Open mike 28/05/2010

45 comments on “Open mike 28/05/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   28 May 2010 at 6:56 am

   The Leader of the opposition Phil Goff has said that he will introduce a private members bill to return ECAN to democratic control.

   Goff was also reported saying on National Radio News, that if, as expected the private members bill fails due to Government opposition, Labour will follow up this commitment with a promise to return ECAN to democratic control immediately on returning to government.

   In my opinion, the issue of democracy versus imposed rule, goes right to the heart of our democratic system of government and the left right divide, and therefore should be considered a watershed issue by all parliamentary parties to demarcate where they stand on the political spectrum.

   The question is, where will the Maori Party stand?

   Will the Labour Party be lobbying the Maori Party to support this bill?

   Is it possible that the left right divide in the coalition, may be widened over this issue of democracy?

   Will the Maori Party leadership order their increasingly restive MPs to support the government? Or will they try to get off the hook, and take the cowards path and call for a conscience vote from their MPs on this issue?

   If they take the second path it will be interesting to see who goes through the Noes door.

   If as I suspect, it would be a minority of two, this will confirm my assessment that the conservatives inside the Maori Party are becoming increasingly isolated.
   • The Voice of Reason 1.1

     28 May 2010 at 7:54 am

     With ya on this one, Jenny. A conscience vote would clearly show the true sympathies of the Maori Party MP’s. I’m picking all 5 of them would vote no, based on the weasel words in Hone’s column you have linked to. They are only going to talk the talk in public, to make it look as if they really, really care, but in Parliament, they will stick with the hand the feeds every time.

     I still think that the MP will have to swallow what’s left of their pride after the next election and work with Labour. By then, they’ll be down to 3 or 4 MPs and hopefully in no place to do further harm to the people they claim to represent.
     • Jenny 1.1.1

       28 May 2010 at 7:59 am

       Well we just have to wait and see, won’t we VOR.

       I just hope you can moderate your sectarian and intolerant tone when you are proved wrong.
       • The Voice of Reason 1.1.1.1

         28 May 2010 at 8:14 am

         Um, I’m talking about a race based party, Jenny. Hard to get more sectarian than that, aye? And yep, I’m proudly intolerant of MP’s who say they are there to represent the poorest in this country, while actively making their lives worse.

         Still, I’ll happily acknowledge it if one or more of them grow a spine in a conscience vote on ECAN.
         • Jenny 1.1.1.1.1

           29 May 2010 at 6:15 am

           VOR apart from your other insults and your pride in being “proudly intolerant”, I think you are using a rather specious argument, to dismiss the Maori Party for being as you say “a race based party”.

           On the grounds that it is a “race based” organisation, you could be just as vehemently opposed to the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

           VOR, applying the same yard-stick you use to spuriously dismiss the Maori Party, “as a race based party”, I am to suppose that you would be just as vehemently opposed to the ANC with the same spurious excuse that the ANC “is a raced based party”.

           In fact for all three organisations you would be wrong.

           What both these two above organisations have in common with the Maori Party is that (though set up to combat specific perceived injustice against one particular group in society) None of these political movements have exclusive raced based membership, (though admittedly, white membership of all three political groupings is a vanishingly small minority.)

           The second clause, of Part 1 of The Maori Party Constitution which lay out the general aims of this party, officially states that “The MāORI PARTY is for all citizens of this country.”

           This is repeated in Part 2 of the Maori Party Constitution on the rules of the Maori Party. In clause 3.1 of Part 2. On membership it states that the Maori Party “accepts membership from anyone”.

           Interestingly, the First Clause, of the First Part, of the Maori Party Constitution, in common with the prominent aims of the two other above mentioned political groups; Which in describing the aims and purpose of the Maori Party is, as to “achieve self determination” properly points out the difference these sorts of political groupings have with other political movements. It is not “race based” as you claim VOR, it is because most other political groupings in this country do not have the achievement of “self determination” of any particular minority as their raison d’etre.

           This is why political movements like the Maori Party will insist on having an independent life of their own and cannot be subsumed or crushed into the Labour Party. Or even (as you hope) be reduced to a minor rump in parliament, subject to the Labour Party’s domination. Because even if the Maori Party is reduced to three MPs, which due to the unpopularity of their coalition with National you predict. I think you will find that they still won’t be tugging their forelocks to you.
           • The Voice of Reason 1.1.1.1.1.1

             29 May 2010 at 9:20 am

             Boy, I really seemed to have bought something to the surface, eh, Jenny? A week ago you were denying that the Maori Party had conservative MP’s, now you think they’ve got a whole wing of them.

             The Maori party’s name defines it as race based. Obviously. Unless you think Maori is not a race, which would be a fun debate in itself.

             And if you want to debate stuff, please don’t put words in my mouth; it’s rude. The ANC and the American Civil rights movement were and are broad based coalitions, not a narrowly focussed political party. What I did say was the race based parties are sectarian. Hard to deny that, eh?

             I never said I was vehemently opposed to the Maori Party though I am opposed to their MP’s shafting the people they claim to represent. I don’t give a stuff about the MP, frankly, but I do rouse my self to comment when folk like yourself defend them as if they are part of the left. Never were, aren’t currently and no sign they ever will be.
             • Jenny …

               29 May 2010 at 1:00 pm

               First of all I have never claimed that the Maori Party did not have conservative MP’s in it.

               If you are going to have a rational debate it pays not to make things up.

               But I do stand by my previous statements that the conservative wing of the Maori Party is in danger of becoming isolated, (and possibly even routed).

               The difference between you and me VOR, is that I try to be objective.

               Whatever the current position, or the future possibilities for the Maori Party, I am prepared to balance the facts and hopefully determine the truth. And as such, I am prepared to accept any objective proof that I am wrong in my assessments. In contrast, I notice that not only do you indulge in all sorts of emotive and prejudicial statements and insults against the Maori Party, you never seem to back them up with any actual facts.

               The only fact you have offered up in defence for your sectarian views is your distaste of their choice of name. Very thin gruel indeed.

               And VOR when you claim that the Maori Party is not of the left, “Never were, aren’t currently and no sign they ever will be.

               You again don’t bother to give any proof of your allegations. Though you wilfully choose to ignore it, there is arguably quite a bit of evidence in the other direction.

               Maybe you feel that because your argument is so powerful you don’t need to state it.

               But in saying all this, It is beyond the point I have been trying to make.

               The Labour Party has previously made coalition government with parties from the right, like New Zealand First Party or United Future and this in itself is no excuse why Labour shouldn’t look to some sort of accommodation with the Maori Party to keep National out.

               Despite your lie about what I said last week this is what I actually said:

               The stakes are high, the current recession is not over, and there is the threat of a new double dip recession starting.

               The policy of the Nats, as we see in the budget, is to instead of cushioning the affects of the recession for the majority of New Zealanders, the Nats seem hell bent on increasing inequality by just protecting the few. National’s policies are all about protecting the elites and bugger the rest of the population.

               It couldn’t be more serious. John Key has made it clear that if National is returned to the treasury benches next year, he will claim an electoral mandate for some extreme right wing policy spearheads.

               The second Key government will I fear be a very different beast.

               Not only can we expect more attacks civil liberties, but we can also expect to see the sell off vital state assets to the benefit of John Key’s rich mates. This privatisation agenda will seriously undermine the material base for the provision of social services by the state, and usher in much greater user pays in health care and education. And all this at a time when recession will be making the social need for these state provided services more vital than ever.

               In my opinion the Labour party will be guilty of being childishly sectarian and irresponsible if they don’t, in the interests of their own supporters and all other grass roots battlers, objectively explore the possibility of an electoral accommodation with the Maori Party if that is what it takes to keep National out.

               Like all political parties the Maori Party has a left and right wing.

               In my estimation, at the moment the conservatives in the Maori Party have the ascendancy. But the make up of the membership of the Maori Party (like the general population of Maori,) is overwhelmingly working class and as we have seen around the 90 day bill have the ability to over rule their leadership when they try to back right wing legislation in the house.

               Hone Harawira is the defacto head of the left wing of the Maori Party, and as such his position is tenuous, the conservatives are just looking for the slightest pretext to expel him.

               This is why I support Harawira’s decision to abide by the majority decision of the Maori Party caucus and vote for the rise in GST. To not do so will see him expelled from his party and thrown into the political wilderness without any mandate to affect the future path that the Maori Party will take after the next election and into the future.

               Without the counter balance of Hone Harawira inside the MP caucus, the conservatives will try to stick with National, no matter what.
2. frustrated 2

   28 May 2010 at 7:37 am

   We have to put up with this monstrosity due to “…… taller buildings allowed for the protection of the existing historic prison buildings.”

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10647968

   Rip the whole fucking thing down stupid place for a prison.
   • The Voice of Reason 2.1

     28 May 2010 at 7:44 am

     It’s not a stupid place for a prison at all. It’s halfway between Auckland Grammar and the Northern Employers Association; couldn’t be more a more appropriate symbol for the next generation of white collar criminals.
     • Jenny 2.1.1

       28 May 2010 at 7:50 am

       All future prisons should be built in the Grammar Zone, so that the rich can hear the screams.
       • Tigger 2.1.1.1

         28 May 2010 at 8:18 am

         And now Granny Herald is blaming Goff for this. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10647968 Headline is Goff refused mayors’ pleas on prison. Of course, it isn’t exactly as simple as him ‘refusing’ their desperate cries of help…but why let reality get in the way of a sexy header…
         • ianmac 2.1.1.1.1

           28 May 2010 at 12:11 pm

           On TV3 Campbell Live last night Banks was given a very long segment to repeat over and over that the prison was all Labours fault. The interviewer was unknown to me but she would say “Now tell me again John. Say what you really think. Now again.” 🙂 Appalling interview 🙁
         • MikeG 2.1.1.1.2

           28 May 2010 at 12:36 pm

           Exactly Tigger, but you forget that the right think they own local government, so therefore a Minister should be able to overturn a decision made by the Council appointed independent commissioners with the support of the Council appointed urban design panel.

           John Banks doesn’t like the building (and I’m not overly in favour of it) but it is no worse than a lot of the buildings constructed during Banks first term.

           I also never realised that the Newmarket viaduct was the gateway to Auckland as Banks kept repeating yesterday. Does he realise that the SuperCity extends beyond Epsom, Newmarket, Parnell and Remuera?
       • frustrated 2.1.1.2

         28 May 2010 at 8:23 am

         Get your degree in political science finished, get a job and do some growing up.
         • BLiP 2.1.1.2.1

           28 May 2010 at 9:44 am

           Sssup with the nick – did you do a jonkey and break your wrist?
       • burt 2.1.1.3

         28 May 2010 at 12:23 pm

         There was noting “rich” about Auckland Grammar until zoning was introduced. Unintended consequences and all that….
   • Armchair Critic 2.2

     28 May 2010 at 9:45 am

     “We have to put up with this monstrosity due to ” taller buildings allowed for the protection of the existing historic prison buildings.”
     Piss off. We have to put up with this monstrosity due to a legacy of ridiculously high imprisonment rates and the failure of successive governments (for a variety of reasons) to properly address the causes of crime.
   • mach1 2.3

     29 May 2010 at 8:21 am

     When we could have a prison like this.
3. Nick C 3

   28 May 2010 at 9:42 am

   TAMIHERE: How do you say on one side of it, oh no, this is damn good and all that sort of stuff and then on the other side of it say, wow shucks, today I thought about it and what you’re doing John is wrong but when I did it, it was right?

   PHIL GOFF: Well, it was right when we did it
   • burt 3.1

     28 May 2010 at 10:37 am

     I’ve changed my opinion of Goff after reading this, we have all know forever that Labour have an “It’s OK when we do it’ mentality but finally they have just come and said it. Goff admitting that the party hasn’t actually got any firm policy directions rather it just takes the opposite direction to National (and the rest of the world) clarifies what Labour actually stand for as a party NOTHING.

     It’s been a long time since a Labour MP/PM has actually been honest enough to say; We just take the opposite position to National, we don’t care why we took that position or what the consequences are we just want to get elected and we will say anything to try and achieve that.
     • lprent 3.1.1

       28 May 2010 at 10:50 am

       I suspect that you have a rather strange idea of what the role of a “loyal opposition” is for in a parliamentary democracy. perhaps you should go and read some material on the theory that underlies the concept and what it is used for.
     • burt 3.1.2

       28 May 2010 at 11:53 am

       So the Westminster conventions can be used to justify the actions of Labour in opposition and can be ignored by Labour when in govt. It really is OK when Labour do it and “it’ is any bloody thing you want “it’ to be as long as “it’ is being done by your team.

       Come on lprent, you gave up the ability to use conventions as justifications for your teams behaviour when you defended Labour killing off Darnton VS Clark because Labour didn’t think the court should rule on them breaking the law because they knew better than the court what the intention of the law was and weather they had broken it or not.

       When it comes to the theory of a parliamentary democracy the separation of powers is about a big as it gets and this was ignored by Labour for their convenience. Justifying hypocrisy using parliamentary conventions against that background is quite sad really.
       • felix 3.1.2.1

         28 May 2010 at 12:52 pm

         Darnton VS Clark ? What’s that?
       • burt 3.1.2.2

         28 May 2010 at 1:02 pm

         Something that illustrated how it is legal for parliamment to act in the capacity of the judiciary (in their own favour) when the ruling of a court may end up being inconvienant for them. Supported by people who didn’t understand (or didn’t want to acknowledge) the cornerstones of parliamentary democracy.
         • felix 3.1.2.2.1

           28 May 2010 at 1:07 pm

           Ever thought of doing a guest post on it? Sort of a retrospective look at the case?
           • lprent 3.1.2.2.1.1

             28 May 2010 at 1:24 pm

             Don’t need to. I can retrospectively just pull the text from one of the numerous threads with people explaining how parliamentary systems operate – and burt saying that it was wrong.

             Have a post a day for a few months? 😈
           • burt 3.1.2.2.1.2

             28 May 2010 at 2:56 pm

             and burt saying that it was wrong.

             Can you clarify lprent;

             Wrong as in it did not happen or wrong as in it is not supposed to happen under Westminster convention of constitutionally restrained parliament?
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     28 May 2010 at 3:01 pm

     I know that this is a hard concept for you RWNJs to grasp so I’ll put it simply. It’s called learning from your mistakes. Something that Labour seems capable of (even if it does sometimes take them awhile) and which National (and ACT and the peter dunne party) seems incapable of doing. Admittedly, I’m not surprised by this, it is, after all, the epitome of a conservative mind.
     • burt 3.2.1

       28 May 2010 at 3:31 pm

       On this issue Goff never said they made a mistake, he said it was OK when they did it. Perhaps you could provide a link which shows he thinks it was wrong when they did it?

       May I suggest you stop apologising for Goff, he has had many opportunities to clarify what he though was right and what he though was wrong this recent quote is clearly him saying it was OK when Labour did it, which is what we are all laughing (or crying) about.
     • Nick C 3.2.2

       28 May 2010 at 8:03 pm

       Lol the quote illustrates that Phil hasnt learned from his mistakes. He doesnt admit it was a mistake in the first place!

       All it shows it that its ok if labour does it.
4. Tigger 4

   28 May 2010 at 10:57 am

   National blocking Labour’s motion in the house yesterday (the motion to ensure Japan cooperated with Maritime NZ over the sinking of the Ady Gil) was another example of how they continue to abandon Peter Bethune and, in the end, support whaling.

   I regard Bethune as a hero. He deserves all the assistance we can give him.
   • True Blue 4.1

     28 May 2010 at 11:44 am

     Pirate Pete is no better that Somali pirates, he deserves what he gets.
     • The Voice of Reason 4.1.1

       28 May 2010 at 1:07 pm

       Interesting comparison. The Somali pirates have taken up their new trade after their old trade, fishing, was destroyed by rapacious western companies. Their coastal fish stocks have been wiped out by mindless greed. They now target the vessels of other western companies and sustain themselves and their communities with the proceeds. Far from ideal, but understandable.

       Bethune, of course, is no pirate and has not been charged with piracy. His ‘crime’ was to highlight the hypocrisy of Japanese ‘scientific’ whaling. No hint of personal enrichment and he is clearly prepared to go to jail to make his point.

       The similarity between Bethune and the Somali pirates is that both are affected by greed, short term profiteering and the indifference of idiots like yourself.
       • True Blue 4.1.1.1

         28 May 2010 at 2:31 pm

         TVOR, even his long surrering wife has deserted him, he’s an idiot and put others lives in danger. 15 years is too short IMO.
         • Tigger 4.1.1.1.1

           28 May 2010 at 2:34 pm

           TB – you’re a great poster-child for the ‘blue’ team. Keep it up!
         • The Voice of Reason 4.1.1.1.2

           28 May 2010 at 6:33 pm

           WTF? Bit creepy, pal. Sharyn Bethune seems to staunch as, from what I’ve seen and read. No doubt she’s doing it tough, but at least she’s doing it. Good on her and the rest of the family.
     • Daveosaurus 4.1.2

       1 June 2010 at 6:30 pm

       This just highlights the problem with the cheapening of the English language by calling any ocean-borne protester a “pirate”. Or calling anyone who tapes a song off the radio a “pirate”, for that matter. There’s no word left that’s strong enough to describe the attacks by the army of a rogue state on a flotilla of unarmed humanitarian aid vessels in the Mediterranean, nor to describe the murder of at least ten of their crew.
5. Alexandra 5

   28 May 2010 at 11:36 am

   Tigger – ‘I regard Bethune as a hero.’
   Me too, the governments lack of support for Bethune is a disgrace and another blow to our once proud reputation for whale conservation. The international community must look at this government with dismay. Unfortunately the governments inaction and actions reflect on us all. Roll on the general election.
6. mach1 6

   28 May 2010 at 12:37 pm

   Top kill’ halts flow of oil and gas.

   Perhaps not, see for yourself,.

   http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:46245.asx?bkup=46260
7. MikeySmokes 7

   28 May 2010 at 1:46 pm

   Bethune is a plonker. I saw his poor wife on close up and its pretty clear that Bethune is just a selfish prick.
   I for one am glad our government isnt wasting any time or money on this fool. Bethune wanted to be a martyr so now he has to do his time.
8. Tigger 8

   28 May 2010 at 3:51 pm

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-14/3748183/PM-criticises-Andy-Hadens-racial-quota-claims

   Key now saying that Haden’s remarks about the Crusaders were”factually incorrect”. Why is he weighing in on this? How can he possibly know it is ‘factually incorrect’? He cannot resist a soundbite our PM…
   • Bill 8.1

     28 May 2010 at 6:31 pm

     It is not permissible to sign post covert or institutional racism in NZ because NZ is not racist. End.

     And because NZ is not racist, it is beyond the pale to suggest that a franchise is covertly racist. In fact, making such a suggestion is in itself racist…because NZ is not racist.

     And referring to the colonial entity of NZ past and present as an expression or extension of racism, is in itself racist because, yup, you’ve guessed it, NZ is not racist.

     Which means that Maori can be disparagingly referred to as cannibals and it’s not racist because NZ is not racist.

     And the person who made that comment can turn right around and with a straight face and no sense of irony condemn the person who comments on possible institutional racism in NZ because NZ is not racist.

     It’s pretty easy to understand once you get with the programme and just remember that simple rules of thumb…if it sounds like white or institutional NZ is being accused of being racist, then the accusation itself is racist. And if it sounds as though white or institutional NZ is being racist, then you should go to the source of that unhealthy perception, condemn it and simply remember that NZ is not racist.
9. Brett Dale 9

   28 May 2010 at 4:24 pm

   TIGGER:

   I cant stand the sport of rugby, I dont follow it at all, Key knows this because the crusaders released a press statement with the ethnicity of the players, it seems every year they have been in existance, they have had way more than three non white players.
   So its case closed.
   • The Voice of Reason 9.1

     28 May 2010 at 6:45 pm

     Yep. Haden was happy enough to support the boers while Mandela rotted in Robben Island, so it seems a tad hypocritical complaining about racism now. Almost as hypocritical as John Key trying to take the moral high ground after the dinner gaffe.

     But given that this is the week an ex Super 14 player was charged with slavery, who knows what other horrors are commonplace in rugger circles? Go the Warriors, I reckon.

Links to post

1. Charles Paringatai: posted on 27 May 2010 at 10:26 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS