I think that is why he felt compelled to speak.
I'm glad he did but I was underwhelmed. I grew up in that electorate. I understand he felt pressured and I'm sure a smaller percentage of Pasifika people support marriage equality. But I kept wishing David Lange was still the MP (and if I were to go on and speak of Ross Robertson, did he even speak?)
I was most impressed with Nikki Kaye's speech. She quite deliberately invoked her party's history, its activists, even Ronald Reagan, to show that being pro-marriage equality was a sensible, traditional right-wing position. It was a hugely clever speech.
Completely agree. I'd not bothered to particularly listen to her in the past, it was a excellent contribution she'd be rightly proud of.
Excuse me for being behind the debate but this I can't resist... someone had to trot out the comparison with Thomas More, but Tim Macindoe was not who I though might (and he managed to repeat the Brashism about "mainstream" NZers too).
did he even speak?)
No, I really think it was a very personal public vote and for some it was easy, others not so much.
Whilst I agree Miss Kaye spoke well. It was Louisa for me. She was fucking Excellent! If that didn't sway anyone, I'll eat my dread. :)
No, I really think it was a very personal public vote and for some it was easy, others not so much
Fair enough, however I wonder if the good people of Manukau East feel adequately represented?
Hey I wish everyone got loud and proud.It may then be a more equal society eh? Everyday that I watch question time , I end up screaming at politicians who just don't want to listen to me. I can't understand why ;)
Everyday that I watch question time , I end up screaming at politicians who just don't want to listen to me. I can't understand why ;)
Nothing to do with the vote: Sometimes they are forced to listen to the voice of the people: one of my fond memories of my twins' toddlerhood was an MP talking on his cell to a Cabinet minister in the corner of our living room. He was cowering while the boys in their high chairs roared "Quiet" at him and pelted him with chop bones for interrupting the Wiggles DVD.
an MP talking on his cell to a Cabinet minister in the corner of our living room. He was cowering while the boys in their high chairs roared “Quiet” at him and pelted him with chop bones for interrupting the Wiggles DVD
If only the rest of life were like that. ;-)
I thought he genuinely felt between a rock and a hard place. He was heavily lobbied by his electorate, and he will be voted out if he went against them .
Oh, bullshit. I’m sorry but Mangere is Labour’s equivalent of North Shore – the day that seat flips, Labour has much bigger problems than being in thrall to the godless sodomite agenda. And could someone remind me what kind of damage homosexual law reform, the Human Rights Amendment Act and civil unions did Labour in that corner of South Auckland? (Hint: Zip. Nada. And zero.)
I’m sure a smaller percentage of Pasifika people support marriage equality.
And what exactly is that certainty based on, Paul?
the Brashism about "mainstream" NZers
Perhaps Ansellism would be more accurate. If the poor old human spreadsheet had followed whatever flickering inner lights he had, instead of being guided by that dismal troll, he'd be in line for a consolatory knighthood and maybe a High Commissionership, instead of languishing on the worst kind of political skid row. AND he'd have voted yes last night if he'd stayed in a safe Nat seat.
Sofie, if Labour didn’t de-select him and he stood again in Mangere, you think that electorate would vote against Labour, on this single issue? Here are the results from last time so you can calculate the swing.
I don't know whether it's true, but I think Labour feels that when that South Auckland Labour vote doesn't turn out, they get screwed. They felt this 4 years ago from memory.
Yes electorate votes don't matter, but Labour certainly feels that they do. But there's a party vote cost there as well. As well as a party vote benefit?
I'd much rather they all voted regardless of the politics on this issue. I hate to see human rights tossed out to polling.
the church from his area
he's reflecting their perspective well but they simply do not speak for the whole of his electorate
I was most impressed with Nikki Kaye's speech
same. she can be proud of that one for the rest of her career
a smaller percentage of Pasifika people support marriage equality
not according to that survey linked to from a previous post
Eh I think Labour would be fine in South Auckland if Sio (and Robertson), voted for the Bill. I think there's a lot of noise about marriage equality being a vote loser, but to be honest I don't believe it.
Damien O'Connor I accept the logic even if I don't like it.
don’t know whether it’s true, but I think Labour feels that when that South Auckland Labour vote doesn’t turn out, they get screwed.
Well, sure -- but as Emma said the idea Suo's been pushing that marriage equality will cost Labour some of its safest seats? Well, as I've said ad nauseum, remember when Fran Wilde handed National the '87 general election? You don't because it didn't happen.
political skid row
You are making refernce to Act and Dr Brash - if so should it not be "political skid mark".
Well, sure – but as Emma said the idea Suo’s been pushing that marriage equality will cost Labour some of its safest seats? Well, as I’ve said ad nauseum, remember when Fran Wilde handed National the ’87 general election? You don’t because it didn’t happen.
Yeah, that's clearly not true. Maybe Sio believes that his seat is in danger, in which case some Labour strategists need to sit down with him and point out the realities. O'Connor is certainly, in part, protecting his job. If I thought he was just doing that I'd be pissed, but clearly he's voting with his (misguided) conscience as well.
But that doesn't mean that voting progressively on these sorts of social issues doesn't have a cost on the other half of the ballot paper (and I think a positive). Somewhere in Labour HQ there's a bunch of work being done on that.
Damien O’Connor I accept the logic even if I don’t like it.
More amusingly still, one of his daughters urged him to change his mind.
someone had to trot out the comparison with Thomas More, but Tim Macindoe was not who I thought might
I laughed for ages while reading all the jokes about this on Twitter at the time. The best was Jolisa's "who will rid me of this turbulent MP?" Heh.
Maybe Sio believes that his seat is in danger, in which case some Labour strategists need to sit down with him and point out the realities.
To be entirely cynical, I suspect Sio through throwing the queers under the bus would do some damage control after this went down like the proverbial bucket of cold sick. Which just make the epic concern trolling all the more distasteful.
Somewhere in Labour HQ there's a bunch of work being done on that.
I think Labour, at some point, does have to consider this (grossly oversimplified) question: what do we do on those occasions when the South Auckland vote and the Wellington Central vote are in conflict?
As for the raving right, they seem to be utterly without clue on this issue. Take the current rhetoric about polygamy and incest, for instance. McCrockoshite pontificates about them endlessly when he's within microphone range, but Canada refused to decriminalise polygamy after the Bountiful case (it involved a fundamentalist schismatic "Mormonoid" colony which was characterised by violence against 'plural wives' and pedophile child marriages and sexual abuse) after British Columbia held a reference case in November 2011.
As for 'consensual adult' incest, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights refused to decriminalise that form of incest because (obviously) 'consensual' sibling incest is questionable if one of the parties has some form of cognitive, intellectual or behavioural disability, as well as the fact that two of the children born to the sibling couple had severe intellectual and physical disabilities.
And as for 'religious freedom,' if they think LGBT activists will deliberately dress badly, muss up our hair, dumb down and demand to be married in fundamentalist churches, nope...any more than we want to be ordained as ministers within such sects.
I don't actually think we do. I would say that the Labour Party can be pretty pleased with its track record on managing that conflict. I think that the Labour Party handles the problem pretty well already, by letting a few MPs that don't matter go off the reservation occasionally, and otherwise by handling the conflict in the same way that we handle all conflicts within the Party: by a complicated, schlerotic series of committees and sub-committees that leave a huge amount of space for negotiation and compromise.
(Or, guys, we've been doing this for a long, long time.)
letting a few MPs that don't matter go off the reservation occasionally
Mallard will be offended not to count
I'll start listening to any Labour people who complain that teh rainbowz "distract us from our main message", just as soon as they work out what the hell that message is supposed to be. And how to communicate it. (So far the Labour message appears to be - "We don't want David Cunliffe").
Until then, Louisa Wall's bill is only a "distraction" from the cricket. Which is fine by me.