Don’t get me wrong, I think Helen would do a lovely job of running the UN, as much as anyone would, however the criticism of her legacy and decision by the Maori Party to not support her bid for the UN is righteous and legitimate.
The first time I saw a boathouse in Marlborough Sounds, I choked.
My Grandfather was a Naval Officer and lived in the state housing section of Devonport, so as a kid I’d see a lot of boat houses where the building was tiny enough to just house a wee boat and some fishing rods.
The boat houses in Marlborough Sounds however were multi room, huge decked palaces. Built directly on the foreshore, these mansions had replaced tiny functional boat houses and had morphed into a gloating display of luxury and wealth.
This is when things started becoming a problem.
Owners now wanted to build more of these luxury boat houses and wanted to start selling them as well. The problem was they were built on the foreshore, a section of land that had always been contested by Maori in terms of having ever given up.
The Marlborough Council was approached by local Iwi who pointed out that the Council couldn’t hand over ownership papers and allow sale of land that they had not conceded. They urged the Council to sit down with Iwi and start a dialogue over the use of this land.
Unfortunately the Marlborough Council was about as enlightened as your average banjo playing Klan rally and decided that they didn’t need to speak to no Maori about what they wanted to do. The Council told Iwi to stick it and started selling titles for these boat houses on land the Council had no right to simply steal and sell.
Iwi were like, “Are you fucking kidding me Cracker? We came to you despite your greed and disrespect to try and settle this and you’ve told us to stuff it and you’re going to take this land anyway? Fine! We’ll see you in Court. Bring your wallet.”
So off to the Appeal Court they roll and in a unanimous decision, the Judges all said, “You know what, Maori have a legitimate claim here and we vote that they should have their day in Court”.
So what does Helen Clark do? Why she throws Maoridom under a bus and simply over rules the Appeal Court decision by passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act which confiscates the entire Foreshore and Seabed for the Government with no recognition or compensation to the Iwi they are stealing from.
See, when it’s actually put like that, most white Pakeha go, “Oooooooooooh. I didn’t know that”.
Damn skippy you didn’t know that.
Our hysterical right wing media sold this story to NZ as Maori wanting to steal the beaches.
FFS.
National were playing the race card hard and seducing the lesser angels of our nature to manipulate a story of land confiscation from Maori into an absurd claim that Maori wanted all the beaches!
Rather than challenging this bigotry, Helen Clark appeased it by confiscating all Maori land. At a time of crisis, she had no hesitation throwing Maori under a bus to look tough to muddle Nu Zilind.
It’s not the first time she did that.
Early on in her term, Helen tried to pass the ‘Closing the Gaps’ policies where the negative impact of colonialism on Maori within social stats would see vast new money to try and bring their results up to Pakeha.
The resulting backlash of snarling redneck NZ who saw such a focus as reverse racism was one of our truly awful modern moments as NZers (the other being the ridiculous response to the repeal of section 59 – but that’s a story for another blog)
Brash was pedalling ‘One law for all’ garden variety racism and Helen blinked. She removed all mention of Closing the Gaps, showing early on that her desire to keep the centre rather than challenge the centre meant Maori aspirations were always the first on the chopping block to pacify angry white volk.
Another reason for the Maori Party to turn their back on Helen is the terror raid abomination in Tuhoe. In an event that actually mirrored the original land confiscation there, the State sent troops into Tuhoe land on the pretence of hunting down a criminal. They illegally spied on and arrested and detained hundreds of people using trumped up charge of terrorism.
Clark has always said she wasn’t aware of this, but that’s a lie. As the head of the SIS and GCSB, of course she was informed of such a delicate operation. Again, rather than challenge the bullshit case that it was, she allowed it to happen.
The Police had been told by the US to start looking inside post 9/11 for domestic terrorists, so off they hopped to find some monsters.
After blowing $14million on illegal surveillance, the Police had to try and make a big deal of the case and invaded Tuhoe land and illegally arrested and detained hundreds to create the sense that the case was far more damning than it really was.
In the end most of the evidence was thrown out because it was sourced illegally and the case fell over to a far lesser one of a few arms charges.
Now while I have always said that activists should never pick up guns and train with them, these activists were as much terrorists as I am. It was a trumped up case and an abuse of power.
How were the Police punished by John Key over their illegal spying? Why he passed retrospective law to wipe their records clean and protect them from being arrested AND John Key gave them vast new search and surveillance powers that would allow them to erode civil liberties.
Yay. Feeling safe yet?
Let’s not forget the wrongful arrest and detention of Ahmed Zaoui as well.
Now these all have relevance when considering backing Helen. You simply can’t deny that.
Each of those examples above, the Closing the Gaps fiasco, the Tuhoe terror raids and the Foreshore and Seabed confiscation were times of important issues that our mainstream media did an appalling job of covering. Hence the delusional opinions most NZers have on any of those topics when pressed on them.
The surprise and angry denunciation of the Maori Party for taking the stance they did suggests to me that most NZers, many Labour Party supporters included, don’t fully appreciate the naked manipulation of power Helen conducted to maintain her leadership. Rather than challenging the centre’s ignorance, she gave into it.
I still think Aunty Helen would be great at the UN, but I certainly won’t forget the damage Helen Clark caused race relations in this country.
I do concur Martyn. However my issue with the Maori Party taking the high ground though is that they have no problem sleeping alongside National and every policy they vote in support of, cripples our once great country.
As a wise old man once quoted:
“you cannot change the past but you can affect the future”
So every time the Maori party support National in passing legislation that adversely affects kiwis, let them also lay on their sword.
Its called Politics – every party at Parliament, exercises this every day whilst many of us sleep.
I went to see this recently at the Auckland museum.
http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/whats-on/exhibitions/korero-mai-korero-atu
‘ Kōrero Mai, Kōrero Atu ‘ by Artists Areta Wilkinson and Te Rongo Kirkwood.
It was fantastic and I urge all open minded Pakeha who may be ambivalent about Maori culture to go and see it. And bear in mind. Take.Your.Time. Watch, listen and allow yourself to be open to the experience.
I have no respect for clark. She’s only memorable because she isn’t. She’s bleakly unimaginative and anyone can achieve anything academic by following the script.
But to achieve true and full happiness and contentment, particularly as a politician?
Then, so must we all be happy and content. Otherwise, the politician will writhe in misery, worrying about their people. Bra hahahahahahahaha a a a !
I’ve come to realise that we non Maori are unbelievably lucky to have such an extraordinary parallel culture here to find nurturing and spiritual connectedness with. We just need to pull our heads out from up the Bankster arses to see how lucky we are.
Two words: housing bubble.
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Images/Speeches/2013/5491478-files/gs-trends-in-the-new-zealand-housing-market-oct1300.jpg
A few thoughts I want to add to your contribution Martyn.
It seems to me as a student of history that at least part of the problem is the difference between Maori and European New Zealanders of how they view the land – and by land I also include lakes, rivers and beaches.
Europeans from the feudal times regarded land as an economic asset, and as we know economic assets can be bought, sold, rented and leased and (of course) laid to waste. Even when peasants didn’t own their own land they still cherished it as theirs because often many previous generations had farmed it and so it had become a custom.
But many other cultures see land in a different context, not something that is a fixed asset but something much more. I am sure Maori have a word or concept for it that I do not understand. The idea of owning, and in consequence being able to buy and sell land is not understood by some cultures.
I was recently reading a book about the land settlement of United States and it explained how the Indians were forced off their land simply because they couldn’t understand the white settlers concept of claiming and buying land, until it was too late. I would venture to suggest that this occurred in NZ as well. Many cultures believe that land, sea, sky, water, etc. are just components of the whole and it is ludicrous to isolate and separate them out.
And in New Zealand we have something of a contradiction. We have the post-colonial system of trading land but on the other hand the same culture does not recognize the same system for rivers, lakes, mountains and beaches. You can buy our land but hands off our beaches, rivers and lakes!
The land, seas, rivers, etc. have been here a hell of a lot longer than we have. We don’t own them, we are just their guardians and we haven’t done a very good job of guarding them up till now.
When we look past the idea of land being purely a source of income perhaps we will understand more about Maori relationship with the land and make better decisions in the future.
You are saying Maori are were ignorant of the concept of land ownership sale and transfer. Maori were not they fully understood it is why they sold their least fertile or unworkable land to the settlers. The same way a farmer does so today. Fact is the lazy white settlers wanted to have the best farm and cultivated land that Maori owned and would not sell,.so like the thieving c#)’%a they are took it using guns and murder. Time you picked up a book on nd history
The first people in NZ to pick up a firearm for the purpose of stealing land were the Maori. It was Hongi Hika, perhaps you should pick up a book about the musket wars.
Well actually he was avenging a lot of lost battles, raided south and then returned north dunno how you can say he stole land, Maybe displaced a few people for a few months but ultimately always returned north.
In the treaty of waitangi it says clearly that maori will maintain ownership of their foreshore and seabed. Read it and the translations.
Mikes got a point
Have to agree. Clark’s history with the Urewera raids and the Foreshore scandal left a bad taste in my mouth. Is she really suitable for a role such as UN secretary general when she allowed mistreatment of our own First Nation people?
I’ll reserve judgement as much as possible, but I have little enthusiasm for her.
Nailed it, ALH!
She’s a nasty right-wing bully. She managed to wreck welfare in NZ in ways that even the Nats in the 1990s tried but failed to do. She got away with it because nobody suspected our precious Labour Party could ever do such things. Now she wants to fuck the whole world. Pictures of her face make me sick.
If you think that of Helen Clark and Labour, you must be beside yourself over what John key and the National government have and are doing then.
Sure, but what’s so angering is that the Clark government did things nobody ever expected from a Labour government and got away with so much by catching people unawares.
I don’t know about that since people are vocal on calling her and Labour neolib, and have been since the the Lange government in the 1980’s, right? So maybe people expected more than what they should have.
So what was the excuse for the Maori Party signing up to National’s Marine and Coastal Act that repealed and was worse than the Foreshore and Seabed Act?
About time this was said out in the open.
Helen was doing exactly what Little is doing now, as always, chasing middle NZ votes by abandoning their principles and ethical stands in an instant if they conflict at all with gaining this perceived voting block.
Unfortunately for us this is very typical behaviour from these laissez-faire left politicians.
I mean just look at Labour’s housing policy, $500,000 for affordable housing, what a joke, it is just embarrassing.
Nope, Little sure isn’t any kind of Corbyn or Sanders figure for the New Zealand Left to believe in.
People keep on telling me his is deeply Left at heart, but I haven’t seen any sign of this from him, like Helen, just a softer version of National.
Rubbish, and you’re embarrassing. You need to get real Adrian, Labour is offering to build at half the cost of todays prices which are currently averaging a million plus.
Ah I like the labour party hack response. Personal attack, then out and out put down in the next line.
Sheesh, that’s tired.
Then you go on to gloat how great you are by offering houses at 1/2 a million dollars rather than a million.
At my pitiful income that makes labour sound just like national. And for many people like me the 1/2 a million price tag is a sad joke. Incomes at present can’t cope with 1/2 a million or a million, it makes not one drop of difference when you are poor, both figures are out of reach. Try looking at the standard, Lprent does a great job doing the math, and he is generous with incomes.
In the real world labour are saying or doing nothing for the poor. They are doing for the middle class.
Too much reality words. When can I expect my put down. Tell you what pop it in the post, I’ll pick it up next thursday.
You’re tired Adam, and I am not gloating. Only the Nats are doing that. Labour and the Greens are planning to do a lot and it will be far better than what is happening now under key. You cannot deny today’s costs and what it will mean in terms of new builds. It’s a start isn’t it?
A start for the middle class is a very weak argument. National already offer that. Go check your history. Housing spiraled out of control under Helen Clark. She failed us and she’s a disgrace. The current Labour policies are the same – pandering to the middle class and landlords.
I won’t be able to buy a home under National OR Labour. Little won’t offer rent controls because he’s got no guts – and I need rent controls. Nothing changes for people like me, so don’t tell us Labour are worth supporting. It’s insulting.
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Images/Speeches/2013/5491478-files/gs-trends-in-the-new-zealand-housing-market-oct1300.jpg
Words doesn’t read.
It’s insulting that you want to maintain the status quo, that you would rather John key stay in power rather than have a Lab/Green government because of your hatred.
National are offering nothing to Kiwis Fatty except for homelessness, poverty and to be tenants in our own country.
It’s been over 8 years of the Nats, Maori party, Act and Peter Dunne, and they have sold us out and failed us. That’s fact.
Labour like the rest of the opposition haven’t finished forming more and new policies, you have jumped the gun again, and you are not the only one calling for rent controls.and maybe you need to follow your own advice and go check our history.
By the way, house prices in 2007 in Auckland and the rest of the country weren’t in millions like they are now. People could still buy homes. Now Kiwis have been locked out completely, foreign speculators rule the roost. You need to get a better graph that is inclusive of and reflects the years from 2012 to 2016. You should read what Grant Spencer is saying now over the RB’s concerns over the current housing market.
Criticizing Labour does not equal supporting National. This is a lazy argument, similar to those who accuse people pointing out the historical crims of the war criminal Clinton of supporting Trump, even when its plainly obvious they support neither. The “lesser-of-two-evils” is still evil. A Labour Party whose radically “left-wing” leader is desperate to reassure investors that they are still a “free trade party” is a party that is only pretending to have broken with its neoliberal past, to make us like them.
The Greens are trying to pull Labour in the right direction from inside an alliance and get rid of National, and good on them, but arguably this is just the same as Māori Party trying to pull National in the right direction from the inside.
“It’s insulting that you want to maintain the status quo”
I call Labour the status quo – like National, Labour are third-way neoliberals.
“you would rather John key stay in power rather than have a Lab/Green government because of your hatred”
That’s a lie Words. I’ve suggested that after 6-9 years of Andrew Little’s third-way neoliberalism, then we’d be in a frightful position, if National returned for another 6-9 years. Please don’t lie about what I say.
I’d be happy to see a Greens/Labour/Mana govt, but only if Labour had less power than the Greens.
“National are offering nothing to Kiwis Fatty except for homelessness, poverty and to be tenants in our own country.”
Yes, National sux slightly more than Labour. We all agree on that.
“you are not the only one calling for rent controls.and maybe you need to follow your own advice and go check our history.”
My whole argument is based on Labour’s history. Labour used to challenge and oppose the wealthy, but now they placate them. I wish Labour had a leader with guts.
“By the way, house prices in 2007 in Auckland and the rest of the country weren’t in millions like they are now. People could still buy homes.”
Yes, like I said, National are slightly worse than Labour. Labour offer the middle class a route to home ownership, but National have even squeezed them out. I think Labour shouldn’t aim to appease the middle class. When I check Labour’s history I see they used to provide for the working class and those in poverty.
Perhaps you’re right Words. Perhaps all we can expect from Labour is a pandering to the middle class and placating the wealthy. Perhaps we should forget why the Labour Party was formed.
But I’m not interested in that. I prefer to demand Labour return to its roots.
Not sure what sort of fantasy world you are living in, but last time I looked the average wage for a cleaner or rubbish collector is 32,000, which even with two people working makes an house at half a million pretty unachievable especially if you figure in children.
http://www.payscale.com/research/NZ/Job=Cleaner/Hourly_Rate
So with this information, which I am sure you would be well aware of, you thereby don’t think workers on minimum wages should, by right, be able to own their own home?
It’s almost like you people don’t see a problem with record levels of house hold debt, like it is fine and normal to owe a bank 500,000+, and not an outrage.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/households-debt-to-income
I think you and I want two quite different things from our Labour party.
Any debt is an issue, a government only has control over govt debt, it has no control over private household debt. What makes you think wages and other measures and schemes won’t be addressed to help Kiwis into their own homes under a new government?
Well said Adrian. A solid critique of Labour. Spot on.
Labour will not ignite their base until they offer a change, like Corbyn and Sanders have. Centre-left politics is self-defeating and is thankfully dying.
Perhaps a 4th term of Key will shift Labour from their neoliberal-lite position. I fear a 4th term from Key, but I also fear 6-9 years of neoliberal-lite from Labour, and then a return to National.
Not much is left in New Zealand’s hands anymore Fatty. There will be nothing left to fight for if Key gets a 4th term.
And the same thing will happen by uncritically allowing Labour to do and say what it likes, Leftie, like all the other Labour-can-do-no-wrongers.
I do not believe a Labour and Green government will do the same.
Labour’s track record says they will. Do some reading, Leftie.
Given that’s just your assumption and that Labour has a better track record than the Nats, a Lab/Green government will do so much better for NZ than what the failed Nats have.
Suggest you follow your own advice.
Really enjoying your articles Martyn. I was unaware of Helens involvement/over site in these events, I’ve always thought that she was a leader to be proud of. Thanks for the info
Yeah, on close inspection Helen Clark was a disappointment.
She’s our version of Bill Clinton or Tony Blair – she gave us a soft version of neoliberalism.
UK have Corbyn offering a change from Blair. USA had Sanders offering a change from Clinton. NZ has Little offering no change from Clark. Labour will not be able to inspire their base until they offer a change.
Thanks Martyn, had no idea about Helens “dark side!” (Boom boom)
I’m not going to get into a slanging match with you Mr. Bradbury about this….I’ve made my comments here and elsewhere on the sheer duplicity of the Maori party and their toadying to their National Party bedmates.
Laughable that Marama Fox gets up on her high horse about the right for Maori to take their most important issues to Court when Turia, Flavell and Sharples happily voted with their National cronies for the Part 4 amendment to the PHDAct in May 2013….making legal discrimination towards disabled New Zealanders and their chosen family carers AND passing legislation to prevent the same people from taking that issue back to the Human Rights tribunal or the Courts.
Because hey…the Maori Party and their chums would hate to see these lowlifes win…again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
And don’t even think about giving a lecture about ‘confidence and supply votes’…no siree…when Marama and the Maori are demanding that another is punished for failing to live up to the principles of basic decency and a respect for human rights for all. That was an issue that they should have crossed the floor on.
Turia supported paying family carers….then voted against it…then…denied she had voted against it. Likewise Flavell.
So…are they stupid, and think the rest of us are? Or just plaine amoral?
Whatever Martin…I asked a question yesterday….
Explain this….http://www.waateanews.com/Waatea+News.html?story_id=MTMyNjY=&v=605
and the same Marama Fox saying…
“But Maori party co-leader Marama Fox says that’s what happens when politicians have to choose between what’s right and what’s popular.
She says as the head of the United Nations Development Programme for the past seven years, Ms Clark has been advocating for the rights of indigenous people, women, equity and fairness.
“Having been removed from the burden of prime ministership and party political policy, she is able to advocate for the rights of people, for the human rights of human existence, so I have seen a change in the way she has conducted herself in the UN and I support her as someone who would be credible in the top job,” Ms Fox says.”
So…why the complete 180 degree turn here Martin?
Someone has some explaining to do.
Or are only others expected to be held to account?
In current vernacular they would say, “Because shit got real”. It is in fact quite politically savvy for the Maori Party to be voicing their views right now for a variety of reasons. Besides being accurate, they remind us of the faults that Helen Clark has – when it comes to trustworthiness and consistency. Playing the political game has a gamut of unsavory aspects that players need to adhere to if they wish to advance. Saying one thing that is unsavory is far different to actually doing the unsavory thing.
In current vernacular they would say, “Because shit got real”. It is in fact quite politically savvy for the Maori Party to be voicing their views right now for a variety of reasons. Besides being accurate, they remind us of the faults that Helen Clark has – when it comes to trustworthiness and consistency. Playing the political game has a gamut of unsavory aspects that players need to adhere to if they wish to advance. Saying one thing that is unsavory is far different to actually doing the unsavory thing.
Well said Rosemary, spot on, and it appears you won’t get an answer, because it blows their argument right out of the water.
Whatever you think of the Maori party it doesn’t change that Helen and her government confiscated the foreshore and seabed from Maori without even letting them have their day in court.
I am no supporter of the Maori party and I’m not Maori however I was absolutely disgusted when the Clark government did that confiscation because it put us all back to where we were in the 1870s regarding our relationship with Maori and honouring the Treaty.
It is not only the Maori party who think Helen shouldn’t have that UN job.
Clearly it is a catch 22 situation. Helen Clark was saying the foreshore and Seabed belonged to ALL New Zealanders, and not just one group. Yet I understand the historical and customary rights of Maori too.
Ironically, the then opposition National party opposed the legislation on the grounds that Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed legislation gave too much power to Maori.
The legislation allowed for Maori to apply for “guardianship” of certain areas.
“While the Act was widely criticised by Māori, some iwi have chosen to negotiate agreement within the bounds of the Act. The first agreement made through the act was ratified by Ngati Porou and the Crown in October 2008″
“The first foreshore and Seabed agreement was ratified on 31 October 2008. The agreement was negotiated between people of the Ngati Porou area on New Zealand’s East Cape and the Crown (effectively the New Zealand government). ”
WHY DO YOU THINK HONE HARAWIRA LEFT THE MAORI PARTY/?
The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 is an Act of theParliament of New Zealandcreated to replace theForeshore and Seabed Act 2004.
The bill passed by 63-56 on 24 March 2011. It was supported by the National, the Maori Party, and United Future, while the Labour, the Greens, ACT, theProgressive Party and Hone Harawira voted against it. This Act was one of the reasons which Harawira was forced to leave the Maori Party.[2]
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei opposed the legislation and argued that it represented a “very unjust outcome. It’s the same outcome from 2004. The Maori Party have betrayed Maori voters and those who supported them in 2004”. The Act Party also opposed the legislation, and unsuccessfully attempted to delay the passage of the bill by lodging hundreds of questions with the Speaker.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_and_Coastal_Area_(Takutai_Moana)_Act_2011
Interestingly, remember reading just a couple of articles about iei wanting to charge people for using the beach. Wasn’t there a bit of a furore over a Devonport beach?
Anyway, what the Maori party signed up for under the National government was worst than the one under Labour !!!
It’s Labour toadie attitudes like yours that are going to fuck NZ beyond repair.
Too late I’m afraid, The Nats, the Maori Party, Act and United Future have already done it.
You don’t understand, do you, Leftie?
Let’s go back to Muldoon shall we Chris, where the destruction of N.Z all started, but I guess you just wouldn’t understand, righties never do.
Thinking I’m a rightie is proof you haven’t got a clue, Bertie boy. Let’s give Labour’s neo-lib agenda free rein and see what happens, eh? Another Labour-can-do-no-wronger, I see.
You don’t have a clue, in your eyes John key and National can’t do wrong, Bert is correct, you are a rightie.
Well said Bert !!
Muldoon was more left wing than you’ll ever understand, Leftie, but you’ll never understand that because you’ve got no understanding of history and on top of that you do not read! You are a shill for the modern neo-liberal Labour Party, Leftie boy. As I said before, get back to red alert where you belong.
I didn’t bring up Muldoon, it was Bert who put you in your place, so why didn’t you direct your comment at him? You have shown your true colours and have shown yourself up with that diatribe and you have reduced yourself to a bitter and twisted nat idiot.
Exactly, Janine. I’m not a Maori Party voter or supporter, but I am Maori and I agree with their stance on Helen Clark. I voted Labour for years until the Foreshore & Seabed Act. After that… we were done. And then there was Tuhoe… I’ll never vote for them again. I’d hardly support the person who put all this in motion to have influence on the world and other indigenous/first nations people.
Clark toadied up with the world’s largest dictatorship, helped it join the WTO, oversaw large-scale immigration at neo-colonial levels, and then buggered off. Outright traitor.
Do you think John key, his Nats and their partner in crime the Maori party are traitors too? They have been doing their fair share of sucking up to dictatorships.
100% yes. They are all bound for the guillotine. It would be inconsistent to think otherwise.
Surely all politicians are traitors (and liars). The political system requires politicians to be traitors (and liars) who betray their supporters, the nation, and even betray their own children, and politicians willingly oblige.
You won’t hear one word remotely connected to reality from any of politician these days, and that is especially true when it comes to the Ponzi nature of the financial system, the fragility of the global energy system and its imminent demise, and the ongoing collapse of the environment.
What is really interesting is that around 2006 the Maori Party DID, for a short time, start speaking the truth about important matters like peak oil, abrupt climate change etc. But then ‘saw the light’ and learned to keep their mouths firmly shut and play the political game, as required.
In the real world -well away from the utter drivel churned out by politicians- the topics attracting the most attention are:
1. Whether the US will start WW3 rather than give up global hegemony.
2. Whether the global financial system will collapse before 2020.
3. How quickly multi-metre sea level rise will unundate large population centres.
4. How quickly die-off [of humans] will occur once the global energy system reaches its point of inevitable failure and goes into decline.
5. Whether humans will cause their own extinction before 2040.
short answer: ‘yes’…
“John key, his Nats and their partner in crime the Maori party are traitors too?”
I’d say no. National are for the middle and upper class – so they haven’t acted as traitors. They represent who they claim to represent.
On the other hand, Labour are supposed to be for the working class, but their policies privilege the middle and upper class – therefore they are traitors to the working class.
That’s how I read Castro’s comment.
You are entitled to your opinion Fatty, but no one would believe that John key, his Nats and their partner in crime the Maori party are not traitors, they have betrayed our country and the majority of NZers. ONLY the rich here and offshore have benefited from their tenure in office.
[Comment deleted. Chris, please address the issues and not engage in ad hominems. Whatever one of our posters might have to say on another left-wing blog is not necessarily relevant here. – ScarletMod]
Thanks for letting me be entitled to my opinion. I agree with your point that National have let the rich benefit – that goes without saying. But Labour does the same. And Little’s policies won’t change that
Yes, and what’s so damaging is that Labour aren’t offering an alternative so we’re stuck with what Key and his mates feed us regardless of who’s in government. If Labour want to take the position it does then it needs to move over to allow a true left party to operate in our so-called democracy. Labour voting for nasty attacks on beneficiaries epitomises the one-dimensional state of politics in NZ at the moment. And the consequences of that show why Labour are such a dangerous force.
I disagree that Labour’s policies under Andrew Little won’t change anything, and combined with the policies of the other opposition parties, i think good change will happen for Kiwis, but it will take time, the Nats have damaged and ruined so much.
I also disagree with your flippant smarty pants attitude, it is not a matter of “allowing” you to be entitled to your opinion. You don’t need to be like that Fatty because we disagree. It’s a given that everyone is entitled to their opinion whether its agreed upon or not. I don’t see others being attacked for saying that.
So Labour votes to support the National government’s latest attacks on the poor and shows no signs of changing yet you think the sun shines out of Labour’s arse. Then the Maori Party hints that after Flavell and other National government supporting has beens have buggered off they’ll adopt a more progressive approach and a more united voice for Maori and you want them obliterated at the next election. You’re really not a thinker, are you?
Go back to Red Alert, Leftie.
?
And the Maori party have done exactly the same thing as Clark did by toadying up to National. The rational is the same,better to be at the table with the big boys rather than being left behind. So are you saying the Maori party traitors to their people?
I would totally say that, Bert. Yep. Their relationship with National is vile. I’m no fan or supporter of the Maori Party, but I agree with their stance on Helen Clark.
Yes Helen Clark was not perfect but compared to Keys National government her era was positively enlightened.
The Maori Party have been bought off by the con men of the National Party for a song and the damage they and their Nat/ACT brethren have caused and are causing to this country makes all of Clarks sins pale into insignificance.
Having said that whether or not Clark hits the big time in the UN makes not a stitch of difference to NZ and given the increasing challenges we face thanks to the Maori Party and their government I could not care less about her personal ambitions!
Sorry but the Maori Party are trying to put off extinction day and so are looking for relevance. The trouble is they are nothing more than sell outs and that means their opinion counts for nothing.
Well said XRAY.
in yr definition of ‘enlightened’ – wd you include how she did nothing for the poorest..?…for nine long fucken yrs..?
..and not only that – engaged in a program of benificiary-bashing/stigmatising of the poorest (‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving-families..?..anyone..?..)
i consider her turning her back on the poorest right up there with the land confiscation etc..
..and a total betrayal of everything labour used to stand for..
..(and i have noted before that when clark went to the u.n. to ‘help the poor’..i had to be taken to a&e..suffering from an irony-overdose..)
..and when i hear labour apologists referring back to some ‘golden-age’ when ‘aunty helen’ ruled over us..
..it can trigger/set-off severe physical-reactions in me..up to and including projectile-vomiting
..and i do know of what i fucken speak..as i lived it..as a sole-parent raising my (now adult) son..
clark was a craven sell-out to all that is ugly in the nz psyche…
..and maori/benificiary-bashing were rife/enabled/encouraged under her…
..those labour apologists need to remove their rose-coloured glasses..
..and see clark as she truly was/is..
..’y’know..!..42 yrs of no increase in income (aside from inflation) for the poorest/sickest/most-in-need wasn’t all the work of the scabrous tories..eh..?
..and labour as much as those scabrous tories must take the credit for our low-wage/high-cost economy/record inequality/poverty/fucked environment/rampant house-cost-inflation..and the richest just getting richer..and the poor just getting poorer..
..it is as much labours’ handiwork as the tories..
..those smug labour apologists need to own up to all that..
..to stop glossing over it..to admit clark was a neoliberal-trout little different from tory neoliberal trouts..
..and a fucken mea culpa or two on their/clarks’ part wouldn’t go amiss…
..(should i hold my breath..?..)
You can add throwing her driver to the wolves after he sped through Geraldine to get her to Christchurch Airport. Nice lady. Hope she stays in NY.
I think her throwing her driver to the wolves was indicative of the basic contempt this daughter of privilege had towards the working class as a whole.
Good on the Maori Party for pointing out just a bit of the record of the little princess.
Here’s some more: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/helen-clarks-un-bid-maori-party-leaders-note-the-empress-has-no-clothes/
As this article points out, acolytes of Clark can never actually tell us what she did that was positive for, say, workers, Maori, women, LGBTI etc. The acolytes also engage in airbrushing history, to try to make us forget all the awful things she did.
Moreover, dissembling seems to be part of her essential make-up.
The Maori party are hypocritical sell outs and can’t talk. Not sure if using a Marxist link helps your argument either.
Don’t be so stupid, and a speeding ticket is nothing compared to what John key with the support of the Maori party are doing to this country and people.
That’s right. No argument. But we weren’t talking about Key, or National.
We are talking about the Maori party and it’s support of John key and that’s relevant.
We all know what a pack of bastards the Nats are, Leftie, but that doesn’t mean we have to constantly sing Labour’s praises regardless of all the bad things they do. As I’ve said, being a pathetic Labour toadie is going to destroy us.
The Nats, the Maori Party, Act and United Future have already done it
Leftie can’t say anything critical about Labour because he’s a pathetic Labour toadie. Everything for him is about stating he bleedin’ obvious about Key and his mates.
No one is stopping you from being critical all your posts are critical.
Sure, but my point is that we cannot simply accept uncritically what Labour may or may not say or do. Its silence since 2008, for example, on the incomes of the poorest people, the damage they did in this area in 2004 and 2007 and then supporting government attacks of beneficiaries should not be tolerated. Simply saying “Labour is better than National” is a dangerous and irresponsible position to take.
Saying “Labour is better than National” is a fact, and history, even recent history does back that up, and its not a matter of “simply accept uncritically what Labour may or may not say or do.” That’s just the way you see it. I am far more concerned with the present and what is happening now under the Nats. You got issues with Labour, why don’t you write to them and have your say, it will be more constructive than what you are doing now.
What was the last thing Labour did or said they will or won’t do that you didn’t agree with?
[Chris, I have removed your “f—–t” reference. Any repeat will result in a week’s suspension of your posting privileges.
Words, I expect you to rein it in as well. – ScarletMod]
Oh, by the way, it was a bit more than a speeding ticket. The driver ended up in court and was convicted of dangerous driving. He left his job soon afterwards. So don’t be stupid.
He also appealed and won his case and was discharged without conviction. The two policemen, also part of the motorcade, and who were also charged with dangerous driving also sought to have their convictions quashed. I haven’t read anywhere that the driver lost his job.
Of course, because Clark would’ve made sure of that.
Take your gripe up with her.
[Chris, no more. If you persist, you will be given time-out. – ScarletMod ]
Well the ACT Party have always had a problem with Labour Party re-negging on deals and associations made, so ACT won’t be supporting her for the UN either, on that basis.
ACT wanted 20% GST and 20% personal tax to help wealth trickle-down to all New Zealanders. Labour renegged and only introduced GST.
ACT wanted to sell off ALL State Owned assets and let the private sector run them better and more efficiently. Lange had “a cup of tea and a sit-down”
ACT wanted to introduce voucher education funding, to provide more choice in education. Labour introduced Boards of Trustees instead.
ACT wanted the abolition of state housing, to have market forces bring down the price of houses and rent. Labour hung on to state houses way too long.
Even though there is a current coalition of the right, which includes the Maori Party, I’d have to be wary of them after the election. If they can turn on Helen Clarke, they can turn on ACT, and/or United Future, or even the National Party. Some politicians are just untrustworhy and will flibberty-jibbet when the mood suits them.
Unlike ACT, who are a faithful and robust coalition partner.
ACT – nothing to see here, move on…….
See less sense too Mike,
Act want this or Act want that.
Well sonny, when your playing with the big boys you can’t bring a knife to a gun party.
Time for National to cut the umbilical chord to one man Act Party, after all, Act already has too much of an opinion. Time to move on, nothing to see here.
As an aside, loved Seymour’s interview on The Nation last week. He was in need of a nappy change 2 minutes into his interview with Lisa Owen.
http://auckland.scoop.co.nz/2016/07/on-the-nation-lisa-owen-interviews-john-tamihere/
David, come back to us when your party wins at least 1% of the vote. Or a seat in their own right without National party machinations.
Until then, Act is Nothing to see and we move on from you.
I think throwing the driver to the wolves was symptomatic of the disdain this daughter of privilege had for the working class.
Good on Flavell and Fox for not joining the sycophantic chorus behind Clark, a chorus that requires us to do a lot of forgetting about Clark’s actual record in power.
Here’s a reminder: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/helen-clarks-un-bid-maori-party-leaders-note-the-empress-has-no-clothes/
Indeed, the sycophants can never tell us what exactly the great things were that Clark did for workers, women, Maori, refugees, LGBT etc. Instead, they require us to forget all the awful things she was responsible for – like a really sustained assault on civil liberties – and pretend these never happened. It’s Orwellian.
Tell us what good the Nats and the no policies Maori party have done Phil
Silence!! of course they use Crosby textor.
True Cleangreen!!
In current vernacular they would say, “Because shit got real”. It is in fact quite politically savvy for the Maori Party to be voicing their views right now for a variety of reasons. Besides being accurate, they remind us of the faults that Helen Clark has – when it comes to trustworthiness and consistency. Playing the political game has a gamut of unsavory aspects that players need to adhere to if they wish to advance. Saying one thing that is unsavory is far different to actually doing the unsavory thing.
Yes and Key does done so many unsavoury things & lies, now we are loosing our country now!!!!!!
Very true Cleangreen.
Congratulations Bradbury you have done a Key.
Nothing to see here look over there.
The issue is what the Maori Party has done, not what Helen Clark did.
Are you on Crosby Textors payroll as well?
You might as well be for all the irrelevant bullshit you spout.
[Comment deleted. Utterly unacceptable. One more like that, Chris, and your posting privileges will be suspended for a week. – ScarletMod]
[Comment deleted. – ScarletMod]
The only way a party can win an election these days is to capture the middle ground. National, much to the disappointment of many of its supporters, will retain much of the centrist policies it inherited from Labour and pick the eyes out of any policy Labour comes up with that they think might resonate with the majority of voters. Any party that drifts too far from the centre has no hope of winning.
Hang on Martin Bradbury, as Rosemary keeps pointing out, Marama Fox was supporting Helen Clark not that long ago.
“…..as Rosemary keeps pointing out,…”
I know, I know…. sorry to nag but I really, really want, no NEED an answer to this.
For the record….for many reasons I ever had much time for Helen Clark, or the Labour Party. Even a political know-nothing such as myself could see that that team had no intention of even starting to undo the damage wrought on our country by their predecessors.
I also admired Turia’s stand on the F&S issue, even if I didn’t necessarily agree entirely with the whole ‘confiscation’ narrative.
The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 is an Act of theParliament of New Zealandcreated to replace theForeshore and Seabed Act 2004.
The bill passed by 63-56 on 24 March 2011. It was supported by the National, the Maori Party, and United Future, while the Labour, the Greens, ACT, theProgressive Party and Hone Harawira voted against it. This Act was one of the reasons which Harawira was forced to leave the Maori Party.[2]
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei opposed the legislation and argued that it represented a “very unjust outcome. It’s the same outcome from 2004. The Maori Party have betrayed Maori voters and those who supported them in 2004”. The Act Party also opposed the legislation, and unsuccessfully attempted to delay the passage of the bill by lodging hundreds of questions with the Speaker.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_and_Coastal_Area_(Takutai_Moana)_Act_2011
Spot on, but you’re never going to have a rational discussion with pathetic Labour toadie Lefty on anything that might involve criticism of Labour. He accuses those who think critically about what Labour does and stands for as trolls, when his completely uncritical support for Labour, regardless of anything Labour says or does, is obsessively troll-like and must be stomped on at every opportunity.
[Comment deleted. Unacceptable language. – ScarletMod]
What a load of rubbish. You are showing what an obsessive troll looks like.
Well, it’s not any different from choosing between Clinton or Trump, is it – which mass murderer do you prefer?
Thanks for the history lesson, Bomber.
And most Maori will still vote Labour. Go figure?
Labour did win 6 of the 7 Maori seats.
Criticism of Helen based on exaggerations.
She also endorsed/supported tppa! I’m sure that wasn’t anything to do with her wanting the current governments to back her for the UN bid.
The media did take what she said out of context. She said ONLY if it is good for New Zealand.
Hi Martyn,
I believe you could strengthen your argument if you used paragraphs. Also, your opening line that “Helen would do a lovely job of running the UN” is patronising to the extreme. It’s perhaps as not as patronising as not bothering with paragraphs, but there you go. As for the notion “as anyone would” — this clearly tells me that you have lost some grip on reality. “As anyone clearly would.” Do you mean like John Key, or someone down at the local Wetherspoons, or perhaps like — let’s say Donald Trump or what not? Is this the “clearly anyone would” you are referring to?
The reason I am challenging you on these points is not because I am not against you — I am totally with you. I marched with my father — a rugby player — in 1981 against the Springbok Tour. Now, this may seem like a frippery cause — rugby — but in fact it was not. I believe — tell me if I’m wrong — that it was a firebrand moment for Maori causes for rightly reclaiming their land and fisheries.
I’m glad you have exposed that Labour government for their shortcomings, slights and generally pathetic undertones. But I would really rather prefer you argue your case in a reasoned way: a way that also includes anecdotes and figurative language. Seriously — use paragraphs. That’s what they are there for.
Louise
Martyn Bradbury after reading all that right to the end your door still swung both ways.If the damaged she caused was bad and she at the time was clear and concise of her intentions how the hell does that make her great for the UN. Her mindset is to strengthen a global economy without the slightest regard of who falls around her much like she did in NZ. She believed in shaping people to suit the economy not shaping the economy to suit the people. They claimed she lowered the unemployment rate but what they don’t tell you it came at another cost to the tax payers by introducing work schemes which she abolished the year after. The biggest migration of NZders to Aussie happened during her terms as PM because working families weren’t making ends meet, she was paying NZs debt by charging more tax and implementing new taxes such as road tax. I also think that if she does get the UN job that the collaboration of the super powers will turn to the UN to make NZ open its nuclear free zone up as she was trying to abolish that when she was deputy PM and that the TPPA would be a certainty for NZ as she sees it as a good trading foundation for NZ even though she knows the majority don’t want it.
Geez — Martyn are you reading any of the links and doing any further research about — JUST WHY THE U.N. IS NOT ANYONE’S FRIEND AND WHY HELEN CLARK IS NOT WORTHY OF ANY POSITION WITH THEM.
She sold out. She talks an impressive flowery rhetoric, like Obama and both are political disgraces.
She is bound up in the Agenda 2030.
She is closely connected with those behind the N.W.O. — Entrenched Hypocrite.
LOOK INTO IT – most are completely unaware of any of this and they continue with narrow minded rhetoric and untruths about the U.N. and the real hidden agendas of Helen Clark.
The Maori Party ex-princess Tariana Turia endorses Helen and the U.N.
Good on those in the Maori Party who have spoken out against Helen.
Many in Labour and National are supportive of Helen and the U.N. showing a complete lack of
awareness and true understanding of what is really going on.
Some of our NZ politicians are HEAVILY IMMERSED in the U.N. and promoting their crap in our country.
This is not about any conspiracy theory that needs to be discredited.
This govt. is deeply entrenched in the U.N. and this remains wrong and unethical.
Consider googling the U.N. and Agenda 2030 — etc. . . . . .
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/09/agenda-2030-translator.html
Personally I think this blogger needs to understand how political expediency works. If Helen Clark’s government had not got rid off references to Closing the Gaps in its first term feasibly Jenny Shipley would have capitalised on that and may not have been challenged by Bill English for the role of Leader of the Opposition and might have at the 2002 election got a better result for National by holding onto the 9 seats that NZ First gained and the 7 seats that United Future gained, while taking a similar number of seats to the latter two parties from Labour. This would have given National something like 50 seats, which, in turn, with Act’s 8 seats would have been enough for the latter two parties to form a similar minority coalition to what Labour and the Alliance did after the 1999 election, which NZ First quite feasibly could have propped up. And this would have led to such a coalition very swiftly undoing everything that Labour was beginning to put into place that was originally part of Closing the Gaps. Meanwhile, Labour passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act in its second term of government and Clark stating that the Maori Party were the last cab of the rank stopped Labour at the 2005 election from losing something like the number of seats that it did at the 2008 election to National resulting in a Don Brash-led government made up of a coalition of National with something like 55 seats and NZ First’s 7 seats, which would have been enough for the coalition to implement policy like getting rid off the Maori seats and passing much worse legislation than the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As it was this did not happen and the Maori Party did well enough out of Clark’s ‘last cab of the rank’ line for it to be in a position to be a support party for the John Key-led government over its three terms of government to date, which, has had the National Party drop getting rid of the Maori seats from its rhetoric, and has led to the Foreshore and Seabed Act being repealed with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, which in itself could be repealed by future governments to improve things more for Maori and all New Zealanders, in regards to the foreshore and seabed as well as doing other things to ‘close the gaps’. And this is why Tariana Turia is supporting Helen Clark’s bid for the UN secretary general job so that the Maori Party can remain relevant, while its membership cannot see how her and Helen Clark’s expediency in the long term has put them in a better position and Maori outside the party to hold onto their indigenous rights for the benefit of all New Zealanders, while those that vehemently oppose the latter become less and less relevant.
How is becoming relevant so important when it comes to being connected with the United Nations and cozing up to the trainwreck Natz govt. ?
How is the Maori Party being relevant that important when the relevancy is in being involved with the horrific NWO agenda and Agenda 2030? Is anyone out there aware of what Agenda 2030 is all about and what it means to us in NZ ? ? ? Please get familiar with just why many oppose Helen Clark and want to expose the truths behind the U.N.
I am talking about the Maori Party’s relevancy in relationship to being at the table whether National or Labour is in power, which was why it was created in the first place. The Maori Party’s stance against Helen Clark’s bid, which was directed by the party members rather than the MPs themselves, can be perceived as being anti-Labour, while Turia’s stance is expedient to hose that perception down so to help the party to be at the table in the future when Labour forms the next government. And I am not addressing anything else you say because none of that has been brought up by Martyn in his blog, which has been primarily focused on Clark’s record as PM.
This is all about Helen Clarks legacy.
Brian, I do not need you to validate or address anything that I write about or believe. We need a new paradigm bringing more ethics and honesty into government. For Maori’s to be ” at the table ” with a group of out of touch Natz law makers and politicians is not such a great thing if it means that the governing is ineffective and not what is in ALL the peoples and the environments best interest. Maori’s best interests ?
Criminal corporate political control ( also TPPA ) and greedy lying bankers and criminal lobbyists are the problem.
Helen Clark is immersed in that world through the U.N. – Look into this as most are unaware.
The Natz are a horrific failure in most respects. They bought their friends ( Maori’s ) with funding and settlements so being — ” at the table ” for some is important but may not be totally ethical and moral and in everyone’s best interests.
What a sell out and disappointment Tariana is no matter what her political motivations are. ” Being at the NATZ table ” is a desperate cope out; sell out and shows weakness and lack of ethics and morals. Who really wants to be at the same table with a bunch of trainwreck elitist corporate controlled idiots who are damaging this country more than helping ?
Political expediency is more of the same ole games and strategies that we need to move past and create a new governing ( a new political system ) that is not beholding to corporations and the U.N. and America etc.
WE NEED TO PUT PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS . Donky Jonky and his millionaire banker buddies got this one backwards.
Helen Clarks connection with the U.N. and its hidden agendas and priorities are very important to us and we need to get informed about all of this. Who cares about expediency when the game players are bought and sold and controlled by the elite billionaires and criminal corporations and their lobbyists. Again, look into Agenda 2030 as this very much relates to Helen Clark and her plans no only for the world at large but also New Zealand. She is beyond a disgrace and so are the Labour politicians who are U.N. supporters like Phil Goff and David Shearer etc.
‘We need a new paradigm bringing more ethics and honesty into government’ and ‘Political expediency is more of the same ole games and strategies that we need to move past and create a new governing ( a new political system ) that is not beholding to corporations and the U.N. and America etc’. These are great sentiments which I concurred with when hearing them at Occupy meetings. The problem was the people expressing them had no strategies to deal with homeless and the ex-cons dropped off at the camp-site by the social agencies and the police or to deal with the hi-jacking of the site by protesters who had a narrow set of issues. Until such strategies can be developed I will support the expediencies that do the least harm.
Sorry do not buy it — Brian.
There are very good plans and strategies but the will is not present when the party in charge is dictated to and owned by a criminal group of mega-corporate idiots and the Illuminati. They control the purse strings.
Again, we need to think in terms of a new paradigm, a new political structure that is run ” by and for ” the people and not the political/social elite. It is clear now that the huge banks and the U.N. are the major problems.
If you think that the Natz are an – ” expediency ” – that is doing the less harm then maybe your ethics and morals meter needs re-calibration — quick / smart ! !
A new paradigm et al was talked about at Occupy, and people parliaments were trialled there. However, there were no effective strategies from the people talking about and attempting those things to deal with the influx of homeless and ex-cons dropped off there by the social agencies and the police (with the homeless and ex-cons now doing a more effective campaign on the streets of our major cities in NZ in highlighting their issues in just their mere presence). Nor were there any effective strategies from the people talking about new paradigms to deal with the hi-jacking of Occupy by protesters who had a narrow set of issues. And until I actually see the people who talk about these things demonstrate those strategies (whether it be ‘quick smart’ or not) I will support the expediencies that do the least harm.
For the record I don’t consider National a expediency, I consider the Maori party’s relationship with it and the Maori party’s relationship with any future Labour government an expediency in a system that has two major parties in it that alternatively make up the majority of MPs who sit on the treasury benches. I also considered it an expediency on Clark’s part to enable that to happen by passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act and to say that the Maori Party were the ‘last cab of the rank’, to avoid a Brash-led government that was out to do worse including getting rid of the Maori seats altogether. And I consider many other things expediencies like my decision to vote Mana in 2011, which very nearly got an extra seat at the expense of National, which would have meant that the only party National of its present support that it could have had a majority with was the Maori party, which was against state asset sales and the surveillance laws National set up.
Personally I think this blogger needs to understand how political expediency works. If Helen Clark’s government had not got rid off references to Closing the Gaps in its first term feasibly Jenny Shipley would have capitalised on that and may not have been challenged by Bill English for the role of Leader of the Opposition and might have at the 2002 election got a better result for National by holding onto the 9 seats that NZ First gained and the 7 seats that United Future gained, while taking a similar number of seats to the latter two parties from Labour. This would have given National something like 50 seats, which, in turn, with Act’s 8 seats would have been enough for the latter two parties to form a similar minority coalition to what Labour and the Alliance did after the 1999 election, which NZ First quite feasibly could have propped up. And this would have led to such a coalition very swiftly undoing everything that Labour was beginning to put into place that was originally part of Closing the Gaps. Meanwhile, Labour passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act in its second term of government and Clark stating that the Maori Party were the last cab of the rank stopped Labour at the 2005 election from losing something like the number of seats that it did at the 2008 election to National resulting in a Don Brash-led government made up of a coalition of National with something like 55 seats and NZ First’s 7 seats, which would have been enough for the coalition to implement policy like getting rid off the Maori seats and passing much worse legislation than the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As it was this did not happen and the Maori Party did well enough out of Clark’s ‘last cab of the rank’ line for it to be in a position to be a support party for the John Key-led government over its three terms of government to date, which, has had the National Party drop getting rid of the Maori seats from its rhetoric, and has led to the Foreshore and Seabed Act being repealed with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, which in itself could be repealed by future governments to improve things more for Maori and all New Zealanders, in regards to the foreshore and seabed as well as doing other things to ‘close the gaps’. And this is why Tariana Turia is supporting Helen Clark’s bid for the UN secretary general job so that the Maori Party can remain relevant, while its membership cannot see how her and Helen Clark’s expediency in the long term has put them in a better position and Maori outside the party to hold onto their indigenous rights for the benefit of all New Zealanders, while those that vehemently oppose the latter become less and less relevant.
Personally I think this blogger needs to understand how political expediency works. If Helen Clark’s government had not got rid off references to Closing the Gaps in its first term feasibly Jenny Shipley would have capitalised on that and may not have been challenged by Bill English for the role of Leader of the Opposition and might have at the 2002 election got a better result for National by holding onto the 9 seats that NZ First gained and the 7 seats that United Future gained, while taking a similar number of seats to the latter two parties from Labour. This would have given National something like 50 seats, which, in turn, with Act’s 8 seats would have been enough for the latter two parties to form a similar minority coalition to what Labour and the Alliance did after the 1999 election, which NZ First quite feasibly could have propped up. And this would have led to such a coalition very swiftly undoing everything that Labour was beginning to put into place that was originally part of Closing the Gaps. Meanwhile, Labour passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act in its second term of government and Clark stating that the Maori Party were the last cab of the rank stopped Labour at the 2005 election from losing something like the number of seats that it did at the 2008 election to National resulting in a Don Brash-led government made up of a coalition of National with something like 55 seats and NZ First’s 7 seats, which would have been enough for the coalition to implement policy like getting rid off the Maori seats and passing much worse legislation than the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As it was this did not happen and the Maori Party did well enough out of Clark’s ‘last cab of the rank’ line for it to be in a position to be a support party for the John Key-led government over its three terms of government to date, which, has had the National Party drop getting rid of the Maori seats from its rhetoric, and has led to the Foreshore and Seabed Act being repealed with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, which in itself could be repealed by future governments to improve things more for Maori and all New Zealanders, in regards to the foreshore and seabed as well as doing other things to ‘close the gaps’. And this is why Tariana Turia is supporting Helen Clark’s bid for the UN secretary general job so that the Maori Party can remain relevant, while its membership cannot see how her and Helen Clark’s expediency in the long term has put them in a better position and Maori outside the party to hold onto their indigenous rights for the benefit of all New Zealanders, while those that vehemently oppose the latter become less and less relevant.
Personally I think this blogger needs to understand how political expediency works. If Helen Clark’s government had not got rid off references to Closing the Gaps in its first term feasibly Jenny Shipley would have capitalised on that and may not have been challenged by Bill English for the role of Leader of the Opposition and might have at the 2002 election got a better result for National by holding onto the 9 seats that NZ First gained and the 7 seats that United Future gained, while taking a similar number of seats to the latter two parties from Labour. This would have given National something like 50 seats, which, in turn, with Act’s 8 seats would have been enough for the latter two parties to form a similar minority coalition to what Labour and the Alliance did after the 1999 election, which NZ First quite feasibly could have propped up. And this would have led to such a coalition very swiftly undoing everything that Labour was beginning to put into place that was originally part of Closing the Gaps. Meanwhile, Labour passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act in its second term of government and Clark stating that the Maori Party were the last cab of the rank stopped Labour at the 2005 election from losing something like the number of seats that it did at the 2008 election to National resulting in a Don Brash-led government made up of a coalition of National with something like 55 seats and NZ First’s 7 seats, which would have been enough for the coalition to implement policy like getting rid off the Maori seats and passing much worse legislation than the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As it was this did not happen and the Maori Party did well enough out of Clark’s ‘last cab of the rank’ line for it to be in a position to be a support party for the John Key-led government over its three terms of government to date, which, has had the National Party drop getting rid of the Maori seats from its rhetoric, and has led to the Foreshore and Seabed Act being repealed with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, which in itself could be repealed by future governments to improve things more for Maori and all New Zealanders, in regards to the foreshore and seabed as well as doing other things to ‘close the gaps’. And this is why Tariana Turia is supporting Helen Clark’s bid for the UN secretary general job so that the Maori Party can remain relevant, while its membership cannot see how her and Helen Clark’s expediency in the long term has put them in a better position and Maori outside the party to hold onto their indigenous rights for the benefit of all New Zealanders, while those that vehemently oppose the latter become less and less relevant.
That was a very interesting, thought provoking comment Brian.
Thank you Words sorry that I said it four times in the end. This was because I was getting no indication that it had been received for moderation. Perhaps ScarletMod could remove three of them? It would be appreciated thanks!
ScarletMod can you make it only two so neither Words or Blake’s replies will be lost?
TDB can you please delete three of the four exactly same comments above written by Brian.
Personally I think this blogger needs to understand how political expediency works. If Helen Clark’s government had not got rid off references to Closing the Gaps in its first term feasibly Jenny Shipley would have capitalised on that and may not have been challenged by Bill English for the role of Leader of the Opposition and might have at the 2002 election got a better result for National by holding onto the 9 seats that NZ First gained and the 7 seats that United Future gained, while taking a similar number of seats to the latter two parties from Labour. This would have given National something like 50 seats, which, in turn, with Act’s 8 seats would have been enough for the latter two parties to form a similar minority coalition to what Labour and the Alliance did after the 1999 election, which NZ First quite feasibly could have propped up. And this would have led to such a coalition very swiftly undoing everything that Labour was beginning to put into place that was originally part of Closing the Gaps. Meanwhile, Labour passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act in its second term of government and Clark stating that the Maori Party were the last cab of the rank stopped Labour at the 2005 election from losing something like the number of seats that it did at the 2008 election to National resulting in a Don Brash-led government made up of a coalition of National with something like 55 seats and NZ First’s 7 seats, which would have been enough for the coalition to implement policy like getting rid off the Maori seats and passing much worse legislation than the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As it was this did not happen and the Maori Party did well enough out of Clark’s ‘last cab of the rank’ line for it to be in a position to be a support party for the John Key-led government over its three terms of government to date, which, has had the National Party drop getting rid of the Maori seats from its rhetoric, and has led to the Foreshore and Seabed Act being repealed with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, which in itself could be repealed by future governments to improve things more for Maori and all New Zealanders, in regards to the foreshore and seabed as well as doing other things to ‘close the gaps’. And this is why Tariana Turia is supporting Helen Clark’s bid for the UN secretary general job so that the Maori Party can remain relevant, while its membership cannot see how her and Helen Clark’s expediency in the long term has put them in a better position and Maori outside the party to hold onto their indigenous rights for the benefit of all New Zealanders, while those that vehemently oppose the latter become less and less relevant.
TDB – you have allowed a commentator to put up – 5 ( FIVE ) of the exact same comments. Why ? ? ? Then you delete or not allow some good comments to get through. Trying to makes sense of your rationale.
Yeah I have had difficulty with this too with not only having my comments repeated but having to take something like six attempts before another comment got finally posted.
I hope the comment I just posted is published and this one as well. Again no confirmation.
Comments are closed.