Cracker: RIght On.
120 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
In my whanau, we have steadily moved over onto the Tai Toka roll over the last 30 years: we now find that the younger generations, after learning histories (especially family histories) and thinking about things, prefer to enrol as Maori.
So: "the market" is - sort of- sorting things out... -
Rich Lock, in reply to
Just imagine Don Brash with Jessica Simpson's body. Go on, I dare you
And just in case you need some help with that...
I haven't had the shakes so bad since Meryl Streep agreed to play Margaret Thatcher.
The horror.....the horror...
-
Sacha, in reply to
Given that all Maori have the choice of dis-establishing the Maori seats by voluntarily transferring to the general roll, can't we let the market sort this out ?
Great argument
-
I think Brash isn't so much racist as he is rankist-classist. He's always been a libertarian at heart, so the Orewa Speech seemed to owe more to cynical vote-grabbing than actual racial views. Whereas Pauline Hanson, Nick Griffin and Jean-Marie Le Pen have always played open hands in their racial bigotry.
-
Goodness, what's that noise? Presumably the centre-right falling into the gender gap that might've just reopened, considering what happened in 2005...
Craig Y
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Just imagine Don Brash with Jessica Simpson's body.
Yeah, like, where would he hide it?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Bravo, sir. Shot.
-
If you believe this, then can you please explain why Brash was happy for only Maori owners of title of the F&S should be treated differently from existing owners ?
The Don Brash National Party opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act =)
Also, Maori and non-Maori owners of fee simple title in the F&S are treated identically, as are Maori and non-Maori owners of customary title in the F&S... or so the argument would go.
-
There's overt racism, which is quite rare these days in polite company, and then there's the sort of racism that you have to infer because the only way someone would make a particular statement or argument or advocate a particular policy is if they held basic unspoken negative beliefs about the people concerned. For example, when every piece of evidence points to negative socio-economic outcomes for a group, saying that group has unfair privilege is the sort of thing a covert racist would say. The steps you use to get there, even if you don't say or even consciously think them, require a degree of racism: eg. this guy on the news who thinks he can tell me what to do, who the hell does he think he is, he looks like [insert racist stereotype here], therefore, he must have got that position from unfair privilege. Leaving the person thinking those thoughts free to tell themselves some of their best friends are group X, they're nothing like that [racist stereotype], it's only those [racist stereotypes] that let the side down, we should change our policies to stop letting those [racist stereotypes] flourish. They're often shocked and offended to have their covert racism pointed out to them. See the NZCPR forum on Maori issues for some examples. Many cross the border to overt racism in what they see as a safe place, but some still manage to convince themselves that it's the other side that's racist.
I had a conversation once with a guy who thought something about NZ's Maori policies, I forget what, was akin to apartheid. "Apartheid," I said carefully, "was a system in which 80% of the population didn't have the vote, and were subject to forcible relocation to homelands. People were shot for protesting against it." His outrage meter dialled down a bit after that.
-
Graeme, that reminds me of the argument of one of the judges in the Quilter case - gays aren't discriminated against, they can still get married, just not to someone of the same sex. Theoretically fair, but when applied to the real world, less so.
-
I am assuming that National will want to keep ACT in play as a colation partner and will not attempt to take over its supporters as it tried to when Brash was leader.
The impact upon the overall right vote and where national positions itself is the interesting thing out of today.
If Act positions itself as a more philosophically right-wing liberal party - economic and socially, then they may pick up people who would otherwise vote Labour. The ones that they lose (socially conservative?) will either go to National or NZ First?
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
If Act positions itself as a more philosophically right-wing liberal party – economic and socially,
Given the John Banks angle, I'm not convinced that's the plan.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Instead, Craig, Brash and others would rather get out the Stick of Paternal Coercion and remove them without some much as a “by your leave”. Why convince when you can override ?
Oh, go away and stop drama queening. You know that the Maori seats can only be abolished by Act of Parliament, which a pretty substantive “by your leave”. And that “Stick of Parental Coercion” dog-whistle was well out of order.
You’ve pulled this on me before, so I won’t bother asking for an apology and retraction. But it would nice if you’d think a little about respect being a two way street and snidely dog-whistling that people you disagree with are like child abusers isn't even close.
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
You know that the Maori seats can only be abolished by Act of Parliament, which a pretty substantive “by your leave”.
So if Brash had won in 05 and abolished the seats, how would have that been with Maori leave? I not only don't recall him saying he was planning on any consultative hui, I seem to have gained the impression that doing away with that sort of PC-gone-maddism was a large part of the point.
-
Brash is a racist of the willfully ignorant variety. He may be affable and soft-spoken, but any sixty-five-year old man who uses phrases like "full Maori" when discussing Maori identity, or who uses the "Treaty grievance industry" dog whistle, is not going to have attempted to educate himself over the intervening half decade. That stuff might be dismissed as mere stupidity coming from some middle class twenty-year-old with limited life experiences, but Don's a big boy and he knows what he's saying.
Just look at the fact that Hilary Calvert jumped ship to join him, according to the Herald, specifically because of his position on Maori and the Treaty of Waitangi:
In the afternoon, Ms Calvert and Sir Roger meet Dr Brash in his Auckland apartment. Among the issues discussed are Dr Brash's position on the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori issues in general. This strikes a chord with Ms Calvert, who has been a fierce opponent of the Government's position on the foreshore and seabed legislation.
When you're to the right of Rodney Hide on Treaty issues, euphemisms like "differences of opinion" no longer apply. Brash is an unrepentant racist, and it's terrifying that he (and Calvert) may well have some input into the policies of the next government.
-
Given the John Banks angle, I’m not convinced that’s the plan.
Yes possibly. But probably not going the other way. For such a small party, it's really had to build a pretty big tent to fit all it's arms in.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
So if Brash had won in 05 and abolished the seats, how would have that been with Maori leave?
First, Brash couldn’t have abolished a damn thing without the assent of a majority of Parliament. I might not have liked everything the Fifth Labour Government did – certainly never voted for it – but it’s just stupid pretending they were somehow illegitimate.
You might also want to be extremely careful about acting as if Maori are some hive mind on any subject. It’s out of order to say that’s “racist”, but it’s damn sure more than a little patronising.
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
For such a small party, it’s really had to build a pretty big tent to fit all it’s arms in.
Ha!
So now that Key has ruled out Brash of finance, and said it's 'highly unlikely' he'll get a top job, and said that ACT has extremist views...
...I do think it's only fair that the country knows what sort of position an extremist would be likely to hold in any future government. Especially given the state sector reforms they are signaling. With amalgamated super ministries and the like an extremist could be quite powerful in the wrong place.
Seeing the PM has seen fit to rule him out of finance, will he rule him out of welfare or labour?
Education?
Please, won't somebody think of the children?
-
My first post on this site was about Epsom.And I stand by it, Epsom is (on majority) an electorate that needs a heart.
-
Sacha, in reply to
now that Key has ruled out Brash of finance, and said it's 'highly unlikely' he'll get a top job
I'd take that with a sack of salt. All depends on how much of the vote they get - and what the shady backers of both parties tell their boy Key to do.
-
Sorry if I was unclear Craig. I certainly never meant to imply that Maori were of a hive mind.
So are you saying that if he had of won a parliamentary majority then that would mean he had the assent of Maori to abolish the seats? Or that such an assent is unnecessary?
Because gaining that assent is what I took Mikaere’s comment of ‘by your leave’ to mean.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
…I do think it’s only fair that the country knows what sort of position an extremist would be likely to hold in any future government.
That’s actually a perfectly reasonable question, but I really don’t think it’s one that can be made with much confidence. Those tiresome elections lay waste to the best laid plans of backroom boys and pundits.
Still, it’s one I’d love to see Key and Goff pressed on. Especially the chap who hasn’t ruled out another round of zombie love with Winston Peters.
So are you saying that if he had of won a parliamentary majority then that would mean he had the assent of Maori to abolish the seats? Or that such an assent is unnecessary?
Unnecessary and rather meaningless.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’d take that with a sack of salt. All depends on how much of the vote they get – and what the shady backers of both parties tell their boy Key to do
Could someone just ask Brash about this?
It seems such a bloody obvious question. There's even been a reference from the Brash camp to the Epsom polls being bankrolled by a "longstanding admirer of Brash". Well, who_?
It would also be perfectly appropriate to simply ask Brash what contact he's had with the party's key funders, and which ones backed him. Even if he didn't answer, there's nothing wrong with asking about something that's being alluded to by both friend and foe.
-
Dýou think the EB would let him 'fess up ?
-
Again, I still think Brash is more rankist than racist - even though the two have overlap, they're not one and the same. It does sound very much like a 'half the working class to kill the other half' strategy to me. Worried about opposition to your Friedmanite agenda? Simple. Just keep them distracted by scaring them into thinking Maori are locking off the beaches, and refugees stealing their jobs and blowing shit up, and welfare 'bludgers' bankrupting the country and selling P.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.