Entry 1076, on 2009-08-20 at 22:05:48 (Rating 4, Politics)
I have already predicted that the National government's very incompatible partners, Act and the Maori Party, would never peacefully coexist for long. Now there seems to be a major point of difference emerging where the leader of Act, Rodney Hide, has threatened to resign as local government minister if the new Auckland "super" city arrangement has Maori seats built in.
Its an interesting issue and one I'm not totally sure about. Its great to see that the so-called "honeymoon" period the new government was enjoying is well and truly over. There is also a protest and major poster campaign happening here in Dunedin over the fact that the government will spend $40 million sending the SAS (or what the campaign describes as "trained killers") to Afghanistan while cutting $30 million from the education budget. I guess that's the sort of priorities we should expect from a right oriented government.
Its not so much that I dislike this government (although I disagree with a lot of what they are doing I think they have been reasonably fair up until now) its more about not having a strong government which feels that it can get away with anything it wants because its so popular.
So what about the Maori seats issue itself?
First of all, I'm sure many people would be really relieved if Hide was no longer Minister of Local Government. When someone like him is in charge you can be sure the same old unimaginative Act money-saving cuts won't be far away. So the threat of his resignation would be celebrated by many.
Many people have rightly pointed out that one person from a party which received such a small proportion of the vote shouldn't be trying to control a process which the majority might want to see happen. If he's going to be part of the government he should accept compromise and not start making wild treats just because he can't get his own way.
An alternative view is that he's keeping to his principles. Hide doesn't believe that some groups in our society should get special privileges and I must say that I think most people would agree. Many people I discuss this with are sick of Maori being given privileges other people don't have, being given hand-outs, and generally being treated as if they are more important than the rest of us. The junk the Maori Party usually come up with some nonsense about being a special partner through the Treaty is just pathetic. If that's what the Treaty really says (I'm sure it doesn't) then its time we eliminated it.
So there is a certain appeal in Act's message and, while I think they are dangerous and I would never consider voting for them, I do admire their principles even if they are misguided.
There's also the way this affects the debate on MMP. One of the major objections to MMP is that small parties can have too great an influence on bigger ones. This is a possible example of that happening although there is no real threat to the stability of the government because of it.
So I think its an interesting issue with no clear right and wrong sides. It will be interesting to see how it proceeds but its sure to cause a bit of strife for the government (which they need) so even that is a positive thing.
Comment 1 (2426) by OJB on 2009-08-21 at 19:29:25:
This is fairly typical. As soon as anyone disagrees with them the Maori Party accuse them of "playing the race card". Pathetic!
Comment 2 (2427) by Jim on 2009-08-23 at 09:15:14:
I'm surprised that OJB is criticising the same loony left he usually supports so vehemently! Isn't this just the sort of thing that the right usually does? Are you trying to do them out of a job? But seriously, I congratulate you on seeing the dishonesty the Maori Party so often indulges in.
Comment 3 (2428) by OJB on 2009-08-24 at 14:28:38:
While many other people like to identify me as left leaning (and I suppose I am) I don't support any particular party. If I see a group from any political area doing something stupid, or dishonest, or whatever, I will attack them appropriately. Left or right makes no difference, its what they do - not whatever convenient political label they have attached.
Comment 4 (2431) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 07:48:23:
"great to see that the so-called "honeymoon" period the new government was enjoying is well and truly over." - Hahaha! Ummm, maybe you have been missing the latest polls? The honeymoon has been predicted to be over since early May, yet National is still polling over 50% (Govt 57%). The haters are just pathetic.
"money-saving cuts won't be far away" - don't you love how the left will apply money-saving cuts to their own personal budget but take the opposite approach when it comes to other peoples money?? Pure selfishness. It's that simple.
Re the possible resignation - don't let the facts get in the way of a good bit of sensationalism. Your source must be TV3/OneNews. To be honest, resignation is the honourable thing to do. His position would be almost untenable, at least undermined if he was overturned on such a key point in his portfolio. Even if this happened of course he would continue to support the government, as he has said. So really Hide has taken the upfront honest approach, and is correct. You of course term it as "wild threats" but really we both know, as does Hide, that Key doesn't take too kindly to threats.
Re Comment #2: Jim - to be fair to OJB he has been clear on his distaste for extra special treatment on Maori in the past. Despite this he'll always use the issue to attack the right one way or another though!
Re Comment #3: OJB - What do you mean "I suppose I am"?? It is irrelevant that you don't support a particular party, we both know you are well-entrenched in the left camp. If you don't know this then you don't know yourself. And I wouldn't be so generous on your independant attacks, "Left or right makes no difference", you are far, far harsher when attacking the right. You generally tend to ignore any negative press for left-leaning parties (maybe this is what you mean by attacking them "appropriately"!!. You may be honest in your attack but the blog would be more credible if you admitted to being left-wing. It looks silly to pretend to be neither left or right when your posts suggest otherwise.
Comment 5 (2434) by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 11:13:51:
Well first, that poll was taken before most of this controversy started. Second, its more the internal cohesion of the government than public perception I was talking about when I said things were starting to get harder for them.
I have no idea what you are talking about in the second paragraph. Sounds like some Jim-style right-wing rhetoric to me!
Re paragraph 3. Isn't that basically what I said? I admire Hide for having those principles (although I dislike him for some of his other attributes!) I didn't mean to imply I disagree with him but I was pointing out that it can be viewed two ways.
Paragraph 4. I don't see attacking the Maori Party as attacking the right. I really think that, if anything, this blog post is pro-right, or at least fairly neutral.
Paragraph 5. Well I did say I suppose I am left oriented, but I don't think these labels are always useful because I do oppose several traditionally left policies.
Comment 6 (2441) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 12:23:17:
Well my point is you should have some solid signs (like a poll with a sudden drop) before making such a wild declaration. They have disagreed before, and will disagree again. I see nothing to get so excited about. All parties have said they will remain in govt and support National regardless of the outcome. So what's the big deal?
I think the point is why do you see money-saving as a bad thing? I save money by doing away with waste and less important expenditure. I expect the govt to do the same, especially in tougher times like today. But yes, my language was a bit colourful so fair enough there.
No, not at all. I was responding to your views of his handling (para 6 of original post "Many people..."). Nothing to do with his stance on the matter which I already know you agree with.
Once again you misunderstand. I never said attacking the Maori Party is attacking the right, did I? Sigh! I said you will use the issue to attack the right. Like you have done here (and the prison one). Very different.
I know you said "I suppose" and that is what I was taking issue with (in a humourous way). I think it is a lot more definite than that! Opposing a few traditional left views doesn't mean the label isn't still accurate. It just means you are a leftie who opposes a few traditional left viewpoints! Accept who you are, there's nothing wrong with that!!
Comment 7 (2443) by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 12:51:36:
In the first paragraph I talked about the agreement between the parties in government being over. I didn't mention poll results or popularity anywhere. That is the way you interpreted my comments about the honeymoon which I think is more than just popularity.
Money saving is one thing, the slash and burn policies of the extreme (economic) right are another altogether. In fact, there is a case to say that cutting spending is the worst thing to do in a recession because it just creates higher unemployment and even greater problems, hence the stimulus packages and other interventions elsewhere.
So there's no debate then. I (and you also?) think he's doing the right thing but many other people don't. Where's the point of disagreement here?
But the only party I attacked in the post was the Maori Party so where exactly do you think I was attacking the right because I thought I was being quite fair to them.
OK, maybe "I suppose" was a bit of an understatement. I totally agree I am left oriented and I don't deny that. Just remember that labels can be misleading.
Comment 8 (2445) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 13:20:21:
Like I said they have disagreed before and will again. I see nothing particularly unusual. Nothing to initiate such a claim "the honeymoon is over!!". Talk about Chicken Little!
Slash and burn is not even a term the media are using. Not one person in the US will tell you their stimulus package is having the desired affect. So far they all seem to be disasters! Not that NZ's approach is perfect, but we seem to be weathering the storm better than many others. Still a long way to go for most developed nations. Chopping waste is good, because waste is hurtful in the long run.
Yes we agree with his stance, but as I said already 'I was responding to your views of his handling (para 6 of original post "Many people...").'
Ummm, paragraphs 2,3,5,6 above, also a bit in 8.
Okay fair enough. Better to know who I'm up against!
Comment 9 (2447) by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 13:30:36:
Let's have a look at the protests and other pressure from Maori coming up and see if you still think its nothing in a few weeks, shall we?
I have heard mixed comments on the stimulus package. I would certainly not say that *not one person* thinks it is having the desired effect. I guess it depends on what you think that effect should be. Chopping waste *is* good. Its different people's definition of what waste is where the problems occur.
Saying "many people" is not saying that's my view. I disagree with "many people" in this case. I just wanted to show what everyone thought, and they do have a point.
If you can see any significant criticism there then I think you are being a bit too sensitive!
Comment 10 (2449) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 18:29:51:
Okay.
I would hope they stimulus packages actually worked because this crisis is hurting everyone. But the ill thought-out kneejerk reactions seem to have fallen far short of the mark. Anyway back to you original comment in the post "the same old unimaginative Act money-saving cuts won't be far away", your latest response was "Its different people's definition of what waste is where the problems occur." Well it seems you have made your mind up already without even knowing what the cuts are!!
I was refering to the whole paragraph in your original post, the one that started with the words "Many people..." This excerpt was mentioned for clarification so you picked the right paragraph in your post that I was responding to in my paragraph 3 of comment #4 (one of your paragraphs was one line so wanted to avoid confusion). So do you see now that I was not referring to the fact you agreed with his stance, but to your unfair comments over Rodney's handling of the matter?
Whatever. I'll take that as OJB-acknowledgement that I am right.
Comment 11 (2451) by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 19:45:26:
Paragraph 1. Yes, should be interesting.
Paragraph 2. Act's rather extreme policies are well known and I'm sure they would love to start with their crazy far right privatisation, asset sale agenda again at any time. If it doesn't turn out that way I'll be happy but best to be prepared, I think.
Paragraph 3. If it wasn't already clear here's what I think: Hide does have principles and I think he's right to not want to be associated with an undemocratic move like seats based on race. On the other hand this does look like an example of a small party controlling a big one which is one thing I don't want to see happening in an MMP system.
Paragraph 4. Still not sure what you think is critical of the right. I didn't mean to acknowledge you were correct in this case.
Comment 12 (2453) by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 22:13:12:
Re Para 2: Blah, blah.
Re Para 3: Yes, that was clear and I responded.
Re para 4: You consistently attack the right which is fine but to deny it when it is there for all to see - well I just don't know how to argue with that delusion!
Comment 13 (2455) by OJB on 2009-08-26 at 20:23:19:
Do you deny that I have summarised Act's general philosophy or not? Would you deny that asset sales and privatisation are two of their major general policies?
OK, so we agree again. Not sure what the debate is about then.
I have attacked the right in many blog posts but I didn't think I did in this one. What you thought was an attack was just a comment on what some other people think and I commented that this incident might cause a weakening of the coalition. That's not really an attack. Was there anything else you objected to?
Comment 14 (2457) by SBFL on 2009-08-26 at 22:15:45:
It was just classic OJB rhetoric hence the blah blah.
Of course my reponse was contrary to your comment but clearly you have confused yourself so much and I really can't be bothered explaining it a fifth or sixth time so I will leave it at that.
Sorry you have tried that "I am quoting others" trick again, and I don't buy it.
Comment 15 (2459) by OJB on 2009-08-27 at 15:47:01:
So you disagree that Act is a party which favours asset sales and privatisation? Surely those are policies they are fairly well known for. What's the problem here?
Well its you who confused me, I think. You do seem to have a reluctance (on many occasions) to clarify your exact position on various matters and seem to refer me back to comments which are not clear.
Well you can buy it or not but that's what I was trying to do. I like to present various opinions on different subjects even when I don't necessarily agree. If I quote someone else's opinion here surely you wouldn't assume it was also my opinion.
Comment 16 (2461) by SBFL on 2009-08-27 at 19:18:54:
Haha. I love how you blame me for your confusion. My para 3 of comment 4 was in response to your para 6 of the original post. I'm not sure if I can make this simpler for you. I am discussing his handling of the matter NOT his stance.
Whatever. You never make the effort to state that they are someone elses views, and not your own, until challanged. Pretty weak actually. Other bloggers will make alternative views, not shared by themselves, crystal clear in their post.
Comment 17 (2462) by OJB on 2009-08-27 at 19:40:02:
There are two ways to look at it: one that he is sticking to his principles, and two that he is applying pressure on the government out of proportion to his share of the vote. I pointed out that both of these have an element of truth. As per usual you refuse to see any negatives associated with the behaviour of your political heros. That's pretty sad and exactly what I see from other right wingers (Jim for example).
Well I thought starting the paragraph with "Many people have rightly pointed out" indicated fairly clearly that it was a commonly held view which I thought had some merit. If these "other bloggers" are the ones you usually refer me to then I think you give them too much credit just because they agree with your views.
Comment 18 (2463) by SBFL on 2009-08-29 at 07:19:42:
"political heroes"? Nice. Actually I have never voted ACT, nor been much of a supporter, in fact I often clash with ACT fans. ACT are too right for me. I used to dislike Hide as a one issue attention-seeking populist (the perk-buster days) but in recent years I like him more and more. Now if I was writing the orginal post, you might have some reason to accuse me of "refusing to see any negatives", but I didn't, and I only responded to the issue raised in your comment.
You see that's the thing. You don't usually stated whether you agree or not so by default the reader will assume you do since it's your opinion piece. When one writes an opinion piece it is normal to include other peoples views and evidence to support their opinion. If not, then it is usually explicitly stated. In fact I don't know why you gave the example above since clearly its a view you share "..rightly pointed.." and you say so yourself just above. This example doesn't support your comment #15 (final paragraph, "I like to present various opinions on different subjects even when I don't necessarily agree.") beacuse you agree in this case.
Comment 19 (2466) by OJB on 2009-08-29 at 10:34:41:
Whether you vote for ACT or not has about as much relevance as whether I vote labour or not (which you have pointed out in the past isn't really relevant). The fact is that ACT policies fit broadly into your thinking on how the world should work. Is that not true?
You're debating over fine details now. You say its my fault if I don't understand what you're saying but its also my fault if you don't understand what I'm saying. I can't win. Just in case its still unclear: I think both sides have a point, I admire Hide for his stand on this issue (and some others) but I don't like his ideological economic beliefs.
Comment 20 (2467) by SBFL on 2009-08-29 at 11:50:35:
Fair point on not voting for them making much difference, but this is why I added a bit more than that to show you where I sat with them. Point is your comments were unfair and as I said I was responding to your post comment, not ACT overall, so your broad generalisation wasn't cricket. There is some overlap of course, but there's a long way off before I term them 'heroes'. That term just doesn't fit in the same bookcase as 'politician'.
Not finer details. Your example was terrible, and I said so politely.
Comment 21 (2470) by OJB on 2009-08-29 at 20:59:45:
There is some overlap of course, but there's a long way off before I term them 'heroes'. That term just doesn't fit in the same bookcase as 'politician'.
Why do people have such low regard for politicians? Should it really be impossible for a politician to be a hero? I can't understand why people don't realise that they do a difficult job for relatively little reward.
Comment 22 (2471) by SBFL on 2009-08-29 at 22:14:05:
Serious? I would say one of the main reasons would be the way they talk and act: avoid answering questions, trading off a principle to get something else - usually for themselves, troughing as you raised yourself recently, doing favours for dodgy reasons. Actually I can sum all that up in two words: "Winston Peters".
Comment 23 (2476) by OJB on 2009-08-30 at 09:42:56:
Sorry, is this top business people or politicians we're talking about here? I'm just not sure based on your first sentence. Ah, Winston, I see. He's typical of all politicians, right?
Comment 24 (2478) by SBFL on 2009-08-30 at 10:21:19:
Cheeky. Since you are interested in politics and work in a university I would say that my sentence referred to politicians for your benefit. Their actions are well publicised. If you worked amongst the higher echelons of the business world, you might have more stance to criticise top business people, but you don't, and the media offers only tidbits.
Of course Winston isn't typical of all politicians, but it was an easy term to summarise an answer to your question: Why do people have such low regard for politicians?. See it as an adjective, not a noun. Oh, and don't take it too seriously.
Comment 25 (2482) by OJB on 2009-08-30 at 21:42:50:
I think I can criticise both politicians and business people without actually working with them. If that was a criterion for criticism then there wouldn't be much of it happening. Winston is a real character and its sad not having him in parliament any more. Also, looking through a checklist of his parties policies I find I actually agree with quite a lot of them!
I have worked in the private sector in previous jobs and with senior staff in the university now and I would say I wouldn't trust hem any more or less than a politician. Power always corrupts no matter what form that power takes!
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE