Hard News: "Evil called: Can you make a meeting at 11?"
319 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
Outside the studio and press conference, I've found most politicians are actually pretty reasonable people.
And I think having to deal with Paul Henry or Paul Holmes first thing on a Monday morning would drive a saint beyond reason. :)
-
Kyle, sure; he's a git most of the time and he's also capable of thoroughly vile politics. He's not, however, charmless or overly contrived (anymore). His character is his character rather than being some pretense contrived around . Key might have had some casual familiarity that appealed, clearly that's what Crosby Textor latched onto, however it's not nearly enough to obscure the fact that he is still unbelievably short on experience.
-
...however it's not nearly enough to obscure the fact that he is still unbelievably short on experience.
Oh, I don't know -- Lange was something of an experiential lightweight when he became leader of the Opposition, certainly compared to Robert Muldoon.
And, as I pointed out during various iterations of the 'experience' argument in favour of Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln's sole legislative experience before becoming President of the United States was one spectacularly undistinguished two-year term in Congress.
-
Not at all, Mikaere. "disenfranchised" has a rather specific meaning
Actually, it has two meanings, according to the Compact Oxford:
1 deprive of the right to vote.
2 deprive of a right or privilege.Clearly, revoking the Maori seats falls into the second definition. I fail to see how you could conclude that I meant the to use the first definition.
I just believe the Maori seats are well past their use-by date, and deserve to be thrown in the same historical dustbin as the property qualification, male-only suffrage and the idea that (in England) Jews, Catholics, Muslims and non-conformist Protestants were unfit to sit in Parliament.
And when the rest of Maoridom agree with your fatuous argument (that Maori seats are consonant with historical policies that actively denied political participation), then we'll all migrate to the general seats and the matter will be resolved, won't it.
Then again, I'd be happy to swap the Maori seats for a workable political model the encompasses Tino Rangatiratanga.
-
Oh, I don't know -- Lange was something of an experiential lightweight when he became leader of the Opposition, certainly compared to Robert Muldoon.
Well, that's certainly the obvious comparison but somehow I don't think we'll see a repeat of the famous "I love you" interview, more likely a NZ variation on Bentsen v Quayle.
-
Then again, I'd be happy to swap the Maori seats for a workable political model the encompasses Tino Rangatiratanga.
Mikaere, I support your argument in favour of retaining the Maori seats until such a time as Maori and non-Maori agree otherwise, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "workable model of Tino Rangatiratanga"? In my opinion fairly and reasonably settling grievances, albeit for a fraction of their real worth, and promoting/supporting the development of commerically-viable Maori owned and led-business is heading in the right direction.
-
Kyle, sure; he's a git most of the time and he's also capable of thoroughly vile politics.
Oh come on Paul, stay bitter. We were promised universal student allowances in 1996. You're not soft on Lockwood now too are you?
And when the rest of Maoridom agree with your fatuous argument (that Maori seats are consonant with historical policies that actively denied political participation), then we'll all migrate to the general seats and the matter will be resolved, won't it.
I still support the Maori seats, but I agree that if they change, then it'll be the choice of everyone (or everyone's representatives) that decide so. I couldn't see the movement of everyone onto the general roll and the removal of the Maori seats as 'disenfranchisement', under any definition.
-
One of the interesting things about Obama is the way that he's leveraged the internet and raised at least half his money from small donors - meaning he's much less beholding to big money than any recent candidate has been.
He also resolutely refuses to take money from lobbyists. I came across a blog post a few weeks ago from a person who's registered as a DC lobbyist and sent a cheque to the Obama campaign for $100 or thereabouts. It was returned with a polite letter saying thanks but we won't take money from lobbyists. She (I think it was a she) was almost ecstatic in reporting this, because it affirmed her faith in the honesty of Obama's campaign over its pledge not to be bought by lobbyists.
-
Oh come on Paul, stay bitter. We were promised universal student allowances in 1996. You're not soft on Lockwood now too are you?
Hah! Not at all, although in my work with the industry training mob, I had did say to Lockwood that his implementation of Bill Birch's reinterpretation of Phil Goff's review was not too bad. I thought my, qualified, compliment was pleasant enough but Lockwood was as smug as ever... now he's a git.
-
As an antidote to all this depressing how-low-can-we-go dirty dancing that dominates politics today, let's console ourselves with the thought that time really does heal - or at least provide perspective. I invite you to go back in time (not on the net, alas, you'll have to rely on memory or paper), and to imagine, circa 1996, the then opposition finance spokesman taking a break from the election mudfight to laud the then Prime Minister in glowing terms:
Jim, we are very lucky to have someone with your skills and your dedication to New Zealand on board with us.
Thus spake Michael Cullen, launching KiwiRail today.
See you all in 2020, for the inauguration of President Clark ("a towering figure on the world stage" - Prime Minister David Farrar).
-
Actually, it has two meanings, according to the Compact Oxford:
I really got over playing "my dick-tionary is bigger than yours" in high school debate club. You might also want to look up 'denotation' and connotation' while you're at it, Mikaere, because the dog you're whistling for is pretty obvious to me.
And when the rest of Maoridom agree with your fatuous argument (that Maori seats are consonant with historical policies that actively denied political participation), then we'll all migrate to the general seats and the matter will be resolved, won't it.
Sorry for the reality check, but nobody appointed you Kuini o Te Borg to speak for 'Maoridom'. And we don't actually pass legislation by group hug, but through a duly elected Parliament -- which Maori are not now, and never will be, "disenfranchised' from in any meaningful sense. I'd like like you to think through the idea that the Maori seats can't be changed or abolished without "Maori assent" (whatever that means - and I'd seriously like to know). if you want to take that to the reductio ad aburdum (and a deliberately repulsive one) Helen Clark should STFU on any legislation regarding child health, welfare or education because she doesn't have any. And John Key has nothing worthwhile to say on any issue affecting women, unless he comes out as a drag king stat.
-
In my opinion fairly and reasonably settling grievances, albeit for a fraction of their real worth, and promoting/supporting the development of commerically-viable Maori owned and led-business is heading in the right direction.
I agree. My comment about Tino Rangatiratanga stems from the fact that about 93% of the signatories to Te Tiriti signed the Maori version, which does not cede sovereignty, and that hapu and iwi retained it. It's effectively a concept that involves community responsibility and authority.
I said "workable" because if we were to implement something like this we absolutely have to recognise the Pakeha side of our population and find a way to equitably include all ethnicities in participating in the devolved authority that underpins Tino Rangatiratanga.
For example, under a Tino Rangatiratanga-based system, we would not be facing the extinction of tuna (native eels). It be a clear case where the local community would be able to prevent (or allow) commercial eel fishing. Instead, under the centralised Quota Management System, they are heading for extincting in exchange for "fewer than 100 jobs" in the industry. It's simply depressing and completely avoidable.
-
See you all in 2020, for the inauguration of President Clark ("a towering figure on the world stage" - Prime Minister David Farrar).
PM Farrar is preferable to PM Redbaiter or PM Dad4Justice (assuming they're, in fact, all different people).
For example, under a Tino Rangatiratanga-based system, we would not be facing the extinction of tuna (native eels).
I'm far from familiar with the specifics of this, but Maori currently are significant owners, managers, and governors of fishery assets.
-
Craig, really. Comparing JK to Lange, and to Lincoln? More like Warren Harding!
It's sad to see that your political masters have lost all sense of history and honour in their headlong rush to regain the power so cruelly kept from them by the people. They should remember that they tarnish the memory of Ngata and Pomare when they run this populist 'abolish the Maori seats' nonsense.
-
I'd like like you to think through the idea that the Maori seats can't be changed or abolished without "Maori assent" (whatever that means - and I'd seriously like to know). if you want to take that to the reductio ad aburdum (and a deliberately repulsive one) Helen Clark should STFU on any legislation regarding child health, welfare or education because she doesn't have any.
There is a difference between the right to express an opinion and passing authoritarian legislation that ignores the overwhelming wishes of those that are directly targeted by the laws. To provide you with an equally repulsive logical conclusion to what you are presenting, would you be OK with government that passed a law re-criminalising gay sex, or should they, y'know, see if it's cool with the gay community first ?
"Maori assent" (whatever that means - and I'd seriously like to know)
The only model we have at the moment is iwi by iwi, and/or hapu by hapu, such as recently was the case for those involved in the Treelord settlement. A lot more time-consuming that ramming a bill through parliament, and only of use if you are interested in buy-in rather than imposition.
-
Just to quibble.
It was the subsequent laws banning subsistence & traditional fresh water fishing methods, the introduction of Trout & Salmon along with grazing (removes shade and increases water temp, pollution, & predation) that massively impacted tuna numbers.
1866 Oyster Fisheries Act prevented Maori from commercial fishing. The Quota Management scheme still bans small commercial - read sustainable & seasonal - fishing.
Prior to this Maori fishing supported the colonies in NZ.
An increase in population required they work and so an easy answer was to ban maori & give the industry to the new colonists. -
A S,
The only model we have at the moment is iwi by iwi, and/or hapu by hapu, such as recently was the case for those involved in the Treelord settlement. A lot more time-consuming that ramming a bill through parliament, and only of use if you are interested in buy-in rather than imposition.
Iwi/hapu aren't really that good a representive structure for Maori either though. The majority of us who are Maori don't live in our rohe, nor do most of us have strong links back to iwi/hapu. In effect adopting such a model would disenfranchise us just as much, if not more than the status quo, but without the transparency and accountability mechanisms we currently have for monitoring the activities of the govt of the day.
All in all, and speaking as a Maori, I'd rather we stuck with a parliamentary democracy rather than a bunch of small iwi/hapu fiefdoms ruled by those with the right surnames, which is the situation that characterises iwi/hapu politics now....
-
To provide you with an equally repulsive logical conclusion to what you are presenting, would you be OK with government that passed a law re-criminalising gay sex, or should they, y'know, see if it's cool with the gay community first ?
You don't want to come up with a sillier example do you? That one's only moderately silly, I think we should go the whole hog.
What about the 'dead beat Dads' having veto over child support laws? Paedophiles having veto over the criminal code? Beneficiaries setting their own benefit levels?
-
They should remember that they tarnish the memory of Ngata and Pomare when they run this populist 'abolish the Maori seats' nonsense.
It's an interesting point. Who now remembers that some of the most prominent Maori political figures of the past once sat on the Reform and United Party benches?
What irritates me most about National's rhetoric is trollish stuff like this:
"I want to see an inclusive, tolerant society, where every New Zealander is equal before the law.
with its smarmy little implication that Maori have more political rights at the moment than anyone else. There's just a total lack of understanding about what the Treaty was, and on what basis Pakeha law in this country actually rests upon. It wasn't a Treaty of Session, no matter what the British drafters thought, and Maori signatories clearly didn't regard it as one. Certainly, the Maori text doesn't confer session.
-
Kyle, you're missing the point. You've chosen examples that have multiple groups of stakeholders and then assumed only one group should have a veto. You've got to talk to all the groups and weigh up how much they are being affected. For example, "dead beat dads" opinions are weighed against the opinions of their children and former partners.
Not so with gay sexuality, it's nobody else's business. Why should homophobes have a say ?
Abolishing Maori seats without obtaining buy-in from those who choose to be on the roll is equivalent.
-
I want to see an inclusive, tolerant society, where every New Zealander is equal before the law.
with its smarmy little implication that Maori have more political rights at the moment than anyone else.
Agreed. And my next thought is "isn't this a charter for having a flat tax regime ?"
-
Not so with gay sexuality, it's nobody else's business. Why should homophobes have a say ?
Well apart from the obvious that in a democratic country, laws are passed by and for everyone, whether by our representatives in parliament, or by direct vote.
And also the small complication that if only gays get to vote on a measure, a bunch of them are going to have 1. Figure out that they are, and 2. Come out of the closet to vote.
And the fact that you'll get a great deal of debate from people as to whether a law only affects one group of people, or whether other people are affected as well. Homosexual law reform was opposed in part because people thought it would have bad impacts upon our society as a whole. Very few things occur in isolation, and even less are perceived to occur in isolation.
But Homosexual Law Reform is a significant moment in our history. Moving from it being illegal to have gay sex, to legal, is not only significant for people that the law affects, it's also significant for our society as a whole and what it says about our acceptance of difference and how everyone was taking another step towards being 'equal'. None of that would have happened if the vote was restricted only to those that it affected directly. It just would have been a bunch of homosexuals agreeing that they were OK.
The very basis of parliamentary democracy is that decisions are made by all and impact upon some. Everyone is affected by the Maori seats, because our parliament is different in nature as a result of them being there. We don't get a veto just because we're not directly affected.
-
Y'all need to read David Slack's book. It covers the impact the great Treaty cases of the 80s had on the Crown's obligation to consult with Maori on decisions that affected them.
-
You don't want to come up with a sillier example do you?
How about a less emotive example for NZers? If the Scots decide they want to break away from the Union, is that a decision for them, or for all subjects of the UK? It most seriously impacts upon residents of Scotland, but it will have impacts for the rest as well.
Notwistanding my shakey grasp on history, the Americans fought a Civil War over the rights of States to secede from the Union, with the South claiming it was the right of States to decide, and the North claiming all the States had a say in the decision.
-
Craig, really. Comparing JK to Lange, and to Lincoln? More like Warren Harding!
Stanley: Would you like to try getting in the same time zone as my point sometime this century? If "experience" is your hallmark for leadership, then Lincoln was the worse POTUS ever. Franklin and Teddy Rossevelt were kinda crap too. Folks who actually spend some time thinking about such things (like historians and political scientists) take a rather different view.
And it's a simple statement of fact that Lange had been in Parliament for a little under five years when he became leader of the Opposition, and was Prime Minister two years after that. Compare and contrast with Muldoon -- who'd been and MP for twenty four years, nine of those as Prime Minister.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.