Marama Fox on working with a Labour/Green government

73 comments on “Marama Fox on working with a Labour/Green government ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tiger Mountain 1

   27 March 2017 at 7:50 am

   put me in the “never forgive” column re the Māori Party thanks

   Mana has more the class based approach that befits a Māori political organisation, unity between Māori, Pākehā and migrants is still the worst nightmare for our rulers
   • weka 1.1

     27 March 2017 at 8:44 am

     What do you think Labour and the Greens should do if the Mp are the way to form govt? Let National have a 4th term instead?

     Do you object to the Mp being a party for Maori?
     • Tiger Mountain 1.1.1

       27 March 2017 at 9:33 am

       never say never in parliamentary politics, and forming a non Nat govt. might well involve including the Māori Party

       your second question is a bit cheeky, but no, with the caveat that the MP is like other parliamentary parties–a cross class party–claiming to represent ‘everyone’ as in all Māori, which is a difficult task in reality
       • weka 1.1.1.1

         27 March 2017 at 10:21 am

         thanks for clarifying. My question then is, how does one form a good working relationship with another party when one has spent years slagging them off?

         “your second question is a bit cheeky, but no, with the caveat that the MP is like other parliamentary parties–a cross class party–claiming to represent ‘everyone’ as in all Māori, which is a difficult task in reality”

         I just wanted to clarify that you weren’t meaning that Mana were valid because they included non-Māori. I agree it’s a really difficult task, and not one I hold any party to particularly. That’s why I like MMP. If we got rid of the 5% threshold, then we could have a range of representations in parliament. If the Mp want to be a more centrist party, that’s fine. I don’t see how it’s any different than NZF being a centrist party tbh.
     • DoublePlusGood 1.1.2

       27 March 2017 at 10:10 am

       That assumes that the MP are actually a party for Māori, when really they’re a party for some Māori, and certainly not the Māori struggling under National’s policies.
       • weka 1.1.2.1

         27 March 2017 at 10:18 am

         You could say that about any party though. There are people who are pro- the social/ecological justice platform of the Greens but who don’t feel represented by them (I don’t as a beneficiary for instance).

         “and certainly not the Māori struggling under National’s policies.”

         How so? If the Mp had sat on the cross benches or in opposition, how would the lot of Māori been improved in the past 9 years. Please give some examples, because I really don’t get it.

         I’m also curious how the Mp could have chosen to not have a C and S agreement with National when their own consultation process with Māori told them to.
         • KJT 1.1.2.1.1

           27 March 2017 at 11:02 am

           I am curious about, why you think the Greens are not for a better life for welfare recipients. Given the Green polices on welfare?

           Greens and Mana are the only parties that want to make welfare livable.

           Labour didn’t even reverse Nationals 1990’s cuts.
           • weka 1.1.2.1.1.1

             27 March 2017 at 11:06 am

             Their policies are great on paper. In reality they’re going with the raise kids out of poverty thing and are very family focussed. And IMO actively sidestepping dealing with bene bashing culture in NZ. As someone who doesn’t have kids, I don’t see the Greens being active on beneficiary issues that affect me and many others who are in a much worse situation than I am. I’ll still vote for them and I still think that our wellbeing is dependent on them getting as many MPs as possible this time (including on welfare, because the only way that Labour aren’t going to do more damage is if they have a strong conscience to the left of them). But that’s not the same as feeling personally represented by them.
             • KJT …

               28 March 2017 at 11:45 am

               Fair enough.
         • DoublePlusGood 1.1.2.1.2

           27 March 2017 at 11:27 am

           How has the lot of Māori been improved by supporting National’s policies in the past 9 years? Is turning a blind eye to National’s vandalism worth a couple of token trinkets National lets the MP have?
           Would you be suggesting that Plaid Cymru or the SNP should be supporting the Conservatives to try and achieve things for Wales and Scotland?
           • Chris 1.1.2.1.2.1

             27 March 2017 at 1:57 pm

             I think the Mp probably agrees with you and that they’ve reassessed their “better to be inside the tent” strategy and decided it’s not the way to do things. If this is the case should we punish the Mp for making a strategic blunder they themselves have acknowledged? I think it’s something we should be celebrating, not punishing. The Mp aren’t neo-libs, they’re closer to traditional Labour than Labour, and Labour has ironically embraced the neo-liberal model. If anyone needs punishing it’s Labour.
             • DoublePlusGood …

               27 March 2017 at 2:33 pm

               I guess that’s somewhat true, but it really depends on what MPs policies turn out to be for this election and whether their political positioning is consistent with that.
             • red-blooded …

               27 March 2017 at 4:24 pm

               From what I’ve seen and heard they’re still using that “inside the tent” mantra. Plus, they’ve chosen 3 times to endorse a Nat government. Finally reassessing that once the tide is starting to turn on that government looks a little convenient.

               Having said that, UF has worked with both, and so have NZ 1st (although their time with the Nats wasn’t happy). Realistically, I don’t think Labour-Greens can say that the door is closed.
       • Chris 1.1.2.2

         27 March 2017 at 2:01 pm

         I think the Mp propping up the nats was an uncomfortable trade-off for them which was about strategy rather than firmly-held policy beliefs. I also think the Mp has rejected that strategy as a failure, and that more on this will be revealed between now and the election.
   • saveNZ 1.2

     27 March 2017 at 9:03 am

     + 1 Tiger Mountain
   • Chris 1.3

     27 March 2017 at 1:47 pm

     I think this was on the cards before the Mana / Mp agreement. Hone’s hatred of National wouldn’t have let him do anything that helped National at the next election. The Mp is being smart by releasing the news slowly. Those who bash the Mp have got short memories. Labour needed to be punished for their F & S sell-out. The climate has reached the point where that punishment can come to an end. The Mp has always been closer to the left philosophically so it’s time to go home. What’s needed now is for Little and Labour to stop their childish opposition to forming a government with the Mp. Labour’s “never forgive” attitude is just strategically dumb. Labour needs all the help it can get.

     Your positions of “never forgive” the Mp on the one hand, and “Mana has more class” on the other are contradictory. If the Mp are never to be forgiven it suggests you’d either prefer them not to be part of a left coalition or that you expect them to stay propping up the nats. If that’s the case, then, I’d say Mana hasn’t got a jot of class because their deal with the Mp will help National form a government. I don’t believe that, though, because I think the Mp made their mind up about ditching the nats before that arrangement was made, and Hone’s banking on it. But if I’m wrong then I’d have to reassess my opinion of Hone and Mana, and I’d be very disappointed if that needed to happen.
     • red-blooded 1.3.1

       27 March 2017 at 4:32 pm

       People who bash Labour re the F&S Act need to remember that it was National that poisoned the waters with their “iwi/kiwi” campaign. That’s not to say that I think it was a good policy, but Labour were in a bloody difficult position. Plus, the Act is also still in place, despite the review that was part of the first MP deal with the Nats.

       It would be interesting to see what a Lab-Green government might consider on this issue now (especially if working with the MP and/or Mana). Today’s Nats would find it harder to run the dog-whistle racist attacks that they did in Brash’s time, partly because of their long-term association with the MP. Hopefully, this would allow a fresh look at this issue.
2. Cinny 2

   27 March 2017 at 7:57 am

   Last week Seymour and Dunne had a go at Smith re the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill.

   Now Maori Party demonstrate their ‘flexibility’.

   Appears to me that the outgoing government are falling apart.
3. marty mars 3

   27 March 2017 at 8:03 am

   Yep interesting move – be good if they could sit and find their common ground with Labour, be good if the attacks from Labour and Little were toned down and more accurate, and would be good for the Māori Party to move past the feelings of betrayal regarding the Foreshore and Seabed – yes I know it was ages ago and we have all moved on except we haven’t moved on at all – there is hurt and the feelings run VERY deep. A bit like how some haven’t really forgiven Labour for Rogernomics and the plethoria of righties they produced in those days eg prebble, dunne, etc
   • Karen 3.1

     27 March 2017 at 10:33 am

     RE attacks – I think that needs to go both ways, Marty.

     Both Rogernomics and the Seabed & Foreshore were betrayals that should never be forgotten because it is the only way to prevent them happening again. To be fair to Little ( and I know you don’t like him) his first conference speech when he became the Labour Party president was to lambast the party for the S & F Act – this is before he became an MP. He opposed it from the beginning. I suspect Helen Clark was getting her Māori issues advice from Shane Jones and Dovil Samuels at the time based on some of their statements since.

     I sympathise with Māori who are unwilling to forgive, however. I was involved in a Labour pre Rogernomics and it took me until 2014 to volunteer to do anything for them again.
     • marty mars 3.1.1

       27 March 2017 at 10:39 am

       Yep good points. It took me decades to even consider watching rugby again after the tour. I was thinking the ‘not kaupapa’ lines – very foolish, hurtful, cruel and wrong. Nothing the Māori Party has said comes close to that spit in the face.

       For me I haven’t forgiven labour for the foreshore and seabed – they can get fucked.
       • weka 3.1.1.1

         27 March 2017 at 10:47 am

         It’s hard to forgive when the injustice still exists (thinking both F & S, and Rogernomics).

         I was horrified about the not kaupapa thing, found it unbelievable given all that has happened. The only thing I could say in Little’s defence is that he has this habit of saying things in interviews that appear to be off the cuff and he doesn’t seem to realise their impact. Not that that is an excuse, but it does seem somewhat different to Clark’s very intentional haters and wreckers comment. On the other hand Little could have taken a step back from what he said, and he didn’t, and so maybe I’m just being naive.

         MMP was a great step for NZ, but we really need to move parliament away from this incessant macho approach.
       • Karen 3.1.1.2

         27 March 2017 at 11:18 am

         “Nothing the Māori Party has said comes close to that spit in the face.”

         Questioning Nanaia’s mana and calling her kūpapa is pretty bad IMO.

         I agree Little shouldn’t have taken the ‘not kaupapa’ line, but I think (hope) he has since been educated about this, and I also think it was an off the cuff response rather than a considered insult like those to Nanaia.
         • marty mars 3.1.1.2.1

           27 March 2017 at 11:30 am

           I haven’t read any Māori Party MP saying that.
           • Karen 3.1.1.2.1.1

             27 March 2017 at 11:58 am

             It was Tuku Morgan who called her kūpapa – Kīngi Tūheitia questioned her mana in his speech (probably written by Tuku).

             There has been lots of other examples I have heard from Ngāti Maniapoto friends but they are hearsay so I won’t repeat them.

             My friends are Kīngitanga and have a lot of respect for Rahui but they are really angry about some of the nasty, underhand stuff being done by Tuku.

             Nanaia is held in very high regard (she is their treaty negotiator) so I think
             I think Tuku Morgan’s tactics are going to backfire.
             • marty mars …

               27 March 2017 at 12:03 pm

               I think they will too – he is known for over estimating his mana, she isn’t.
4. bwaghorn 4

   27 March 2017 at 8:14 am

   mp and dunne will both will swap sides if need be , i have know problem , it’s called mmp .
5. marty mars 5

   27 March 2017 at 9:21 am

   Another aspect is that the way the Māori Party are acting is pretty tika imo. The coalescing can occur at any level e.g. whānau, Iwi – depending on where the threat is. This approach can be very challenging to get especially as it appears counter intuitive to the western approach.
   • weka 5.1

     27 March 2017 at 9:36 am

     Huh. Do you mean that groups can choose a strategy of working with those that threaten them as a response to the threat rather than taking an oppositional stance?
     • xanthe 5.1.1

       27 March 2017 at 9:49 am

       that sounds like very a good plan
     • marty mars 5.1.2

       27 March 2017 at 9:52 am

       No the definition of friend and enemy, and all the bits in between, is mutable depending upon the situation.

       The marae program shows it well with Willie and tuku and Rahui – part 2. They highlight and rip each other for this and laugh at each other and themselves about it too – to others it is incomprehensible – the enemy is the enemy.
       • weka 5.1.2.1

         27 March 2017 at 10:37 am

         So ‘enemy’ is relative to the context? Makes sense and I think is similar to what I am challenging some lefties over. If Labour end up needing the Mp to form govt, do Labour have the skills to form that relationship given the war that’s currently going on?

         Being the soppy greenie that I am, I find the idea that come Sept Labour will suddenly shift and everything’s alright now a bit hard to see as real. How does one do that if one has been trying to kill the other party all year? How would those relationships work in parliament over the coming years if resentment has built up?

         On the other hand, Labour do seem to be in a fight for their own existence, so maybe it’s not personal and they will shake hands at the end and make up.
         • marty mars 5.1.2.1.1

           27 March 2017 at 10:44 am

           Labour can do it by adopting a better, different model.

           Sometimes in times gone past the attackers of a pa had one of their number sneak into the pa to talk and show the people how to escape. Disloyal? To who?

           Labour need to see a much bigger picture than their petty egos and delusions of grandeur – the glory is in winning the war not a battle.

           Edit. I always enjoy your insights – thanks.
           • weka 5.1.2.1.1.1

             27 March 2017 at 4:48 pm

             Likewise marty!

             I am unfortunately relatively resigned to Labour not changing much this year. My best hope is that they run a campaign that has the electorate thinking kindly of them in terms of competency.
6. Karen 6

   27 March 2017 at 10:13 am

   I think Marama Fox would easily be able to work with Labour/Greens – not so sure about Te Ururoa Flavell as I think he is much more embedded with the National Party.

   Personally, I’d much rather Labour/Greens worked with the MP than NZF if it came down to it, but if you are talking about them representing Māori viewpoints then it should be remebered that NZF gets more votes than the MP in many of the Māori electorates. I don’t understand it, but the the thinking behind the choice of most voters in NZ (Māori and Pākehā) is perplexing to me.
   • weka 6.1

     27 March 2017 at 10:39 am

     lol, me too (re NZ voters).

     L/G/Mp seems like a better option to me too.

     Agreed about Flavell, and I did wonder how much of this was a formal move by the Mp and how much was Fox herself.
     • saveNZ 6.1.1

       27 March 2017 at 11:04 am

       Doesn’t perplex me at all, most voters are trying to work out what party is going to give them the best standard of living in the next 3 years firstly and then the best long term standard for them and their family.
7. Bearded Git 7

   27 March 2017 at 10:45 am

   Hopefully this won’t be an issue as the MP will be wiped out after their support for the massively pro-development and anti-landscape RMA reforms.
   • weka 7.1

     27 March 2017 at 10:52 am

     Ah, the RMA. Tell me, if the Mp had been wiped off the face of the earth before the RMA issue came to a head, do you think National would have been able to push it through? And given that they would have had to rely on ACT and UF to do so, who both said they wanted Māori representation taken out of the Act, how would Māori have been better off?

     What could the Mp have done to stop the RMA act?
     • Bearded Git 7.1.1

       27 March 2017 at 11:04 am

       If they had voted against it it would not have become law.
       • weka 7.1.1.1

         27 March 2017 at 11:08 am

         National/ACT/UF had the numbers to pass it without them.
     • Karen 7.1.2

       27 March 2017 at 11:06 am

       The MP should have opposed it going any further at the stage when ACT, UF, NZF, Labour and the Greens were all against it. That would then have been the end of it this election cycle. By supporting it to a further reading they got themselves into a position where UF and Act could play for the redneck vote. The MP were outplayed and the environment will be the loser.
       • weka 7.1.2.1

         27 March 2017 at 11:09 am

         So National wouldn’t have done a deal with ACT/UF at that stage?
         • Karen 7.1.2.1.1

           27 March 2017 at 11:23 am

           They both voted against the bill proceeding at that stage- only the MP kept it alive. The concessions on Māori representation came later allowing UF and Act to play the race card.
           • weka 7.1.2.1.1.1

             27 March 2017 at 11:59 am

             Ok, thanks. Do you think they were in favour of the new Act, or do you think they thought they had no choice?
             • Karen …

               27 March 2017 at 12:26 pm

               They had a choice according to their agreement but I’d only be guessing at their motivation.
               • weka …

                 27 March 2017 at 1:28 pm

                 Do you think they have done that a lot? It’s pretty hard to find the voting record of parties after the fact.
                 • Karen …

                   27 March 2017 at 3:12 pm

                   The MP voting for the sale of state housing was really appalling IMO. Marama justified their support by saying the state wasn’t maintaining them properly so they may as well be with private providers, completely missing the point that not maintaining state houses was a political decision by the Nats. The Nat sold thousands off in the 1990s, then Labour got in and built 8500 more as well as starting upgrading them, then the Nats get back and stopped the upgrades and started selling them off again – and the MP supported them.

                   I haven’t made up my mind about Marama – I think her heart is in the right place, but then she defends actions that seem indefensible to me. I can’t decide whether she is just inexperienced and too readily accepts Nat spin, or she is deferring to Te Ururoa, or she just has too much on her plate and doesn’t investigate properly. This Ngāti Paoa – Pt England case is typical – neither she nor Te Ururoa have a real handle on this issue.They are acting as if it is a Treaty settlement being opposed by middle-class Pākehā when a lot of the opposition to this deal is from working-class residents and local Māori, including many Ngāti Paoa.
                   • Karen …

                     27 March 2017 at 6:15 pm

                     And the MP claim that the Pt England bill is a Treaty settlement is incorrect – it is not. The MP must know this – so why lie?
                   • marty mars …

                     27 March 2017 at 6:33 pm

                     “Ngati Paoa is insisting a development at Point England is part of its treaty settlement.

                     Labour intends to vote against a bill allowing the crown to sell the iwi 11 hectares of a reserve alongside the Tamaki River, because it says developing the city’s green spaces is not the answer to the Auckland Housing crisis.

                     It says if the crown wants to include land for housing in Ngati Paoa’s settlement package it should have made available some of the land freed up by the redevelopment of state housing in Point England and Glen Innes.

                     Iwi spokesperson Hauauru Rawiri says that option was off the table because the crown transferred its interest in the land to Tamaki Regeneration.

                     He says the 300 home development will include affordable and social housing as well as some that will be made available for Ngati Paoa.

                     “We can’t just isolate and focus on the commercial returns. We have to focus on all the well beings, whether it be the environmental impacts, the cultural repatriation of our people back into the area, even the social aspects in terms of of jobs for the local community,” Mr Rawiri says ,”

                     http://www.waateanews.com/waateanews?story_id=MTU5NjU=
                   • weka …

                     27 March 2017 at 6:48 pm

                     I assume the support for HNZ sales is because the Mp policy is to allow iwi and hapū to manage social housing. Which I think is a great idea but should be done in addition to state housing not as a replacement for.

                     I haven’t followed a lot of this, because I started to switch off from conversations here during Turia’s time when it was all about the greedy Māoris and limos. I also think that Whānau Ora got a lot of criticism from some pretty racist places.

                     Pt England I really haven’t gotten my head around. But from what you are saying Flavell and Fox aren’t being particularly competent?

                     I definitely think that there is potential for the Mp to choose National again. I just don’t see how pillorying them, or hoping they disappear from the face of the earth is a useful response to that.
                   • Karen …

                     27 March 2017 at 10:26 pm

                     For some reason I can’t reply to Marty or you Weka so I am hoping you see this here.
                     Marty – it is not a treaty settlement. It is a commercial arrangement where Ngāti Paoa get a 20% share in a housing development on a public reserve in an area designated as high density. The people living there now and in the future need a bit of green space as well as somewhere to live. I grew up near Pt England so I know the area. It is between Glen Innes and Panmure and used to be mostly state housing when I was young. There are a lot of community events in the reserve and parts have high ecological value.

                     There is a lot of opposition within Ngāti Paoa to this deal as well as opposition from the community and Forest and Bird. Also, it is contrary to the Unitary Plan and sets a dangerous precedence for the government to sell off public reserve land for housing. My feeling is that Nick Smith wants desperately to say he’s freed up land for housing so the government are trying to make it more palatable by letting Ngāti Paoa develop at their own expense) a section of it. Peeni Henare discusses the deal in the first part of this interview.
                     http://www.waateanews.com//play_podcast?podlink=NTIyNDE=

                     Weka – the reality is that while thousands of state houses are being sold hundreds of families are living in cars and caravan parks. A large proportion of the homeless are Māori.
   • saveNZ 7.2

     27 March 2017 at 11:04 am

     +1 Bearded Git
8. simonm 8

   27 March 2017 at 11:24 am

   Marama Fox claims: “I think in our hearts we are left-leaning liberals maybe.”

   Ha ha, good one! Fox is a socially conservative Mormon [the ones whose leader Joseph Smith had up to 40 wives, some as young as 14, for “spiritual reasons” ;o) ]. She sits somewhere to the right of Bill English on social justice issues like abortion and marriage equality.

   [she was referring to the Māori electorate in general. Please take more care with your quoting – weka]
   • simonm 8.1

     27 March 2017 at 12:27 pm

     Not a bit of it. I strongly disagree with her position on both these issues and will happily call her out on them at any time.

     Fox has spent the last 9 years staunchly supporting the National government as NZ has gone further down the gurgler.

     Apparently we’re now supposed to believe she’ll just turn over a new leaf and become a “born again” progressive social democrat in a Labour-led government?
     Not me, chum.
     • weka 8.1.1

       27 March 2017 at 12:42 pm

       “Apparently we’re now supposed to believe she’ll just turn over a new leaf and become a “born again” progressive social democrat in a Labour-led government?”

       I haven’t said that. If you don’t understand the post, ask for clarification.

       Are you saying that she is lying when she said she would support a L/G govt?
       • simonm 8.1.1.1

         27 March 2017 at 1:02 pm

         I understood the post just fine, thanks.

         I have no doubt Fox and the Maori Party will attempt to join a Labour led government if they think that will save them from becoming an irrelevance in the NZ parliament once National gets the boot.

         Personally, I’d like to see Labour win all 7 seven Maori seats and the Maori party consigned to the annals of history. As far as I’m concerned they’re a few nobodies who propped up a Tory government which delighted in miring more of its citizens in poverty; all while its donors turned a once pristine environment into a giant sewer.
         • weka 8.1.1.1.1

           27 March 2017 at 1:26 pm

           “I understood the post just fine, thanks.”

           Then I’ll thank you not to misrepresent my posts in your comments. Criticise Fox and the Mp all you like, but don’t misuse what I write to do it.
         • saveNZ 8.1.1.1.2

           27 March 2017 at 3:45 pm

           +1 simonm
9. simbit 9

   27 March 2017 at 11:25 am

   I haven’t voted for Labour since 199O (Margaret Austin, Yaldhurst). Voted Greens and ALCP since then. F&S debacle was predictable. I’m tempted with Willy Jackson’s commitment but also curious re NZF. I’m in Selwyn district, strong National territory. TBH I think NZ in an economic death spiral.
   • weka 9.1

     27 March 2017 at 12:01 pm

     All the more reason to vote strategically to change the govt. If we’re going down I’d much rather have the Greens in power than proto-fascist NACT.
10. Greg 10

    27 March 2017 at 12:23 pm

    I would rather have a ladour greens nzf gov than those Tory boot lickers
    • weka 10.1

      27 March 2017 at 12:43 pm

      Noted. But what I’m really interested in is whether you would prefer the left not to govern if they had to rely on the Mp.
      • JanM 10.1.1

        27 March 2017 at 1:58 pm

        I think the left need to do whatever it takes to become the government. We have so many things teetering on the edge of disaster that another three years of this lot might prove to be nearly irrecoverable. My particular passion is the state that education has got itself into, but health, housing, the environment etc, etc, are all in dire straits.
        If the Maori Party offer a deal – take it! I personally think that going with National was a whoopsy from which they might not recover, but I’m sure they had their valid (in their eyes, anyway) reasons for doing so. Maybe it was a case of keep your friends close and your enemies closer!
      • Chris 10.1.2

        27 March 2017 at 4:31 pm

        Little needs to start warming to the idea. It’s so bleedin’ obvious where the Mp sit in terms of broad policy. If Labour weren’t so arrogant and began acting strategically the left would clean up with the help of the Greens, Mana and the Mp, perhaps even without the need for NZ First. If Labour really wanted to create a better deal for Maori then they should be welcoming Mana and the Mp into the fold, instead of trying to fucking well destroy them, which ultimately means destroying themselves in the process. It’s common sense, of course, but that’s something Labour’s been lacking in for a very long time.
        • weka 10.1.2.1

          27 March 2017 at 4:57 pm

          I agree, although I also understand that at the last election they were scared that being seen to be friendly to Mana would scare off centrist voters. They don’t really have that excuse with the Mp though. We’ve still got some months to go, so maybe there will be some shifts.
11. Sabine 11

    27 March 2017 at 1:16 pm

    when push comes to shove it is up to the three parties to form a working coalition, as clearly they have more in common then what separates them.

    in my opinion tho the Maori Party will at some stage have to acknowledge and comes to term with how the last 9 years of National has affected the country and Maori.

    But should the Parties work together and get National out, yes, they should.
12. NewsFlash 12

    27 March 2017 at 4:19 pm

    In reality, the Mp have to either win a seat outright, or get over the 5% threshold, after the deal with Hone to try and oust Kelvin and not stand a candidate of their own, this may prove to be extremely difficult for them and could be construed as anti Labour, Flavel also went on to say that the Mp expected to win the remainder of the Maori electorate seats, positive optimism I think.

    The Mp have supported National for 9 years and have had plenty of opportunities to “hold them to account”, but history shows that this has not happened.

    Only after the election will we really know where any of the party alliances lie (except those already existing), but it’s always good to have “options”, and at the end of the day, the most crucial aspect, IS TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT, and if that means including the Mp in government with the L/G, then that will be great for all NZ.
13. heman 13

    28 March 2017 at 11:07 am

    @Karen re your post immediately before post 7.2.

    re the point Eng Bill, what would it look like if it was a treaty settlement?
    I am against the bill but this has all been a lot of learnings for me.

    Am I correct to say that of the 300 houses mentioned 20% affordable, 20% social, the remainder private sales, NgatiP will get the 20% social and they can decide who goes in there e.g. they might want to put their own members in there? I understand the 20% affordable will be sold too, but this could potentially be sold to anyone. The remaining 60% will be sold privately so they can make a profit . But before this they might have to help with decant residents from TRC houses.

    Could you help me understand my assumptions/errors a bit better on this?

    see here for more info
    http://saveourreserves.org.nz/point-england/
14. DS 14

    28 March 2017 at 5:39 pm

    The Maori Party are the brown wing of the National Party, and need to be treated as such.

    There is really no scenario where Labour + Greens + NZ First can’t form the government where NAT + ACT + Peter Dunne + Maori Party also can’t. It’s one or the other, and if the Maori Party has to choose between Labour, Greens, and NZ First on one side or National, ACT, and Peter Dunne on the other, we all know which side they will choose.

    In short, the Left will not need the Maori Party to govern – it’ll either be governing with Winston or not at all.
    • heman 14.1

      29 March 2017 at 10:21 am

      yeah but will/can winston work with the labour/greens? more so with labour but less so with greens. Don’t mind voting for winston but not if he partners with nats. And he is not gonna saqy which party he will/won’t work it before election results.

      had enough of nats, 9 years was long enough.
      • weka 14.1.1

        29 March 2017 at 10:26 am

        Pretty much. If we want to change the govt don’t vote NZF. Or TOP for that matter.
      • DS 14.1.2

        29 March 2017 at 4:36 pm

        Agreed. It’s just that Labour can’t govern without NZ First. There is no way Labour and the Greens are getting to 61 seats by themselves.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS