The bigots beneath

Written By: - Date published: 9:38 am, September 17th, 2009 - 39 comments
Categories: maori party, Maori seats, national, racism - Tags:

Last night, Sandra Goudie, the big-mouth of the National Party caucus, said the words out loud that the Nats usually keep in their heads. During the debate on the Supercity, one of the Labour MPs was talking about the success of Maori seats in the Bay of Plenty and how other councillors didn’t object. Goudie yelled out: ‘the others earned their seats’

Get it? The Nats think that Maori seats are frauds, and those who win them are undeserving of their office. You can’t deny there’s a streak of racism underlying that view. These are the same Nats that the Maori Party is working with. They don’t respect the Maori Party MPs. They don’t think there’s any mana in winning their seats. They think they are frauds. No wonder they keep exploiting them.

Hey, Maori Party MPs, time to wake up.

You think you’re going to get an increase in benefits in return for giving up your principles on climate change? Get real. They’re going to screw you like they did on the Maori seats.

You think you’re going to get a good deal on the Foreshore and Seabed? Just wait. They’ll screw you on that too.

If you keep bowing down and sacrificing your eloquently stated principles to save your relationship with the Nats, you’ll just confirm in their minds that you’re not worthy of respect.

39 comments on “The bigots beneath ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. T 1
    17 September 2009 at 9:46 am

    A bit patronising methinks. The Maori Party doesn’t need the left telling them their business any more than the ACT party needs it. The Maori Party aren’t a left wing party that has gone astray and needs to be brought back into line – they don’t fit into the left/right spectrum. They’ll do whatever they think suits them, as they should and their independence ought to be respected. They can be criticised just as ACT and National can be criticised, but this paternalistic tone is unhelpful.

    • snoozer 1.1
      17 September 2009 at 10:03 am

      I don’t see this as patronising. I see it as an expression of what many of us on the Left feel. Here’s a party with Leftwing values (hell, they used to vote with the Greens more than anyone else) who are allowing themselves to be screwed over again and again.

      The thing the Right doesn’t get is that most on the Left actually welcomed the Maori Party. We’re not afraid of plurality and having an independent Maori voice alongside the other Leftwing voices was nothing to be afraid of. Indeed, it was the Right who called the Maori Party a racist party.

      We’re just sad to see them betraying their principles for this fantasy that National will ever do the right thing for them.

      PS. Anyone who thinks that a party doesn’t fit on the left-right spectrum is deluding themselves.

    • roger nome 1.2
      17 September 2009 at 10:22 am

      Mr T – if you did a little research, you’d realise that the Maori Party’s constituency is overwhelmingly left of centre. So i disagree – if they are to represent their constituency, the Maori Party needs to act as a left-leaning anchor in this Government.

      • Rob A 1.2.1
        17 September 2009 at 10:45 am

        So why did the overwhelmingly left of centre electorates vote for a party knowing there was a very good chance they would go into coalition with the Nats?

        I guess the proof of the pudding will be the next election but your arguement seems extremely arrogant to me.

        • Lew 1.2.1.1
          17 September 2009 at 10:47 am

          So why did the overwhelmingly left of centre electorates vote for a party knowing there was a very good chance they would go into coalition with the Nats?

          And more to the point, why did that constituency ratify the party’s intention to go into government with the Nats in a series of hui after the election?

          They were prepared to give it a chance.

          L

          • roger nome 1.2.1.1.1
            17 September 2009 at 11:08 am

            Lew – probably because they decided they could have more influence inside of government than outside. That doesn’t mean they prefered National over Labour, they didn’t have the option of going with Labour.

          • snoozer 1.2.1.1.2
            17 September 2009 at 11:19 am

            lew. 10 mates of Pita’s at a couple of hastely called hui counts as endorsement?

            You’re right though, the Maori Party was prepared to give it a chance. Can’t they see now that it’s not working?

            • Lew 1.2.1.1.2.1
              17 September 2009 at 12:55 pm

              snoozer, if you think that’s what the post-election hui tour was, then you either slept through it or simply don’t know a thing about it.

              L

        • roger nome 1.2.1.2
          17 September 2009 at 11:06 am

          Rob Aiden?

          Because the Maori party was obviously going to go with Labour if they had a choice, but they didn’t. They couldn’t have formed a government with Labour, so you point is moot.

          Why do you think my argument is arrogant? I merely argued based on the facts/statistics.

  2. felix 2
    17 September 2009 at 10:02 am

    You can’t deny there’s not a streak of racism underlying that view.

    Don’t mean to be picky but perhaps someone could fix this up as this thread is going to be confusing enough for some as it is.

  3. Tim Ellis 3
    17 September 2009 at 10:20 am

    It is very patronising of you Marty to lambast the Maori Party for going into government with National to seek benefits for Maori when Labour excluded Maori from the table.

    Your anti Maori Party tirade is typical of the patronising attitude of the Labour Party. Rather than look at why the Labour Party lost the Maori seats in the first place (they neglected Maori voters), Labour then tries to dictate to the Maori Party how their MPs should vote and whom they should support, after having rejected them from influence from 2005-2008 in favour of that nasty bigot Winston Peters.

    • Tigger 3.1
      17 September 2009 at 10:23 am

      Tim – were Maori excluded from the table or the Maori Party? One is not the other and to think so is utterly patronising.

      And at least Labour treated the MP like an adversary and not a lapdog who appears to jump every time the chain is yanked.

    • Maynard J 3.2
      17 September 2009 at 11:45 am

      “It is very patronising of you Marty to lambast the Maori Party for going into government with National to seek benefits for Maori when Labour excluded Maori from the table.”

      Labour did not exclude the Maori party – if anything it was a fairly mutual dislike between Turia and Clark that meant there was no chance of them working together. To be honest, Tim, this is fairly uncontroversial and well known. Why am I having to tell you this? It is almost enough to make me think you are distorting history to make a point that could not be made otherwise.

      Did you not realise that Turia refused to work with Labour after the 2005 election, or are you just lying?

      “Your anti Maori Party tirade is typical of the patronising attitude of the Labour Party.”

      What has this got to do you the Labour Party? Your arrogant demeanour and lies/distortions are typical of the National party, I guess, but that does not mean there is any link between the two.

      “Rather than look at why the Labour Party lost the Maori seats in the first place (they neglected Maori voters), Labour then tries to dictate to the Maori Party how their MPs should vote and whom they should support,”

      How are Labour doing this? How can one party dictate what another does, when there is no formal or even informal agreement between them? That strikes me as a dishonest assessment, Tim. If Labour are doing this via press releases and blogs, for example, is that not the role of the opposition – pointing out where parties are not meeting the needs or desires of their constituents. What is wrong with them being held to account? Surely that is more important than your petty and flawed theory of hypocrisy.

      “after having rejected them from influence from 2005-2008 in favour of that nasty bigot Winston Peters”

      Again, Labour did not reject them, and had no other choice but to work with Winston. Your comment would make equal sense if you said Labour rejected ACT, or National – none of those parties were an option.

  4. roger nome 4
    17 September 2009 at 10:27 am

    T E –

    I think the point is that the Maori Party seems to have forgotten that their constituency is primarily centre left (the statistics show this), and its constant right-leaning backflips are not representitive of its constituency. What’s so hard to understand about that?

  5. Lew 5
    17 September 2009 at 10:43 am

    The māori party need to give National a fair chance to make good, or fail to make good, on their agreements and indications. Lord knows they’ve given successive Labour governments exhaustive opportunities to do so. Withdrawing on the presumption that National will screw them would be a sign of bad faith and would cede ground to National, who would then be able to say (unfalsifiably) that things would have been different if the process had been allowed to continue.

    Besides, what advantage is there in pulling out now? It’s not as if National’s policy will be any better without them. The māori party have made their bed. Now they lie in it. If the experiment fails, it fails; but the only thing which will guarantee failure is aborting it prematurely.

    L

    • Lew 5.1
      17 September 2009 at 10:49 am

      Quoting myself:

      Lord knows they’ve given successive Labour governments exhaustive opportunities to do so.

      ‘They’ here refers to Māori political movements in general, not the māori party, which obviously didn’t. Sorry about that.

      L

    • roger nome 5.2
      17 September 2009 at 11:11 am

      Lew:

      Is it part of their agreement with National that they suppport every single proposal that National puts forward? I don’t think so.

      • Lew 5.2.1
        17 September 2009 at 11:13 am

        Nome, agreed again. But they need to demonstrate good faith and cooperativeness in order to expect the same from National. They have – if National don’t, they will have clear grounds to cut loose. If they hadn’t demonstrated such good faith and cooperativeness, National would have a pretext upon which to deny them the policy and symbolic gains they seek.

        L

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1
          17 September 2009 at 12:26 pm

          Just a feeling but I think you’re deluding yourself. National doesn’t play fair.

        • Lew 5.2.1.2
          17 September 2009 at 12:53 pm

          No reason for others to allow themselves to be dragged down to their level.

          L

          • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.2.1
            17 September 2009 at 2:24 pm

            I’m more pointing to the fact that they shouldn’t have signed up with National in the first place. They’ll get to swallow a few dead rats and then break off the agreement because National didn’t keep to their word. To be more precise, National will keep to it’s word but it’ll be a very narrow definition that isn’t what the MP thought they were signing up to. The spin will be that National did everything right and the MP broke their word.

            • Lew 5.2.1.2.1.1
              17 September 2009 at 2:34 pm

              DTB,

              This is based on a value judgement, a Manichean view of the National party as baby-eating baddies. I don’t accept, and the māori party evidently doesn’t accept that view either.

              Getting screwed was a risk they were prepared to take, which you (in their position) would not. In my view it was a fair risk, given the intransigence of Labour in passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

              If you find yourself in such a position, I urge you to take all (and only) the risks you are willing to take.

              L

    • snoozer 5.3
      17 September 2009 at 11:25 am

      “The māori party need to give National a fair chance to make good, or fail to make good, on their agreements and indications”

      You don’t think we’ve passed this point by now, Lew?

      And frankly your assertion that Labour hasn’t done anything for Moari is grossly ahistorical and insulting – not only to Labour but to our intelligence. Look at the metrics. Maori quality of life has improved vastly thanks to the poverty reduction, full employment, and higher wages policies of Labour governments.

      What’s your bloody National party ever done?

      • Lew 5.3.1
        17 September 2009 at 11:35 am

        snoozer,

        You don’t think we’ve passed this point by now, Lew?

        Absolutely not. It’s not even a year into a three-year agreement. I expect them to stick out at least half the term, and would prefer that they stick out the whole thing. The more opportunities they give the Nats to honour their agreement, the more intransigent the Nats are if they fail to do so.

        And frankly your assertion that Labour hasn’t done anything for Moari is grossly ahistorical and insulting

        I made no such assertion – only that tangata whenua have been extremely patient with and loyal to Labour governments, and remain broadly loyal to Labour even in spite of its own massive intransigence with the FSA.

        What’s your bloody National party ever done?

        Whose bloody National party? Not mine.

        L

  6. ben 6
    17 September 2009 at 11:20 am

    Hey Marty, can you do one of your charts which tells us exactly what Nats think but don’t say? Use three decimal points of precision for extra effect.

    • Maynard J 6.1
      17 September 2009 at 11:48 am

      Why, when someone comes out and says it?

      He could do a chart on your increasing resemblance to a tool though, there would be a nice upwards tending curve in it and they are always pleasing on the eye.

    • lprent 6.2
      17 September 2009 at 12:34 pm

      Hey fuckwit (aka ben) – why not be a negative dickhead who is more characterized by carping than doing anything… It is all I ever see you do…

      I can’t remember you make a comment that actually gives anyone anything to talk over.. Just as series of meaningless spin lines

      • luva 6.2.1
        17 September 2009 at 10:38 pm

        Name calling

        Charming as always

        • lprent 6.2.1.1
          18 September 2009 at 12:56 am

          Yeah my multi-named critic (I was impressed when I realised how many there had been). That is part of my role on this site to promote debate. One of the ways of doing it is to be nastier than the trolls so others don’t have to be.

          Mind you – that was a mild warning..

  7. roger nome 7
    17 September 2009 at 11:23 am

    Lew:

    Agreed – the Maori Party has to draw a line in the sand somewhere re its coflicting obligations to its constituency and National.

    You may argue that they’ve found the correct ballance, but its looking more and more to me, that their abandoning their constituency for the baubles of office. They’re acting far too much like sell-out elites, and not the representitives of the people that they’re supposed to be. They will pay for this at the next election just as NZ first did in 1999 if they’re not careful.

    • Lew 7.1
      17 September 2009 at 11:38 am

      Nome, I don’t think they have found the correct balance, but I think they are trying to find it. I agree that they’re somewhat at sea – especially with the ETS decision. But it’s early days yet. Māori electors are patient, prepared to accept tactical losses for strategic gains, and not prone to making snap decisions. They won’t abandon waka yet, and I don’t believe they want the party to do so either.

      L

  8. Tiger Mountain 8
    17 September 2009 at 11:25 am

    The MP is surely cast against type, in cinematic parlance. Why are people so interested in what the MP gets up to? Well it is the raw edge of politics where theory meets practice. This is not a rehearsal. Their co-operation with an anti worker government appears so likely to be counter productive for many of its own supporters that it is uncomfortable to observe. It will not do to say it is their mistake to make, because the ‘mistake’ of granting further largesse to Nact affects pakeha and other immigrant workers too, not to forget the whenua.

    I would recommend the Kiwi Politico archives where this issue has been chipped away at over many months in a format with more space than the necessarily ‘shoot from the hip’ Standard posts.

    • Lew 8.1
      17 September 2009 at 11:51 am

      Yes, a grand experiment. But also a critical swing constituency with a growth outlook over the long term (browning, etc.) without whom either major party will have a hard time governing in the future.

      And the economic left are pissed that their clients have decided to set up shop nearby with a competing product. There’s a lot of unhealthy schadenfreude.

      L

  9. gobsmacked 9
    17 September 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Next test: Maurice Whilliamson and Wanganui.

    What will the Maori Party do if the Minister for Land Information overturns the decision of the Geographic Board today?

    Whose mana matters more, local MP Chester Borrows or local MP Tariana Turia?

    Will there be a U turn on the H?

    Watch this space …

    • gobsmacked 9.1
      17 September 2009 at 12:44 pm

      And if anybody thinks this issue is no big deal to Turia …

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2874203/Wanganui-spelling-change-right-thing-to-do

      It’s Tariana versus Talkback (i.e. National’s Orewa base). Only one can win.

    • Lew 9.2
      17 September 2009 at 12:52 pm

      gobsmacked: A good question, but the target of your ire is incorrect; Borrows supports the change.

      Still, it’ll be an interesting case. It would be an enormous statement for Williamson to decline the change, and I don’t believe he will. But we’ll see.

      L

      • gobsmacked 9.2.1
        17 September 2009 at 1:04 pm

        My apologies to Chester Borrows (although it’s not ire, more like mockery).

        Michael Laws is giving a press conference this afternoon. This is the classic talkback issue (i.e. heat not light) as that piece I linked to demonstrates – 75 comments in a matter of minutes is Kiwiblog on steroids.

        Key will have to use all his aw-shucks charm on this one.

  10. Murray M 10
    17 September 2009 at 1:29 pm

    The name change will be an absolute bloody disaster. Think of the expense this will impose on gang members having to change thier patches. I guess WINZ will be inundated with requests for emergency grants, and the dopey bastards will probably pay.