We seem to have two Prime Ministers. One says one thing when speaking to Māori and then the other says the complete opposite when speaking to the Press Gallery.
At Ratana, the Prime Minister says about ACTs toxically reactionary Treaty Principles referendum , “There is no commitment to supporting it past first reading. I don’t know how to be any clearer.
“The position of the National Party: no intention, no commitment, it’s not a policy we support,”
Yet when he is in front of a mainly pakeha Press Gallery, he has a different story!
After his first post-Cabinet press conference, Luxon wouldn’t rule out supporting the Bill further.
“Well there is no commitment to take it beyond that and I just say as the National leader our position has been well understood for a long period of time,”.
That isn’t ruling it out, that is simply stating it isn’t National Party Policy.
National have been caught out numerous times now using spin lines and phrases that imply one thing but don’t rule it out either.
When they pretended that everyone would get their $250 a fortnight tax cut, they were caught out.
When they claimed fiscal holes, they were caught out.
When they claimed they had checked their Foreign Buyers policy past International tax experts, they were caught out.
Don’t even start me about the Tobacco deaths for tax cuts, National already have a reputation in a very short space of time getting caught out misleading us.
If we can’t trust their own Tax Cut policy, how can we trust them on something as huge as allowing culture war race baiting by the reactionary part of their voting block?
The Prime Minister has not ruled out supporting ACTs referendum further, he has simply restated it isn’t National Party policy.
First published on Waatea News.
There’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for the confusion. He’s a bullshitter. Like a seemingly never ending list of businessmen who wear their faith like an exemption from scrutiny.
True.
Good post Wheel.
Logic does not matter when it comes to biased opinion.
Wheel your description more aptly describes countryboy.
I firmly believe Luxon does not want a Treaty debate, that it isn’t National party policy to destroy the Treaty and that he knows we are heading for a cluster fuck of toxic social destruction.
The problem is that he didn’t have the balls to stare Seymour in the face during post election negotiations and just say No. Now he has to pussy foot around so that he doesn’t break the vile agreement he made.
Of course it isn’t National Party policy “to destroy the Treaty”. No political party wants to destroy the treaty. ACT and NZF want to halt the judicial and political activism that’s twisted the treaty’s meaning beyond recognition, but clarifying and circumscribing the treaty’s meaning.
Just one example of the activism I’m talking about. My boss and some of my colleagues tell me the treaty requires me to teach maatauranga in my science classes. Which is complete tosh – the treaty says no such thing. That is the kind of nonsense that ACT and NZF want to put an end to.
What utter bs. Your boss getting things wrong is not what these strokers are on about
Limited your opinions to things you actually understand. The Royal Society of NZ and the Tertiary Education Commission agree with my boss. The revisionist treaty is an out-of-control monster.
Sod off with telling people what they understand. You don’t have to rewrite a treaty because equanimouse’s boss is inventing things that are not written and you know damn well that’s not what Seymour is on about.
Why are you scared to debate this matter?
I am not scared, I have given my opinion, and offered my view for the debate. Trying to rewrite the treaty is disingenuous. You certainly don’t need to do that because some teacher wants to mess with a science curriculum, and I don’t recall David Seymour raising that type of dispute as a driver. National themselves think this is a bullshit ploy, and it is. It’s a colossal waste of focus when there are way more important issues than Seymour’s wet dream.
Well let’s have a debate about it then?
Why are people so afraid to open up a discussion on what these “Treaty Principles” mean? What are you scared of?
Maori are not scared BG, we know what the facts are it’s there clearly in black & white. We don’t need a discussion. YOU AND SEYMOUR NEED TO LEARN WHAT THE CROWN AGREED TO BACK IN 1840. Simple as that.
Correct.
That’s it in a nutshell.
No one is afraid of anything. As National have rightly pointed out it’s divisive bullshit and not necessary.
Noone is afraid of anything? You are afraid of the truth.
This blog criticized Luxon for the time taken to pull together a coalition. For the good of the country Luxon had to except conditions from Act and NZF that he did not want .It is called negotiation.
@ trevor. ” For the good of the country.” Did you write that with a straight face? Did you really?
Friendly warning. For all you right wing pro natzo, wet-dreaming of seymour in tights types, go and have a cup of weak tea instead of reading the below. I don’t think there are many single syllables in here so you’ll not understand most of my comment, which is alarmingly quite common.
So, you know what a negotiation is then. So Natzo fascists wearing cloaks of many bloodstains understand the word ‘negotiation’ then, do they? So there were ‘negotiations’ between the 14 multi-billionaires and 600,000 needing food grants then? Fair, sound and reasonable negotiations between the four now foreign owned banks and the desperation that our primary exports money earning farmers who are trapped under the rich persons boot while they’re forced to suck corporate cock and take what ever money’s thrown down to them but only after another multi-billionaire and multi-millionaire rolls of the conveyor belt of blind criminal greed.
How do you do it? How do you get out of bed in the morning and believe your own guff.
We have no workforce-union protection, we’re bleeding out what should be our tax money to foreign, read retail American banking scams called mortgages and we have three, self appointed ‘leaders’ who are in reality rogernome mafia and fucking ugly ones without the class at that. I’d quite to see handsome Italians in black suits and dark glasses and all gunned up with 9mm Beretta’s but instead what do we get? A short, fat, bald, deodorant salesman, an ancient lawyer who looks like he’s asleep in his pinstripe suit most of the time with the smell of a pigs dick on his breath and a blood-boy to a bully pig farming traitor who hatched a plan to rob us blind and in so doing has convinced most of you schmucks that his way is the best way which wasn’t and yet Piggy The roger still manages to hang onto a mindless wandering clutch of greed-groupies. And what about ACT? OMG. The Back Bone Club. Really? roger and derek begat don brash who begat seymour and in there, in that gruesome mix there’s that fucking horrible richard prebble, rodney hyde and heather roy etc, etc. Greedy slippery liars all of them and we have the ACT in our front line political mix. Must have been quite the negotiation process alright.
I’ve read stories about the formation of cults and our politics more represents a cult following than an inclusive politic nurtured by an educated consensus within a democracy.
The national party freak show of knob ends with its cling-on warts ACT and NZ First, and quisling other-hangers on parties like labour, nz first, the greens, the White as Snow Maori Party and hideous ACT are going to fuck us up and how is that, you might ask Trevor. Well, the answer’s simple really. Because they can and they will and they are and what’s truely terrifying is that we AO/NZ’ers can’t do a thing to stop them in our current political health which is all neo-liberal and has nothing to do with negotiation.
If you talk like you write you would bore the opposition to death which may help.
You are obviously well off cause you have time on your hands to post longlonglonglonglong blogs.
Now, now Bob/Trevor.
I’m flattered to be associated with Trevor assuming I’m the Bob you are referring to.
Sorry to disappoint you but we are two different people.Unlike many others who comment under several names.
Does anyone comprehend the long drawn out ridiculous rants from the person who goes by the name “countryboy?”
He could have led a minority government; then we would see ‘democracy’ and not the current ‘extortion’ by minor parties.
‘extortion by minor parties’, really Peter Kelly?
Care to explain the $3 billion allocated to NZ1st for *cough* regional development, from Labour as part of Adern being anointed PM?
That’s different though isn’t it?, is it…it’s different when the left do it scenario I guess.
Im right, that’s exactly an example of what I mean. Both Lab and Nat are guilty under MMP of allowing minor parties to extort extreme policies. Until the MMP legislation requires the major polling parties to go into coalition we will continue on this merry go round to nowhere.
Who do you think that when he agreed in the agreement to form a government, in writing mind you, to have this debate and then take the debate to Rātana and will do so at Waitangi?
I think there is near consensus across the political landscape that we should have this debate and I base my opinion on the fact that “name-calling” is the order of the order of the day.
Martyn – So what can the PM say without destroying the current Government?
Nathan, he could be consistent with what he says and stop being so two faced depending on the audience. It’s a common trait with Luxon……’what I meant was’.
National to their credit were pretty clear on their obligations ( well for the most part under Key) in their last term. In fact even co governance wasn’t regarded as satanic.
Now we get all this crap about the names of ministries, presumably because some old farts can’t “navigate their public service”, and that stupid old prick Peters wanking on about English being an official language. Is he not clear on that?
Wheel – So if the PM puts the rug from ACT, ACT will pull the rug from him…therefore new election…no is the answer
Luxon is ‘hoist with his own pitard’; if you dance with the devil you will get burnt – simple rule of life.
Peter Kelly – True, however, without ACT = No Government…Labour + Greens + Te Pati Maori came close.
It could have been a minority government with issues actually having to be debated in parliament, not in coalition agreements.
What’s a pitard, is it the same as a petard?
Ohhh and it’s ‘hoisted’ not hoist
I see English isn’t your first language Peter, if it is…you were missing school a lot?
Wasn’t Petard the Captain of the USS Enterprise?
Wow personal attacks by Im tighty righty, that’s not like you, oh wait?
That’s IT in a nutshell. Thank you, @Nathan. I’d say it’s unavoidable: sooner or later (my guess is sooner) Clux will say something (or not say something) that will destroy this triad of criminals (which you call government)
“The Prime Minister has not ruled out supporting ACTs referendum further, he has simply restated it isn’t National Party policy.”
So then why exactly would he take it further? Unless you think he has some secret desire to tear the treaty down (and I don’t think for one second that he does). This is just a dead rat he had to swallow to form a government but he’s done that now so Seymour can have his short lived moment in the sun.
With Luxon, what you hear and what you get are 2 different things.
Which of course was never true of Jacinda, right?
So you’re saying that he’s a politician
You hear what you want to hear!
Say goodbye to the Treaty chaps, if not this government then the next. Upholding Treaty Principles so that 13% of the population can receive handouts is racist and no longer relevant. Captain Cook is not the source of Maori social problems. A victim mentality and reliance on social benefits is.
Man, whatever you call yourself you sound like a white privileged pakeha man who needs to do some homework.
Why do the words White and Privileged necessarily go together? Seems to be a racist assumption to make. Would you be happy if I said Maori and Impoverished are two words that always go together? Plenty of successful Maori out there who got ahead without claiming events 200 years ago put roadblocks in their way.
You would be impoverished if someone took most of your land and forbid you to speak your language for 50 years unless you wanted to be hit. My Pakeha ancestors who came here were impoverished especially the women they had no rights, were the property of their husbands and were not allowed to own land. Privilege comes with power, who held the power and ruled in this country not us.
“Why do the words White and privileged necessarily go together?”
Not sure, but you make a strong case for the words ‘idiot’ and ‘male’ going together.
Have you done your homework? Such a lazy comment.
Luxon belongs to a nutso fanatic Christian sect, so he is well practiced in living in alternate realitys AT THE SAME TIME!!! That’s how come he can speak with forked tounge and believe he is telling the truth in both instances ..or is that three instances, could easily be waaay more. He is not someone whose word can be trusted in the least.
You would be impoverished if someone took most of your land and forbade you to speak your language for 50 years, unless you wanted to be hit. My Pakeha ancestors who came here were impoverished especially the women they had no rights, were the property of their husbands and were not allowed to own land. Privilege comes with power, who has wielded the power and ruled in this country, not us.
” He could have led a minority government; then we would see ‘democracy’ and not the current ‘extortion’ by minor parties. ”
If we had ” democratic ” government then why did they do the following…
” In 2022 the Supreme Court ruled that the current voting age of 18 unlawfully discriminated against 16 year olds, and issued a formal declaration of inconsistency with the NZBORA. The previous government’s weak and pathetic response to this was to propose lowering the voting age for local body – not general – elections, with the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. The bill was passed through its first reading and sent to select committee. Now, before that process has even ended, the new government has thrown it in the bin ”
” This displays utter contempt for our democracy and for the people who submitted in good faith on this bill. The government tells us that select committees are an opportunity for us to “have our say”. For it then to bin the bill before it has been hear sends a clear message that this is a lie, that they have no intention of listening, and that the entire process is a fraud upon democracy. It brings the entire institution of parliament into disrepute (which is technically a contempt). Many of the submitters on this bill are likely to be young people, so it has also sent them a clear message that they have no place in politics, and that pursuing democratic methods of change is a waste of time. That message is both immoral and dangerous ”
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/utter-contempt.html
Democracy is just a masquerade that is used by self serving corrupt politician’s when it and if it suits their agenda and that of its wealthy pressure groups.
The Nasty Natz were against this before they entered into negotiations so ” minority government ” would still not have upheld true democracy.
Well, you’d think I’d have something to say about all this given that Ratana is where my dad is from, and that every now and then, I still take him on Sundays to the church there. But no, I don’t have anything to say, and never have, because it is all bread and circuses.
Money, and in this day and age (perhaps always) international money determines NZ politics. What is paid to Maori, in terms of economics, is lip service. Economics is what matters, economic security is what matters. The more secure we are, the more involved we are, hence why we are growing more and more economically insecure. As long as politicians serve international money, then politics is a charade….l
You have said a lot on something for someone that has nothing to say about something.
A lot of what you said on something that you have nothing to say on makes sense.