Comparing Maori Party $5000 per ticket John Key Fundraiser at sexist Northern Club to MANA’s Internet Party alliance

21
4

maori-party-and-john-key
So MANA can’t contemplate an alliance with Kim Dotcom because he is wealthy and MANA is not and that’s a terrible hypocrisy.

Shock. Horror.

So what is one to make of the Maori Party holding a $5000 per ticket closed fundraiser where people could privately have conversations with John Key at the Northern Club, a venue that only allowed Women to become full members in 1991?

If that isn’t true elitism that is totally out of touch with the reality of Maori, I don’t know what is.

MANA has been damned by some for contemplating a strategic alliance with an Internet millionaire who had 70 armed paramilitary police kick his doors down and terrorise his family while being illegally spied upon by the GCSB. That possible alliance has been denounced as a betrayal of principles, but the Maori Party holding private $5000 dinners with the Prime Minister in a sexist elitist venue seems a hypocrisy and betrayal of principles many times more philosophically profound than what MANA is contemplating.

The Maori Party hold a secret fundraiser where they sell access to the Prime Minister for $5000 a head at a sexist club while MANA hold an open AGM in front of the cameras and members to hear from someone who wants to join an alliance followed by almost 9 hours of internal debate.

Is there a double standard being applied here?

21 COMMENTS

  1. 1991???

    That is a long bow you’re pulling there.

    As for your assertion regarding the criticism of John Key being involved in this. I believe this has been raised by Labour and covered in the media. So are you stating you are happy people did the same with Mr Dotcom and Mana?

      • No. What is ridiculous is to make an issue of something that was changed 23 years ago. It would be like stating NZ is homophobic because sex acts between consenting adults of the same sex were only legalized in 1986.

        • Changing that rule in 1991 is just an indication that they’re not an organisation that’s at the forefront of progressive concerns. That’s all.

          If there are any other bleedin’ obvious things you’re concerned about…well…I’m sure you’ll let us know.

          • In 1991 they weren’t. Whether they are nor not now is impossible to ascertain from what they did 23 years ago.

  2. No double standard in my mind. They are both equally terrible. It’s sickening watching the wholesale sellout of integrity and loyalty to their people, both of them. And no, sorry I am not convinced by the ‘we have to go with this narcissist so we can get more seats and save NZ’ argument. This deal if it goes ahead will end in betrayal, party breakdown and very little for the good of vulnerable Kiwis. Heck, look at the Maori Party… oh wait….

      • I followed the link, Turei said talks yes, deals in an electorate “highly unlikely”.

        Martyn, I have been a great fan of your work since you came on the political scene in the mid nineties. You are an very talented and media and politic savvy guy but of late your hatred of the Greens and their supporters is becoming increasingly apparent and distracting.

        The political approach of the NZ Greens transcending the left-right categories increasingly appears to irritate your transitional left wing political lens.

        It would be much more constructive if you could focus on the policies that follow from the Green approach to our problems instead of focusing on deals and numbers to win an election.

        I think the root of your anger towards the Greens (which has been going on for a while) is the fact that the Greens don’t do electorate deals.

        Get used to it. They just don’t. Turei explains the Green approach in the above linked item:

        – – She said the Greens knew their best chance of improving their vote was to stand strong candidates in every electorate they could and to campaign for the party vote.
        “Voters want to have a genuine choice about the person who will represent them as well as the party that will and they’re entitled to that choice and that’s why we’ve done our best to stand in every electorate where we can.” –

  3. Common sense tells you if you don’t like one you shouldn’t like the other. Looking at both,common sense tells you this is nothing more than modern day politics in the MMP environment. In other one is as good or as bad as the other.

    • Common sense tells you if you don’t like one you shouldn’t like the other. Looking at both common sense tells you this is nothing more than modern day politics in the MMP environment. In other words, one is as good or as bad as the other. The only difference is that the Maori Party have made it clear it was about money for which they were happy to use John Key as the facilitator even though there is no guarantee they will stick with National if they are not the next Government. They have worked out that the important thing is to be at the table rather than waste time in opposition. Hone, on the other hand is trying to have everyone believe money has nothing to do with it.

  4. A closed fundraiser!?. Do they imagine that some horrible lefty types might be loaded enough to cough up $5,000 just to come along and cause trouble? Most of us have better things to do with our time and money, thanks.

    • Someone needs to be watching to see what quid diners are getting for their pro quo. Nekkid corruption is what’s going down.

    • I am disappointed with this blog being published – I have come to expect this site to publish opinions that explore beneath the surface and debunk issues to give us a bit of an insight into what the mainstream media are not reporting – not just political propaganda designed to pick at our cultural fantasies and denigrate poeple and ideas that are not supportive of ‘the status quo’.
      This blog is really just a headline – I saw the program on Native Affairs laast night and even wondered that it was poor journalism for that program also. So – the Maori party held a fundraiser – yes – its constituents are on the whole poor people – on the wrong side of the great weath distribution tables – so they don’t have a whole heap of weathy benefactors unlike National, Labour and the Greens (yes – I heard the figures quoted on the program) –

      So would you rather they took the weetbix off the tables of their constituents than turn to people who are on the right side of the wealth distribution table but who are prepared to share their weetbix surpluis with an organisation that is commited to self determination and empowerment of the people though enacting the Treaty as a means of redistrbuting wealth (not just into giving handouts that will just keep the poor in relative poverty still disempowered but just enough to ensure they don’t cry about it too loudly )

      We heard, last night that the function gave these people a chance to have the ear of John Keys – but we did not hear (of course) what they were chewing his ear about – I am thinking that in all likelihood it was critical of nationals approach to just about anything that national has done except those things that happened as a result of the coilition agreement and were not part of the great plan for national in any case

      – I have come to this deduction because these people were prepared to pay $5000.00 for a dinner ticket to support a Treaty based political party that has proven its mission is to empower Iwi (tino rangatiratanga – self determination) rather than maintain the state intervention approach to all things affecting Maori.

      For goodness sake All political parties fund themselves from their wealthy support base – that is why Labour and Nationals declared ‘dopnations’ were in the millions and not the thousands – get some perspective – how many $5000.00 dinner tickets would either of the big parties need to sell to accrue the 1 or 32 million dollars of donations they declared – this is soooo not a level playing field – these are the just some of the questions I ask once I thought it through and looked below the surface.

      Therefore – I think this is just political grandstanding and not of any real consequence at all and should not be a focus in media outlets I had previoulsy considered to be good investigative journalism. Go back to what you are good at – picking up ‘real’ issues.

  5. As a Green supporter, I don’t mind if you pick on the Greens Martyn. Every party needs a bit of a kick now and then. The Greens are an evolving party and I think there could be major changes in its character for the better over the next few years. Criticism is healthy for it in the long term.

  6. This article is logically flawed. The same people who are suspicious of the Maori party’s fund raiser are critical of the Dotcom alliance for the same reason. There is no double standard. Both are criticised for appearing to trade principles for money. It is a single standard. I would have thought that was obvious.

  7. There is no monetary component to an alliance with the Greens, so no similarity at all. There is no appearance of trading principles for money.

Comments are closed.