Hoh hoh that’s funny, in a way….

Not so funny in another, though.

I agree DavidN – Labour has been taking the Maori party for granted somewhat – though it does seem doubtful that National can offer a more Maori Party friendly agreement. Maori are overwhelmingly left-wing, so National would have to make a very good offer on the tino rangatiratanga front, in order to balance out the right-left difference between labour and national. This isn’t likely in my view.

I agree DavidN – Labour has been taking the Maori party for granted somewhat – though it does seem doubtful that National can offer a more Maori Party friendly agreement – Aside from the tino rangatiratanga issues, Maori are overwhelmingly left-wing, so National would have to offer substantially better Labour substantially better sovereignty based policy concessions and than labour to balance out the right-left difference. This isn’t likely in my view.

POC:

“last contribution was noticeably different from your first where you (apparently) summarised your “long essay”. So perhaps you’ve progressed your thinking somewhat?”

My position hasn’t changed since I made that comment – I’ve just supplemented my original conclusion with further facts. Though apparently you still think Maori Party voters wouldn’t far prefer a Labour-dominated government to a national-dominated government? How you reach this conclusion is quite frankly mind boggling.

Nome’s ‘conclusion’ that the Maori party will never be a major player in nz politics is a bold one. As demographics change and Maori/PI voters make up a larger portion of the electorate, there is huge potential for influence. Remember that at the moment the Maori party is really based on a single issue, the foreshore and seabed. As the party grows and develops more policy, they could be huge. Who else are Maori concerned with tino rangatiratanga going to vote for? Labour? no way. The Greens? maybe, but by far and away the winner’s gotta be the Maori Party. I wish them luck.

I don’t necessarily share your point of view – but it’s helpful to understand where you’re coming from, I suppose.

As this thread appears to approaching its use-by date, I’ll just make one observation: your last contribution was noticably different from your first where you (apparently) summarised your “long essay”. So perhaps you’ve progressed your thinking somewhat? Hopefully my comments (and those of others) at least gave you food for thought.

What it’s all about is respect (mutual respect), and if John Key can give (and get) that, then there will be a workable relationship. Labour has shown some rather patriarchal (hmmm …. matriarchal?) tendencies of late (I know my right-wing colleagues will claim it’s ingrained, but I of course disagree), and those actions could well undercut their support even more. Just look at Cullen lecturing us that we don’t know how to handle our money so he needs to do it for us. A most insulting stance to take!

That’s the thing POC – the power in the Maori Party lies with what might be “Maori Nationalists” – other Maori, or “Mainstream Maori”?, will generally vote for Labour or the greens – and a very small minority will vote for National. In the 2005 election National got about 3% of the Maori roll party vote – Lab = 49%, Maori party = 38%, NZ first 6%). The Maori party dominated the candidate vote, winning 4 of the 7 seats, with the rest going to Labour. So we know that only a very small percentage of those on the Maori roll will vote for National – and we also know that nearly all of them will vote for either Labour or the Maori Party. So if the Maori party went with National over Labour it would be a huge betrayal of their constituency. It would be instant death for the Maori party.

http://www.publicaddress.net/default,2569.sm#post2569

Also, National has made persistent calls for the abolition of the 7 Maori seats (which provides the bulk of the Maori party’s vote). Now without theses seats the Maori party wouldn’t exist (it wouldn’t have the numbers to win a seat, and it wouldn’t register over 5%. So is it really credible to say that the Maori party would a supportive arrangement with a party that wishes to legislate it out of existence, over another that supports its continued existence? Not very likely hey?

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Maori Nationalists are people who believe in nurturing a distinct Maori or Tribal identity, which will often require targeted legislation. i.e. the encouragement of a bi-lingual New Zealand through public institutions etc. Recently National has often fundamentally clashed with these aims with dog-whistling slogans like “one rule for all” and “kiwi not iwi”. These neo-assimilationist sentiments run deep within the National party, and they are contrary to the Maori party’s reason d’etre. So this is yet another area in which the National and Maori Parties have a profound, fundamental and intractable differences.

I could go on and on listing reasons why the Maori Party won’t go with National over Labour, but if you righties aren’t convinced of it by now I doubt you ever will be.

In answer to the question – never. But perhaps negotiate, where Iwi prove they have tribal ownership of the land a setttlement which acknowledges their right to do so. Maybe with the proper local consultation and agreement. If I were looking to open a discussion I would do just that – encourage discussion.

I wouldn’t invent a new law to deny a whole swathe of society a voice.

Lets face it, its the only bribe he can really make them.

I will be fair, I think John Key is a politician of irreproachable integrity. It will be at least two or maybe even three sleepless nights before he caves in.

I also noticed the reference to “National’s largely working class redneck vote”.

But if you think Phillip John/Roger Nome was misbehaving on this thread – check out http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/dpf_still_powerless.html#comment-358314.
Someone’s posted some quotes that Phillip John may have trouble explaining away.

It’s like a term which purports to describes something, passed off as common currency, and I don’t like it. It ignores the socio-economic factors which underpin attitudes some hold, and stereotypes them just like the term ‘nigger’ does. It demeans people as mindless racists by hijacking a term from America. NZ history of race relations is much more complex than that. I would vouch that practically every individual in NZ that is so lazily labelled ‘redneck’ has a Maori relative somewhere in their tree, or neighbourhood.

Plus, it raises an issue about how language is used to stereotype – is it akin to saying that it is ok to label one people but not another? I suggest that ‘redneck’ be thrown out of the language kept only as an historical reference t those who wanted to use it as an inflammatory or emotive term desigend to stifle rational debate.

This is where I was going, but gosh, a man can’t work be expected to work and think at the same time! (am I right?)

On a simple political, business relationship, the National and Maori Partys have the makings of a good arrangement.

But of course, the gnomes of this world will talk about Labour’s ‘biculturalism’ (dog-whistle=Nats=racist) or ‘the maori don’t like National (dog-whistle Labour=nice), or even have some neat quotes to back it up,

In brief the politics for a Nat/Maori coalition add up, and Helen has very probably not only been responsible for the need for a Maori party to form, but will also be the single factor most likely to keep the Maori party and Labour alienated from each other.

perhaps…

Then all we got at the end of the day is a pure and simple business agreement. We already have that in the treaty.

But of course a business agreement can encompass aspirations.

The question is will those aspirations be tolerated.

They simply have to be, that what partnership is about.

No misunderstanding there,,

ab fab

Just like Winston isn’t required to be a socialist to support Labour in govt and get a few of his policies into the mix.

I don’t disagree – you seem to have misunderstood me slightly.

My beef with Phillip John is, first, he limits the Maori Party to Maori-nationalist elements and, secondly, fails to consider how National might align itself with “mainstream Maori”. It’s and all-or-nothing proposition for Phillip John.

National can (and should) build bridges with mainstream Maori – but in a way true to National’s principles.