Posts by Mikaere Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think Russel means that it won't have an impact on the fact the National will continue to enjoy a majority, although if they win the majority will be increased by one MP.
You're right about Mt Albert not being the top contender for a concerted effort to win a seat in a general election, Auckland Central would be a better target.
However, it isn't fair to say our efforts in that electorate have been half-hearted. Our strategy has been to stand candidates with a view to increasing the party vote. We didn't want candidate votes because these are wasted votes and voters may feel they are effectively supporting the Greens via the candidate vote, and thereafter vote elsewhere with their party vote. Hell, I didn't even vote for myself in 2008 :)
IMO, it would be useful for the Greens to start targetting potentially winnable seats, and Mt Albert will serve as a key learning exercise in this regard. Winning and holding an electorate seat may be key to the Green's survival in the future, especially if National succeed in wrecking MMP.
-
To be fair, those are precisely the Labour issues laid out by Lynn Prentice, who lives in the electorate and seems to be well up to speed on campaigning on them. I suspect he'd rather strongly object to them being claimed as "Green issues".
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I didn't mean that the Green's had a mortgage on these issues (to use a Tamihere-ism), but that they are issues which the Greens would naturally engage. Hopefully there is enough common ground for both parties to work with each other on these issues during the campaign.
If Norman was to poll well enough to let National through the middle, it would damage relations between the parties, at least in the short term and at the grassroots level. I would imagine the local Labour people would feel carpetbagged.
Perhaps this would be similar to how we felt when Labour went with Peters and Dunne in 2005 ? We managed to get over it, I'm sure Labour is capable of doing the same. I take your point though, which is why it would be that the Greens and Labour conduct amicable campaigns - the focus needs to be on issues and how the current government is making things worse, not better. If the Greens do take significant votes off Labour, I would prefer that it is because our campaign was consonant with the electorate, rather than because we conducted an attack against Labour.
OTOH, if Labour lost Mt Albert it could provoke a re-examination of the capability of their current leadership, and perhaps result in a stronger leadership emerging.
-
Which is completely rational for him and for his party, but I don't think it's without political risk.
Can you elaborate on what the risk is ? Even if National win an extra seat, what will be the marginal effect ? They've still got a majority with ACT. One more forgettable National backbencher isn't going to change things much.
As for the Greens, the benefits are quite concrete, and widely supported within the Auckland province and the National Executive (can't speak for other provinces. Labour may not be happy, but that won't stop them doing a deal with the Greens in 2011 if that's what it takes to get back into government.
-
James is right. This by-election is swimming in Green issues: Waterview Motorway, Auckland Super City, St Lukes Enlargement. The publicity we would be able to bring to bear on this issues, especially if we stand a Co-Leader, is a rare golden opportunity.
Then there's the argument that the Greens, being the third largest party in parliament, should act like it and stand in all by-elections.
Instead we get them crying about dirty tricks and smear campaigns. Weak.
If Labour can't lift their game above this sorry level, then do they really deserve to win Mt Albert ?
-
Mikaere, if we want a bi-cultural governance structure (and I know only enough about traditional Maori models to know that it's something we should at least try) it's not going to be achieved by dumping three Maori into a sea of, very likely, white men. They'll be tied into the same processes and failed mechanisms that we've been using for the last 170 years. Worse, they'll be co-opted, with the old boys pointing to their token non-honky colleagues and talking about how Maori are included in the process.
I think we can separate out the arguments here. I think we both agree that we should at least try bi-cultural governance.
The main issue that remains is ensuring an effective representation model for the 22 seats (i.e. non-mana whenua). Sure, only 3 Maori voices on a decision-making committee runs the risk of them being outvoted. However, at least Maori would be at the table, rather than hived off to some consultation committee. And, over time, we could build up concrete quantitative evidence of voting patterns to back up our thesis that Maori could be consistently outvoted. Contrast this with the qualitative (i.e. highly spinable) evidence from consultation processes which result in Maori not being listened to - much harder to prove and easier for the council to spin.
So, how would I construct the governance model ?
1) 20 general wards, 2 Maori wards, 1 mana whenua ward
2) Each ward chooses on it's own election method via STV.
3) Each ward has a number of elected ward-members, but only 1 seat on the council. The ward members choose a representative to be on the council, and have yearly re-selections for their rep.
4) Wards can bind their rep to vote a certain way on specific issues if they have a certain majority (dunno, 2/3rds ?), otherwise the rep may vote differently to the ward's wishes.
5) All votes at ward and council level are public, and reps need to be accountable back to their ward if they don't vote as requested. Perhaps there needs to be a mechanism by which bound votes are registered with the council so the rep can't vote the wrong way.Probably not perfect, but I think this would work a lot better than what is proposed (and what we currently have).
Since the wards are directly represented on the council, I think the issue of them being not funded is essentially OK since they can vote for funding priorities.
-
You mean like the fourth-generation kids from the Chinese workers who came here at the start of the 20th Century? Or the third-generation Tongans whose parents survived the dawn raids? The children of Navtej Singh, maybe?
Yep, everyone in fact.
Look, we've done monocultural governance to death . It has delivered Maori to the bottom rank in a raft of negative stats, and to say that the answer is more monoculturalism* is either at variance with reality, or disingenuous.
How about we try bi-culturalism for, say 170 years, and then see what we think ?
* While our society is multiethnic, our governance institutions are rooted in a monoculture (that of Britain). Representatives from different ethnic backgrounds does not change the structures, so does not equate to multiculturalism
Bi-culturalism attempts to bring both Maori and British governance cultures together. From this perspective, we aren't multicultural (but we are multiethnic). And we can't get to multiculturalism (even if this was possible or desired) without first implementing bi-culturalism.
-
Oh, look, you've answered your own question.
Exactly.
Interestingly, the Crown had no problem whatsoever assuming sovereignty despite the fact that they would have been lucky to make 2% of the population.
Asians, Niueans and everyone else are catered for via the Crown side of Te Tiriti. i.e. the Crown is their representative, but the Crown can not represent Maori - Maori need to do that themselves, hence the requirement for appropriate levels of representation in all levels of government.
If we want to break the mould of "white" governance, Maori-only seats won't do it.
It's certainly a good start, and means that Maori will not be competing with other ethnicities in order to gain representation.
What it will do is encourage resentment amongst the communities of unrepresented ethnicities that are large, and growing.
This is why it is crucial that when people make Aotearoa their home they are educated on bi-culturalism and the role of Te Tiriti in our society.
-
2) I'm not sorry to see the Maori seats go. It's not "acceptable" to say so, I'm sure, but I'm not. If Maori want representation, they can stand alongside all the other candidates.
The thing is, Maori representation at local government levels has been historically very poor, and the proposed "at large" voting system will entrench this.
The fact is, Auckland is home to circa 25% of Maori, as well as the (IIRC) most disenfranchised iwi of all - Ngati Whatua. The proposed system - based on historical observation - will not deliver improved Maori representation.
Is it any coincidence that suburbs with high Maori populations (Glen Innes / Pt England / Otahuhu) have been received the worst levels of funding\investment by the Auckland City Council ? e.g. to where did the million-dollar beach upgrades go ?
The way forward is not to harken back to the 1950s, rather we should be integrating a bi-cultural model in our local government to make sure we get better decisions, ones that are cognisant of everyone's interests - including Maori.
What really annoyed me about Hide's feeble attempt to sell this flawed approach is that he labelled the seats "token", and in the next breath went on about establishing some kind of "consultatiion panel". FFS, "consultation" is even worse than tokenism !
-
Actually, I think Western Springs might be a good location for the BDO. It has natural barriers (lakes, stream) and choke-points that would make securing the northern section of the park pretty straight forward.
Punters could go from the stadium to the field north of the lake, and isn't there a rugby training shed that was used as a Boiler Room during one of the Groove In The Parks a few years back ?
One of the best features of Mt Smart is that it has two levels, so the bleed from the main stages doesn't affect the other stages much.
I went to a BDO in Adelaide, and the bleed was noticeable. But the worst thing was that they had minimal controls over alcohol consumption (no areas set aside for consumption, just grab a beer and wander off with it), so there were discarded beer cans everywhere.
Of course, if that nutty idea to expand the zoo by eating into the park (to house a breeding herd of 5 elephants ) goes ahead, then there will be no large flat area near to the stadium, and it won't be as viable as a BDO location (and will impact Pasifika as well).
On the Nats, did anyone catch Katherine Ryan's interview with Anne Tolley about the new school assessment regime. Apparently, Tolley has no idea what data the MOE need, or what they are going to do with it once they get the (as yet unspecified) data. She's going to consult and see what everyone else thinks because she has no clue herself. And they passed this under urgency !
-
An early winter
Shall chill Australian hearts
The Jonesman is back