New Zealand Megathread - The Milhouse of Australia

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > New Zealand Megathread - The Milhouse of Australia

Felix_Cat: Sep 15, 2008

NZ First however is the weak link on the opposition side, no safe electorate seat and no guarantee of getting the 5 percent. That's not to say they won't, but it's no sure thing.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 06:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 7, 2024 06:42

miss_chaos: Apr 7, 2006

The election is also three years away, and the Roy Morgan bounces around so much a 1% change in a month is statistical noise, really.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 06:30

Solus: May 31, 2011; Drongos.

Felix_Cat posted:

NZ First however is the weak link on the opposition side, no safe electorate seat and no guarantee of getting the 5 percent. That's not to say they won't, but it's no sure thing.

Considering their main support base is gonna die by either the next election or the one after that they're not looking so good.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 08:31

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

miss_chaos posted:

The election is also three years away, and the Roy Morgan bounces around so much a 1% change in a month is statistical noise, really.

True, but at the same time, there is a noticeable downward trend in National's RM poll numbers since shortly after the Rugby World Cup - not that I'm suggesting his awkward 3-way handshake cost him votes or anything. I was more highlighting the overall trend that emerges from a long-term view at the RM polls.
It's also noticeable that whenever the National numbers dipped, they were immediately back to around where they were prior to the slight drop or higher. However, there's a a 10% drop from where they were in the RM polls just 3 months ago and I would say that's certainly a lot more significant than 1%.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 09:11

miss_chaos: Apr 7, 2006

Vagabundo posted:

True, but at the same time, there is a noticeable downward trend in National's RM poll numbers since shortly after the Rugby World Cup - not that I'm suggesting his awkward 3-way handshake cost him votes or anything. I was more highlighting the overall trend that emerges from a long-term view at the RM polls.
It's also noticeable that whenever the National numbers dipped, they were immediately back to around where they were prior to the slight drop or higher. However, there's a a 10% drop from where they were in the RM polls just 3 months ago and I would say that's certainly a lot more significant than 1%.

That's true, but it's polling 2 months after the government was re-elected. So it's all pretty much meaningless and just a way to fill the papers during the summer holiday.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 09:26

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

Felix_Cat posted:

NZ First however is the weak link on the opposition side, no safe electorate seat and no guarantee of getting the 5 percent. That's not to say they won't, but it's no sure thing.

In this situation, if a snap election is done right now and the results reflect the RM polls, NZ First'll end up keeping National in government, assuming Winston keeps his word that he'd be in opposition regardless of who is in government, but the Nats'll effectively be lame ducks.

Even if NZ First doesn't make it back in - and to be honest, Peters is a survivor so I wouldn't bet against him either standing in an electorate in 2014 or taking NZ First above 5% again - it will be interesting to see what the long term fall-out from the SOE Act Article 9 affair is going to be. For all their faults, the Maori Party know which side their bread is buttered on and I wouldn't count against them sidling up to Labour in 2014, if Labour win the next election.

miss_chaos posted:

That's true, but it's polling 2 months after the government was re-elected. So it's all pretty much meaningless and just a way to fill the papers during the summer holiday.

But then again, there's already been quite a bit of activity during the last month and the polls were taken during that period, from National potentially alienating their biggest coalition partner when in the long term, they can't actually afford to do so and any fall-out from the Waitangi protests, where John Key bravely ran away, bravely ran away away.
We'll certainly get a better idea when the other polls are released during the next week or two and whether or not those indicate the same pattern of slowly dwindling support for the Nats that the RM polls do.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 10:26

Butt Wizard: Nov 3, 2005; It was a pornography store. I was buying pornography.

Vagabundo posted:

any fall-out from the Waitangi protests, where John Key bravely ran away, bravely ran away away.

The Waitangi protests are hardly going to be some sort of seismic shift - Harawiras will be Harawiras, just as they have every other year at Waitangi.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 11:33

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

ClubmanGT posted:

The Waitangi protests are hardly going to be some sort of seismic shift - Harawiras will be Harawiras, just as they have every other year at Waitangi.

The thing about Vagabundo's posts is that they're all very well when Vagabundo's just some Internet person shooting the poo poo.

It's a bit depressing when you realize that the Labour strategists basically say the same thing.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 11:39

miss_chaos: Apr 7, 2006

Vagabundo posted:

But then again, there's already been quite a bit of activity during the last month and the polls were taken during that period, from National potentially alienating their biggest coalition partner when in the long term, they can't actually afford to do so and any fall-out from the Waitangi protests, where John Key bravely ran away, bravely ran away away.
We'll certainly get a better idea when the other polls are released during the next week or two and whether or not those indicate the same pattern of slowly dwindling support for the Nats that the RM polls do.

On the contrary, I think the Waitangi events will actually see Key pick up votes rather than lose them. Those protestors will have zero support in the wider public. Some may agree with their sentiments, but basically nobody agrees with their tactics. Key came out of that looking like the bigger person which is never a bad thing.

Not to mention the racial slurs were absolutely disgusting so the protestors aren't exactly winning people over to their cause like that.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 12:10

Big Bad Beetleborg: Apr 8, 2007; Things may come to those who wait...but only the things left by those who hustle.

miss_chaos posted:

Not to mention the racial slurs were absolutely disgusting so the protestors aren't exactly winning people over to their cause like that.

Sharples please.

Any time something happens at Waitangi it is almost always fringe elements no one wants anything to do with, and it only hurts people with legitimate grievances because they get tarred with the same brush.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 20:46

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

miss_chaos posted:

On the contrary, I think the Waitangi events will actually see Key pick up votes rather than lose them. Those protestors will have zero support in the wider public. Some may agree with their sentiments, but basically nobody agrees with their tactics. Key came out of that looking like the bigger person which is never a bad thing.

I don't think this year's round of protests are really the same as previous ones. This time round, there are some fresh grievances against the government with the (mis)handling of Article 9, including the gaffe that gave away they plan on getting rid of that part of the legislation anyway. Unlike the Aotea Square tent city people, the protest hasn't had the time to become hijacked and turned into something about the protesters, rather than their cause either.

miss_chaos posted:

Not to mention the racial slurs were absolutely disgusting so the protestors aren't exactly winning people over to their cause like that.

Hard to argue with that. Calling Sharples a friend of the family probably wasn't the smartest thing that guy's done.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 21:50

miss_chaos: Apr 7, 2006

Vagabundo posted:

I don't think this year's round of protests are really the same as previous ones. This time round, there are some fresh grievances against the government with the (mis)handling of Article 9, including the gaffe that gave away they plan on getting rid of that part of the legislation anyway. Unlike the Aotea Square tent city people, the protest hasn't had the time to become hijacked and turned into something about the protesters, rather than their cause either.

I disagree. That protest was all about the protestors trying to get on TV and trampling on Maori protocol for a attention, with a healthy dose of racial slurs. Maybe different issues, but it's the same old bullshit every year at Waitangi from the same group of people. Those protests will have zero effect on John Key's polling - if anything it will go up. If you want to influence the debate, there's better ways to do it than trying to physically attack someone and casually tossing around that kind language.

# ? Feb 5, 2012 23:58

Moongrave: Jun 19, 2004; Finally Living Rent Free

Yeah, if they really wanted something to get done, they'd have meetings in public places about how much money one group will give to the other to get their way, then get the police involved when someone records it.

# ? Feb 6, 2012 00:01

Varkk: Apr 17, 2004

I see some thinking that this was actually engineered by National to get the footage of angry protesters harassing the PM at Waitangi. Timing of the announcements about Section 9 and the dismantling of the TPK in the week just before Waitangi day to bait the protesters. They then swallowed the bait whole. During the next week he and Sharples will get to announce a new compromise which is probably what they had orginally intended and he gets to look like a statesman playing diplomacy with the factions in NZ. The Maori party gets to say they won concessions and the protesters get made to look silly.

Varkk fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Feb 6, 2012

# ? Feb 6, 2012 00:15

Butt Wizard: Nov 3, 2005; It was a pornography store. I was buying pornography.

Varkk posted:

The Maori party gets to say they won concessions and the protesters get made to look silly.

Yea, this is clearly it. Despite the fact that there are protests every year at Waitangi. Or are you going to tell me getting roughed up a couple of years ago was just Key playing the long game? They would have been there no matter what, they would have been calling people niggers no matter what, and unless they kill someone then they'll just get ignored by the majority of people like they do every year, and any legitimate points worth making get lost in the mire.

# ? Feb 6, 2012 01:18

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

Based on what's in the news, it seems like the focus has shifted away from protests anyway and on to what they are protesting about.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Waitangi-politics-celebrations-continue/tabid/423/articleID/241974/Default.aspx

and

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10783711

Except for government-owned TVNZ, which chose to focus on protest in their midday bulletin.

Also, this:

Tariana Turia posted:

In writing to you, I take my lead from Sir Graham Latimer. Twenty-four years ago, he published a full page advertisement in major newspapers throughout the land. His letter included the English text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

He wrote to the people, telling them what they had told him - that the Treaty had no meaning, for most New Zealanders it lacked any relevance to their lives.

Sir Graham begged to differ. He did so on the basis of 24 words, encapsulated in section nine of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986. "Nothing in this law shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi."

With those words, a platform was established for Treaty jurisprudence; but more importantly the pathway to nationhood which enables all of us to call New Zealand home.

Out of those words have emerged far-reaching decisions in education, land, te reo Maori, in forestry, in radio, in television. They have, in many respects, defined our nation, ensuring that Maori have the same right as others to the protection of the law; recognising their unique distinctiveness as tangata whenua and as one of two partners to the Treaty. And vitally, it reminds us all of the constitutional significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as instructing us how to live together as Treaty partners.

Protecting the special character of our "home" has been at the essence of the action we have taken last week.

I am not one prone to idle threats. Only one month into the 50th Parliament, the last thing anyone would have wanted would be disruption as is now likely. But to be honest, we never contemplated that the Government would dare to throw into question a legislative clause which many have described as establishing the foundation for a treaty-based nation.

Section nine. One sentence of law that changed, forever, the landscape of the Treaty debate that shapes our nation. Those words provided the basis for placing the Treaty at the heart of our ongoing growth as a nation.

I talk about our concept of home. When we think "treaty" it is so often in familial terms. We refer to Waitangi as the birthplace of the nation; the signing of the Treaty as the birth of this land we know as Aotearoa.

And so it was not surprising to read a description of the key players in the 1987 Lands Case as "parents". Justice Sir David Baragwanath, who as QC led Sian Elias and Martin Dawson for the plaintiffs in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, has written powerfully about the significance of that case as a turning point in our history. In his contribution to the "In Good Faith" symposium of June 2007, he traced the impeccable lineage of the key players involved some 20 years earlier.

He named several true parents of the Maori Council case: Dame Whina Cooper, the matriarch of the 1975 land march; Matiu Rata, the visionary behind the Waitangi Tribunal; Nganeko Minhinnick, the driving force in the Manukau claim.

We must never forget the heroic courage of Sir Graham Latimer, or as Sir Howard Morrison once said, "the bloke who mortgaged his farm in 1987, with Lady Emily's support, to take on the Crown". The chairman of the Maori Council - and Maori vice-president of the National Party from 1981 to 1992 - Sir Graham has done much to bring the Treaty into focus for us all.

Our home today in Aotearoa owes so much to these people who dared to have the audacity to believe, "in good faith", that the Treaty was worth fighting for.

It has been so disappointing that the advice the Prime Minister received last week did not enable him to see the magnitude of section nine. It was a mistake to suggest that section nine was "largely symbolic" and to extrapolate further that it had not even been used. Frankly, it missed the point.

Numerous commentators have proven otherwise - that section nine led directly to the more empowering provisions of sections 27a-d in the State-Owned Enterprises Act; it had direct bearing on the coal case, the broadcasting assets case that was central to the creation of Maori Television; the New Zealand Maori Council's settlement over the forestry assets. And, as public law specialist Mai Chen said in the Herald recently, it was the starting point of "an incremental but significant constitutional change in New Zealand".

The encouraging advice that nothing should permit the Crown to act in a manner that was inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi provided clarity to the courts; it enabled them, for the first time, to test the actions of the Crown against the principles of the Treaty.

Although the statute stands as an important testimony to the power of the Lands Case, it is the ongoing journey towards nationhood that has kept me awake over this last week.

And so to coin a phrase, I believe that the elegant way forward that is being sought comes back, ironically, to the nub of the debate over section nine.

Over this last week, I have thought back to the legacy of the leadership that brought the lands case to fruition. These were people in our living memory; too many are no longer with us, but their imprint will never die. They had an expectation of us that we will uphold the importance of the Treaty relationship; an expectation that I cannot ignore.

The representations made to Government at that time were hard fought for. We must honour the legacy of those who campaigned to create the constitutional guarantee to Maori that has arisen through interpretation of the Treaty principles.

Any diminution of section nine would be mana-diminishing for the Crown and the people she represents.

There are times when you know that the essence of all you believe in will be undermined by a particular action - and you have to make a stand. This is one of those times. We have no option but to stand strong on this matter; to take other New Zealanders along with us; to have faith in our foundations as a nation.

Section nine is not just a technical provision in law. At its core, it is about people talking together for our common good.

For the fundamental import of section nine was the pathway it provided for the creation of principles which have influenced the courts, settlement legislation and indeed our most intimate and meaningful relationships between Maori and the Crown. Those principles included themes of partnership, protection and participation; they represent the ultimate expression of good faith; of being fair to one another; of acting honourably.

The principles outline a prescription for a relationship which is central to our constitution; an exquisite blueprint for a nation in which kawanatanga and rangatiratanga sit alongside each other. There is a natural tension between these two forces which must be resolved in each case as it occurs. The nation should expect this from time to time.

The Treaty provides a framework for how we might be. And quite simply, that's worth fighting for.

- Na, Tariana
By Tariana Turia

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10783608

From the looks of it, Sharples is trying to play peacemaker and is taking a softly-softly approach which has served instead to alienate his own constituency and perhaps some influential members of his own party. Turia does not seem particularly averse to walking away from coalition (she also has a notable prior in this when she walked from Labour to form the Maori Party after the Foreshore and Seabed bill and she's being pretty unambiguous here) and from the sounds of it, Flavell's contemplating it as well.

Obviously, it won't change the way the country is governed, but it's not been a happy start to a second term for National, who are fast losing friends when they can't afford to in the long-term.

Edit: Flavell's more than contemplating leaving the coalition from the looks of it:

The Maori Party posted:

Te Ururoa Flavell
MP for Waiariki
Sunday, February 05, 2012

Flavell calls for Iwi to go to Court on Section 9

Te Ururoa Flavell, Māori Party MP for Waiariki, is encouraging Iwi to put Section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act to the test, and take their cases to Court.

"I am asking for Iwi and Māori Trusts to keep the pressure on the Government, and to test your rights as tangata whenua through the Tribunal and the Courts." said Flavell.

"Sir Graham Latimer and the New Zealand Māori Council fought hard to put this clause in place to ensure that we had an avenue through which we could exercise our rights as tangata whenua."

"The principles of participation, active protection, and partnership are in place to protect the relationship between Treaty partners, which is yet again being put to the test."

"We must take our claims to Court to challenge whether the Crown is abiding by those principles, especially since we have yet to settle Treaty claims related to water, and the use of water resources."

"Today Iwi present at the Chairs Forum in Waitangi expressed unanimous support to apply Section 9 to the new legislation applying to the power companies to be partially privatised. I support that call, and urge our Iwi and hapu to take the next step." said Flavell.

"To start selling shares in State owned enterprises to private investors without settling pre-existing claims, is to prejudice the Treaty process. Surely this must be 'inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty.'"

Flavell said "This was exactly the reason why the clause was put in the legislation in the first place, so lets test it."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1202/S00050/flavell-calls-for-iwi-to-go-to-court-on-section-9.htm

edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Feb 6, 2012

# ? Feb 6, 2012 01:44

roarshark: Apr 7, 2002; i got killed by black bugs on my video game

Vagabundo posted:

I they can't actually afford to do so and any fall-out from the Waitangi protests, where John Key bravely ran away, bravely ran away away.

You'd do well as a Labour strategist. You've got exactly the kind of doublethink they're after.

# ? Feb 6, 2012 07:07

dusty: Nov 30, 2004

Flavell is the only one with any real skin in game - which is why he's suddenly interested in appealling to the electorate. Reading between the lines I'd pick Pita is the only one wanting to support National - hence the good cop routine. There was talk of Flavell wanting to roll him earlier this year iirc, so clearly all is not copacetic below the surface of the party.

I enjoy reading schtick like this:

Tariana posted:

I am not one prone to idle threats.

In light of the Maori Party's complete capitulation over the Seabed & Foreshore - if they hadn't been so eager to abandon the position of tinorangatiratanga on the beaches I'd have taken them seriously. Tariana loving loves the crown limos.

Though Paddy Gower on the telly was claiming that due to the sale including water and generating capacity that these supposedly limited asset sales could be seen as a bloody big loss to Maori if they lose rights they currently enjoy.

I still think that Tariana lying though - all they are doing is pushing the price higher for JK, he knows that they'll jump on with the right incentive. Except he'll choose to describe as "elegant".

# ? Feb 6, 2012 12:01

miss_chaos: Apr 7, 2006

dusty posted:

Flavell is the only one with any real skin in game - which is why he's suddenly interested in appealling to the electorate. Reading between the lines I'd pick Pita is the only one wanting to support National - hence the good cop routine. There was talk of Flavell wanting to roll him earlier this year iirc, so clearly all is not copacetic below the surface of the party.

I'm not sure so about that. Tariana Turia deeply despises the Labour Party from a personal perspective and that's pretty much the only reason the Maori Party keep sticking it to them.

I definitely get the impression that Tariana calls the shots, for better for worse. I also think that John Key realises exactly what she's trying to do, and he's a much better politician than she is. He very rarely comes out of anything like this without the upper hand.

miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Feb 6, 2012

# ? Feb 6, 2012 12:41

dusty: Nov 30, 2004

miss_chaos posted:

I'm not sure so about that. Tariana Turia deeply despises the Labour Party from a personal perspective and that's pretty much the only reason the Maori Party keep sticking it to them.

Turia is fueled on nothing but bile and spite; her hatred for Labour is something else. And fair enough too in a way: Labour proper-hosed the foreshore (with opposition coming from everyone: rednecks, greens, Maori, academia; infact anyone who wasn't a Labour MP at the time. What's the last substantive push Labour made for Maori - the 4th Labour Gvt canned their headline social policy Closing the Gaps, so in my estimation you'd have to go back to historical claims in 1985.

I was pleased when the Maori Party split with Labour, it's just a shame they turned out so rubbish. The problems the Maori electorate faces deserves better representation than they've had up till now. Tonight on 3 I was treated to the most hilarious thing I've seen in some time - Harawera leaning down the camera lense, wagging the finger and telling it straight to the Maori Party to walk away from the coalition. It's great loving TV, and it's a great little moral delema: walk away and stay true, or sell it out to the man.

But seriously, why the hell would she walk away? She's got it all planned out. Great job, great benefits, the satisfaction of knifing departments you hate, it's champagne and caviar compared to the poorly paid opposition benches.

But just think: Flavell isn't a leader, he isn't a minister, and he is running for reelection. What would you do?

dusty fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Feb 6, 2012

# ? Feb 6, 2012 16:50

miss_chaos: Apr 7, 2006

dusty posted:

Turia is fueled on nothing but bile and spite; her hatred for Labour is something else. And fair enough too in a way: Labour proper-hosed the foreshore (with opposition coming from everyone: rednecks, greens, Maori, academia; infact anyone who wasn't a Labour MP at the time. What's the last substantive push Labour made for Maori - the 4th Labour Gvt canned their headline social policy Closing the Gaps, so in my estimation you'd have to go back to historical claims in 1985.

I was pleased when the Maori Party split with Labour, it's just a shame they turned out so rubbish. The problems the Maori electorate faces deserves better representation than they've had up till now. Tonight on 3 I was treated to the most hilarious thing I've seen in some time - Harawera leaning down the camera lense, wagging the finger and telling it straight to the Maori Party to walk away from the coalition. It's great loving TV, and it's a great little moral delema: walk away and stay true, or sell it out to the man.

But seriously, why the hell would she walk away? She's got it all planned out. Great job, great benefits, the satisfaction of knifing departments you hate, it's champagne and caviar compared to the poorly paid opposition benches.

But just think: Flavell isn't a leader, he isn't a minister, and he is running for reelection. What would you do?

Sharples is supposed to retire this term so that's the the Flavell stuff comes about. I don't think it's animosity.

On an unrelated point about public opinion on assets sales, I'm starting to wonder if the public opposition to asset sales is more 'well I don't really have an opinion, but since you're asking me in this poll and I don't want to see unpatriotic, I'm going to say I'm against it when really I don't really care". It just hasn't picked up steam in the mainstream. Key flagged it well in advance and despite a heavy campaign by Labour, it didn't really go anywhere. It would certainly explain why the polls say the public is against asset sales, but on the whole no one is really motivated to change their vote or take action against it. There's just no heat in the issue. It kind of showed how little political judgment Labor had when they went to war over it based on focus groups and polling but couldn't get any traction. Sort of a Bill Bradley effect.

# ? Feb 7, 2012 00:42

Moongrave: Jun 19, 2004; Finally Living Rent Free

miss_chaos posted:

Sharples is supposed to retire this term so that's the the Flavell stuff comes about. I don't think it's animosity.

On an unrelated point about public opinion on assets sales, I'm starting to wonder if the public opposition to asset sales is more 'well I don't really have an opinion, but since you're asking me in this poll and I don't want to see unpatriotic, I'm going to say I'm against it when really I don't really care". It just hasn't picked up steam in the mainstream. Key flagged it well in advance and despite a heavy campaign by Labour, it didn't really go anywhere. It would certainly explain why the polls say the public is against asset sales, but on the whole no one is really motivated to change their vote or take action against it. There's just no heat in the issue. It kind of showed how little political judgment Labor had when they went to war over it based on focus groups and polling but couldn't get any traction. Sort of a Bill Bradley effect.

It's more that we can't do poo poo.

John Key already said he doesn't care if people don't want them sold.

# ? Feb 7, 2012 03:50

Red_Fred: Oct 21, 2010; Fallen Rib

NITOS FLAME KEEPER posted:

It's more that we can't do poo poo.

John Key already said he doesn't care ~~if people don't want them sold.~~

Business as usual then for Johnkey.

# ? Feb 7, 2012 04:08

Moongrave: Jun 19, 2004; Finally Living Rent Free

Red_Fred posted:

Business as usual then for Johnkey.

Democracy just doesn't work.

# ? Feb 7, 2012 04:12

dusty: Nov 30, 2004

Headline policy for the Maori Party: taxpayer funded family reunions.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6378062/Whanau-Ora-a-waste-of-money

A lot of people hate Winnie, but gently caress-me is he a good opposition MP. Where the gently caress where you Labour?

# ? Feb 7, 2012 04:29

Butt Wizard: Nov 3, 2005; It was a pornography store. I was buying pornography.

dusty posted:

Headline policy for the Maori Party: taxpayer funded family reunions.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6378062/Whanau-Ora-a-waste-of-money

A lot of people hate Winnie, but gently caress-me is he a good opposition MP. Where the gently caress where you Labour?

I'd prefer not to take lessons in separatist politics from the guy who rallied against an Asian invasion, was Foreign Affairs Minister when we signed a FTA with China and is now rallying against Government policies on asset sales to the Chinese.

# ? Feb 7, 2012 07:41

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

NITOS FLAME KEEPER posted:

It's more that we can't do poo poo.

John Key already said he doesn't care if people don't want them sold.

He's also said he doesn't think the Maori Party will leave the coalition and even if they did, he'll still have stable government with a 1-seat majority.

If that happens, I can only see two possible paths for the Maori Party.

1. Maori Party pretty much shoots itself in the foot and further alienates their constituency. They might sneak a seat or two in to parliament, but Mana and Labour end up eating the bulk of their Maori seat votes.
2. Sharples and/or Turia gets rolled and replaced by Flavell and possibly someone else. Turia may survive this on the basis that it appears to be Sharples who wants to keep the coalition.

Of course, if they cross the floor, it puts them into an already crowded opposition and with their prior history, it's doubtful that the Maori Party will be able to work with Labour or Mana.

As for the 1-seat majority being stable? Just barely. We'll probably see a few by-elections in the next couple of years and I wonder if National will be able to hold on to the seats that they have. Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? IMO, National needs the Maori Party more than Key's letting on but he's in a situation where he needs to play hardball with them so is resorting to bluffing and suggesting that it's the Maori Party that are the ones who are bluffing (which, I have to admit there's probably an element of truth to).

edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Feb 7, 2012

# ? Feb 7, 2012 08:18

dusty: Nov 30, 2004

ClubmanGT posted:

I'd prefer not to take lessons in separatist politics from the guy who rallied against an Asian invasion, was Foreign Affairs Minister when we signed a FTA with China and is now rallying against Government policies on asset sales to the Chinese.

Yeah, the messenger and all that. :barf:

But gently caress me if I'm not surprised about the emergence of stories that Whanau Ora might be poorly run.

And even funnier that it is Winston railling about it. Last year Phil Goff was claiming that Labour would win all 7 seats of the Maori electorates. Witness the hard work of the Labour MPs everybody! :downsbravo:

It could be that this is an example of confirmation bias.

dusty on January 30 2012 posted:

I'm interested in how Whanau Ora pans out - I'm cynical, but open minded.

Or maybe Winston Peters is a goon

dusty fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Feb 7, 2012

# ? Feb 7, 2012 08:22

Butt Wizard: Nov 3, 2005; It was a pornography store. I was buying pornography.

dusty posted:

Or maybe Winston Peters is a goon

The problem with Peters is that now he's not really an effective opposition MP - he can pretty easily dismissed as pulling "his usual bullshit". His hypocrisy and self-serving bullshit is probably getting to the point where most people will overlook what is a pretty good excuse for most New Zealanders to rip into Murrays, and instead write it off as Peters just being up to his usual hypocritical poo poo-stirring. That's pretty insane, given how nutty talkback go over $97 underpants and Maori TV.

I don't know about you, but if I was the guy who drove the Winebox out of the courtrooms and into the open, I'd be pretty :smith:

when even doing the thing I'm supposed to do right for once was that massively tarnished by the poo poo I'd pulled in the past. But then again it's loving Winston and his hate-mongering and idealogical conveniences (foreign investing in his backer's industries good, everything else bad) stop from feeling even one iota of pity or sorrow for him.

Also, I hate stupidly wasting money but I think we're getting to the point with youth and Maori issues where we'll try anything. People need to realise that culture shock is stupidly complex. It's not 'people who beat their kids to death' - people of all races do that. Actual culture shock and dissonance starts from the moment a mother falls pregnant and manifests for fifteen loving years. If you're lucky, an at-risk youth might beat someone up in a bar one night, get a slap on the wrist, but have attached enough value to European privileged he has access to that he worries about losing them. Again, that happens for everyone. But that's been going on for decades, with young families, high unemployment and practically no chance to get ahead on equity or financial terms, you end up with kids joining gangs and raping children or accosting people who are just in the wrong place in the wrong time. It's ironic in some ways that people bitch about "spending money on Maoris" because that's exactly the loving point. They don't have any. Sure, you can segway into classes and income levels of all different ethnic groups, but we've actually outlawed languages and effectively locked a race of people out of a financial system we installed over them. In short: gently caress anyone here who buys into the ARE COUNTRY poo poo when it comes to refusing to at least try new initiatives to help people we hosed based purely on their race.

Which I guess is a nice way to bring that little derail back to something about Winston.

# ? Feb 7, 2012 09:01

dusty: Nov 30, 2004

ClubmanGT posted:

In short: gently caress anyone here who buys into the ARE COUNTRY poo poo when it comes to refusing to at least try new initiatives to help people we hosed based purely on their race.

This. This is why it was a tragedy that Labour abandoned Closing the Gaps. Fixing poor, sick and abused kids shouldn't be a "nice to have" that get abandoned when talkback radio starts misconstrueing it and the opposition starts getting headlines.

I disagree with some of what you wrote - I think that the solutions to negative wellbeing statistics of Maori kids are pretty much understood and accepted by all experts*. But it'll be expensive, which is why small-budget bandaid solutions like Whanau Ora get floated in the first place.

But if Whanau Ora has been paying families money to run ongoing family reunions then who can defend that? John Key it seems.

*expensive solutions like 1st world housing, lifting incomes of Maori kids (through wage or welfare increases), more doctors, more teachers, better schools, heaps more social workers, a lower unemployment rate for youth, way better mental health services, better drug and alchohol support services for parents... None of this is rocket science or something that would require a new solution. Apart from finding the money that is.

# ? Feb 7, 2012 09:27

sub supau: Aug 28, 2007

ClubmanGT posted:

In short: gently caress anyone here who buys into the ARE COUNTRY poo poo when it comes to refusing to at least try new initiatives to help people we hosed based purely on their race.

Being back in country in time for Waitangi and all this new asset sales poo poo is really loving annoying for being surrounded by this bullshit. I guess I should be grateful, it's done wonders for popping that youthful bubble of "New Zealand's a wonderful progressive place" and brought my ideas of this place crashing back down to Earth.

# ? Feb 7, 2012 09:32

miss_chaos: Apr 7, 2006

NITOS FLAME KEEPER posted:

It's more that we can't do poo poo.

John Key already said he doesn't care if people don't want them sold.

He announced that it was policy at the start of last year, it was one of the major policy issues of the election and it was constantly on the TV and the papers. There was a lot of public debate. If the New Zealand public didn't want asset sales, they had an election where they could have gotten rid of the government. They knew what they were getting, and voted for it. This wasn't exactly a last minute surprise going to the polls. Something like 70%? of people were against it, but it made very little difference to the polls. Seems like a pretty big enthusiasm gap to me. Voter were well aware of what Key's policy was, and they may not want them sold, but who owns the minority stake in an SOE doesn't really concern them as much as the Christchurch rebuild or mortgage interest rates.

I saw today was the first Question Time, how did Shearer go?

# ? Feb 7, 2012 11:36

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

miss_chaos posted:

He announced that it was policy at the start of last year, it was one of the major policy issues of the election and it was constantly on the TV and the papers. There was a lot of public debate. If the New Zealand public didn't want asset sales, they had an election where they could have gotten rid of the government. They knew what they were getting, and voted for it. This wasn't exactly a last minute surprise going to the polls. Something like 70%? of people were against it, but it made very little difference to the polls. Seems like a pretty big enthusiasm gap to me. Voter were well aware of what Key's policy was, and they may not want them sold, but who owns the minority stake in an SOE doesn't really concern them as much as the Christchurch rebuild or mortgage interest rates.

It's two-fold really. Based on the voter trends, National were coasting on very high poll numbers, creating a sense of it being something of a foregone conclusion combined with a failure of Labour's stale front bench to gain any real public confidence. I guess if it were to be summed up, it would be "I don't support it, and I don't know what the other bunch can do." It didn't help that there was a fairly low voter turn-out, despite a high percentage of voter registration.

miss_chaos posted:

I saw today was the first Question Time, how did Shearer go?

He took question 2, starting the theme of questions related to asset sales and issues related to the potential split with the Maori Party and tag-teamed Key with Peters. Key went back to his usual spiel about asset sales resulting in wonder and magic and rainbows.

# ? Feb 7, 2012 12:16

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

This would be of interest to the Christchurch-folk:

Brownlee's taken a shot at Parker and the Council, specifically singling out Parker by calling him a clown and blaming them for the ongoing issues.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/6385373/Brownlee-slates-mayor-council

# ? Feb 8, 2012 09:43

door.jar: Mar 17, 2010

Vagabundo posted:

This would be of interest to the Christchurch-folk:

Brownlee's taken a shot at Parker and the Council, specifically singling out Parker by calling him a clown and blaming them for the ongoing issues.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/6385373/Brownlee-slates-mayor-council

Brownlee is a giant knob but on this occasion he's correct. Parker and Marryatt can't run a council, between them they are breaking drat near every rule they have.

For example:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6379811/Vbase-directors-breached-rules

EDIT: I was thinking about it earlier today, why is it there's been no reporting (that I've seen) of Parker's approval rating in Christchurch? They probably aren't normally done for local politics but you'd think it'd be somewhat interesting to report on.

# ? Feb 8, 2012 10:21

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

door.jar posted:

EDIT: I was thinking about it earlier today, why is it there's been no reporting (that I've seen) of Parker's approval rating in Christchurch? They probably aren't normally done for local politics but you'd think it'd be somewhat interesting to report on.

There hasn't been a whole lot of that kind of reporting going on. As far as I've seen, there's only been one opinion poll released so far and that was the RM one I linked to earlier.

I can't really remember many local politics polls, especially when there's still quite some time before local body elections. From the looks of it, his approval rating is "gently caress the gently caress off, Bob" anyway.

# ? Feb 8, 2012 10:26

Big Bad Beetleborg: Apr 8, 2007; Things may come to those who wait...but only the things left by those who hustle.

Was there another option other than Anderton in the last election?
At least if people had voted for him they wouldn't have elected a complete oval office. Most of Anderton's history is outside my current knowledge, but he seems an alright sort who does care about something other than himself and his wife looking like a schoolboy.

# ? Feb 8, 2012 19:10

ledge: Jun 10, 2003

The PM having an hour long show on talk back radio in the run up to an election is political after all. Who would have thunk it.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6388004/PM-Keys-radio-show-referred-to-police

# ? Feb 8, 2012 20:01

miss_chaos: Apr 7, 2006

ledge posted:

The PM having an hour long show on talk back radio in the run up to an election is political after all. Who would have thunk it.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6388004/PM-Keys-radio-show-referred-to-police

Interesting that RadioLive got it legalled by the Electoral Commission who said it was okay only for the Electoral Commission to refer it to the police afterward.

From what I recall, Labour only started chasing the law angle when Phil Goff didn't get an hour as well. I definitely got the impression it was totally okay to break the law so long as they got to as well. From the story in the Herald, Robertson said "well had we had the offer we would have considered the legal bit" - like hell, they would have been all over it and done the exact same thing.

Will be interesting to see where it goes - probably nowhere, just like the other complaints. Like Grant Robertson said, the horse has already bolted.

miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Feb 9, 2012

# ? Feb 9, 2012 00:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 7, 2024 06:42

hot sorcery: Apr 11, 2009

hot sorcery fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Sep 16, 2014

# ? Feb 9, 2012 00:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > New Zealand Megathread - The Milhouse of Australia

«‹›352 »