A brief word on the Maori Party reaction to Internet MANA

24
0

6a00d83451d75d69e2017c31835cf8970b-800wi

Stuff reports…

Maori Party leader Te Ururoa Flavell said the merger was “seriously wrong” and undermined the Maori seats.

“I’m pretty brassed off to be truthful . . . those seats were set up for our people, our people have come through hard times to get those seats and to utilise them to bring somebody in who is questionable about their knowledge about things Maori and indeed Te Tai Tokerau is a bit of a slap in the face for Maori voters.”

…I’m sorry what? The despicable and disgusting manner Te Ururoa Flavell and the Maori Party went about expelling Hone and then sucking up to National for almost 6 years gives them no moral high ground to attack MANAs strategic decision to enter into an alliance with the Internet Party.

What’s the point of ‘sitting at the table’ when John Key has already privatised and sold off that table? The dead rats the Maori Party have had to swallow for their best friend forever status with John Key gives Te Ururoa Flavell no credibility in criticising MANA for this alliance. The Maori Party are now in their death throws as a political movement, what exactly have they done with these seats Flavell claims are for his people? Other than exploding Maori poverty and unemployment, the Maori Party have done bugger all because their decision to suck up to National has provided them with nothing.

The Maori Party have Stockholm syndrome when it comes to John Key, they have their own relationship issues to deal with, perhaps that’s where Flavell needs to turn his attention before he starts critiquing MANA?

24 COMMENTS

  1. If the Maori party have Stockholm syndrome then Mana are prostitutes bought and paid for by Kim Dot Com no matter how you spin it as their paid political strategist.

    • Mixed metaphors there Juana. Māori Party underachievement is there for all to see in the appalling statistics and parliamentary records.

      “’Flav” is running scared from Annette Sykes challenge, as is Kelvin Davis in Te Tai Tokerau.

      Why can’t other folks have a “cup of tea” like filthy Key and Banksie via a common sense Internet MANA party vote strategic alliance?

      • Exactly, Tiger – and the Nats had the opportunity to kill off the coat tails but didn’t. Early days yet, but petards come to mind.

        • I am rather keen on the hanging component of that equation… Let’s start with the traitors and the liars…

    • Quite the opposite actually, Juana. As MANA movement already has Tai Tokerau, the Internet Party actually needs the boost that MANA can give them. What you are saying is categorically untrue and I strongly suggest you undertake some research before making such assertions.

    • Juana you need to be sure of your facts. Bradbury hasn’t be a paid political strategist for Dotcom for a very long time.

      I think the appointment of Laila Harre will put many people’s fears to rest, she has a long long history of left politics and I cannot imagine as the leader of the party that she is going to have a whole lot of right wingers as candidates.

      P.S. I am a green party member, but support many of the policies Mana is putting forward.

  2. Hmmmm, judging by the hysterical reactions from Flavell, Key, and their rightwing sycophants, it seems that the new Mana-Internet Party co-operation is a very real threat to any possible third term for the Tories.

    This is the best barometer yet than Hone and Kim did the right thing.

  3. Funny how labourightes/tory scum and the maori party run to accuse Mana of selling out and being what the new word – oh prostitutes.

    Before you jump to conclusions and raise you voice like the village idiot – read the agreement between Mana and the IP. I think your criticism will melt before your eyes.

    • Internet MANA represents a paradigm shift so all the usual defensive mechanisms are showing up: retreat, name-calling, ridicule, anger.
      The intensity of response from all sides is very heartening.

  4. Someone’s going to have to explain to me how this undermines the Maori seats – is there going to be a pakeha person sitting in a Maori seat because of this?

    Don’t think so.

    Actually it would be hard to undermine the seats any more than they currently are with the Maori party propping up National like they are.

  5. I think we are yet to see how IP and MANA are going to resolve core tensions such as ‘a working drug policy’…. a point they have avoided thus far. It is in the resolve of such issues that you find in candidates and party ethos the real mettle of applied civic principles. No one gets arrested for using the internet, but plenty do for being Maori, male, unemployed and under 25 years.. the very market they say they are tasked with reaching and getting out to vote.

    I think media will focus on differences and tensions between the two parties, but they wont address the underlying issues as that would give the ALCP legs. If Internet Mana was serious about what is best it would alliance with ALCP’s intersectoral policy, but it wont. Hone wouldnt have a bar of it.

    • I fear that confused thinking is why the ALCP is irrelevant to the debate. Hone voted for medical cannabis and if the Internet Party pick up cannabis reform as a policy, I suspect the policy would have legs.

      The ALCP however is still on track to political oblivion.

  6. What a load of rubbish – based on ill infomed assumptions and (pakeha) media stereotypes – “pakeha’ political thinking – wherein socio economic status is the one and only dimension of concern and is considered on the one dimensional ‘left-right’ continuum.

    The Maori Party and the National party have never been stuck at the hip – they are simply coilition partners in Government – the Maori Party votes its own way – check out the voting patterns in the house before you accuse them of selling off the silver – they have voted in the house against national policy probably more often than Labour has – check the stats before making ill informed statements. The Maori party does not hold the balance of power – blame John Keys for weighting the coilition with the ACT and United Future puppets – it is these two votes that have allowed the privitisation of infrastructure and disempowerment of New Zealand citizens – if they had not been in Government John Keys would have had to consider Maori Party policy in these areas and would not have had such a free reign.

    They have never had an actual ‘alliance’ with National — they stand for the people they represent – not for themselves. AND look at the gains for Maori over the last few years – the Maori agenda – Whanau, whenua and te reo. Throughout our brief history these things have been eroded by every mainstream government – the Maori seats were in fact powerless – because the mainstream parties have not incorporated ‘partnership’ with Maori (Iwi) into their systems Look at what Labour did in this arena in their last term of government – no no no – mainstream parties do NOT represent Maori interests – – there is little point unless there is a Maori voice at the actual decision making table —-

    Yes – ‘sitting at the table’ — thats the arrangement with the people – to actually have a voice in the Mainstream government – no matter who is voted in by the ‘treaty partner’ majority population They have never been anything other than clear about that – – no matter which main party is in power. It is most important for Maori to have an actual voice. They have never waivered from this.

    AND – the phenomenon of the gap between the rich and the poor is not a solely New Zealand pattern – it is happening across the Western World – you cannot blame the Maori party for this and it naive of you to think that dsicerning readers will do so. -It affects all low socio economic groups in NZ – not jsut Maori – if you want to play the shame blame game then look to the major parties who have held government for so long for the shameful fact that their governments have always maintained Maori poverty – they stripped Maori of resources (land grabs etc) and then located them in the ‘working class (building railway lines etc) ANd the stats on Maori health and education achievement etc etc have always been a tragedy – and it is therefore not suprising that Maori remain overrepresented in the poverty statisitcs – its nothing new. You cannot blame the Maori party Again – check out the voting patterns – Maori party have voted against all the disempowering and dishonest legislation introduced by John Keys National Party. Maori Party continue hold the ‘living wage’ as one of its policy tenets – Entitlement (as a human being) rather than welfare. Empowerment rather than charity.

    Obviously however – it is not the majority party and while they may be able to soften some things not ever are they going to ber able to reverse the policy decisons of the major party in a coilition. In fact the gains for Maori made in the last few years have probably softened the blow of the recession and this dreadful worldwide trend toward unequal outcomes across society – gains made by speeding up the treaty settlement process and empowering Maori business, by Whanau Ora, by reveiwing the staus of Te Reo and never allowing apathy to set in, and by establishing the process whereby Iwi are consulted and represent ‘the’ voice of Maori. And now with the 2014 budget – free health care for chlldren will have a real impact (I predict) and rheumatic fever rates – (entitlement to health care rather than targetted programs that have not actually made much of an impact on the tergetted populations to date), and Papa Kainga housing – empowering Iwi to hapu and whanau needs free from the degrading totalitarianism of the MSD and Paula Bennets crew.

    There is always two sides to a story – the above blog seems to be infomed by knee jerk emotion rather than well thought through critique. The hugely emotive section on Hone Harawira’s resignation from the Maori pary and elevation (with salary increase) to leader of his ‘own’ party is testament to this. I followed the whole Hone Harawira saga closely at the time – he was not ‘pushed out’ for no reason – he walked rather than choose to work in a highly principled team – and again – he is demonstrating his inabillity to work in a team – he had a pretty good team really with Sue Bradford by his side – hmm – but he ‘walked’ again to the highest bidder. —

    I suggest you reconsider your editorial lines and continue to do what you are really good at – critiquing mainstream (Pakeha) politics – and leave the critique of Maori politics to Maori forums.

    • I disagree, it quickly became apparent the Maori Party leadership were far more concerned with siding with National and corporate Iwi than they were the direct interests of Maori. It was this very tension that saw Flavell force Hone out of the Party. When MANA tried to talk with the Maori Party to re-engage, the Maori Party effectively said their relationship with National was more important.

      The Leadership have betrayed the trust put in them and have backed and supported a Government that has been counter productive to most Maori. While you attempt to pretend that the coalition wasn’t part of the Parliamentary majority is disingenuous in the extreme. The relationship has been used by National as political camouflage, and the Maori Party gained bugger all for that deception.

      • We nay have to agre to disagree here – however maybe I could clarify my take a few points you make

        1. You say that Te Ururoa Flavell forced ‘Hone’ out. Well – that in itself is emotive – you use ‘Flavell’ (surname) and ‘Hone’ (first name) Te Ururoa Flavell was not leader at the time – it was, from the media reporting, a decision made by the Party itself (not one person) in which ‘Hone’ had some choices – every Party has a disciplinary process and has exercised the right to apply this – it wasn’t anything new to politics – except for the fact that Hoine was given a choice wherein others have not. From my recollection it was not the tension with national that focred Hone to resign so much as the fact that Hone did a last minute about face despite the fact he had had chaired the committee that developed the legislation to reverse the foreshore and seabed legislation to restore the status quo to that prior to Labours confiscation (ie the ability of Iwi to hold customary rights and go to court to clarify them) Ther foreshore and seabed consfication was in fact a ‘Maori’ agenda – moreso than the Maori party’s coilition relationship with national – The Maori party has always maintiained that it will talk with whichever party is in givernment., The relationship with Nationa seems to have developed an extra ‘life’ following the formation of the Mana party – creating an oppositonal voice that aligns with mainstream politics – reducing the handling od issues particularly pertinent to Maori to the right /left divide of mainstream politics. But yes – I do remember that Mana did try to create an alliance with maori Party more recently and that this was not accepted by the Maori party – much the same I guess when Labour rejsected an alliance with new Zealand first – probably for historical trust issues maybe – I don;t know it was not covered in the media with objective reporting from my memory.

        2. Yes – My analysis was simplistic – of course National has an agenda of their own for including the Maori Party in a coilition when it was not needed for numbers – but that wasn’t my point – my point was that – the actual numbers needed – the balance of power sit with Act and United Future – and that the Maori Party has not actually voted ‘for’ the legislation that has led to so much social disintegration – the numbers came from John Banks and Peter Dunn The Maori Party did not betray anyones trust – they have always maintained they will sit at the table and talk rather than be completely powerless in Opposition – that has always been clear – and given they have voted against so many of nationals reforms but rather have kept their vote in line with policy and the use of consultation with the ‘people’ before such votes – then again they have not ‘betrayed’

        3.’Corporate Maori’ I am not sure what this is in real terms – maybe you are referring to Iwi Authorities – well the speeding up of the treaty settlements has empowered Iwi to more effectively distirubute dividends to the ‘shareholders” (the Maori people) not based on the amount of ‘wealth’ already held but to the Iwi katoa – Tuwharetoa, for instance, have insulated many many homes – this has benefitted the poorer members who were living in uninsulated homes – the test was not around how ‘many’ land shares held – but rather – it was Whakapapa – (the Maori way of doing things – and one which I , as a Pakeha have come to respect as a very fair means of distributing resources )

        Another example – the number of Maori entering tertiary education seem to be much hisgher now than in the past – why – because of the redistribution of wealth from ‘shares held’ to Whakapapa rights to grants and schoiarships for education – the number of grants available to my younger children is way higher than those that were available to the older ones – BUT – the competition is much greater also – indicating that the numbers who are attending or aspiring to attend tertiary institutions has increased considerably.

        These examples demosntrate productive gain – while you say ‘most Maori ‘ I am not sure how u can quantify this -as ‘most Maori’ have iwi connections. But yes – I will agree that the actions of this government have disempoiwered the lower socio-economics strata and lesd to an increase in poverty overall – however repeat myself in pointing out that it is an ‘historical’ situation that Maori are over represented in the lower soicio economic classes. It is unreasonable to expect the benefits of the devolution of decision making to Iwi (allowing for action ‘by Maori for Maori’) to be instantaneous given that the current socio-economic situation has a legacy of over a hundred years. BUT – we can see that progress is being made – I can see it – my house is now insulated – my children are getting University educations I would simply not be able to afford without the support of iwi. The gains are my ‘lived experience’.

        There is a long way to go – I agree – most of us still battle with the dehumanising ways of the MSD – only getting worse under Paula Bennet – BUT we now have Whanau Ora to help us through and keep our self respect – without Tariana and the Maori Party this would not have happened for us. YOu may think this is ‘bugger all’ – but in terms of the real lived experience of many of us – this has become ‘humanising’ – the value of which is much more than ‘buggar all’.

  7. Just a little knit-picking…

    The phrase should be “death throes” instead of “death throws”.

    • Not just nit-picking IMO… Good journalism needs correct grammar and spelling, otherwise it’s too easily dismissed as hackery 😛

      This marriage of Mana Internet is fascinating. I’m sure it has its benefits, but the real question is will this result in a good poll result?

  8. umm – a couple of new comments make me wonder about the mathematical ability of ther readers – it is not the Maori party that props up the national goverment – they would be able to hold power without the Maori party – it is ACT and United Future that do the propping and hold the balance of power.

    At least ACT is honest about its intentions- United Future’s platform is supposedly ‘family values’ – Peter Dunn was initially against the selling off of the Electricty resources (remember??) but sold out his parties principles for a few bars of silver or gold or whatever it was (and which undoubtedly was in his personal interests.) If any party deserves the wrath of the mases for propping uo the government its United Future.

    • The Maori Party have given National supply and confidence and political camouflage to pretend they are more moderate than they actually are. There is no confusion, your analysis seems totally devoid of any critical ability to concede the Maori Party have sold themselves out for very little.

      • Well it is – I don’t believe that it has – have u checked the supply and confidence agreement that was formed this time around ?? – it specifcally excludes areas of policy difference being introduced thourhg the budget – this is why the sale of the state electircity assets had to happen outside of the budget – unlike labour in the 80s and 90s where so much of our state owned assets where sold out under our feet with the Maori seats actually nbeing held by the Labour party. Admittedly I think the Maori Party learnt from the mistake of their first coilition agreement whereby they were forced buu supply and confidence to vote in favour of increases in GST. The change in approach and the specific exclusion of key pojnts (such as the sale of state owned assets) from this current supply and confidenc agreement has shown that the Maori party learnt from that and was able to develop an innovative and independent approach to maintaining political intergirty – and NOT be puppets to the majority coilition party.

        • The reasons for Labour selling assets in the 80’s are well known. Muldoon left this once proud and independent nation up to our eyeballs in debt ( I reckon I am seeing a nashernil party trend here ) and in imminent danger of default ( bankruptcy).
          They had little or no choice in the matter. That the process was hijacked by those of the same ilk as Our Beloved Liar…. ooops Leader whose self interest took precedence to those of the people of Aotearoa New Zealand cannot be laid at the door of this present Labour Party.

  9. The idea that the co-joining of these two parties might result in Mana gaining many more seats in Parliament gives me reason to rejoice. Hone Harawira is a man of his word with genuine concern for the people of New Zealand and that is a rarity in today’s Parliament.

Comments are closed.