but it still seems rather strange. I wonder what happened?
This is politics Russell, of course it is strange.
Stop wondering...it'll do yer head in.
Seems Tariana might have been a good reference to tap as well.
Given her statements today, I wouldn't be too surprised if she had been consulted behind the scenes.
There's clearly been something of a struggle over this within the party,
Those of you wanting to know more about the candidates might be interested in this Open Democracy piece if you haven't seen it. It's not local, but it's interesting. At the same time as being a bit suspicious about why the women all placed so lowly in the first ballot, it did explain rather more about the strengths of the men as well. It probably should be between Gutierrez and Clark, and they both have advantages that are not gender-related.
I think it is right to say that Tariana and Helen were good friends from the time of Tariana's high list placing in 1996? until the Seabed and Foreshore thing had them falling out in a big way. Reflecting perhaps the Jim Anderton Helen Clark falling out in the late 1980s which was later healed. So perhaps now they are both older they have improved their relationship again, or at least have a grudging respect for each other.
It probably should be between Gutierrez and Clark, and they both have advantages that are not gender-related.
... anyone but Rudd
Maiki Sherman offers a concise summary of historic motivations.
That's not very long ago in Maori terms, but there is also current jockeying by the Maori Party against Labour in the Maori electorates. Recent changes that may have fed repositioning on this matter? Electing Tukuroirangi Morgan as party president.
I think it is right to say that Tariana and Helen were good friends from the time of Tariana’s high list placing in 1996? until the Seabed and Foreshore thing had them falling out in a big way. Reflecting perhaps the Jim Anderton Helen Clark falling out in the late 1980s which was later healed. So perhaps now they are both older they have improved their relationship again, or at least have a grudging respect for each other.
That's an interesting angle.
It's worth noting that Tariana – having been a leader of the Motua Gardens occupation alongside Ken Mair – was quite a bold pick for Labour.
Maiki Sherman offers a concise summary of historic motivations.
That’s not very long ago in Maori terms ...
Which is all true except that I would say "... in Maori Party terms ...". This is a political party choosing not to support an old enemy. It's what political parties do.
But as I said before it's their call to make.
Morgan Godfery's article in Australian journal Overland pulls no punches.
This distinction between ‘them’ and ‘us’, between Māori and the nation, is more than hypothetical. Māori activist and writer Tim Selwyn, who threw an axe through Clark’s electorate office window in the middle of the night as a symbolic act of dissent against the foreshore and seabed law, was convicted on a charge of sedition. Understood in this context, the accusation that Marama Fox is a ‘traitor’ takes on a sinister edge.
Found an even more straight-up post from the ever-smart Graham Cameron who I enjoyed in the old Native Affairs twitter-whanau.
I don’t normally write so bluntly, but today I will do so: the historical confiscation of my ancestors’ land was an abuse that has negative effects today. The people who did so abused my ancestors. The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was a modern act of confiscation and an act of abuse and has ongoing negative effects today. The people who wrote and voted for that piece of legislation have abused my whānau, hapū and iwi. That nefarious act of the Parliament of 2004 is comparable to the nefarious acts of the Parliaments of the 1860s.
I marched on 5 May 2004. I carried my eldest daughter on my shoulders alongside my wife in amongst the largest protest in my living memory. I stood on Parliament grounds with my brothers and sisters as we were accused by Helen Clark of being “haters and wreckers.”
When you hear about Treaty settlement negotiations for various iwi like Tuhoe or Nga Puhi, it's often noted that they have a different sense of urgency than our brief governments do. That's not something about a particular political party.
That nefarious act of the Parliament of 2004 is comparable to the nefarious acts of the Parliaments of the 1860s.
I think political context is in order here though. As Tim Watkin notes, Closing the Gaps was worked into a race issue by National – and that was before Brash’s National went full racist with the above.
The F&S Act appropriated key rights and replaced them with lesser rights. National at the time want to legislate over all rights. And they very, very nearly got the chance to do so. Had Brash become PM things would’ve got very serious – remember, those billboards were the work of John Ansell. As Tim notes, there’s an argument for supposing Clark was seeking the least-worst path and staying in power.
I still think it was a political failure though. Labour could have done better both before and after the 2006 election. That’s Clark’s failure.
Context is important all-round. And politics is always a creature of compromise. Be interesting to know what the overall discourse was in the 1860s.
Context is important all-round.
Which is why the boilerplate identitarian response "context isn't magic" always annoys me.
Well, no, it isn't, although it's often important. But neither is saying "context isn't magic".
essentialism sucks, in some contexts. :)
You throw an axe through someone's window, that's threatening violence. It ain't freedom of speech.
Has anyone threatened Marama Fox with anything? She's had her say, and some have agreed and others disagreed. That's how freedom of speech works.
He was charged with sedition rather than threatening personal violence. Then that offence was deleted.
He was charged with sedition rather than threatening personal violence.
Helen Clark was Prime Minster, not a private citizen.
My memory of the list was that Tariana got a high list placing because of Helen Clark's influence - or so the rumour went. It was quite surprising at the time.
When you hear about Treaty settlement negotiations for various iwi like Tuhoe or Nga Puhi, it’s often noted that they have a different sense of urgency than our brief governments do. That’s not something about a particular political party.
I agree. But the refusal to endorse Ms Clark came from a political party that would like to be seen as representing ALL Maori.
While I certainly agree that many Maori are justifiably pissed off with the Labour Party and Ms Clark over those issues it is simply wrong to translate the comments of a The Maori Party as applying to all Maori. I think we've already seen that many Maori have a much more nuanced response to Ms Clark's UN candidacy, expressing their disappointment that she has never apologised for fuckups yet also supporting her as the best candidate for Maori.
The equivalent would be to suggest that because I'm white middle aged and male then John Key represents me.
I have no problem with anyone's opinion on this but I don't like the way The Maori Party pretends to represent all Maori and I tend to feel their actions and statements are more political than heartfelt.
came from a political party that would like to be seen as representing ALL Maori.
I was chatting with someone in the Far North a few months ago about a hui held at a local marae. This person was there as a member of the iwi.
The overwhelming narrative , actually better described as instruction, was for local Maori to vote only for Maori parties.
This was before Harawira began his cuddle up with the Maori Party.
And before Morgan became President.
There is a lot of angst about what is essentially a political act of a dying political party desperate to garner some publicity.
The Maori Party was formed to opppose something. It then became to vehicle for reactionary and greedy Maori elites to toady with the established capitalist order using the figleaf of a mythical golden age of tribal nobel savages as its appeal to authority.
The Maori party is limping towards political extinction. This stunt is simply an attempt to get some cheap votes by reanimating the wrong that provided the raison d’etre for the parties formation. It also illustrates the Maori parties central problem. It only ever stood for being against something, and it hasn’t moved on to be for anything, or at least anything it can be proud of.
but I don't like the way The Maori Party pretends to represent all Maori
I'm being cynical, but I'm struggling to think of any politician or party that doesn't commonly spout lines about representing "most" or "all" of some group (often New Zealanders) alongside everything it says. Claiming everyone agrees with you and sees things the way you do is part of standard political nous. Evidence is a mere convenience.
it hasn’t moved on to be for anything, or at least anything it can be proud of
um, Whanau Ora