Congrats, it swings the Herald left pendulum just a little to the right.
It has a long way to go to hit center but!
PDM, Mallard is just shitted off because DPF’s blog is hitting the target virtually everyday, often more than once, it is inhabited by very astute commentators, who can see labour for what it is, or more importantly for what it is not.
I reckon TVNZ or TV3 should run a daily Don & Hone 10 min slot into their Close Up or Campbell Live shows (up until the 2011 election).
Watching them on Close Up the other night was actually quite interesting. Both appeared to be correct eg when applying their own logic to their arguments.
(Disclaimer I’m not saying I don’t see thru their arguments esp Hone when applied to the reality of wider society etc).
So there in lies the problem. Both won’t back down. Both are at loggerheads, when in fact (as Brash noted), both really want the best for Maoridom.
Get them together more.
Hone gets his chance to be da man and have a go at Brash.
Brash gets his chance to debate “street-style” and go head to head with Hone. (Brash needs to learn to debate on a different level to what he is used to – the “civilised” board room / corporate way etc. That way he becomes more attuned to debating the hard-wired hard-left, where logic as Brash knows it, is out the window).
Also in the end the only way for Don and Hone to get each others respect (and thus the acknowledge the other’s point of view) is to compromise somewhat.
In politics, compromise, despite them being rats to swallow, is how these guys are going to move NZ forward, positively. JK is a natural at this. So is the Maori Party. (Not so good are Labour, ACT).
For Hone compromise means accepting Brash’s one nation, one people viewpoint.
For Don compromise means accepting the Maori Seats for now (which gives NZ’ers time to work thru these and other eg constitutional issues etc). That would to an extent shut Hone up (he can’t use that call-to-rally-the-troops call that Brash wishes kill off Maori seats etc).
I’m happy for there to be the time to sort thru this (as I’m f’ing sick of the angry rhetoric of the hard-left. It’s one way to cool those turkey’s off whilst we sort thru more pressing problems for NZ, i.e. economic survival / re-building the economy post financial crises and geo-political re-alignment etc.
Win-win for all. Brash needs to stop getting distracted over Maori Seats (and giving Hone a platform). Hone then needs to explain then how he can find the money to do his hair brained schemes and let the “people” decide if he’s an economic nutcase or not. Meanwhile he’s not sidetracking these economic issues with his Maori Seats battles.
Get them together more, they have more in common that the think (economic wellebing – i don’t mean politics). It can only be good for NZ’s future
“Congrats, it swings the Herald left pendulum just a little to the right.
It has a long way to go to hit center but!”
It’s interesting how ones political views taint ones perception of media bias. I certainly don’t consider the herald to have a left wing bias, I’d say it’s centre-right, but perhaps that’s due to my own political views? It would be interesting to see some kind of quantitative analysis of their articles.
It’s disappointing that NZ’s MSM has reached a point where I’d now prefer it if they just came out and showed their colours. Like the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Fox, MSNBC etc.
There was a comment from someone from Al Jazeera in I think the Control Room doco where he said they always aspire to objective journalism but the influence of Fox News is pushing them to lean to the left in a race-to-the-bottom-style search for balance.
>It’s disappointing that NZ’s MSM has reached a point where I’d now prefer it if they just came out and showed their colours. Like the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Fox, MSNBC etc.
Those papers/stations can afford the market segmentation of political bias. There’s a big enough market on their side of the political fence and it’s actually a selling point for them. When you have a dozen national newspapers, you need a USP, so you go for politics or sleaze or showbiz gossip or whatever you think the demand is.
The Herald and Post define their market by geography. If your target market is ‘the population of Auckand,’ you can’t afford to alienate huge chunks of that by being overtly political in any direction.
But sure, bias is often in the eye of the beholder. It’s like if you’re standing on the South Pole, NZ is “the north”.
Interesting post up there from Whale, if anything it confirms that the Herald’s centre right doesn’t it? (Well, NZ’s version of the centre right). It’s happy to label Brash and Hone as extremists, happy to paint the Greens as loonies, happy to paint Goff as defeated and happy to photograph Key.
Come to think of it, it’s more likely that the Herald just sides with the party in power while it looks after them. That would make business sense at least. Probably why it was accused of being a lefty rag during labour’s strongest time.
So the small one shows Brash looking up with a very reddened face looking up and almost bewildered and Hone on a well selected background with a carefully selected expression of bemusement in the context of what Brash is doing.
The expanded one only shows Hone, alone, with no Brash in sight, looking commanding: i.e. a different photo, but repeating the same theme.
The big decision ahead of Harawira now is whether to go ahead and trigger a by-election. After the bin Laden backlash, he will be slightly concerned about whether wasting $500,000 on a by-election could make him vulnerable to a strong campaign from the highly respected Labour List MP Kelvin Davis.
Chief political commentator John Armstrong wrote on Monday that the Maori Party have little to gain from standing in any by-election, and if they did they would split the anti-Harawira vote. It is sage advice. The Maori Party should not stand a candidate.
If Harawira does trigger a by-election, Labour should contest it. They don’t want to be associated with Hone Harawira and his hangers on like John Minto. Phil Goff was criticised by some for ruling out dealing with Harawira, but the Hitler and bin laden comments this week have justified his stance. If Davis could actually beat Harawira, it would give Labour a huge morale boost just when they need it most – with the general election looming.
A brilliant ending DPF, but IMO, those should have been the lead paragraphs. They are killers.
His constant refrain that the Treaty is not about a partnership and that the Maori seats should go would have gone down well with his target audience.
Personally I don’t think Brash is wise in equating equal rights with no Maori seats. I realise most people here’s mileage differs, but my belief is based on my belief that to Maori it’s about mana and mana is respect and if you give Maori respect they respect you. All they want to be, is be respected and to them, the Maori seats are about mana. Respect in this context is about giving them an open honest transparent opportunity to be consulted. That’s all they want. To be bought into the circle from the get-go and to have an opportunity at all the tables that matter, to put forward their perspective, for due consideration by all concerned. And like all equal people at the tables that matter, they have a say in proportion, no more, no less. [Note to the radicals: no this doesn't mean guaranteeing them as many seats as makes up 12.5% of whatever it is, on every single committee and board in the land, if you think it does, crikey.]
I have noticed that globally the smaller tribal societies all around the world without exception have differing perspectives than those of us who have been in large societies for hundreds of generations. It’s not surprising is it that we since we’ve been together for only ten or twenty don’t really understand each other. In other words, just cause we Europeans and Asians don’t have a concept of mana,
I really think Maori should retain special representation on many things. Let’s not get ridiculous and take it to teeny levels but at all city council levels and others, what is wrong with that accommodation, as explained by the above factors?
Note that at all times one understands of course the philosophical efficacy of the one law for all principle but I think this is one instance where the philosopher Kierkegaard’s principle of subjective truth could be bought to bear. [Note to the radicals: No, it's not fluffy.]
This to me is a human situation to be resolved by changing not only the law but our thinking. It’s one of those. And isn’t that what political leaders are for?
“Personally I don’t think Brash is wise in equating equal rights with no Maori seats. I realise most people here’s mileage differs, but my belief is based on my belief that to Maori it’s about mana and mana is respect and if you give Maori respect they respect you.”
I don’t think you can generalise as in: “Maori want” however what we heard from Willie on Close up and Tariana a numerous others is talk of how treaty settlements so far are only 1 or 1.5% of what is owed. Those people are thinking tribal territory is theirs still and we are the visitors. For moderate Maori mana may be enough but not for radicals.
reid, what you suggest is similar to the concept of social welfare.
Can you please expand Caleb.
treaty settlements so far are only 1 or 1.5% of what is owed.
I agree hj and they have to be told that full and final doesn’t mean anything but and if it wasn’t full and final when we all thought it was, then precisely where was that the case and why do you think that, when the law says otherwise?
But seats are separate from that.
Those people are thinking tribal territory is theirs still and we are the visitors. For moderate Maori mana may be enough but not for radicals.
Yes but by definition most Maori don’t think that and by definition I mean, our everyday experience on a daily basis.
How many of us ever talk to a radical?
Who cares what they say or think?
The way to cut the radicals off at the knees is to give the majority what they [IMO and I realise mileage varies] justly believe they should have. It is just. While Maori are equal under the law that governs all of us, constitutionally, their assent to the Treaty is the foundation stone of our nation. Like it or not, Waitangi 1840 is and was the foundation stone of us as a nation today. That has to mean something. If not to us, at least we must recognise it out of respect to our ancestors.
It’s just to me Brash is appearing to treat Maori in a condescending way. I know not think but know, he doesn’t mean that, but I fear this is the public perception.
The way to explain by actions that he doesn’t think that is to isolate one law for all from Maori mana at all the important tables and if he started to use the word mana a lot more and showed he understood what it meant, which I know he does, that would go a long way toward achieving that.
I think Orewa Don, Key and the right wing PR machine are going to be running a coordinated anti-Harawera campaign, with a view to using that to stoke the fires of racial hatred in NZ. They are hoping that this will overshadow the unpopular sale of state assets issue. Don will lead the charge, with the most vociferously anti-maori rhetoric, and Key will be able to step in, all statesman like, and and play mediator with some soothing dulcet tones. By the time the whole ridiculous circus is over, the NACT would have hocked off the family jewels at the nearest pawn shop, and NZ will wonder how they were bent over a barrel once again.
… also, various National Party plants in the msm will drive the issue, and make it look like a face-off between Hone and whitey, Maori and Pakeha. The public are easily drawn in by combative race-based contests, so sales of the herald will be good. The point of it all – National will be able to tap in to that great motivator. Fear.
I think Orewa Don, Key and the right wing PR machine are going to be running a coordinated anti-Harawera campaign, with a view to using that to stoke the fires of racial hatred in NZ.
I think if one were really to think that on all known facts given one is a sentient being, one would be mental.
I’m sorry mb.
Mere opposition to ideas doesn’t equate to hatred however much one’s propaganda portrays it as such.
They are hoping that this will overshadow the unpopular sale of state assets issue.
Lefties are always so very obsessed with the asset sales cause you mentals think State power is the way to go. Why you complete fucking moron idiot mental fuckheads can’t get thru yr thick skulls private enterprise isn’t always evil and sometimes works better on balance for all concerned, I just don’t really know.
reid – i don’t happen to think that you’re a very developed or enlightened being either. I’m talking about how the issues will be framed, using load language and familiar stock narratives. That’s how the emotions are tapped in to. Not through saying the ridiculously context-free and reductionist slogans like “one rule for all” (maybe brash is from the fiery pits of Mordor). You watch how this plays out. Mock me if my predictions re – Nat strategy are way off. If i’m right you had better be prepared for a face full of humble pie.
Reid – one word. Comoditization. If a good isn’t able to be quantified it generally doesn’t make a good commodity (there are exceptions). So if you accept that the right are often obsessed with making cash, you may have the intelligence to see what i’m saying. Commodities are dead in so far as they exist, for our purposes, as rationalised objects that can be segmented and measured easily. The individuality, and/or social significance of objects in our lives is lost. The qualitative in so many areas of life is lost. The merciless onslaught of the right is to blame of course
So now the Herald has at least one commentator who isn’t a raving pinko. I noticed panel at the bottom detailing your politics. If all ‘journalists’ filled it out, it would quickly become obvious they are socialists first, and ‘journalists’ second.
So if you accept that the right are often obsessed with making cash, you may have the intelligence to see what i’m saying.
mb this is where you’re quite wrong. Conservatives are not obsessed with cash, we simply see the world as it actually is, not the way we’d like it to be. We’re realists, in other words. This means we make judgements without letting sentiment interfere.
Lots of people like you, make the mistake of interpreting this behaviour as if we didn’t recognise the human elements present in any given situation be it the environment, unionism, employment law or anything else. Far from it. We do recognise them at least as well as people like you do, it’s just that when they have no relevance to real questions such as whether a given policy will have a given effect. That’s not a sentimental question that’s a real question and if you’re asking that and calculating what precisely it will do to current behaviour, sentiment really has no place in that calculation, does it.
This is why conservatives for example don’t think that life in the old days for Maori wasn’t actually like pixies running through the forest. We recognise it was short, brutal and nasty. And it was, according to all the known history. And we can look at it like that, without weeping and wailing and pretending that the nasty colonials came and ruined everything, which is what typical lefties like Hone does. Recall Hone’s comment about how Maori don’t speak ill of the dead and recall a conservative perspective on that from Shane Jones, which is that actually, in the old days, Maori would make musical instruments out of the bones of their dead enemies.
Lefties listen to conservative perspectives and actually think that conservatives by not expressing the sentimental aspects, are inhuman, that we don’t care, that we just want to be cruel. Far from it. We simply refuse to let ourselves be carried off into fantasy land, when considering what the actual answer is to any real question.
I think the article is poorly written and feel sorry for real journalists whose papers are being filled with the slanted and tainted thoughts of those with agendas like David’s. I’d add other numb-heads such as Kerri Woodham and Michael Laws to this group of saddo’s who really should keep their warped view of the world to themselves.
Nice David. I do believe Maori have a special place in NZ but only in the sense that it is linked to historical identity e.g. The French don’t go around saying ‘Oh I’m French, from France, I’m so special’ …. oops, bad example