National’s rock and hard place

23 comments on “National’s rock and hard place ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianmac 1

   12 April 2010 at 12:30 pm

   A minor point but Finlayson’s response to a question was that Iwi would for example, be able to set up a hotel as long as it was within Consent process. But this is the Seabed and Foreshore, not dry land. Spurious?
   • Pascal's bookie 1.1

     12 April 2010 at 12:41 pm

     Yep. Didn’t see it, but I’m Guessing Duncan went fishing with an interesting question. Which is no excuse for the Minister not correcting him mind you.
   • Matthew Hooton 1.2

     12 April 2010 at 12:48 pm

     Hotels can be built over the foreshore and seabed – http://www.mirvachotels.com/sebel-trinity-wharf-tauranga
     • Bright Red 1.2.1

       12 April 2010 at 12:55 pm

       busy dusting off that racist Orewa speech of your, eh Matthew?

       Maybe ACT would commission an updated version.

       Judging by their angle so far, attacking the concept of public domain, it seems they’re going to angle for some of the disaffected Nat vote.

       A bit of race-baiting should be right up the alley of a former Brash staffer.
     • The Voice of Reason 1.2.2

       12 April 2010 at 1:03 pm

       Hi, again Matthew. While you’ve got a minute, is there any chance you’ll answer my questions here: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/will-winston-be-back-in-2011/#comment-203445
2. Graeme Edgeler 2

   12 April 2010 at 12:32 pm

   How can National’s solution effectively be a rehash of Labour’s, if only National’s gives the veto rights you write about?
   • Bright Red 2.1

     12 April 2010 at 12:46 pm

     The intersting thing about the veto power is it doesn’t give iwi what they want and it is seriously bad news for non-Maori business.

     From the persepctive of ‘does this give iwi what they set up the Maori Party to get’ – you would have to say there is not enough difference from what Labour passed.
3. Zaphod Beeblebrox 3

   12 April 2010 at 1:32 pm

   How can you build something on land/foreshore that no-body owns? If there is no ownership who would be the applicant for resource consent? Who pays the rates, who pays for the rubbish collection and council services?
4. tc 4

   12 April 2010 at 1:37 pm

   It seems to be part of the strategy to make it look like all is fixed and yet nothing is fixed all at the same time so where’s there’s confusion and an ability to negotiate they can spin as a win-win and mop up the red neck votes in the process.

   Unless labour get some very clear messages (short understandable ones not Goff speak) and keep the theme running through till next election……the nat’s will defacto look like solving an issue when they’ve done nothing of the sort.
5. Jim Nald 5

   12 April 2010 at 2:28 pm

   re tc: “solving an issue when they’ve done nothing of the sort”

   That reminds me a friend, a staunch National voter, who was trying to work through the policy madness and saying National could be setting up a booby trap for when Labour gets in.

   To which I replied, National can then resurrect their iwi/kiwi billboards and revive that campaign!
6. tsmithfield 6

   12 April 2010 at 4:02 pm

   Maybe this is smart politics by National.

   Firstly, although some conservative National supporters may not be happy with the arrangement, where else have they got to go? They would perceive Labour to be more liberal towards Maori than National. Hence, if this was an important issue to these voters they would probably tend to move further right (towards ACT) rather than left towards Labour. Hence, weakening of National support on this score is likely to strengthen its natural ally.
   Secondly, National may well pick up support from more liberal and Maori voters who see National as doing the best they can to rectify a perceived injustice against Maori.
   Thirdly, Labour doesn’t have the moral capital to try and benefit from this. For instance, if they complain the bill doesn’t go far enough, their own record with respect to the FS act will trip them up every time. Also, Labour is in no position to mount an IWI/KIWI type of campain without further alienating themselves from Maori.

   Thus, I don’t really see how National can lose from this.
   • Pascal's bookie 6.1

     12 April 2010 at 4:25 pm

     National can lose from this if they start to lose those ‘right wingers’.

     The iwi/kiwi mob aren’t huge and I think you are right that they won’t go to labour. If they go to ACT, and that shows up in the polls, then centrists and liberals will think pretty hard about what that means about what the next NACT govt will look like. Esp if the maori party make signals that they may not necessarily support the National Party after the next election. There are also various promises that were made that were specific to this term. National’s right wing will want that spelt out just as much as their opponents will. though for different reasons.

     National got centrist voters by being Labour lite and promising to keep Roger Douglas sidelined. They need to hold on to the centrists to retain power. It’s not about them gaining more centrists and liberals. The right wingers in the KB comments are all outraged and feel betrayed that Key hasn’t gone far enough in breaking his election promises. They are deluded.

     Another point to bear in mnd is that once the F&S act is done, the mP gains quite a bit of strategic freedom to differentiate themselves from their current colleagues in government.
   • Bright Red 6.2

     12 April 2010 at 4:29 pm

     “Firstly, although some conservative National supporters may not be happy with the arrangement, where else have they got to go?”

     Winston. Peters.

     captcha: literally
     • tsmithfield 6.2.1

       12 April 2010 at 4:45 pm

       Yeh, you could be right on that one.

       Having said that, though, if NZ First is seeking to rebuild its base around red-necks then NZ First will probably end up as another right-wing ally for National as well. Perish the thought though.
       • tsmithfield 6.2.1.1

         12 April 2010 at 4:52 pm

         Another thing, BR, do you think either of the major parties will want to cut a deal with Winston?
         Aferall, he has been the kiss of death to political parties in recent times.
         • felix 6.2.1.1.1

           12 April 2010 at 6:01 pm

           do you think either of the major parties will want to cut a deal with Winston?

           If it meant the difference between govt. and opposition? Both of them would. In a heartbeat. No matter what they say.
           • tsmithfield 6.2.1.1.1.1

             12 April 2010 at 6:23 pm

             Perhaps.

             On the other hand, JK has already taken a stance of not being prepared to deal with WP.
             If he takes the same stance next election, he will probably be believed by voters (given it is consistent with his previous position). This could have the effect of pulling the rug out from under WP’s feet. Right-wing leaning voters will probably decide not to go with NZ First because they would see the only option for NZ First would be a coalition with Labour. This being the case, it could “rescue” National votes potentially lost to NZ First, and at the same time, make it very difficult for NZ First to reach the 5% barrier.
             • felix …

               12 April 2010 at 7:57 pm

               I think you just like the clack clack sound the keys make when you type.
             • tsmithfield …

               12 April 2010 at 8:20 pm

               So, the problem with my logic is? Your problem is when you run out of logical responses you start mindless slanging.

               If National took the approach I am suggesting, then it would make it virtually impossible for Labour to go into a coalition relationship with NZ First. This is because the memory of the previous Labour NZ First fiasco will still be alive and well with most people, including potential Labour voters. Thus, a move by Key to distance National from NZ First would almost certainly be mirrored by Labour. If this is the case, then I doubt NZ First will have much of a future.
             • felix …

               13 April 2010 at 2:08 am

               Nah, I just get bored with pointless speculation very quickly.

               Everything you’ve suggested makes perfect sense as long as each of your predictions is accepted as a certainty. Sorry, but that just ignores too many variables to make it interesting.
7. tc 7

   12 April 2010 at 4:18 pm

   Yup agree, it’s brilliant politics with the MP not needing to see beyond it as they’d be more then happy with using this as proof of their right to exist politically….job done.

   F&S was way too intellectual and backfired electorally from day 1 for labour…..a sword they’ll continue to be jabbed with by nat’s/MP.

   JK will smile and wave his arm of on this issue…….new game, new players with a rather tired opposition looking out of ideas.
8. Adrian 8

   13 April 2010 at 5:14 am

   Remember Winston, even with all the bullshit swirling around him at the last election was only 3 people in 1000 away from Parliament. Add in this debacle, a couple of great televised debates where he makes Key look bewildered ( not a big ask ), sticking to his 3 messages ad infinitum and you have a repeat of the Peter Dunne ” commonsense ” momentum and ” keep the bastards honest ” Winnie is looking at 10% with a scary coterie of coat-tailers. God, he could get that 3 in a 1000 two days after the Epsomites get their revised rates bill.

Links to post

1. pligg.com: posted on 12 April 2010 at 1:18 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS