to say the least.

            We all know, that in little NZ, blogs like TS are often referred to. We also know that one of the biggest arguments against the left in NZ is that they fight amongst themselves constantly, and therefore are not capable of governing the country. The constant criticism of Labour here over the last few months, feeds directly into that view. And yes, I know this not a Labour blog, that is really not the point.

            And as a reader for many years, I am sure this has been a relatively recent change. In the past, I have come to this blog to read a practical opposition to the government from a practical left wing perspective. Of late, it seems to be more often a fanciful view of what politics could be if everyone behaved in a way that is so far from practical reality.

            I am so disappointed that this blog has turned this way over the last few months. What we need now, is strong support for a change in government at the next elections. And no, that doesn’t mean no criticism of Labour. But the reality is, like it or not, Labour doing well in the upcoming election is crucial for a change in government.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1

              As is usual with discussions/arguments, it is often the tone and the language used that reflect the view being expressed, rather than the exact words written.
              To me, when you say things like
              “It looks like Labour are willing to bash those they see as being in their way politically.”,
              a. using “bash”, which the Cambridge dictionary defines as “criticise severely” and particularly in NZ implies violence, and
              b. given that the reality of politics in NZ means that any other party than your own is “being in their way politically”,
              then you are saying that “Labour should not criticise the Maori Party”.

              Yes, language is important. For instance you seem to be equating bashing with criticising. I wasn’t, at all. I’m more than happy to criticise constructively, which is why I spent a big chunk of time last year here criticising people for Labour-bashing.

              So, no, for me bashing and critiquing aren’t the same at all.

              “Like you, I would rather politics in New Zealand was a lot more collaborative and respectful, however the reality is a long, long way from that.”

              I’m a Green party voter, so it seems closer to me.

              I am so disappointed that this blog has turned this way over the last few months. What we need now, is strong support for a change in government at the next elections. And no, that doesn’t mean no criticism of Labour. But the reality is, like it or not, Labour doing well in the upcoming election is crucial for a change in government.

              Ok, so if it’s ok to criticise Labour, what would you change about this post? Genuinely curious. I thought quite a lot about this as I wrote it, and made some changes based on the issues you bring up (for instance I didn’t title it ‘Kaupapa Labour’, and I didn’t use a front page picture of Little, and I didn’t headline the post).

              I’m going to respond to the rest of your comment in OM (the stuff about TS and change).

              • Violet

                Weka, Well the conversations have moved on somewhat, but I want to at least pay you the courtesy of a reply.

                We will have to agree to disagree on the use of the word “bash”. I continue to see it as an implied accusation of aggressive behaviour from Labour (and so playing into that ridiculous “Angry Andy” meme widely used by Labour opponents) and indicative of serious criticism.

                In reply to the scaricty of collaborative and respectful behaviour in NZ politics you say “I’m a Green party voter, so it seems closer to me.”. I can only be pleased someone feels that way.

                However, some Green party supporters on this site seem to be quite a way from that. And unfortunately Greens are a small faction within parliament and have never been in government. The remaining MPs, forming a significant majority, still seem a very, very long way from being collaborative and even further from being respectful. Hence my comment that expecting it to be different, is little more than wishful thinking.

                “Ok, so if it’s ok to criticise Labour, what would you change about this post? ” A couple of things:

                “Looking at what has happened in the past few days, and listening to Little in the RNZ audio, I’m also getting a sense of kaupapa Labour. It looks like Labour are willing to bash those they see as being in their way politically. Not that that is unusual in NZ politics, but nevertheless it grates and makes me as a Pākehā leftie cringe when I see it being done to Māori, our treaty partners who are entitled to their own politics.”

                1. I would leave out this paragraph completely. Whatever you meant, I and clearly a number of others, read it as a direct attack on Little and the Labour party. As well, the use of “grates” and “cringe” somehow hint passive aggressive to me. I prefer a more direct language like “is totally unacceptable to me and I will always call it out”. Keeping in mind I would left out the paragraph completely.

                2. On reflection, I want to change my mind on criticising Labour. I was being polite really, and a little vague. Now is not the time to publically criticise Labour at all. Let it all out after the election.
                Please do not assume I am an “ardent Labour supporter” from this. I am an ardent supporter of changing the government. I have voted Labour, Green and MP in the past. Of those three, I have voted Labour fewer times than any of the others. IMHO, if anything is to be a single cause of failing to achieve a change in government, it will be casting the leader of Labour as not being suitable to lead a government. Ongoing criticism implies a need for a different leader of the party. And a new leader, from who is available, would be disastrous and end all hope of a change in government.

                I meant to get back to you on the other points moved to Open Mike. But the time required to research and provide evidence (a fair enough request btw) is unfortunately much more than I have right now.

                • Leftie

                  +1000 on your posts Violet. Couldn’t agree with you more.

                  “Ongoing criticism implies a need for a different leader of the party.” Yes, the Labour needs a new leader meme is one that the right wing latch on to.

                • weka

                  Thanks Violet, I appreciate you making the time to explain.

                  I’m not indifferent to the idea of dropping criticism during the election year, and as I said have argued against gratuitous Labour-bashing for a long time. I’m just not sure if I think dropping criticism should be absolute. Rape culture and issues around Māoridom would be two of the areas that I think trump protecting Labour.

                  I think the biggest risk in the election is Labour not appearing competent. So for me it’s not the mistakes they make so much as how they handle them. I think Little did ok with the whole Wille Jackson thing, and really it’s better that this stuff comes out now, not 4 weeks out from voting.

                  I’ve been surprised at the reaction tbh. I’ve been involved in two posts critical of Labour since the beginning of Nov (this one and the Poto Williams one), so neither myself, not the TS authors in general have been Labour-bashing. So I think people are reacting from something else. Probably fear of the left losing, which I share, and I hope that we get better at dealing with that. I wish more people had taken the time to address the post itself, or deal with the issue of criticising Labour in a constructive way.

            • Antoine 2.1.1.1.1.2

              > We also know that one of the biggest arguments against the left in NZ is that they fight amongst themselves constantly

              Speaking as a centrist there does seem to be a bit of this going on 🙂

              A.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.3

              I replied to the rest in OM,

              Open Mike 22/02/2017

            • Leftie 2.1.1.1.1.4

              Many +1’s Violet. I don’t think there are many that would disagree with that.

        • Leftie 2.1.1.2

          Well said Nope!!

    • Nope 2.2

      Some more background, From Gordon Campbell. It’s very, very good:

      http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/02/gordon-campbell-on-using-kaupapa-maori-as-a-cloak/

  2. Draco T Bastard 3

    Is kaupapa Pākehā based on power not on relationships? What would happen if our politics were based on relationships not power?

    Power shapes relationships and that’s true no matter Māori or pakeha.

    The solution would be to reduce the power difference and those with power won’t allow that to happen as to balance that power relationship they need to lose a lot of power.

    In an MMP world, wouldn’t supporting the widest range of representation better serve us all? Shouldn’t we be trying to work together?

    Yes and Yes we should.

    • weka 3.1

      “The solution would be to reduce the power difference and those with power won’t allow that to happen as to balance that power relationship they need to lose a lot of power.”

      I’d be interested to hear some ideas on reducing power difference.

      I agree it’s a good thing to do, and I think there will always be times and places where there is a differential, so the onus is on the people with more power to share. Labour don’t get this yet. They’ve only just managed to understand that they need to work with the Greens.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

        I’d be interested to hear some ideas on reducing power difference.

        1. Max income of $100,000
        2. Capital taxes applied to the max income thus limiting ownership

        That’s my first thoughts but it obviously needs some more. That would only apply to personal power. That which derives from someone’s position in a large corporation or iwi leadership is harder to define and to limit.

        • weka 3.1.1.1

          I was thinking about politicians and how they and political parties relate with each other.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1

            Yeah, that is also hard to define along with the large corporation and iwi leadership as it’s power from position rather than power from wealth.

            I think that’s going to need to be a cultural change in that we need to stop seeing them as the people to obey and start seeing them as our servants.

      • Nope 3.1.2

        You’re suggesting Labour should just surrender the Maori seats to the Maori Party? Regardless of their record in govt over the last eight years, purely on the basis that the Maori Party claims to be the voice of Maori in spite of the fact they hold only one of the seven Maori seats?

        Madness.

        • weka 3.1.2.1

          No, I’m not suggesting that. How about you put your own views aside for a minute and reread the post?

          • adam 3.1.2.1.1

            Come on weka, the labor faithful love the leader, and he is always right. How dear you question that by a rational and logical argument. What is wrong with you? And anyway the labour party knows what is best for Māori, even if Māori don’t.

            Note for literalists – the sarcasm is dripping off your screen.

            • Leftie 3.1.2.1.1.1

              The Maori party have had almost 9 years sitting at National’s table, are average Maori better off?

              • Enough is Enough

                What on earth is an “average Maori”?

                • McFlock

                  mean or median?

                  I suppose Trotter would call them “Waitakere Maori” lol

                • Leftie

                  Do you know the term “average Kiwi” EIE?

                  • Enough is Enough

                    It sounds like a Don Brash term to me.

                    Please enlighten me to what an “average Kiwi” is? Or alternatively who is not an “average Kiwi”

                    • Leftie

                      Bullshit EIE, don’t play ignorant, now you are just stirring.

                    • adam

                      Funny not the first time some one has equated your terms and thinking with Brash leftie, are you seeing a pattern?

                    • Enough is Enough

                      Or Leftie you could just answer the question as to what you consider to be an average Maori, or average Kiwi?

                      Is it someone who fits a certain stereotype of being a Maori?

                      Would your “average Kiwi” include a Muslim immigrant from Iran?

                      Or would your “average Kiwi” just be a white middle class battler with a mortgage and 2.3 kids?

                    • Leftie

                      EIE has got the pip like you, and is just copying you Adam.

                    • Leftie

                      It appears you have your own set of stereotypical misconceptions of who average, ordinary NZers are. That pretty much shows where your mind is at EIE.

                    • Leftie you could sort this out in a few seconds by putting a link up but you like the conflict your evasiveness creates.

                    • Enough is Enough

                      Leftie I just dislike someone who makes generalisations about certain groups and refuses to clarify what they mean.

                      It may have just been the lazy use of the word average, but either way you could have cleared up the misunderstanding by stating exactly what you meant

                    • Leftie

                      It’s a common term used for years in NZ to represent everyone not part of the elite rich and shameless. Being a kiwi, I thought you would know that, that’s why I said you were stirring. And now Marty has jumped on board to have a mindless bash.

                    • Enough is Enough

                      There is no need to take offense if someone asks you to clarify what you mean. It is not a “mindless bash”.

                      Don Brash talked about “Mainstream New Zealanders” which was offensive to many of us.

                      Your use of Average Kiwi and Average Maori has a similar tone to the way Brash used to frame what he considered normal.

                      What does it mean if you are a Kiwi that is not “average:? Does that mean you somehow have less rights or opportunity to contribute to society because you do not fir the norm?.

                    • Leftie

                      No, that’s just your take on it and I have explained, and it should be pretty clear, even to you now.

        • Leftie 3.1.2.2

          Totally agree with you Nope on all your posts.

  3. Cinny 4

    I’ve a deep appreciation and interest for cultures that form relationships and understandings with nature and consider it an important value/way of life. Relationships with nature like how Maori and the Red Road (Native American Indians) view unity with nature on our planet.

    It is an intelligent mindset when people are able to change their mind or opinion on any topic as they learn and understand more on the subject. Evolution. But the otherside of that coin is manipulation, changing ones mindset (on the surface) as a means of gaining power and/or retaining control.

    Just because a candidate belongs to a political party with a cultural sounding name does not mean they ultimately have the best person to represent those people.

    Some people stand for re-election to ‘save face’ or for their own pride or ego. And some are genuine and really care.

    Media will be looking everywhere for division. I say wait until the day after the spring equinox to make any decisions.

    After all these long years of a Tory government and their coalition partners, the people should be educated enough to make the best choice for their community, which may well not be the candidate with the most cultural sounding party name.

    Should be Kaupapa, with out the word Pakeha or Maori, because shouldn’t we be looking towards unity instead of using words to create division.

    NZ is still fine tuning MMP. Interesting discussion thanks for raising it Weka.

    • weka 4.1

      “Just because a candidate belongs to a political party with a cultural sounding name does not mean they ultimately have the best person to represent those people.”

      Who gets to decide? Susie Ferguson’s question was about the voters in the Māori electorates who might want to vote for a party that specifically prioritised Māori values. Shouldn’t Māori judge that? It’s not like the Mp haven’t been getting votes, they do have an actual constituency. Maybe my frustration here is that I think Māori should probably have electoral sovereignty too.

      “Should be Kaupapa, with out the word Pakeha or Maori, because shouldn’t we be looking towards unity instead of using words to create division.”

      I’m not a great fan of the concept of political unity myself, because it tends to get used as a block to dissent. I prefer instead to look at how we can work together given our differences. I’ve been looking at the numbers recently and we are talking about Act, National, Mp, NZF, Labour, Greens, Mana (I’ve left out UF, because with all due respect to Ōhāriu voters there is a limit to my MMP generosity). I’d like to see as many of those voters represented as possible. Labour want fewer.

      • Cinny 4.1.1

        Those enrolled on the Maori roll get to choose.

        What I’m saying is just because a party has a cultural name ie Maori Party does not mean they have the best policies for supporting Maori.

        It bums me out when people are swayed by marketing, rather than being informed.

        Voters picking the name they recognise rather than an educated decision, is like children blinded by branding.

        Civics lessons in schools please and thank you

        Lolz Weka with UF and MMP generosity, makes me smile.

        Thoroughly looking forward to Election Night this year. Will be a nail biter.

        • Leftie 4.1.1.1

          “What I’m saying is just because a party has a cultural name ie Maori Party does not mean they have the best policies for supporting Maori.

          It bums me out when people are swayed by marketing, rather than being informed.”

          Good point, I have read similar views from people on other sites.

        • weka 4.1.1.2

          “What I’m saying is just because a party has a cultural name ie Maori Party does not mean they have the best policies for supporting Maori.”

          Sure. But notice how in these conversations there is rarely any mention of Mp policies? I”m willing to bet that there’s not critical evaluation of Mp policies in this conversation.

          So how about we look at them now and see what they are and whether they are good and useful?

  4. McFlock 5

    Seems to me that if someone asks you a straight question and you give a straight answer, it’s hardly “whitesplaining”.

    The Māori Party’s alliance with National initially gave National a credibility it did not deserve, and helped National harm poor NZers of every ethnicity. If that fact hurts, it’s their own damned fault.

    • weka 5.1

      Ok, so do you then think that conservative or RW Māori cannot operate within/from kaupapa Māori?

      Which of the parts of the Māori Party kaupapa do you think the Mp are failing on or lying about?

      http://www.maoriparty.org/our_kaupapa

      I’m not saying that the Mp are above criticism. I’d just like to see a criticism that doesn’t appropriate cultural values and structures. So Little can indeed criticise the Mp for how they have worked with National, I’m just not sure that he can say that means they don’t work within their own kaupapa Māori.

      The post isn’t about yaay Mp. It’s about whether it’s appropriate for a Pākehā politician to use culture in that way, especially given Labour’s history with Māori. We can talk about poverty and jobs and health all we like, but there is no denying that many Māori are unhappy with Labour too.

      • weka 5.1.1

        btw, I think a white man in a position of power telling a group of Māori that they don’t exist within their own cultural structure is pretty much a definitive example of whitesplaining. There are many other ways that Little could have responded to that question.

        • Brutus Iscariot 5.1.1.1

          Little has no more power than the Maori Party leadership. They’re both part of the elite, they just happen to have different coloured skin.

          • weka 5.1.1.1.1

            Labour are unlikely to disappear from parliament come Sept. Probably won’t happen to the Mp but it is possible. I’m sure that’s not the only power difference. But by all means take the word power out of my sentence, it’s still works.

        • Karen 5.1.1.2

          I agree Little was wrong to respond to Suzie’s question in that way but listening to the interview I don’t see it as whitesplaining as much as a misunderstanding of what kaupapa Māori is (I am sure he knows now!) and a case of making a quick response in the heat of an interview that, had he had more time, may not have been expressed in that way.

          I thought the Willie Jackson/Sandra Lee interview this morning was very interesting. I am inclined to agree with Sandra that the Mana/Māori Party deal is good for the Māori Party but not so good for Mana. There is a (IMO small) possibility that Hone will win TTT but without any Mana candidates elsewhere there will be a lower Mana party vote I suspect, so he’ll be on his own. Flavell will win his seat and Marama will get in on the list. With no Mana candidates the MP will do better than last time but enough to get more seats? The Māori Party are a conservative party while Mana are left wing so I don’t think you can assume that Mana voters are all going to switch.

          I think Māori voters in Māori electorates should get a choice of parties and of candidates – including both Labour and the Greens.

          • weka 5.1.1.2.1

            “I agree Little was wrong to respond to Suzie’s question in that way but listening to the interview I don’t see it as whitesplaining as much as a misunderstanding of what kaupapa Māori is (I am sure he knows now!) and a case of making a quick response in the heat of an interview that, had he had more time, may not have been expressed in that way.”

            That’s how I heard it too. But a white man thinking he can tell another ethnicity about where they sit within their own culture? that’s still a problem even if it was unconscious or done out of ignorance. I think that’s the thing that alarmed me, that that is where he would go when caught off guard. Identity politics would have served him better at that point 😉

            I liked that interview too, so good to heard Lee again (RNZ should give her a regular spot).

            Re Mana, I’ve been wondering if it’s the only way for them to get back into parliament, and once there they can rebuild. So only 1 MP this time, then more the next?

            • Karen 5.1.1.2.1.1

              I am sure that is the idea for Mana (get a seat, then rebuild) but it will be tough. Hone found it hard last time as a sole MP and I don’t think it is going to be easier this time.

              As to Little I think it was ignorance rather than some deep seated racism. I was pleased you included Morgan Godfrey’s tweet definitions of kaupapa because there is a lot of ignorance of what this term means.

              Personally, I thought when Tuku Morgan called Nanaia Mahuta a kūpapa that was far worse, because it was deliberate from someone who does know the meaning. I think that insult, from the leader of the MP, should be remembered when the the MP try and take higher ground here.

              • weka

                True, and mostly I just want to bang all their heads together. Sandra Lee summed it up best, posturing and ego. I’d call it macho politics, and I have a degree of empathy for even the blokes in that situation because the system does make it hard to operate in any other way. The Greens do though, and some of that is because it’s built into their own kaupapa.

                I don’t think it was coming from deep seated racism in Little. I think it was him speaking off the cuff and it coming from institutional racism. Maybe I should have said that explicitly in the post (I thought it would be a given that he wasn’t being overtly racist).

                I’m still working through what Godfrey’s definition means 🙂

            • greywarshark 5.1.1.2.1.2

              @weka
              But a white man thinking he can tell another ethnicity about where they sit within their own culture? that’s still a problem even if it was unconscious or done out of ignorance. I think that’s the thing that alarmed me, that that is where he would go when caught off guard

              I thought that you put that point very well. If I was Maori I would think, bloody patronising git, even if too reticent to say it.

        • McFlock 5.1.1.3

          Like what?

          • weka 5.1.1.3.1

            “But is there also a hunger from the voters in those seats, to have an electorate MP who is from a kaupapa Māori party?”

            “Labour believes that our Māori MPs bring as much or more than others to the table in terms of supporting the electorates they work in.”

            (Or something like that, I’m sure it could be improved. PR is not my forte, but basically he should have sidestepped using the term ‘kaupapa Māori’ as an attack. Also, in general, IMO Labour should be talking up their own MPs rather than going hard against the others, but that’s just my namby pamby liberal Greenie talking 😉 )

            • McFlock 5.1.1.3.1.1

              So basically saying “our Māori are better than your Māori” rather than the issue being with the entire party, list MP and all.

              And I also think that when you’re asked a question that specifically revolves around key phrases, failure to repeat those phrases can give the impression that you didn’t understand/aren’t answering the question (the absurd extremity of that is Kellyanne Conway repeating a key phrase and then running off on a tangent to avoid the question while still maintaining the illusion that she answered it).

              • weka

                “So basically saying “our Māori are better than your Māori” rather than the issue being with the entire party, list MP and all.”

                Nope. I think I’ve explained it pretty clearly. There are cultural issues here, and you’ve left that completely out of your synopsis.

                “And I also think that when you’re asked a question that specifically revolves around key phrases, failure to repeat those phrases can give the impression that you didn’t understand/aren’t answering the question.”

                Politicians do that all the time (sidestep). Little didn’t understand the phrase well enough to use it and if pushed he could have said that it wasn’t his place to comment on kaupapa Māori. Which IMO it wasn’t.

      • McFlock 5.1.2

        Well, going by the link you gave, aligning with National for nine years seems to be fundamentally contrary to:

        “To promote a fair and just society, to work for the elimination of poverty and injustice, and to create an environment where the care and welfare of one’s neighbour is important.”;
        and the entire Kaitiakitanga section.

        Māori culture and language isn’t my area of knowledge by any stretch of the imagination. Probably not Little’s either. But he was explicitly asked about whether Māori electorate voters would be drawn to a kuapapa Māori party with an implicit suggestion that this means the Māori Party more than Labour, so he responded on that basis.

    • Leftie 5.2

      “The Māori Party’s alliance with National initially gave National a credibility it did not deserve, and helped National harm poor NZers of every ethnicity. If that fact hurts, it’s their own damned fault.”

      That’s it in a nutshell McFlock, well said.

  5. Litties comment is just the hidden coming out and really scratch most of them in the big house and the same stuff issues forth. Same with English and the gnats.

    Māori will work out who to trust – labour who begat Douglas, Dunne, prebble, the terror raids, the stealing of the foreshore and seabed, or the gnats who have arguably done worse.

    And as usual Māori get held to some impossible standard that no non-Maori ever had to get near to. As I say just per for the course and gist for the mill.

    • Leftie 7.1

      Since the Maori party have been supporting the National government over the last 9 years, the Maori party are down to just 1 seat, with the Labour party holding 6 out of the 7 Maori seats. That should tell you something about who Maori do trust, Marty.

      Re: Foreshore and Seabed.

      “Well that was because of the perception, but the reality is I say is, all the coastal iwi supported the coastal legislation because they were talked to beforehand and you all remember, people like Api Mahuika, the Ngati Porou leader saying that over and over again and then of course as I said the Maori party went silent. Here are the facts when you make that statement about testing their rights at court well when the highest court in the country when they referred the matter back to the courts they said they could have that right but they couldn’t conceive of a circumstance where they would be successful. What the Maori party have done in their desperation to be relevant is to pile it up into some sort of cause but meanwhile housing health education and first world jobs first world wages have been utterly neglected by them and that’s what the Maori out there on the streets of this country and in the hamlets and villages really want and they have been utterly forgotten.”
      Winston Peters

      <a href="http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/08/30/waatea-5th-estate-labour-vs-nz-first-the-fight-for-maori-votes/

      Marine and Coastal bill becomes law

      “The Labour Party said the new legislation betrayed Maori rights and would result in a long and expensive road to the courts.”

      “The Green Party agreed the bill is a betrayal of Maori, saying the Maori Party is obsessed with power at any cost and that it is now compromised.”

      “Independent MP Hone Harawira, who left the Maori Party over the bill, said it represented a confiscation of Maori rights and many Maori do not support it.”

      <a href="http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/71192/coastal-bill-becomes-law

      WHY, OH WHY IS THE MAORI PARTY SUPPORTING THIS BILL Speech: Hone Harawira

      <a href="https://waterpressure.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/why-oh-why-is-the-maori-party-supporting-this-bill-speech-hone-harawira-wednesday-16-march-2011-917-pm/

      Make No Bones. This Is A Maori Party Bill

      Thursday, 17 March 2011, 8:19 am
      Press Release: Hone Harawira

      <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1103/S00271/make-no-bones-this-is-a-maori-party-bill.htm

      “Newly independent MP Hone Harawira says it was “dumb” and shameful that he forgot to vote on the Bill that is the main reason for his break from the Maori Party.”

      <a href="https://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/bill-bungle-dumb-harawira

      • marty mars 7.1.1

        yes and the two parties working together are there to show unity and be unified. Good luck to them – this is tikanga.

        Māori will often solidify around the threat and that can be at the whānau, hapū, Iwi, waka or even pan-Māori level. It is not that big a deal.

        Perhaps read the histories of how Iwi ended up being where they were when the colonisers arrived – it really is fascinating and instructive for these times we live in too.

        • Leftie 7.1.1.1

          It looks more like the 2 parties; Mana and the Maori party are working together for political survival. Would have thought one of the greatest threats to this country and it’s people is another term of this National government, which the Maori party supports.

          • marty mars 7.1.1.1.1

            Yes YOU would have thought that and others think differently – wouldn’t want everyone agreeing with you would you? So perhaps you can allow others to think what they think without judging them based upon what YOU think should happen.

            • Leftie 7.1.1.1.1.1

              Do you hear yourself Marty? You are losing it.
              How am I preventing “others to think what they think without judging them based upon what YOU think should happen.” ???? what the??

              People can think what they like, and make their own minds up, it has nothing to do with me.

          • Chris 7.1.1.1.2

            Have you ever thought about the possibility that the Mp has decided to ditch National at the next election and go with Labour? There’s a ton of evidence that’s the case, far more than suggests they’re sticking with the nats. The Mp has always said it’ll go with who’ll ever be the government and offer the best for Maori. Regardless of the wisdom in that approach, I think this time they might’ve even gone so far as to decide to give the nats the flick. All the evidence is there.

            • Leftie 7.1.1.1.2.1

              What evidence is there that the Mp has decided to ditch National at the next election and go with Labour?

              • Enough is Enough

                Marama Fox has indicated she may drop support prior to the election Leftie in relation to CYFS reforms.

                Marama Fox vs Bill English – who will blink?

                You should remember that. You commented about 400 times in that post as well

                • Leftie

                  Maybe you should have remembered to read the thread then.

                  “Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox said her party had a fundamental difference of opinion with National over a bill dealing with children in state care. But she dismissed suggestions it could end the party’s relationship with National, which it supports on confidence and supply.”

                  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11801395

                  Have to wonder though, with the Maori party sitting at the table, why didn’t the National government consult with their co partner, when such important legislation was being drafted? One would have thought that was the appropriate thing to do on a number of levels.

                  Did you count the number of comments I made on that thread and this one? Are you sure it’s 400? Is there a comment limit on the threads?

                  Have you got a problem with me posting comments on the TS EIE?

  6. swordfish 8

    Only chance of a Labour-led Govt this year is with the backing of NZF.

    Winnie’s implicit and explicit set of draft bottom lines ? … Not joining a coalition that includes what he calls “race-based” parties / an “end to race-based policy” (esp Whanau Ora) / “Stopping separatism”.

    • weka 8.1

      He could support them on C and S then?

    • Morrissey 8.2

      Couldn’t they make him Minister of Racing again and shut him up?

    • Enough is Enough 8.3

      After reading your comment Swordfish I think this may be deliberate.

      Both National and Labour know that their road to victory this year includes pandering to the demands of one Winston Peters.

      Winston will not go into a cabinet room with either the Greens or the Maori Party. That is why we see Bill English becoming more aggressive towards Marama Fox and Andrew Little reacting like he did.

      They know the government post election will not include the Maori Party.

  7. Sacha 9

    “Labour don’t need the Māori seats, but they do need coalition partners.”

    Sadly too many in the party machinery seem to still believe they can win on their own, so killing off minor parties is a good thing in their book.

    And as explained in the post above, you judge kaupapa politics by its conduct, not its results. Little should really avoid pulling out phrases he clearly does not grasp well enough.

    • weka 9.1

      I think I’m a bit shocked by how hard out they are against the Mp and Mana. After all that work to get over their antipathy towards the Greens you’d think they’ve have understood the principle by now.

      • Nope 9.1.1

        The Greens are committed to changing the govt, the MP are not. Why would Labour stand aside or decide to not hold the MP to account if it could mean up to 7 seats going with National?

      • Antoine 9.1.2

        I think the bit about getting over their antipathy with the Greens is wishful thinking on your part.

        Just because the two parties are playing nice in public doesn’t mean they really want to work together.

        Time will tell (unless National wins again)

        A.

        • weka 9.1.2.1

          There’s been a massive shift in Labour re the Greens. That they have a MoU shows this. Prior to that Labour still thought they could govern alone.

          • Antoine 9.1.2.1.1

            Think you’ll find the MoU is covering over a certain amount of ill feeling

            If the left wins the election, the coalition building process will be very telling

            I’ll eat my hat if the Greens get several significant Cabinet posts and a chance to implement large chunks of their policy agenda

            A.

            • weka 9.1.2.1.1.1

              See, that’s not really what it’s about though. The push is to change the govt. That’s a desirable goal even if the Greens end up outside of cabinet. Obviously it would be way better if the Greens had even more MPs than now and did have some cabinet positions, but it’s the wrong lens to view the MoU through IMO.

              I’m less worried about Labour people’s feelings (and yes, I am sure there are still some there that resent having to share) than I am interested in the fact that they’re being pragmatic about it.

              • Antoine

                This view that the Greens would be pleased if the Government was changed, even if they did not obtain Cabinet positions, is this your personal opinion or is it an official Green Party view?

                A.

                • weka

                  my own view obviously. And I’m not saying that they would be pleased (or that I would be pleased), I’m saying that it’s more about change than power. I’m pretty sure that the Green MPs would be gutted if they got shut out again. But that doesn’t mean that gaining power for the sake of it is the primary motivation here.

                  • Red

                    If labour and green can’t govern alone they won’t govern. If polls show close to election that the only way labour can govern is a labour green nzf trifecta, The fluid centre those people that voted 3 times for Aunty Helen and 3 times for uncle john, nzf on occasions will vote national for stability I also think labour will need to lift considerably in polls to attract the same above voters re a labour green coalition that won’t have tail been the greens wagging the dog been labour Thus the most likely outcome is current coalition government or national nzf. any labour green coalition is highly unlikely The only other outcome is a labour nzf tie up with supply and confidence by greens, ie greens not in government

          • red-blooded 9.1.2.1.2

            Sorry, weka, but when did Labour last “govern alone”? They’ve had governing relationships with The Alliance, New Labour, NZ First, and UF. And while I would have preferred the Clarke government to work with the Greens, I understand the pragmatism that saw them choosing a working relationship with NZ 1st (which because of its position on the spectrum could have more effect on which of the two main parties got to form a government).

    • Karen 9.2

      I think this was true but is no longer, hence the MOU. This twitter conversation sums the situation up in the case of the Māori seats, which are seen seen as essential by the Labour Party Māori caucus.

      …of course andrew little is going to rule out working with the māori party
      why? because it undermines their whole reason for existing
      …the māori party says “we’ll work at any table”, but when labour says “not our table” it means the māori party can only work with national

      @MorganGodfery am I naive to think this strategy has been decided along with the Māori caucus and isn’t just Little mouthing off?

      @pitakakariki oh i’d say it’s almost certainly a strategy signed off by the maori caucus – they want the maori seats more than anyone!

      • weka 9.2.1

        Do you mean that Labour said ‘not our table’ earlier, and so the Mp and Mana teamed up?

        • Karen 9.2.1.1

          No, not at all.

          Labour was previously taking the line that they would work with any party that wanted to change the government but they hadn’t seen any evidence that the Māori Party wanted to change the government. They didn’t rule them out, however, but the more aggressive stance taken by Tuku Morgan attacking Labour Party Māori MPs did make the idea even less palatable.

          The agreement with Mana is designed to help the MP to take the Māori electorate seats back off Labour and that’s fine – the Māori Party’s entire existence depends on having those seats. Not having to compete with Mana will make it easier for them.

          My understanding (and remember I am just a Pākeha outsider with an interest in politics) is that the Labour Party Māori MPs who hold Māori electorate seats don’t want to just be in government and get in on the list – they want to get the mandate from their people in their electorates and represent their people. The Mana/MP agreement makes it harder for them to do that, hence the ‘not at our table’ as a response to this agreement.

  8. Tim 10

    More pointless Labour bashing from weka.. Possibly her funniest contribution so far, this time on the issue of Maoridom when she’s European herself.. Clearly she fancies she knows a bit more than Andrew little about this stuff. What a joke.

    • adam 10.1

      ROFL, well done Tim, I think you take the ‘I’m a prat’ award for the day.

      Your preciousness about your leader, reminds me of so many unreconstructed Marxists smoking crack.

      • Brutus Iscariot 10.1.1

        I actually agree, mention the word “Maori”, and she goes and puts on the kid gloves…every time. Classic case of middle class white paternalism masquerading as social justice.

        To be honest, Gareth Morgan calling Winston Peters a “kupapa” and “Uncle Tom” was several orders of magnitude worse than Little’s statement.

      • Tim 10.1.2

        I’m more of a capitalist pissed off by pointless separatism

    • McFlock 10.2

      I have no idea about Weka’s heritage (or, for that matter, Little’s), but she’s stated her position, argued it rationally, defended it reasonably, and hasn’t acted like a dick.

      I’m still not entirely persuaded by her position, but you, Tim, have acted like a dick.

      • Karen 10.2.1

        +1 McFlock.

      • Tim 10.2.2

        She mentioned her being Pakeha in the post if you’d bothered to read it. Her position is just pointless separatism but kudos to you if you wanna sugar coat it and all

        • McFlock 10.2.2.1

          You’re welcome to try to develop some sort of premise:rationale argument any time soon. If you want to contribute something more than “acting like a dick” to the thread.

        • weka 10.2.2.2

          Tim, please have a look at my moderation note in this link and respond here so I know that you have seen it.

          Kaupapa Pākehā

  9. Jenny Kirk 11

    I’m entering this discussion a bit late, and I think in doing so I’m going to criticise an author – which apparently is not “done” on The Standard.

    But Weka has asked who said ” “I’m astounded some who are on the left are arguing Labour should hold back and not criticise the Maori Party for its appalling record in government. ”

    And I have to reply that this is the implication of what the initial post is saying – and in particular – the following : “Looking at what has happened in the past few days, and listening to Little in the RNZ audio, I’m also getting a sense of kaupapa Labour. It looks like Labour are willing to bash those they see as being in their way politically.”

    And some of you might recall that before Willie Jackson arrived into the Labour camp – Tuku Morgan, Hone Harawira, and others in the Maori Party were all having a good “bash” at Labour, and saying they were going to take over all the Maori seats. None of you raised an eyebrow when the Maori elitist were bagging Labour.

    They also all stood with National on the day National went to Ratana – a show of “solidarity” with National – while all the other opposition parties visited Ratana the following day.

    Perhaps its time for people to look at the reality of Maoridom today – and to understand there is an elitism in Maoridom just as there is in the Pakeha world – and it is clear from its actions in Parliament that the Maori Party does not give a stuff about its ordinary people who have suffered even worse than Pakeha under this National Govt to which the Maori Party is aligned.

    When in Govt, Labour has a good record of doing good things for Maori – introducing papakainga housing, Maori TV, supporting te reo, providing good health care and so on. And this activity will continue when Labour gets into government again.

    Edit – Kelvin Davis who came out strongly saying Andrew Little is right to call out the Māori Party, says Labour’s Māori Development Spokesperson Kelvin Davis.
    “The Māori Party love to throw barbs and put-downs on the one hand, while on the other hand saying our people don’t like seeing us attack each other.
    “If they’re happy to dish it out they have to be prepared to take it. Their only sad rebuttal is to play the race card.
    “Any political parties that tie their waka behind the National Government have to be prepared for the criticism.
    “The reality is Māori on the street just haven’t felt the love, and they know a vote for Mana-Māori is another vote for National.

    • JanM 11.1

      + 100%
      I really have a lot of time for Hone, but he can’t half pick them when it comes to potential partners!! Here we go again! What was he thinking! (again)

    • Leftie 11.2

      Thousands of +1’s and more Jenny!!

    • adam 11.3

      Woohoo, another example of labour knows best

      Do we get a pat on the head with that as well?

      Kelvin is desperate to hold onto his seat, at any cost, it seems.

      How bloody ironic, that you will talk about class in association of terminating the Māori Party, but seem deathly quite about it the rest of the time.

      • Peter Swift 11.3.1

        “Kelvin is desperate to hold onto his seat, at any cost, it seems. ”

        Though at least he hasn’t sunk to the level of doing deals with a nine year (that’s nine years of worsening poverty, prospects and outcomes) national party support partner.

        “How bloody ironic”

        Own petard hoisted. Tee hee

        • adam 11.3.1.2

          Love how labour party people put the blinkers on to just the last 9 years.

          Not like the last 40 years have been bad for the poor, but sure keep in your fantasy lala land, of just the last 9 years being bad.

          Keep doing what labour does best, lose elections – rather than share power.

          But then again I suppose I shouldn’t mention that liberal economics has been bad for Māori, that might just be a bit much for you lot.

          • Peter Swift 11.3.1.2.1

            You’re as corrupt as mars and I suspect for mostly the same reasons.

            You can selectively quote numbers from here to eternity, but you’re still ignoring the simple fact that, according to the election result and the constant 1% polls, the Maori electorate isn’t engaged by the MP or Mana at all. That probably won’t change because of a back room deal between parties with vested interests. I hope voters see right through it and vote appropriately.

            If you feel you can keep spinning nine years of supporting national, even though Hone splits and says he can’t, even though he’ll now deal with the blue MP if it means he gets his parliamentary salary package again, then go ahead, but no, you don’t get credibility, high ground or inside knowledge on the fact of the matter.
            When you’re as intellectually dishonest as to wilfully ignoring the many for the needs of the few, then good luck amigo, you’ll need it.

            • Leftie 11.3.1.2.1.1

              Touche’ Peter Swift!!

            • marty mars 11.3.1.2.1.2

              I’m corrupt eh – oh deary are you having a tough night there pete

              • Peter Swift

                I’m just lucky I don’t have to try and defend the guy who left the MP for supporting national, who then turns around and deals with the very same, just to get his place back on the gravy train while Maori unemployment, poverty and general well being has suffered on their watch.

                That would be tough. Not enough eye wool for that, even in NZ.

                • sure pete you be real tough alright lol what a dag you are

                  • Peter Swift

                    You don’t need to concern yourself with me me, bro, I’m well sorted.
                    It’s the Maori electorate who’ve been shit on by Flavell, Sharples and Turia for nine years you need to convince.
                    Good luck with that. lol

                    • I’m not your ‘bro’ and in the context of this discussion that is a remark of bigotry imo. Somehow the fact that you have lowered yourself to that level doesn’t surprise me pete – ho hum same old same old.

                    • Peter Swift

                      Of course you are my bro, I’m inclusive. We’re all in this together, man, and like it or not, we are the BROtherhood of man.

                      Best stick that faux race outrage, I’ve lost the argument so will play a race card, back in it’s very naughty box where it truly belongs. :tut tut: 🙄

                      [ok, you’re out until Monday. Pattern of behaviour that is flaming, and you’ve been warned 10 mins ago and you still do it, so wasting mod time too – weka]

                      [just seen your response in the backend. You still don’t understand why you were moderated, so here it is again. You were banned for flaming, ignoring moderation, and wasting moderator time. If you don’t understand what flaming is, ask. That ban is now extended out to 1 month for ignoring moderation, wasting moderator time, and attacking an author. Expect moderations from now on to at least double but some will just go to past the election if you do something really stupid – weka]

                    • Tim

                      The most reasonable commentator gets suspended because someone said the word ‘bigotry’… Your position is truly weak, weka.

                      [Peter got a short ban for blatantly ignoring moderation, and for flaming. Flaming is about behaviour. In moderation we are looking at patterns of behaviour that cause trouble for the site and increase work for the moderators. It rarely has anything to do with the content. Peter already has a history of this, which you are probably unaware of but the moderators are. Marty and adam were both warned as well and chose to tone down the flaming. I would have banned either of them similarly if they hadn’t.

                      Speaking of patterns of behaviour, and looking at your comments in general, I’ll let you know a couple of things. One is that I personally have a low tolerance for having my views misrepresented. People can disagree with me and they can go hard against my arguments, but when they start misusing my beliefs either against me or to further their own argument, then I will moderate. One of the reasons is that it’s hard enough being an author here without being attacked. The other is that I write to generate discussion, and if people choose to abuse or attack rather than debate then they need to go somewhere else.

                      You can count this as a warning. We obviously disagree politically, which is fine. But in addition to that you are stepping over a line that will result in a ban if you keep it up. Don’t make shit up about moderation (wasting moderator time is one of the quicker ways to get a ban), don’t attack authors, don’t misrepresent the views of authors. Pretty simple. – weka]

            • adam 11.3.1.2.1.3

              Please point out the corruption, I’m wanting to see that in detail.

              I could call you a monkey swanker, or indeed a person who fiddles with sheep – if we going into the name calling business.

              My point was years, not numbers. But then again I’ve noticed that comprehension is a skill set that needs developing by you on so many points.

              I’m defending the right of a treaty partner to make their own decisions, and pointing out that name calling, and being smug wankers does not help your cause.

              As for you last paragraph, what a whole lot of gobbledygook. The best I can get from that is you not interested in hearing from Māori, and more interested in pushing your own agenda.

        • adam 11.3.1.3

          Peter Swift ‘Own petard hoisted. Tee hee”

          So now you want to throw bombs at people who disagree with you, charming.

          • Peter Swift 11.3.1.3.1

            And the shit you constantly dribble out, piss off, you’re having a laugh mate. lol

            Unless you write something interesting, valid or inclusively left wing contributory, you’re done and out of here.

            [both of you need to stick to the politics or the post or something that isn’t just having a go at each other. If you can’t do that, there are plenty of other people to talk to – weka]

            • adam 11.3.1.3.1.1

              What are you waffling on about?

              Is English your second language?

            • greywarshark 11.3.1.3.1.2

              Ooh good a stoush. I think adam has squatter rights and you are moving in as a newbie Peter Swift, so who is in the right position to give the most insults and tell them to hand in their cards.

            • Peter Swift 11.3.1.3.1.3

              @ Weka’s edit:

              I’ve replied in good faith here, but as luck would have it, Adam’s got nothing worth saying I need to listen to, so it’s the natural end of it anyway.

              [the post I put the moderator note in is not in good faith, it’s just smart arse abuse. As a moderator I don’t care about the arguments, I’m looking at behaviour and I do care if threads degenerate into mudslinging. You’ve been warned before. Just stop (everyone who’s doing it).

              Actually In Vino put it better below,

              A sad sequence of comments. Venom stacked on venom. Yet you are all presumably on the same side. There is no hope for the Left if it is stacked with petty but pompous egos like yours. Individually when you are not sparring, I have agreed with comments done by all of you. Monty Python.. – weka]

            • In Vino 11.3.1.3.1.4

              A sad sequence of comments. Venom stacked on venom. Yet you are all presumably on the same side. There is no hope for the Left if it is stacked with petty but pompous egos like yours. Individually when you are not sparring, I have agreed with comments done by all of you. Monty Python..

              • Peter Swift

                “Yet you are all presumably on the same side”

                Apparently not. I want an end to the national government.
                I’ve no desire to see labour lose up to 7 seats, gifting 6 to national’s largest current support party.

                • Leftie

                  I am with you Peter Swift.

                  • greywarshark

                    Right Leftie, why don’t you both pop down to the pub together and leave us to get on with it?

                    • Leftie

                      I don’t drink and you don’t have to be rude Greywarshark. We are all entitled to our opinions, are we not? Or is it infantile abuse/insults that we can now expect on here, for not falling in behind what some people think?

              • adam

                I agree with Peter for once, I don’t believe in an authoritarian left dictating to people how to think and live. Or indeed telling minorities how to practice politics, or what is good for them.

                Also I’m not so willing to sweep under the carpet nearly 200 years of colonialism, so we can get a change of government, who will do the same rubbish, just with different packaging.

    • marty mars 11.4

      yeah jenny – not apparently not done – just not done

      “Maori elitist” = no such thingy or even “Māori elitist”

      “and it is clear from its actions in Parliament that the Maori Party does not give a stuff about its ordinary people” – based upon your very narrow view.

      “When in Govt, Labour has a good record of doing good things for Maori” nah only when it suited labour is the truth and there are MANY MANY examples from rogernomics on down, from the terror raids to foreshore and seabed where labour shafted Māori and non Māori as well, all for their own little benefits.

    • weka 11.5


      I’m entering this discussion a bit late, and I think in doing so I’m going to criticise an author – which apparently is not “done” on The Standard.

      As far as I can tell you’ve critiqued the post. Which is what it is there for. The Standard Trust provides a space for authors to write and commenters to respond. You are more than welcome to disagree with the post.

      There is an implied criticism of me as the author, but it’s hardly an attack. Some people know where the line is, others don’t. There is a really good reason for not allowing attacks on authors, and that’s because we want them to keep writing. It’s hard to write, and harder to write here, and keeping authors has a high priority.

      But Weka has asked who said ” “I’m astounded some who are on the left are arguing Labour should hold back and not criticise the Maori Party for its appalling record in government. ”

      And I have to reply that this is the implication of what the initial post is saying – and in particular – the following : “Looking at what has happened in the past few days, and listening to Little in the RNZ audio, I’m also getting a sense of kaupapa Labour. It looks like Labour are willing to bash those they see as being in their way politically.”

      Yeah, but really if you don’t understand what I was meaning, just ask. Implication implies I didn’t say it overtly, which then begs the question of why you would use your interpretation to support your ‘don’t criticise Labour’ argument instead of checking it out.

      As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, I don’t have a problem with Little criticising the Mp over their actions. I do have a problem with him criticising them culturally, and using that as a political weapon.

      It’s true that I also think it’s a strategic mistake for Labour to go so hard out against Māori parties, but that’s in part because of the Green kaupapa which places a high priority on working together. There is a difference between criticising the Mp and wanting to destroy them. I understand Labour’s need to go hard on this and I said as much in the post. I still think it’s a mistake.

      The irony here is the amount of criticism I am getting for criticising Labour/Little. I’d have more respect if the people criticising me had actually had a go at the content of the post. It raised some important issues, many of which have been ignored.

      And some of you might recall that before Willie Jackson arrived into the Labour camp – Tuku Morgan, Hone Harawira, and others in the Maori Party were all having a good “bash” at Labour, and saying they were going to take over all the Maori seats. None of you raised an eyebrow when the Maori elitist were bagging Labour.

      Again, read my comments. I differentiate between ‘bash’ and ‘critique’. Put up the actual argument of what was done and I’ll give you my opinion. Don’t expect others to do the work you want done.

      by ‘You’ do you mean people writing for The Standard? Why aren’t you writing posts addressing the issues of Morgan, Harawira etc criticising Labour? We need more authors. Write a post and I’ll put it up as a Guest Post.

      btw, there are far more pro-Labour posts on TS than anything else (well, maybe the ones critiquing National). I had a look back to the start of November, that’s 62 posts with the Labour category, and there are basically two posts that are overtly critical of Labour (this one and the Poto Williams one, which was a Notices and Features reprint). Might be time to focus on the issues rather than being worried about authors bashing Labour. If you have a problem with the commentary, you’ll have to address that in the comments.

      /category/government-and-politics/political-parties/labour/

  10. Brutus Iscariot 12

    It’s also racist to assume Little is Pakeha, just because he looks white.

    Labour is not a “Pakeha Party” and has significant Maori representation internally.

  11. Sacha 13

    Don’t know if this has been referenced further up, but here’s Mihingarangi Forbes’ story on this topic: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/325030/politicians-fired-up-over-'kaupapa-maori

  12. bwaghorn 14

    ”It looks like Labour are willing to bash those they see as being in their way politically”
    it would appear you as a card carrying greeny are willing to bash labour when it suits weka

    [ok, I’m torn between giving you a warning over stupid shit that’s against the rules (having a go at an author over perceived party politics), and asking you wtf you are on about. I’ll go with the latter. Please do explain what me being a GP member has to do with the post or what I said in it. I’m really curious what possible motivation I could have as GP member for apparently bashing Labour. – weka]

    • BM 14.1

      Really bad idea.

      Also Little doesn’t get to decide who’s Maori, he can go fuck himself

      • bwaghorn 14.1.1

        you hate labour more than the real lefties bm so meh to your opinion

        • Leftie 14.1.1.1

          Lol I was just about to post to BM that he should follow his own advice.

        • marty mars 14.1.1.2

          but on this he is correct – no fucker gets to tell Māori who is and isn’t Māori – on this one little is self abusing – no one forced him to pipe up with his ‘vote catching for bigots’ statements did they, he’s a big boy as leader of a political party isn’t he. He has bought this all on himself clap clap clap

          • Leftie 14.1.1.2.1

            Think what you like, Marty. Labour’s Maori MP’s agree with Andrew Little though. Karen and Jenny have made excellent commentary on this. Worth reading.

            • marty mars 14.1.1.2.1.1

              thank you I will think what I like

              “”It’s been a rocky relationship with Te Ururoa but I certainly understand the reality and I think Te Ururoa does too. What we are after this time around … to create a strong, Maori sovereign point of view within Parliament … is more important than Te Ururoa and more important than Hone.

              “We must always be guided by that because that’s what our people want. More than me and Te Ururoa, they want the Maori Party and Mana to stop fighting with one another and to try and get on.””

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11804060

              I see a lot of fear coming from this – I say now – it will all be okay.

              • Leftie

                What fear?

                • a united Māori and Mana Party and their votes/supporters is very fearful to a Party that thinks IT deserves the votes. I say again – it will all be okay. Māori are quite capable of sorting the Māori seats out for the betterment of all who live here.

                  • Leftie

                    “a united Māori and Mana Party” is nothing to be fearful of. How long will it last this time is anyone’s guess, and it is up to the voters whether they trust this alliance in view of the Maori party’s support of National, which is sure pinning it’s hopes on those votes to keep it in power. Now another term of National is definitely something to be afraid of.

                    “Māori are quite capable of sorting the Māori seats out for the betterment of all who live here.”

                    Sure they are, that’s why Labour have 6 seats and the Maori party have 1.

                    • sure – then why are you worried? Why not laugh it off, “oh those silly gnat supporters ho ho ho thinking they are taking our labour seats hee hee hee, whatever next haw haw haw”. You got the seats – you have the power – your ring is bursting with power, why be worried about the silly MP and Mana?

                    • Leftie

                      Don’t be silly and infantile Marty, if anything, it’s you that appears to be worried and in a panic. Labour has every right to fight to retain those seats, just as the Maori party and Mana have in going after them.

          • bwaghorn 14.1.1.2.2

            @ mm he never said they were not maori, he said they are not following the beliefs set down by kaupapa maori ,

          • Nope 14.1.1.2.3

            Little has never tried to tell Maori whether they’re Maori. I can’t believe the crap I’m reading from some people. He was challenged about the Maori Party being kaupapa Maori and challenged that based on their record, which his own Maori MPs have. Kelvin Davis is right – this preciousness is just a camouflage for the Maori Party’s failures.

            • marty mars 14.1.1.2.3.1

              nope nope

              I don’t like kelvin too much but I would never call him right – bad form indeed

            • Sacha 14.1.1.2.3.2

              “based on their record”

              Kaupapa Maori is more about the process than the results. But keep believing what you do if it makes you happy.

              • + 1

                Sadly a translator is needed for these concepts because some just love twisting the meaning to fit their preconceived ideas.

              • Good commentary

                Nevertheless, by Little’s own logic, Māori have a choice to make between what he sees as the ‘non-kaupapa opportunism’ of the Māori and Mana parties, or the Chief-caste representation of Labour’s selected sons and daughters of tribal elders.

                Little’s divisive rhetoric itself is not kaupapa Māori, as it seeks to label good or bad Māori regardless of their contribution to Māoridom.

                Former Labour MP Dame Tariana Turia, who chose to risk a six-figure income to stand against the very un-kaupapa Māori Foreshore and Seabed Act would be, according to Little’s rhetoric, not kaupapa Māori.

                Whanau Ora, the whanau support model, which utilises kaupapa Māori ideals to provide support services to tens of thousands of people who have often been repeatedly failed by government departments, is also not kaupapa Māori according to Little.

                Even the great Sir Apirana Ngata’s legacy is not a kaupapa Māori one according to this new definition.

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/89706216/labour-andrew-littles-divide-and-conquer-not-kaupapa-maori

            • Leftie 14.1.1.2.3.3

              Well said Nope.

    • Leftie 14.2

      Yes, so it’s ok for the Maori party “to bash those they see as being in their way politically” but it’s not ok for Labour or any other party to do it?

      • marty mars 14.2.1

        do you like labour doing that? I thought they wanted to form an mmp government – jeepers truth is coming out now

        • Leftie 14.2.1.1

          I can’t see Labour or any other party that wants to change the government, wanting to form a government with a party that supports National, can you? It just wouldn’t work out, imo.

          • marty mars 14.2.1.1.1

            I’m not as pessimistic as you – try carrots not sticks and see how far you can get. Abusing and calling people names is not any way forward – shame on Little – it is about building a grouping that can take out the tick from dipton not abuse and condescendingly disrespecting peoples choices especially when you are not a part of that group.

    • bwaghorn 14.3

      bais weka , i’m guessing that new readers here would easily vote either labour or the greens so it can’t hurt the greens to have you crying foul on Little .

      • weka 14.3.1

        Well I’m touched that you think my post might have that kind of influence but I would suggest that a Labour voter who was swayed by my post to vote Green without any prompting whatsoever would already have made those connections themselves from listening to Little.

        I’ll go back to the warning then. Please don’t use the fact that I’m a GP member against me. Argue the post by all means, but it’s not ok to attack authors, including over perceived party politics. I’m getting sick of explaining this, so if people keep doing it I’ll just hand it over to Lynn to deal with.

        If you think I was unfair on Little, then make the argument. Otherwise it’s all just mud slinging and that gets us no-where.

        • lprent 14.3.1.1

          Which would be unfortunate for anyone who likes commenting here that I have to look at. Deal with the frigging argument. Or I will define for you what it means to get personal with a moderator or author. I will tear an ego out.

          • weka 14.3.1.1.1

            Maybe I should write a post about it. It’s just going to get worse I guess as we get closer to the election and not all commenters are going to see the increased moderation warnings. I’m surprised by people like bwaghorn and swordfish, who generally don’t cause problems here at all, but for some reason this is becoming a pattern.

            • lprent 14.3.1.1.1.1

              You’ll find it happens. It is unusually early this year. Almost like 2008.

            • Antoine 14.3.1.1.1.2

              The more you explain your stance, the more angry the fervent Labour supporters will get

              A.

              • b waghorn

                Its more than likely labour won’t get my vote so fervent I am not. Im just trying to work out if the standard is here to get rid of national and the parasites parties that feed off its under belly or not

                • so you attack an author for that???

                  why not do a guestpost instead of putting the slipper in

                  and really – you bloody used to vote for the gnats didn’t you???

                  • bwaghorn

                    have i voted for the nats? not that i can recall i know i wouldn’t have voted shipley its possible as a young non thinking farm boy i voted bolger but winnie would have been more likely back then. although i think my general view in my teens /twenties was i that as some one not paying attention to politics i shouldn’t vote.

                • Leftie

                  “Im just trying to work out if the standard is here to get rid of national and the parasites parties that feed off its under belly or not”

                  I don’t think you are alone in that B Waghorn.

                • weka

                  “Im just trying to work out if the standard is here to get rid of national and the parasites parties that feed off its under belly or not”

                  Depends on what you mean by The Standard. Are you taking about the authors? The Trust? The machine? How long since you read the Policy and About?

                  I’d say that every author wants to change the govt. You think my writing this post means that I’m not trying to change the govt, but you’ve failed to explain how that might be. It does just look like an attack. My big concern here is that regular Standardistas think it’s ok to attack authors. We all know how that ends, attacking commenters go, authors stay. How does that help change the govt?

                  Argue the actual points. If you think that there should be zero criticism of Labour on TS from authors between now and Sept, then make the argument. That I will respect. But trying to undermine me for rationales still unexplained is just bullshit.

                  • bwaghorn

                    If i wanted to attack you questioning your bias would be small potatoes.
                    If you think attacking Little doesn’t hurt the chances of a change gov even if it’s in a small way you are wrong.
                    How else is an outsider like me supposed to raise a issue {perceived or real]with a writer ?as i have no back channel.

                    • weka

                      You can talk to me directly in the front end, that’s what we are doing.

                      I think you are failing to realise that what you consider small potatoes is actually against the site rules. You can criticise my criticising Little/Labour. What’s not ok is to have a go at me over my GP membership and try and tie that into what I write here and assign motivation to that.

                      You might think it’s small potatoes, but I put it in a few contexts that are serious. One is Dirty Politics and the fact that someone was paid by a National Party supporter to hack into TS to access details about authors, specially because of perceived connections between authors and political parties. Another is that there are ongoing lies being told offsite in multiple places about TS and how it works, and some of that is politically motivated. Another is that women bloggers operate in hostile environments and I am already far too limited in what I can write here because of that hostility. There are women authors and commenters who don’t take part because of that hostility. Another is that TS at times struggles to get and retain authors (which is why commenters are expendable and authors usually aren’t).

                      Now if you can’t separate that out attacking an author from expressing an opinion about a post, then you have a problem. You appear to basically have said that you don’t give a shit about the rules here, nor whether I get protected enough to write, and that you should be able to define what is appropriate not the people that run the site (I didn’t make these rules btw).

                      Because I am pretty much at the point where soon I won’t engage on this, I will just start dropping a note in the back end each time and let Lynn handle it, and he’s currently handing out bans until after the election or longer. Or I will just ban without trying to get people to understand.

                      I will say it one more time. If you don’t like Labour being criticised, then address that, make those arguments. But if you attack authors in the process expect there to be consequences.

                  • bwaghorn

                    ” You can criticise my criticising Little/Labour. What’s not ok is to have a go at me over my GP membership and try and tie that into what I write here and assign motivation to that.’

                    cheers that clears it up in my mind .
                    as for making my own rules up , quite possible true, i’ve always challenged those in charge. if you want to ban i’ll lose no sleep

                    • Leftie

                      “What’s not ok is to have a go at me over my GP membership”

                      Then I would like an explanation as to why Weka felt it was ok to have a go at me on the basis that I am a Labour supporter.

                      Are there 2 sets of rules here?

                      Māori Mana deal in Te Tai Tokerau

                      [lprent: Exactly. There are two sets of rules and there always have been for the last 9.5 years.

                      Having a personal go at an author for their post or a moderator for their moderation causes problems for the SITE because it causes us to lose the people who work to maintain the site.

                      Therefore it causes problems for me ast the site’s sysop and one of its trustees.

                      Trying to tell us how we should write posts or to moderate isn’t something that you are permitted to do (polite whining is accepted). If I see you trying to cause problems for me and causing me to waste my time to explain the rules of this site, I will exercise the rules that are clearly laid out in the policy. Most of them are in the self-martyrdom paragraphs.

                      You are now in moderation for my personal attention while you explain how you now understand this and will not repeat such dipshit freeloader behaviour. ]

                    • weka

                      In that case, I was speculating on your support for Labour (not you being a Labour member) as the reason you were dissembling about the Mp. To me it looked like you were running anti-Mana/Mp lines without much substance ie. smearing. I would have said that whether you were a Labour member or not (I can’t remember if you are).

                      Now, if someone wants to make the argument that I was bashing Labour, they can. In fact they did and I responded. If they want to make an argument that I am bashing Labour because I am a Green voter, it better be a damn good argument because it’s a pretty serious accusation. In the case you link to, I was more than willing to back up what I said with examples. I will note that the people here that have a go at me over the Green thing generally don’t put up an argument nor provide evidence.

                      But that’s not what b waghorn got moderated for. He got moderated for trying to tie my GP membership to what I write on TS as an author. As I’ve explained, this is against the rules here for pretty important reasons.

                      Having said that, yes there are 2 sets of rules. Authors are better protected here than commenters. For obvious and stated reasons. So before I was an author, people could have a go at me about my Green Party views and I would have to tell them fuck off if they couldn’t make a decent argument (go look it up, use Pete George as a reference). But once I am an author, there are better protections in place because I am more at risk, the site is more at risk, and quite frankly we’ve got better things to do with our time than defend against ill-thought out and ill-informed hatchet jobs.

                      [lprent: Actually 3 sets of rules. As trustees, Mike and I have an additional layer of responsibilities. ]

                      [good point – weka]

                    • weka

                      btw, I’m going to point out something further that is important and may help understand the boundaries here.

                      You quoted this,

                      “What’s not ok is to have a go at me over my GP membership”

                      But the full quote is this,

                      “You can criticise my criticising Little/Labour. What’s not ok is to have a go at me over my GP membership and try and tie that into what I write here and assign motivation to that.”

                      If you don’t read the bit you quoted in the context of the whole sentence then you miss my meaning and explanation. It’s all there. Criticise my critiques (still can’t attack me though), but don’t try and tie my posts here to the Green Party. You can always ask btw, if you want to know. People don’t do that though, they just start with the shit-throwing because it suits their agenda better.

                      Edited.

                    • Leftie

                      Iprent and Weka. This is to acknowledge that I have read your explanations and the clarification of the rules. Understood.

                    • lprent []

                      Do you understand why I will be on your case if I see a repetition of your question OR ANYTHING LIKE IT!!!!

                      I don’t know what weka feels like about it, but I’m getting pissed off.

                      The about clearly says

                      We write here in our personal capacities and the opinions that are expressed on the blog are individual unless expressly stated otherwise (see the policy). We do not write on behalf of any organization.

                      That is a pretty unambiguous statement.

                    • Leftie

                      Yes, I said I understood.

        • Nope 14.3.1.2

          You can’t pretend your Green Party allegiance doesn’t influence your frequent attacks on Labour and Little.

          Everyone has a political bias, and party membership and allegiance is a huge contributor.

          I had hoped the MOU would give greenies a sense that there was one way to change the govt, and that was backing Labour and the Greens. Support for any other party that won’t commit to changing the govt just makes it less likely this will happen.

          [“You can’t pretend your Green Party allegiance doesn’t influence your frequent attacks on Labour and Little.”

          So much on one little sentence. I don’t have an allegiance to the GP. I vote for them and I am a member and I support many but not all of their policies, but if they had done what Little did I would be criticising them too. I don’t have to pretend anything. I like Little (that’s on record), I want Labour to do well, I want the Greens to do better, I want the govt to change. You and I disagree on how that might happen and what the best strategy is, that’s fine, make those arguments, but stop making shit up about me.

          You will now provide 5 examples of my writing posts that attack Labour and Little in the past 3 months, or some other reasonable example of ‘frequent’ and ‘attack’. If you can’t/won’t do that, you have two choices. You can withdraw that comment and apologise, or you can have a ban. I’m putting you into premod until you answer. If I don’t see anything I will eventually ban just to tidy this up. I suggest you read the Policy and About and that you start paying attention to what is being said in moderation bold across threads so that you learn where the boundaries are.

          You seem new here and look like you are bringing good commentary, so I’m cutting you some slack, but you need to understand that commenters are expendable and authors aren’t. Stop attacking authors, and debate the politics and points instead. If you don’t understand anything I’ve just said, ask for clarification. – weka]

          • Sacha 14.3.1.2.1

            People who support the Greens have every reason to demand that Labour get its shit together after 9 years of incredible incompetence that undermines any chance of a left coalition govt.

  13. One Anonymous Bloke 15

    Who is Susie Ferguson to define what “kaupapa Māori” is? Do Labour’s Māori caucus not qualify?

    Little’s blunt, clumsy response at least contains some valid criticism.

    Kaupapa Little is a bit more nuanced than that.

    • weka 15.1

      Ferguson didn’t define kaupapa Māori though. She asked if some voters might value a party that was based on Māori values. I would assume that Labour’s caucus work within kaupapa Māori (and thus Māori vote for them), but Little wasn’t asked about the Labour Māori caucus.

      Interesting article.

  14. Sacha 16

    “Little wasn’t asked about the Labour Māori caucus”
    He did refer to them pro-actively several times, to be fair. Worth listening to the 9 minute RNZ interview for context, even if Little doesn’t get the implications of the key phrase.

    • weka 16.1

      Yes, I did listen to it this morning. I was responding to OAB’s question which I took to be directly related to Ferguson’s question. She wasn’t asking about Labour, she was asking about voters who might want to vote for a party that was grounded in kaupapa Māori ie. the Mp or Mana. Imo it would have been way better if he’d talking about his own MPs and their kaupapa instead of saying what he did, but that’s not going to serve the destroy the Mp/Mana agenda so well I guess.

      • Nope 16.1.1

        Hard to know what that agenda is tbh, other than propping up a failing three term National government.

  15. Nope 17

    Interesting comments by Peeni Henare:

    Peeni Henare, who holds Tāmaki Makaurau for Labour, questioned what the Māori Party was talking about.

    He said “using kaupapa Māori as the bargaining chip for negotiations with a government then end up compromising – well, that’s not kaupapa Māori”.

    [if you are going to quote then you need to cite. Please post a link for that quote now – weka]

  16. Rightly or Wrongly 18

    I suspect Little had several possible avenues to attack the MP for their support for the National Government.

    – Point to achievement (or lack there of) while in government.

    – Point to continued negative social stats for Maori generally.

    – Point to how being in Government is contrary to MP policy.

    – Point to how a Labour Government would achieve so much better and the MP should be pushing for a change in Government.

    Any of these would have fine and legit challenges to the MP.

    However what does he do?

    By saying the MP are not kaupapa Maori he is calling them fake Maoris for supporting National. (Plastic??)

    Now I know from living with Maori people for decades many of them don’t mind being laughed at by their own – the Maori are famous for their sense of humour.

    However one thing that is guaranteed to get the taioha waving around is when a Pakeha accuses Maori of being fake Maori because they don’t agree with him.

    Nothing smacks of getting out the colonial whip and verbally beating Maori back into their ‘proper’ place than the comment made by Little.

    In essence Little was saying, “If Maori do not return to their historic voting patterns of voting/supporting for Labour then they are not real Maori. ”

    I would suggest that this will just reopen old wounds caused by Clark and the S&F Act and will push the MP to re support the Nats come Sept. If the MP have 4-5 MP’s this could swing the election.

    I love a saying told to me as a young fella, Think before you stink.

    Andrew Little should have this tattooed on his hand.

    • weka 18.1

      He seems to be on a few learning curves this month. I do have hope for him though, I think he is getting better, but sometimes it seems like 3 steps forward two back.

    • Jenny Kirk 18.2

      “By saying the MP are not kaupapa Maori he is calling them fake Maoris for supporting National. (Plastic??)”

      No RorW, you are incorrect. Andrew Little was saying they are not kaupapa Maori because the Maori Party is not paying heed to its own policies – particularly those policies which talk about fairness and equality for everyone.

      Instead the Maori Party joined up with National which has done everything to undermine the values of fairness and equality in our society, and has made our society so much more a huge division between poor and rich, housed and the many thousands who are homeless – particularly through their policy (endorsed by the Maori Party) of selling off hundreds of state houses – in which, incidentally, many of the poorer Maori families once lived. Now they’re out on the streets – camping in local reserves, living in their cars.

      THAT is why Andrew Little said they are not kaupapa Maori – because they do not follow their own tikanga Maori policies. The Maori Party is a fraud. and Hone has decided to join in.

      • adam 18.2.1

        So Jenny Kirk explain to me why the labour party is not a fraud?

        Their constitution specifically talks about equality, but the last two labour governments laid the foundations for the expansion of fastest rate of growing inequality in our countries history. Yes that is about economics, and if you want specifics, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989.

        So by your definition are not the labour party a fraud as well?

        I know it’s all the rage from the labour party people to be belligerent about Māori politics, but tone it down a but, and we might actually be able to have a debate. At the moment it feels like labour people are in attack mode

        When we point out we seen it before, bang attack. When myself or others point out that Māori have suffered under this economic system, bang attack. When the argument that Māori need to have Māori solutions, bang attack.

        So it not exactly inclusive politics, which you and a few others have talked about.

        • Jenny Kirk 18.2.1.1

          The 1984-1990 Labour Govt was an aberration, Adam – and brought in neo-liberal economics – but at the same time it continued to build (and maintain ) state houses , continued with funding good public health systems, ditto state education and unlike the Shipley Govt which followed it, Labour did not reduce people’s benefits to poverty level – which was when inequality among rich and poor in NZ started to take off – in our time. (Not forgetting that it was a Labour govt under Savage which brought in NZ’s much lauded social welfare schemes).

          And yes, Maori have suffered under this economic system but much much worse whenever the Nats have been in power – and especially in the last eight years – very much so, in the last eight years when they’ve been aided and abetted by the Maori Party. ,
          A Maori Party which says in its policies that it wants a fair and equal society for everyone – and then lets its National mate sell state houses which are being lived in by Maori people – the very people, the MP was meant to be representing. That is what I call a fraud. The MP conned their own people into voting for them, and then proceeded to spit on them.

          • marty mars 18.2.1.1.1

            Has labour ever sold any state houses?

          • weka 18.2.1.1.2

            “and unlike the Shipley Govt which followed it, Labour did not reduce people’s benefits to poverty level – which was when inequality among rich and poor in NZ started to take off – in our time. (Not forgetting that it was a Labour govt under Savage which brought in NZ’s much lauded social welfare schemes).”

            However Clark’s government didn’t reinstate benefit levels, and it removed the hardship grant of Special Benefit which did structurally entrench poverty. The point of Special Benefit was to help those beneficiaries who were unable to work. Labour at that time also refused to include beneficiaries in the full WFF breaks.

            “And yes, Maori have suffered under this economic system but much much worse whenever the Nats have been in power – and especially in the last eight years – very much so, in the last eight years when they’ve been aided and abetted by the Maori Party. ,”

            If the Mp hadn’t supported National on C and S, would National have still done all or most of those things?

            • Pete George 18.2.1.1.2.1

              Where are those quotes from? A link would be useful.

              I presume the Maori Party supported National on this:

              Budget 2015: Benefits rise in bid to tackle child poverty

              The package, announced in the Governnment’s Budget on Thursday, will give families on benefits with children a $25-a-week boost to their incomes, while-low income working families will get at least $12.50 a week extra.

              The increase to benefits is the first, beyond inflation, since 1977.

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68742199/budget-2015-benefits-rise-in-bid-to-tackle-child-poverty

              That took effect last year and should have benefited quite a few Maori.

              Partnership schools seem to have also benefited some Maori. Willie Jackson:

              I truly believe in the partnership school model. I believe in it so much we have one at Nga Whare Waatea. The kura comes under the Manukau Urban Maori Authority of which I am chief executive.

              Our staff tell us they have seen the change in our tamariki, especially those who have been failed by mainstream schooling. They have not failed the system, but the system has failed them.

              http://partnershipschools.education.govt.nz/news/opinion-willie-jackson/

              Whanau Ora is a major Maori Party Policy:

              Whānau Ora is about increasing the wellbeing of individuals and whānau to lead full lives and uses the power of whānau to improve the wellbeing of individuals and whānau. It provides whānau with appropriate services and support so they can become more self-managing and achieve their aspirations.

              Whānau Ora puts whānau and families in control of the services they need to work together, build on their strengths and achieve their aspirations.

              https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/whakamahia/whanau-ora/

              Nikki Kay wrote:

              I have personally sat at the cabinet table or met with their MPs from Dame Tariana Turia to Sir Pita Sharples to Te Ururoa Flavell and Marama Fox – MP – Māori Party and seen them make their case and win on a huge number issues.

              These issues include progressing Treaty settlements, improving Maori representation on a range of entities, reducing smoking and progressing towards a smoke free New Zealand (Dame Tari tirelessly championed that), reforming Maori land legislation, improving Maori achievement and ensuring greater investment in Kura, social housing, issues afffecting children, whanau ora and language to name a few issues.

              No Government in history has made the progress on Treaty settlements that we have with the Māori Party.

              I don’t think there’s any doubt that being a part of Government gives a party more leverage, therefore more policy wins.

              If the Maori Party hadn’t been in Government with National how many of these things would have happened?

          • adam 18.2.1.1.3

            An aberration, so the 5th labour Government repealed the the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989? Did it roll back austerity?

            Sure the first and third labour government were awesome. But the last two have done little more than apply band aids, whilst the rich got richer and the poor paid for it.

            Look I’m not going argue with you it has got worse, because it has. Austerity is like that, it is a zero sum game. And it’s the only game in town. Well in NZ any way. Both labour and national are arguing for more of it.

            But to call the Māori party a fraud means you can’t work with them, or won’t work with them. As I’ve said before, that is a bit rich from the party who made the biggest land grab since the New Zealand wars. And the party who gave up on people in the name of neo-liberal economics.

            • DS 18.2.1.1.3.1

              >>An aberration, so the 5th labour Government repealed the the Reserve >>Bank of New Zealand Act 1989? Did it roll back austerity?

              It repealed the Employment Contracts Act. It established Kiwibank (as per its agreement with the Alliance). It renationalised rail and air travel. It increased taxes on the wealthy. It abolished work for the dole. It instituted working for families. It ran a very concerted Closing the Gaps effort to deal with inequality among Maori (which it had to change the name of due to National and media pressure). All in all, a decent legacy.

              Face it – the Maori Party are the brown wing of the Nats, and deserve to be treated as such.

              • Leftie

                Well said DS!!

              • adam

                And yet Māori poverty increased under labour, and has exploded under national.

                As for working for families, worked better for middle class white people

                Closing the gaps, ended when they wimped out to the Tory scum pressure, over time it became a shell of it’s original idea.

                And the reality, for people who don’t understand economics, austerity as policy is an utter nightmare for Māori, no matter the puppet master.

                Look, read marty mars below – He’s says it way better than I could.

      • Leftie 18.2.2

        +1000 Jenny on both of your comments. Couldn’t agree more.

        • Jenny Kirk 18.2.2.1

          Thanks Leftie.
          Sometimes I think there are none so blind as those who willfully chose not to see!

          • marty mars 18.2.2.1.1

            personally this “The MP conned their own people into voting for them, and then proceeded to spit on them.” is pretty offensive imo but labour supporters loves to think that labour knows best even when the evidence is to the contrary.

            • DS 18.2.2.1.1.1

              Hey, we’re not the ones who have supported the policies of the National Government for the past nine years.

              • Leftie

                Exactly DS! that’s it in a nutshell!!

              • yes and it was such a tranquil and sustaining environment before the gnats got in wasn’t it – no poverty, no bigotry, no bad things – oh if only labour would get back in so the good old days could come back.

            • Karen 18.2.2.1.1.2

              Kia ora Marty – as a sometime Labour sometime Green voter I definitely don’t ever think either party knows best. There is a lot of stuff being said here to make you (justifiably IMO) angry but Labour supporters aren’t all the same (just as MP and Mana supporters have different views). Choosing to vote for a party is always a compromise as well you know.

              Anyway, I wondered whether you had listened to the Waatea interview with Andrew Little. Around half way through he admits Labour do get things wrong and the Foreshore and Seabed legislation was one example (he was not in parliament at the time).

              http://www.waateanews.com/play_podcast?podlink=NTEyNjY=

              • Leftie

                Yes, worth listening to.

              • thanks Karen – I did get a wee way into it then hit the wall with his comments. I find it so, so, ignorant for these dudes to come out and say, “look at what has happened over this time period” as if previous time periods didn’t exist – as though the problems didn’t exist before then. The fact is that successive labour and gnat governments have NOT cared about Māori, they have shat on Māori like we were a river out their back yard. I don’t blame the over representation of Māori in ALL of the negative social statistics on the gnats – they didn’t cause it, they sure as hell haven’t helped it but labour and the sanctimonious rubbish spouted by their leader and some supporters are as much to blame as anything or anyone.

                To then abuse The Māori Party for propping up the gnats and ‘causing’ all of these horrible outcomes for Māori is just sick imo. It is using the suffering of a people to attack them. YES The Māori Party have voted certain ways in parliament and yes they have supported the dirty gnats BUT they aren’t to blame for the housing crisis. It is the height of ignorance and bigotry to assume they did or have even contributed to it. AND I don’t want state houses sold, and I don’t want people living in cars and I know that unity and working together will sort that not blind rage at a group little can’t control. I think little just has the pricker with the Māori King and Tuku and fair enough they knocked him down with barely a swipe.

                anyway I want the gnats gone and I suppose labour has to do that but I don’t in any way see labour as some hero on the horizon or white knight – they are just riding a white horse and night is still night.

                sorry for going on – I’m on a computer not my phone so a big reply is easier 🙂

                • Karen

                  That’s okay Marty – no way am I ever going to say that Labour has has a fantastic record on Māori issues but I do believe they have done a lot more than the Nats (I could give lots of examples but I am supposed to be working so I don’t have time right now).

                  I often get really frustrated with Labour – they are not nearly left enough for me, but I am also aware that the only way to get rid of the Nats is by supporting the Labour and Green Parties so that is what I do. To stop state houses being sold and to increase the amount of social housing then this is the best option IMO.

                  The MP voted to sell them – Marama Fox justified this by saying private organisations would maintain them better but this is just crap – this government just decided to not to maintain them. The Nats did the same in the 1990s then Labour built nearly 10,000 more when they got back in. Labour is far from perfect but the Nats are far worse.

          • Leftie 18.2.2.1.2

            Yes, exactly Jenny!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    3 weeks ago