- Date published:
11:26 pm, May 11th, 2010 - 56 comments
Categories: foreshore and seabed, maori party, national, racism, treaty settlements - Tags: DRIP, Tariana Turia, tuhoe, whanau ora
You can’t mix oil and water, they are too fundamental different. You can swirl things about for a while and it may appear you’ve mixed them but there is an essential difference that can’t be crossed, and it will always win through.
The same is true of political parties with fundamentally different ideologies.
There is an illusion that the Maori Party has been showered with successes by National; that Key, like some alchemist of old, has some how transcended the rules of nature and made a relationship between the party of the Pakeha capitalist class and the party that purports to represent all Maori work despite the inherently conflicting interests of these two groups.
But look closer. Look at the Maori Party’s supposed wins and look at what has actually happened.
Getting Te Tino Rangatiratanga to fly on government buildings on Waitangi Day. Nice but what does it mean when the same government has seen 16,000 more Maori out of work, wages falling, and more Maori in jail?
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If you think that when a government pledges to follow an agreement it means something, then this seems like a success. But Maori should have learnt better long ago. National has made it clear that it considers the DRIP a simple nullity, and the clearly stated intentions of the government not to be bound will mean it can’t be used to shape New Zealand law.
Whanau Ora. It seemed like National was going to place incredible trust in the Maori Party and Maori providers to deliver for their people better than existing state/NGO arrangements. But it has been neutered before it has even begun. It’s funding is just twice that of the John Key Memorial Cycleway and it will be lucky to have twice the impact.
Then we have to add all the times the Nats have openly gone against the Maori Party’s position – the Fire at Will Bill, minimum wage, ETS (how humiliating that was), tertiary education, GST increase. The Maori Party has even had to vote for some of these policies, which it fundamentally opposes, or sacrifice its confidence and supply deal.
The betrayal of Tuhoe is one more betrayal, one more example of Key promising big and failing to deliver. Will it be the final straw? No, not yet. Not quite yet. I pick at best one more day of bluster before Tariana Turia confirms that this issue won’t end the National/Maori Party agreement.
The final straw is coming though – the foreshore and seabed reforms.
Ngati Porou leaders were saying on Maori TV tonight that they have carrying out a system the same as Whanau Ora for more than 20 years, and seem a bit anxious lest the new system dismantles the old. The spokesman was nearly strongly worded.
Tariana Turia was less “annoyed” and said that discussions will continue.
It is hard to see just what the Maori Party has gained. Smoke and mirrors or perhaps Scotch Mist?
BMW’s and Super plans and life long employment at the trough.
I don’t think so. The main issue in regards to the Foreshore and Seabed is title. Maori don’t like the idea of “public domain” that National is pushing and that is the sticking point. The fundamentals of the Foreshore and Seabed are rather agreeable except for the matter of title. You and Marty G and most on the left fundamentally misunderstand Maori’s position on the Foreshore and Seabed. In the end the Maori Party will agree to the solution ultimately made because it delivers more than what they would ever get via court process only and is better than what they’ll get with Labour which is shite.
You also make the huge mistake and this seems to be rather consistent amongst all “Standard” writers. In that what you see as irrelevant such as DRIP and whanau ora etc that you classify as meaningless is wholly important to the Maori Party. You lot can feel free to dismiss them but they’re not being dismissed by the Maori Party.
Look at how your article is positioned. Its basically the same crap you and Marty G have been doing week in and week out. Its a misconception that what you see as betrayal for Maori and what you see as meaningless wins for the Maori Party is somehow the same view held by the Maori Party. When its not. Its fantasy bullshit writing of two people who don’t want National and the Maori Party working together (never wanted them to work together). Who fundamentally misunderstand who the Maori Party are and what the Maori Party wants. You barely cover the issue of Tuhoe because you actually don’t care about it. Instead, you just want to repeat the same set of lies, the same set of mistruths and the same fantasy left-wing view of what you believe the Maori Party should be about.
That’s why you include this paragraph: Then we have to add all the times the Nats have openly gone against the Maori Party’s position the Fire at Will Bill, minimum wage, ETS (how humiliating that was), tertiary education, GST increase. The Maori Party has even had to vote for some of these policies, which it fundamentally opposes, or sacrifice its confidence and supply deal.. When in reality it actually has nothing to do with the Maori Party and one can’t imagine they the Maori Party didn’t understand where National came from on many of those issues. Also in regards to the ETS. The Maori Party got their forestry deal so how that can embarassing to them is beyond me.
In essence what John Key did in regards to Tuhoe was stupid and no doubt does put real pressure on the relationship with the Maori Party. They’ve been spooked when they should have given what Tuhoe wanted despite how acrimonious that is amongst National Party members. That they didn’t showed political opportunism of the worst kind. The real sadness of it all is that Labour and the left aren’t even screaming against it. Phil Goff basically agrees with John Key.
What the whole thing shows is that no matter who is in government. Whether that is Labour or National. Both of the big parties will actively agitate and dog-whistle Maori for politics sake. Of course you’ll deny that. That’s no big surprise but its real and its unfortunate. Therefore, no matter who the Maori Party goes with and what happens in 2011. They’re always going to face opposition as both parties will continue to have progress and then back-track for white/pakeha New Zealand will always be murmuring in the background.
nice one GC.
Its that whole left right ideology thing pakeha/palagi love to distinguish themselves by, but to Pasifikans it doesn’t mean shit.
If Labour have any hope of forging an alliance with the Maori Party they’d better start signalling they will support Whanau Ora if they get elected and if they ever want to win back a Maori electorate seat, they better come out in defense of Tuhoe.
Do they not understand the mana Tuhoe have in the eyes of other iwi and informed Pasifikans ? They are rightly considered the stauchest of the staunch.
One thing I would like to know that I have not seen in the debate so far is:
* how did the Urewera national park become a national park?
* did Tuhoe object to this?
* what are they claiming and what will they do with it?
Can somebody enlighten me, a link or two please.
Yes GC you have hit a few nails there.
If as eddie says we have a oil and water issue – what do you do? Do you stir it up or do you let it settle and seperate? Fake left labour stir it up instead of letting nature take its course – it shows they care – LOL
what do you do? You wake up to the fact you’re being conned.
IMO they already know the con – they’ve had experience with liars since around 1840.
What about you eddie – is stirring going to work?
I love it. better to be betrayed over and again by the actual Right National Party so long as you can tell yourselves you’re spitting in the eye of the “fake left” Labour party, eh?
That’s an agenda driven by bitterness rather than a rational assessment of what’s best for Maori (I don’t need to go through the improved outcomes for Maori under Labour for you again, you know them)
The people I speak to on the Left are not trying to work out how to lure the Maori Party back. We feel sorry for them for abandoning their principles and would love you them to come to their senses – but it’s for them to do.
What bullshit – you know that labour and national are both going for the same constituents and both roll over to their racists when it suits them.
I’m pleased you told the truth about the ‘left’ that you talk to marty g.
I am bitter at labour because of the F&S but we wouldn’t have the maori party but for them so thanks for that. I’m also bitter about rogernomics but I don’t hate labour I just cannot stand bullies and hypocrites and i wish labour would go LEFT.
But in the mean time, you’re happy for the Maori Party to keep supporting the National government? Even after this latest insult?
What about after you get screwed on the F&S?
Why not say a plague on both their houses? Why do you support a National government?
No I’m not fucken very happy at all actually.
I support tino rangatiratanga
So, we agree that for the sake or its principles and its people, the Maori Party should stop propping up a National government that is working against both.
What I’d really like is maori in labour and of the ‘left’ who believe in ‘left’ principles to set up their own party and provide an alternative to the maori party.
Woah, the two Marties!
G — I don’t think anyone is really happy, and you seem unable — or unwilling — to countenance the possibility that people can be somewhat dissatisfied but nevertheless prepared to wait the process out. MÄori are politically extremely patient — patient to a fault, and they’ve had to be. If the MÄori who’ve historically made the most difference for their people — Carroll, Rata, Pomare, Ngata, etc. — had all walked away from crown agreements and negotiations every time they were betrayed or double-crossed or simply outplayed then they’d have done nothing to further their causes. Getting screwed by the settlers and their modern representatives is simply how these things work; it’s happened under Labour, and it’s happened and happening under National, and they just try to make the best of it.
This government isn’t falling apart no matter what the mÄori party does, so the judgement remains the same as the one in November 2008 — can they get more done inside the tent, or out? For all that you and Eddie deride what they have achieved as irrelevant, it’s not inconsiderable compared to dead zero and the Nats being held to ransom by ACT, which is the counterfactual. It seems likely that at some point that the balance will change, and they’ll be in a strongwer position outside the Nat government than within it. At that point, I hope they cut loose; but that point has not yet come. National’s game is to keep the mÄori just enough on-side that they don’t cut loose, while not alienating their base, because to a large extent that support is zero-sum. It’s the same with Labour, who had great difficulty keeping the socially conservative Marxist old guard represented by people like Chris Trotter onside while not alienating MÄori. Most of the time, Labour did a better job, but the Foreshore and Seabed Act remains the single largest confiscation of the 20th Century, and you can’t just minimise the importance of it. Getting that act changed is still the big deal, and while MÄori aren’t going to get everything they want and a pony, they’ve already gotten more than what they got from Labour — so far they’ve got good-faith bargaining, input into the process and access to the courts.
MÄori don’t have the luxury of being able to take the haughty high moral ground and walk away from political partnerships whenever they feel slighted. They have to take what they can get. Labour, almost as much as National, have forced them into that rather sad and demeaning position.
I love the contradiction here:
“MÄori … have to take what they can get. Labour, almost as much as National, have forced them into that rather sad and demeaning position. ”
And yet you support them working with National, even though you say they have to take what they can get and Labour offers more.
You yourself support a National government propped up by the Maori Party.
And have the honesty to not be so ahistorical. You know full well of the social and economic advances for Maori along with all workers under Labour.
Perfect? No. A hell of a lot? Yes.
Your refusal to acknowledge that discredits all the rest.
Marty, while they’re in opposition, Labour offers nothing. If Labour can put themselves in a position to form a government with the mÄori party in 2011 I will be severely pissed off if the mÄori party sides with National again (assuming Labour don’t revive their “blue collars, red necks” strategy).
I don’t support the National government — I support the mÄori party’s right to make their own decisions. Their needs are not mine.
I do acknowledge that Labour have done more for MÄori than National, but that doesn’t give them an entitlement to MÄori support, especially in the wake of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Because of that more than anything else, Labour can’t coast* on its record; it needs to demonstrate how it’ll do better. As I say: if the party wants to regain the support of MÄori, make them a better offer. It shouldn’t be hard.
Let me just see if I follow this. Is Lew saying the Maori party should support whoever is in government, no matter how bad their policies are for Maori?
BR, no. The determination needs to be made on the balance of policies (and likely policies). But if you think an unleavened National and ACT government would have done more for MÄori than what they’re getting at present, then you’re simply living in a different country to me.
Quite apart from all this is the fact that the mÄori party’s long-term goal is to demonstrate that they can work in government. While they haven’t covered themselves in glory (with a couple of exceptions) there’s time. To a large extent they’ll be judge on the Foreshore and Seabed issue and Whanau Ora, which is as it should be, since it’s on those things they’ve staked their reputation. It’s too early to assess those yet.
In that case, Lew, what likely govt can you imagine that the maori party shouldn’t support?
Felix, it’s not too far from the current government on most matters. The things which balance it out are the fact that this government undertook specific policy positions in excahnge for support: a moratorium on scrapping the MÄori seats; a transparent and independent process to reconsider the Foreshore and Seabed Act; consideration of Whanau Ora, etc. Without concessions , this government would have little or nothing to offer. This is why I say it shouldn’t be hard for Labour to make a better offer.
by that logic, lew, the Maori Party should be even more supportive of a government that worse they are for Maori. ‘Sure, they’re sending Maori to work in the salt mines but can you imagine how bad it would be if the Maori Party wasn’t in government with them?’
You’ve gone from arguing the Maori Party is making gains for Maori from supporting the Nats to arguing they are at best a drag on the Nats’ anti-Maori policies (and I don’t see much proof of that).
Oh and is it too early to assess National’s economic policies? or their educational ones? Why are we permitted to make judgements on the quality of policies from the Nats or Lab before they are in place based on what we know of the real world and the design of the policies but we must withhold judgement to some unknown point in the future on Whanau Ora etc?
You’ve got to drop this obsession with Labour ‘making a better offer’ – their better offer is the record which you admit is Labour delivering for workers including Maori.
The only question now (and you admit that with Labour out of power any ‘offer’ they make is irrevelant) is whether the Maori Party ought to be supporting a National government that is taking Maori backwards. Your answer is ‘yes’ meaning you support a National government.
BR, bollocks. The point is that they are making policy gains — Foreshore and Seabed and Whanau Ora, for two — in addition to being a drag on the worst excesses of Nat/ACT government policy. This last is hard to substantiate due to being a counterfactual — but let’s take the moratorium on scrappign the MÄori seats for example.
Just because you don’t place any value on those policy gains doesn’t mean they have no value. Your needs are not their needs. And recall that they do have only five MPs, and aren’t needed for a majority — so what they can potentially achieve is somewhat limited.
Edit: As for judging the government’s policies — some can be judged, fair enough. Some can’t. FSA and Whanau Ora can’t because they’re not implemented yet. At some point a consensus will emerge about how well (or if) they work. I said before that a full term or so should be enough, but that’s admittedly a bit fluffy.
The thing you’re doing is begging the question of whether the present government is ‘taking MÄori backwards’. For you, sure — but you’re not the person who gets to decide, and frankly, your motives and eneds are different from those upon whose behalf you seek to decide. Labour can’t make a better offer with any policymaking ability now, but they sure can lay the groundwork for a future coalition and a government when they can. They need to do so.
Lew, there’s nothing in any of that to suggest that you think there is any likely govt from which the maori party should withhold support.
Face facts- you won’t get anywhere near what you want from Key and the Nationals at the moment. They only care about stitching up the Maori Party coalition for the next election. Read the rports from teh Wairarapa Nat conference from the weekend.
By treating Labour as the enemy don’t you see you are doing exactly what you have been criticising them for.
Felix, what? Any government which refused those core policies would be one not worth supporting (and these are just examples to prove the point). That describes the Nat position for their entire existence except for the past 2.5 years, and ACT’s position to this day. It also describes Labour in 2005 and 2008.
ZB, it’s not about treating Labour as the enemy; it’s about treating them at arm’s length rather than as close allies. This change in posture was undertaken by Labour in the first instance by how they treated MÄori (prior to the party’s formation) regarding the FSA. Anytime they like, they can begin to mend that fence.
“you’re not the person who gets to decide, and frankly, your motives and eneds are different from those upon whose behalf you seek to decide”
Drop the “decide” crap. I’m not trying to “decide” for anyone. It’s interesting though. I’m allowed to criticise the National Party, the ACT Party, and the Labour Party. All of whom I don’t vote for. And I’m allowed to criticise the Greens too. But I’m not allowed to criticise the Maori Party.
Frankly, Lew, that ‘don’t you dare question, you can’t understand’ rubbish is the kind of defence you hear from someone defending a religious, as opposed to rational, standpoint. It’s the refuge of those who don’t have anything better.
My motives are a fairer and more just New Zealand with a fair distribution of wealth created from an environmentally sustainable economy. That’s what all the Left stands for, we just differ on degrees and means.
BR, you might not vote for Nat, ACT, etc. but I think it’s fair to say you do understand them and their philosophical basis. But you’ve shown no evidence that you understand the mÄori party or what it stands for, and you insist on judging it by your own philosophical standards. You’re like someone who complains about a glass of wine, saying it doesn’t have enough of a beery taste.
Which is nice for you, but a bit pointless. It’s not that you can’t understand these things — they’re not unintelligible — it’s that you don’t. It’s perfectly possible to understand them and disagree with them, and that’s a different matter and one with which I’d have a great deal more sympathy.
This misunderstanding is basically the party’s fault; they’ve done a spectacularly poor job of telling the electorate what they stand for and what they mean, leading people (like you) to try and figure it out inductively, proceeding from flawed assumptions. It’s not for me to explain it to you, either, so don’t hold me responsible — I’m not an authority on the matter and don’t claim to understand them completely myself; I’m not a member of the party or even one of its voters. But in this case at least I know what I don’t know.
So again Lew, is there a likely govt you can imagine which the maori party should not support?
Historical ones don’t count (the only example you’ve given so far).
Highly unlikely scenarios don’t count either.
Felix, I’ve made clear examples of conditions which should rule a prospective government out of consideration. Not much point in getting any more hypothetical than that.
Trouble is, Lew, your examples most likely apply to any realistically possible future govt.
Which leaves you essentially still saying that the maori party are best off supporting any government we’re likely to have.
Felix, come on. You think nuking the MÄori seats is permanently off the table? Can you point to me where Labour has committed to repealing teh FSA? If these things are a certainty for future governments it’s because of the mÄori party keeping them on the agenda, not just because the parties which previously held such positions have suddenly and organically realised the error of their ways.
That’s a different question.
But since you raise it, in order to keep the maori seats and a couple of vague promises on the table, should the maori party just suck it up with regard to everything else?
You seem to be saying yes.
Also I didn’t realise the F&S was going to be an issue for the next Labour govt. National, ACT and the maori party were going to sort that out weren’t they? Don’t you think they can do it?
Felix, you’re not usually this obtuse. What I’m talking about is the types of cornerstone issues. I don’t (can’t) know what the corresponding sisues will be for the 2011 election, with the exception of the MÄori seats.
And it’s not a matter of giving up everything else — it’s a matter of weighing things against each other, with these cornerstone issues being a sort of minimum bound. I would say a government promising to return all the foreshores and seabeds to MÄori as part of privatising the whole country (such as the Libertarianz propose) would not be acceptable, either.
Strong passionate response GC.
What are we meant to make of the very strong language that Turia and Flavell have used, particularly in relation to the torpedoing of the Tuhoe negotiations?
Marty is making the very valid point that Maori Party and National Party interests are not reconcilable and the contradictions are becoming more apparent every day.
He makes the really important point that socioeconomic policies that adversely affect the poor, many of who are Maori, are going against the Maori Party stance every time. And the treatment of the Maori Party position on ETS is appalling.
Basically the Maori Party should not be in coalition with National. There is no mana enhancing behaviour going on apart from the provision of a couple of limos.
Eddie – I beat Marty to it
Must read before posting …
And with that last line, “There is no mana enhancing behaviour going on apart from the provision of a couple of limos”, is truly desperate stuff. Not a surprise though when it comes from a complete dickhead such as yourself.
Lets just ignore the fact about Whanau Ora, DRIP, Flags and Waitangi Day, Tobacco excise increase, Private Prisons, PPPs, Constitutional Review of Treaty, ETS deal on forestry, Review of Foreshore and Seabed and very likely full repeal and re-legislation and Aquaculture reform.
You are a condescending fool as is Craig Glen Eden. What the hell is mana enhancing about attacking the Maori Party and Tariana Turia constantly?
Don’t hold back GC. And I was trying to praise you for your previous contribution, sort of.
Nothing like the substitution of reasoned debate with the trading of insults.
I am honestly struggling to work out what the Maori Party has achieved for the poor.
Commenting on the things that you have identified:
Whanau Ora – I still do not know what it means or if it will be of any benefit.
DRIP – Key has assured NZ that there will be no legal effect. And why did they sneak Sharples out of the country to sign it? This is not the sign of commitment, it is cynical avoidance.
Flags – How will this help the poor amongst Maori.
Tobacco Excise tax – good decision.
Private Prisons – how will this help Maori as opposed to overseas Corporations?
Constitutional review of Treaty – This has been going on since 1972.
ETS – they paid off wealthy Maori interests but gutted the scheme. How is this good for Maori?
Foreshore and Seabed review – I am waiting with baited breath. National’s offer, according to Finlayson will be no more than windowdressing.
So the actual benefit for poor Maori as far as I can see is sweet FA.
But they do have access to two limos! Is this what they are to be remembered for?
So we on the left don’t understand the Foreshore and sea bed issue as it affects Maori according to GC. Oh ok, gee sorry GC because you would know obviously aye, you would be right up on the complexity of Maori politics.
Have you ever had a discussion with Turia GC? If you have you will know that talking to her is like handling a snake, just when you think yes ok I see what your point is and re state it back to her she completely flips and turns in the opposite position.
Drip is meaningless GC just yesterday I was talking to people who where Maori Party / Sharples supporters, what they said to me was the Maori has been tricked by Key and that they would be have been better to work with Labour because Labour is principled.
Key offered beads (meaning less DRIP) and blankets ( Maori Flag) to Turia in exchange for ……….. her vote.
What you dont understand GC is Maori have been part of Labour for many years, its not some new voting block or brand for the Labour Party. Turia has never been smart and she certainly does not represent Maoridom because their is no such thing!
Oh yes Labour is principled. That’s why they did the shoddy deal on the Foreshore and Seabed. That’s why Labour MPs are constantly on attack when it comes to the Maori Party. That’s why Goff has back-flipped several times on Maori issues. Get real. Principled my ass.
Your post is just another attack on Turia. Something a number of the left here seem to relish in doing. It just shows your utter contempt for anyone that dares betray the Labour Party. Its why you idiots are too willing to attack the Greens when they dare work with anyone but Labour.
And nobody denies that Labour and Maori have shared a long and on-going pact and nobody denies that is where the party vote is likely to go in 2011. I’m sure not naive about that. One shouldn’t even deny that the Maori Party’s natural home would be with Labour. But to say Turia doesn’t represent Maori when she actually holds a Maori electorate and will hold a Maori electorate in 2011 is truly desperate stuff. And Labour is doing fine in the Maori Party keeping all their Maori Seats.
You lot were all warm and welcoming to the Maori Party before the 2008 election. All talking about how the Maori Party would choose Labour post-election and how the left and Maori Party shared so much in common. As you lot naively sat there and believed Labour could govern again. When the Maori Party dared talk to National post-2008 election we saw utter contempt by so many here. The thought that the Maori Party should idly sit on the opposition benches with Labour and make no gains whatsoever was the only choice by the likes of you. That is where Marty G and Eddie’s constant posts attacking the National-Maori Party relationship comes from. That is why so many of the left here support that position.
“… handling a snake…” oh dear – bit freudian there
I love it when people say, “i spoke to a maori the other day and they said this and that and that is what maori think about that” – meaningless
Labour left maori not the other way around
If you are going to have a go Marty at least learn to read, I said I spoke to Maori Party supporters, NOT ” I Spoke to Maori”,
Only one Maori MP left Labour Marty and that was a lady who is very bitter and twisted.
Labour has a number of MPs who are Maori and judging from Maori voting patterns a large number of people on the Maori electoral role gave their party vote to Labour.
GC stick to the issues if you can, name calling does not help your weak arguments your behaving like a child! If you actually want to assist Maori in any way politically go and spend some time with a few iwi up and down the country you will see that its all a bit more complex than just “Title”. But be warned as they say,fools rush in were angels fare to tread.
Good point re who you spoke to CGE – aroha mai
Hone got it right when asked what was the difference between National and Labour, he replied that “National stab you in the front”
If you honestly believe that the left and Labour are good for Maori then you are seriously deluded. The western political paradigm provides no room for Maori tikanga and Maori tino rangatiratanga. To the left, Maori are just another “minority” that needs to be protected – like workers and the poor etc. To the right, Maori are a means to economic prosperity – either by doing it with them (Whanau ora) or without them (appropriation of foreshore and seabed and its associated mineral reserves).
Maori do not belong to the left just as they do not belong to the right. I know you all have wet dreams that the Maori party will divorce National and come home to the left but it is not going to happen. After 170 years of being shut out of the running of this country the maori party have realised that it is better to be in power having an influence, however small, then it is being “the last cab off the rank”.
Brilliant post Ginger Crunch. I’d love to see you contribute a full article if you ever have the time.
Eddie, you assume NACT has the Maori Party conned. I believe the opposite is true. Key and co think they are throwing MP a few meaningless baubles and the “dumb Maoris” are falling for it. I think the MP must be having a good laugh over the irony of this.
I would remind you that the NZ courts declared the Treaty of Waitangi “a mere nullity” in the 19th Century – and look how far that’s come.
The new foreshore and Seabed Bill has the potential to be a huge improvement on the Labour Party’s ‘burnt offering’ and could be a major advancement for Maori. Whanau ora may only have a foot in the door so far, but there is a powerful maori body attached to that foot, and it’s coming in.
I’m so pissed off with the way Goff is playing this, and I think the LP needs to get over itself. Their current behaviour is not just a violation of what I believe Labour has traditonally stood for as the party which until recently, tried to champion the Maori cause, – it’s also a big tactical mistake. Those who would vote out of their disdain for Maori advancement are always going to vote NACT or NZ First anyway.
With the national party playing the pro-maori development game for the meantime, this could be a huge opportunity for labour to step up to the mark, without the usual dog-whistle hectoring masking their message.
If Labour can form a govt next election (and it’s looking mighty unlikely to me) it will have to make all the “baubles” NACT has thrown Maori work. To redress the past injustices and move NZ forward Labour needs to find ways to ensure the transfer of resources and power that is necessary, doesn’t come disproportionately out of the poorest and least powerful non-Maori to the richest and most powerful Maori. That should be their focus.
On balance, I don’t believe the MP’s coalition with National is worth being associated with the harmful effects of Nationals policy on Maori. On the other hand if the MP stayed out of the tent, National will have to give more hard right concessions to Act and that does not bare thinking about. Whether you agree or not to the arrangement, the MP’s presence in Government does bring Maori issues to the forefront of the political agenda in a way, I have not witnessed in my lifetime. That alone will secure enormous loyalty from Maori voters. The assertions, that National and Labours’ Governments treatment of Maori are the same, is patently wrong and pisses me off. Labour has made mistakes (F&S and Rogernomics) but in general is upfront about its policy agenda. That is not the case with the Nats.
The case of the Tuhoe negotiations raises two issues for me, the Nats refusal to return the Urewera park back to Tuhoe, and the disgusting behavior of the PM. I’m confident that if the cards were turned, Labour would at least negotiate in good faith and not mislead the negotiating team. The return of Te Urewera was always more likely to happen under a labour led government given many on the left support its return, and most on the right do not. I hope in time that will prove to be the case.
See, this is an argument against the mÄori party’s involvement with governemnt I can understand, even if I see the balance differently. It’s one which doesn’t try to measure inputs and outputs with a Marxist policy ruler, dissolving into confusion about why there’s nothing to measure.
That’s the thing with most of the critique of the mÄori party on here — it’s like the ‘E’ on a calculator, which you get when you try to divide by zero. Does not compute. The majority of complainers just don’t get it.
You make some good points Alexandra, in my opinion any way.
Oh yes, lots of pretty arguments here about why the MP have it great under National and how they were done overy by Labour.
Labour was never in coalition with the MP. And to my knowledge Labour has never treated a coalition party with the dishonour that Key just showed Turia. If reports are to be believed he lied about her position on the deal. That’s big stuff. How many more lies will the MP take. It’s like being a relationship with an abusive spouse. You can take the lies, and the blows, for a while but one day it becomes too much – much like a final straw…
No, Tigger, Labour did it to one of its own ministers within the party.
and then she had the guts to leave. Good on her.
Does she have the guts to stand for what she and the people who voted for her believe in now?
I hope so. I don’t think that means leaving yet, but if this continues they’d better walk away.
In theory, Labour can destroy the Maori party in one foul swoop by winning all 7 of the Maori seats. In reality, they won’t. On one hand, they are the only two rivals for the seats, on the other hand Labour will likely always need the Maori Party from now on to form a government.
It’s a dichotomy that Labour are still struggling with. How to destroy the enemy and at the same time how to befriend the enemy. And denial as to why the enemy even exists in the first place.
No wonder so much vitriol is directed towards Turia. Labour still sees her as creating the problem.