[Stu]

Damn. It was a close run thing but sadly it seems that the government has remained, except this time with probably a stronger Green Party influence.

That means.... More P.C. , more bureaucracy, more stifling of development projects, and more welfare and taxation.

oh, bother.

[Bubbles]

Not sure I agree with the " More P.C. , more bureaucracy ",
BUT
God bless the bloke in drag................. MR. Helen Clarke :p

[Diny]

I've not been here long enough to be able to draw any informed conclusions regarding which party should be in and which should be out. I have to admit that the word 'labour' gets my hackles rising but I'll have to do alot more 'research' before I decide whether they are the same 'sit on your backside and let the people who get out there and earn a living pay for you' lot of duffas as the labour army back in the UK. BUT ..... I have to say - going on personalities (which is all I can really do at this early stage) - that Helen Clark is one hell of a lady. She's intelligent, dignified and can hold her own in a head to head without resorting to the petty little 'in jokes' and one-upmanship digs which are so common place in parliaments elsewhere.

Don Brash is abit of a sleezebag IMHO ........ maybe by the time the next general election comes along I'll have swatted up on thier policies (and lived with them too) - I can then make an informed decision. At the moment I can only comment on how the individual leader comes across.

Diny

[Carol]

Got that right Diny.......I think Helen rocks to be honest.

:cheers

[veronica]

Liking and respecting the lady doesnt mean you have to like the policies she puts forward. and vice versa with the opposition.

[selchie]

God bless the bloke in drag................. MR. Helen Clarke :pSo what is it with the catty remarks I've been seeing about Helen Clarke? I thought she was a politician, not a candidate for Miss New Zealand.

[Carol]

She isn't the most attractive of people.....but hey - I'm sure she would feel the same about me.;)


It is her policies I am interested in personally.
The National Party leave me stone cold.


I would have voted Green yesterday for my "party" vote - but decided against it because from all accounts it was going to be a close run thing - and I didnt want to risk a National candidate.

It's not over yet folks......still the "special" votes to count.

I wonder who they are then.:uhoh

[Stu]

Hmmm... guess we will have to agree to disaggree on Uncle Helens merits.
However, they won solely by buying the (large) student vote.
for the last few years, NZ has has a huge (for us) budget surplus, ie: Taxation is more than it needs to be. The Labour party has done nothing to reduce this tax excess(just the reverse in fact, increasing taxes on petrol etc). Then just before the election they decided to make all student loans interest free.
Bang... they instantly get the entire student vote... naturally. I mean to say, free money? You'd have ot be mad not to go for that, right.
Nationals policy of making the interest on the loans tax deductable was in my opinion a more reasonable one, making it no different from any business who has an overdraft, with interest being deductable. Makes sense, saves them some money and doesn't mean the whole country is paying for them.

National was intending to give serious tax cuts to a large majority of NZers, by raising the Tax threshholds.. ie, you could earn more $ before going into a higher tax bracket. Labour sold this as (naturally) a sop to the "rich", however, this definition of "rich" means "anyone making over about $35g a year". Not that much really eh.
When you get to NZ, and you land a nice job on 50g+ (normal sort of job) and you find yourself paying 30% tax, just think, if National had won, you'd be paying 19.5%. But you are right, Uncle Helen knows better than you how to spend your money.
And, god forbid, you are one of the filthy rich, and get like 60 or 70g, hell, then you surely can't complain about paying 35% instead of 24%.

As it happens, I happen to fall into the lowest income group anyhow, but I still resent the size of the taxation take in this country.

Bah! Politics! Makes me irritable....

Think I'll go harvest me asparagus now, that'll show them!
cheers, Stu.

[adamsat]

I don't feel qualified to enter into any political arguments at the moment, we weren't allowed to vote in this election and it's been good seeing an election from the view of an interested observer.

I still need to get my head around the electoral system here though, I have just been reading the results on the TVNZ site and I can't work out who has won.

Talking about tax levels though - what I actually take home in my pay packet as a proportion of what I earn , seems very similar as to what I would expect in the UK - not exactly scientific I know, and may also mean that the UK tax burden is too high also.

[foolsgold99]

We're stoked that Labour has won 3 more years, the labour goverment is doing a great job, and it's good to see people haven't been fooled by national.

Sure we might have been a little bit better of under the other lot, but it's about what kind of country you want to live in, if you care about others less fortunate than yourself, this is a good result

(hums "the red flag" while posting)

[Singel]

We are not convinced that a change of government will improve NZ a lot. So we voted for Green in the hope of a coalition and might keep Labour in check.

[Bubbles]

So what is it with the catty remarks I've been seeing about Helen Clarke? I thought she was a politician, not a candidate for Miss New Zealand.

Sigh, :roll

Selchie,

My comment was said in jest, nothing deep or dark or " catty " intended.
I have alot of time and respect for dear old Helen C and her policies. I'm sure, if asked, she'd also agree she was not blessed with amazing good looks. She's one of the few politicians that still has her feet planted firmly on the ground, unlike alot of them who seem to have their head shoved firmly up their own backside.

:cheers

[ENZ]

Labour currently has 22,000 votes more than National but there are still 218,000 special votes, including overseas votes, to be counted.

It's premature imho to declare which party will finish with most seats. That won't be known until October 1st, when the specials have finally been counted and the whole of last night's ballot has been recounted.

The Greens usually pick up extra votes in the specials and, on the basis of what happened in the last general election, it's possible they will win an extra seat. As I understand the MMP situation at the moment, this seat is likely to be deducted from Labour's current total to leave a dead heat between them and National. If this happens, it will be fascinating watching the scramble between Labour and National for power. It may even require another election.

All will become clear on October 1st - quite a long time to wait really.

Disclaimer - The above is my understanding of the way MMP will work. I am not a political expert, so it may be incorrect.

[GeorgeM]

My feeling this morning is pretty much the same as in the UK in 1992 - the ruling party has just managed to hold on despite a groundswell of feeling against it. Helen might put a brave face on it, but she must see the writing on the wall. The only way that she managed to keep her nose in front was by stealing policies from the Nats, especially on 'one rule for all', a pull back from political correctness and dispensing some measure of tax relief (although she has seen fit to give it to those likely to vote for her rather than spread it around everyone as the Nats would have done - probably a clever move on her part).

The huge downside is the cost of all the bribes she and Cullen have put out. It's ironic that she has managed to portray the Nats as being the ones offering the bribes. The Nats were saying that those who get off their backsides and work hard should be able to hold on to more of what they earn - not really a bribe in my book. On the other hand she has opted for genuine bribes - continue to take huge amounts of cash off many (lots of whom don't vote for her and never would) and give it away to those who are more likely to vote for her but could possibly be tempted away by a platform of less social engineering on offer elsewhere. There really is no doubt who has bought votes with other peoples' money. Unfortunately the cost of last night will haunt NZ for many many years to come, and will have little effect on the ability or willingness of NZers to create any sort of wealth. In the coming months a large number of NZ families will do the calculations and will realise that their next pay rise, or next promotion, will effectively be taxed at 60%. I have no doubt that a significant number will decide that the extra effort, or additional stress or hassle of a promotion just won't be worth it.

Unless the special votes make a huge change (there are, I believe, about a quarter of a million of these, and no one really knows how these will split) I hope that Don Brash will not try too hard to get a coalition of the centre right going - there would be too many differing compromises required just to get a nose ahead of what would be a pretty strong and coherent opposition. This would play right into Winston's hands and would result in so many promises being broken that the Nats would be unable to deliver on many of their promises and as a consequnce would be in a weakened state in three years time (if indeed they lasted that long). Better to consolidate - use the momentum and additional numbers gained to scrutinse everything being done by the government to the finest degree and let NZ know just what really is happening in places like the Wananga, the prisons, WINZ, CYF and other failing institutions.

[GeorgeM]

Labour currently has 22,000 votes more than National but there are still 218,000 special votes, including overseas votes, to be counted.

It's premature imho to declare which party will finish with most seats. That won't be known until October 1st, when the specials have finally been counted and the whole of last night's ballot has been recounted.

The Greens usually pick up extra votes in the specials and, on the basis of what happened in the last general election, it's possible they will win an extra seat. As I understand the MMP situation at the moment, this seat is likely to be deducted from Labour's current total to leave a dead heat between them and National. If this happens, it will be fascinating watching the scramble between Labour and National for power. It may even require another election.
According to National Radio this morning (for overseas readers please note that this is NOT controlled by Mr Brash et al :D ) the special votes would need to split 46% Nat to 35% Lab to change the standings. The view was that this was not impossible, but unlikely.

Rod Donald was interviewed and said that the Greens needed to get ahead by another 0.2% to pick up another seat (which would, for God's sake, be Nandor Tazos - he appeared on TVOne's election programme last night looking like an extra from the latest Harry Potter film). In the last two elections they had picked up an additional vote at special vote time and he was confident that they would do it again. He reckoned that if they got another seat it would be at the expense of the Nats rather than of Lab, but presumably this would be based on the Lab/Nat proportion remaining the same as it is now. He didn't elaborate (quelle surprise...).

Interestingly, though, he said that the Progressives (Jim Anderton et no-one-else-at-the-moment) would get another seat if they could raise their vote by a further 0.15%. If they did this AND the Greens got Nandor in then BOTH Lab and the Nats would lose a seat each (although the additional Progressives seat would make no different to the overall result as these are just left wing labourites, it could have an effect on who is the largest party, which in turn could influence who Winston/Peter Dunne go to first, etc etc).

Does anyone know what exactly the Special Votes are? I know that some are overseas votes, but are they all? And why does it take so long to get them in? I was well impressed with the way that the general count was 100% complete by midnight last night whereas it takes until the following afternoon in the UK to really finish things off. But then we're told that it will take 2 weeks to count the last 10% of votes. Presumably there is a reason for this, but I'd be interested to know what it is.

[miep]

GeorgeM, Stu, I'm surprised you say Labour was buying votes when in my impression was exactly the opposite! If Labour wins I get nothing, if National wins I get heaps. Hubby and myself both fall into Stu's category of the "seriously rich" and we would have stood to gain much more than Joe Average which to me doesn't seem fair from any point of view!
Most of Nationals policies seem very short sighted, all short term gain but no long term vision. I worked for government for a few months this year and I can tell you I was not impressed with the quality of parlementary questions raised by the opposition! None of them seem to know what's really going on and their knowledge really didn't go beyond newspaper headline level. Scary!
And no I don't agree with all of Labour's policies either but everybody seems to forget that the economy is booming and unemployment is the lowest in the developed world, so they must have done something right? I also worry about Brash being able to cope with the US, I think he'd buckle over in 5 minutes and we'd be sending soldiers to Iraq, have nuclear warships visit and generally be at their beck and call. I mean, look at the facts, Brash was too cowardly to say anything to that wananga last week but had a cup of tea instead. So how would het cope with the likes of Condoleeza Rice???

Cheers, Miep

[toesonthenose]

Right on miep!
If Brash comes in Kiwis will be in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably Iran by 2007. Not to mention many US naval warships in your ports and the airbase Bush, Cheney & Co. would love to put in NZ. Just look, the US is moving onto a base in northern Australia, and would love to expand our footprint into NZ. And guess what Mr. Brash? We don't leave, WW2 has been over for 60 years, the US still has bases in Japan, Germany, Italy, UK, and our new bases in Kazahkstan, Uzbekistan, etc. Please don't let NZ get completely engulfed in Pax Americana!
Ta ta for now!

[veronica]

I hate political things, both situations and people, but unfortunately can't come up with an alternative.....
I can see no difference between any of the attitudes of the politicians either in the UK or here. They all promise us something, anything to tempt us to vote for them. blow anything in depth for the country as a whole. the policies are designed at the election time to sound good to different sections of the population but will these promises materialise. I think the Tui hoarding has the most accurate statement.....

YEAH RIGHT

[Avalon]

We're stoked that Labour has won 3 more years, the labour goverment is doing a great job, and it's good to see people haven't been fooled by national.


With respect - just because someone may have voted national - it does not mean they were "fooled". It doesnt mean they didnt understand the question.
People have many many reasons for voting the way they do. isnt that the point?

To say people must be fooled in order to vote for "the other guy" is as bad as Blair saying "real people" would aggree with him. If You dont - its because you dont understand.

Id say, going by last night - National managed to "fool" a helluva lot of people in the last 3 years!

No one who got up and voted yesterday was "foolish". Whoever they voted for. For whatever reasons. If you voted differently to me - who am I to say that your vote was cast because you were fooled?

[GeorgeM]

GeorgeM, Stu, I'm surprised you say Labour was buying votes when in my impression was exactly the opposite!
If you can't see why Labour's policy is a bribe and why National's was not, then you probably are comfortable in the Kafkaesque world of NZ in 2005 where the man who calls for one law for all is labelled a racist!

[Brian]

That means.... More P.C. , more bureaucracy, more stifling of development projects, and more welfare and taxation.

Some time ago I felt the same way about the liberal party we have here in the US. 5 years of "pro business" government here has not proven to be beneficial to anyone other than the top 2%.

I haven't versed myself on NZ politics much yet (my move isn't until early next year) but I think there's quite a few worse things to spend money on than helping people to go to college.

[GeorgeM]

I think there's quite a few worse things to spend money on than helping people to go to college.
On the face of it I agree, but the reality is that too many people are being encouraged to go to second- or third-rate institutions to follow pointless courses which play no part in preparing them for future life.

Lots of people are conned into wasting five or more years of their life getting into debt whilst having no positive impact on their future ability to earn a living. If they had been encouraged into learning a trade at 16 rather than into academic study they could be set up for life.

Interest free loans for all will only encourage more to tread this unproductive route, making the eventual financial value of the qualifications gained even less.

My boss has an interest in a bakery franchise. One day he cacluated the figures to show that a youth leaving school at 16 and training to be a baker would be far better off financially, OVER THE WHOLE OF HIS WORKING LIFE, than someone earning the average graduate wage. Which would put him far better off than many graduates.

There are far better ways to spend money on education than to pump billions into interest free loans for students. But then such policies are hardly likely to produce tens of thousands of votes for the party handing out the goodies, are they?

[miep]

GeorgeM, Can you explain the difference to me? Why was National'l tax cut for everyone not a bribe? And Labour's no interest loans and bonuses for families are?

Cheers, Miep

[GeorgeM]

GeorgeM, Can you explain the difference to me? Why was National'l tax cut for everyone not a bribe? And Labour's no interest loans and bonuses for families are?

Cheers, Miep
I don't think that you can bribe people with their own money (unless you're very clever). But you can bribe people with somebody elses.

Brash was offering to let us keep what we had worked hard to earn.

Helen and her cronies will continue to take too much off the workers but will give some of it back to those she had to buy to stay in office.

Simple, really.

[dave k]

I think the Gnats ran a childish & very much dumbed-down campaign for the benefit of the hard of thinking...those billboards & that risible t.v ad...jeez.

I don't want to fall out with anyone on here, but I think their right-wing policies are very myopic and are basically focused on short-term gratification for individuals.

I'm extremely glad that kiwis came to their senses at the 11th hour and voted with their consciences rather than from their wallets.

Just my 2c.

[GeorgeM]

I'm extremely glad that kiwis came to their senses at the 11th hour and voted with their consciences rather than from their wallets.
I think that far too many kiwis voted with their wallets in this election. Trouble is that these wallets are now going to be filled by the hard work of others.

[Avalon]

I think the Gnats ran a childish & very much dumbed-down campaign for the benefit of the hard of thinking...those billboards & that risible t.v ad...jeez.

I don't want to fall out with anyone on here, but I think their right-wing policies are very myopic and are basically focused on short-term gratification for individuals.

I'm extremely glad that kiwis came to their senses at the 11th hour and voted with their consciences rather than from their wallets.

Just my 2c.

So again, Anyone who does not vote "the right way" (as defined by those who do, of course) either have no sense or worse - no conscience?????

I really do find that disturbing.

Argue the politcics - thats the way we all learn, but could we please stop saying that people who vote differently are somehow intellectually or socially inferior.

Not everyone who did not vote for Helen Clark, did so based on thier wallets!

[dave k]

So again, Anyone who does not vote "the right way" (as defined by those who do, of course) either have no sense or worse - no conscience?????

Replace "no sense" with "easily duped with an ill-conceived sop" and maybe we're closer.
The "voting with their conscience" comment was to illustrate the way I feel kiwis have resisited the baubles that have been placed before them & voted for a sustainable future for everyone.


I really do find that disturbing.


You must be easily disturbed. It's just an opinion... given here to highlight the different expectations some voters have from their chosen party's policies.

It's not empirical evidence.



Argue the politcics - thats the way we all learn, but could we please stop saying that people who vote differently are somehow intellectually or socially inferior.

Who said that?

I said Nat's campaign was a cheap shot.

Not everyone who did not vote for Helen Clark, did so based on thier wallets!

No, I suppose not.

They were probably lured in by the promise of a deepening rift between Maori & Pakeha, the prospect of abandoning NZ's nuclear-free policy & cosying up in bed with Dubbya, and heading massively into debt to finance Nat's election promises.

[StevieD]

Nice to see that politics has stirred the hearts and minds of so many. Being on the "other side" here in UK, it is interesting to see the many comments on Nationals taxation policy.
Unfortunately things have to be paid for. Full stop. And taxation has raised the hackles for many centuries and will continue to do so.
But what is the OVERALL taxation burden in NZ? I would love to see a comparison of UK "real taxation" and that down there.
UK = hidden taxes everywhere on top of income tax/national insurance contributions.
Car tax is expensive here, insurance astronomical, petrol tax to name a few.
Any indication of what we can expect when we take the plunge and move south?

Steve

[Avalon]

Dave:

What I find disturbing is that you seemed to be saying that anyone who voted labour, voted with thier conscience. Implying that those who did not vote labour, did not vote with thier conscience. If I misread that , im very sorry.

It is disturbing because who on earth can define the right way to be conscienctious?

I cannot in my conscience vote for any party that is as racist as the labour party is. Need is based on Need, not on the colour of ones skin, or on ones parentage. That made voting very difficult, because not many of the parties were prepared to stand up and say "One law for ALL new zealanders".

I voted, not on the basis of Nats tax cuts, nor Labours Student Loans, nor any Baubles dangled by anyone. I voted on the basis of the parties I thought were least divisive. That was not in my opinion Labour.

I hope that makes more sense.

[Avalon]

Nice to see that politics has stirred the hearts and minds of so many. Being on the "other side" here in UK, it is interesting to see the many comments on Nationals taxation policy.
Unfortunately things have to be paid for. Full stop. And taxation has raised the hackles for many centuries and will continue to do so.
But what is the OVERALL taxation burden in NZ? I would love to see a comparison of UK "real taxation" and that down there.
UK = hidden taxes everywhere on top of income tax/national insurance contributions.
Car tax is expensive here, insurance astronomical, petrol tax to name a few.
Any indication of what we can expect when we take the plunge and move south?

Steve

I had a bunch of Kiwis fainting with shock the other week when we told them that one of the reasons we came here was for the Low Taxes!

I was actually quite shocked at all the tax cuts stuff that came out in the election. I mean LOWER than low taxes???? Alan's tax burden is much lower than in the UK. Mine is higher because there is no personal allowance. I would like to see that come here, because the tax burden on low income families is significantly higher here than in the UK. At our income level, there are ways and means of reducing tax, but at the lower end, options are limited.

From what i have understood, one of the problems though, is that there is a huge surplus of money sitting in a fat government wallet, and people want it back. Thta I can agree with - I just dont think taxes should be there for the governemnt to sit on and count every day. Then theres the problem of WHO gets the taxes. It does not always go to those who need it.

And its fairly nice to come to a country which doesnt tax EVERYTHING you do.

[Stu]

The tax cuts were not a "bribe"... the govt has a budget surplus, that means that it is taking in more money in taxes than it needs to run the country.
So, with this surplus, does it spend that on, for instance, spending it on urgently needed roading in Auckland? Ummm, no, they introduce ANOTHER 5c a litre tax on petrol to pay for that. Eh!!??

Increasing taxation by the govt does not detirmine the amount they love and care for the masses. Not unless you are really into tough love in a big and financially serious way.

The only reason labour got as many votes as it did was that they bought the entire student vote by promising them such a huge lollipop. How many students? tens of thousands. Who was voting with their cheque books?

National, being the racist and divisive party they are, said that in an MMP environment, what reason is there for a Maoris only gauranteed number of seats in the parliament. Why not have everyone in the general electoral roll? What would happen in the US if there were a gauranteed number of say 5 seats in congress for Blacks (I am not sure, is it supposed to be African Americans? Black is easier to type) only, as long as all the blacks had to vote for only those seats? Man, would that go down like a lead balloon.

We had the MAori seats here in NZ when Maori populations were very low, and they were marginalised by frankly rascist attitudes of the time. These days things have advanced sufficiently that I no longer think this is necessary, surely Maori can take their chances with the govtthe same as the rest of us now?

Interesting thread this isn't it? :-) really stirred folks up!

Well, mustaway to the farm, get them staff cracking!
Cheers, Stu.

[GeorgeM]

Nice to see that politics has stirred the hearts and minds of so many. Being on the "other side" here in UK, it is interesting to see the many comments on Nationals taxation policy.
Unfortunately things have to be paid for. Full stop. And taxation has raised the hackles for many centuries and will continue to do so.
But what is the OVERALL taxation burden in NZ? I would love to see a comparison of UK "real taxation" and that down there.
Agreed that there must be taxes if a society is to function. But it's the degree and the nature in which they're collected that is in question.

I think that the problem is that the people who are choosing what has to be paid for, and the quality of what is being bought, is often not those who are paying for it. It's as if I could go shopping for a new car with a benefactor - now should I choose a perfectly adequate 5 year old Mitsubishi Colt, or that new Mercedes 500SL? Now let me see. An extreme analagy, but work the parameters in a bit and you get the picture!

Labour's only hope was to try to paint people who would benefit from tax cuts as greedy rich b'stards, whereas most of them are hard working ordinary people. The Nats tax cuts would have stopped at $100K pa - 38,400 GBP. Hardly millionairesville. And up to that level people would still be adding at least 19.5 cents and upto 30 cents from every dollar they earn to the general pot. Not a bad contribution really. If I choose to work a Saturday I fail to see why I should donate much of it to people who are sitting at home watching the TV... (not that I get paid for overtime).

From what I have read the total tax burden on NZers is in the same sort of area as for the UK, but with NZ the lower of the two by a whisker. We don't get the hidden NI or the TV licence but we do get a car tax and GST on a wider range of things (including books and food).

[foolsgold99]

[QUOTE]What I find disturbing is that you seemed to be saying that anyone who voted labour, voted with thier conscience. Implying that those who did not vote labour, did not vote with thier conscience. If I misread that , im very sorry.

It is disturbing because who on earth can define the right way to be conscienctious?
[\QUOTE]

Replace "conscience" with "compassion" and your getting closer to the truth. No one voted National with thoughts of helping those less well off than themselves. People who voted National did so, out of self interest. " me me me..."

A good percentage of Labour voters cost their vote, in the knowledge that what was in the best short term financal interest of their family, wasn't in the best long term interest of the country. Offer me $30 a week in a tax cut, and I'll say thanks. Tell me that the money is being taken off the poorest children in society to fund it, and I don't want it. It's tainted money.

People who voted labour, did so because they wanted to live in a country where everyone has a chance, and real opertunity isn't confined to the rich. A country were everyones talent is given a chance, is a nicer, safer and in the long term richer country, as everyone gets the chance to make a meaningful contribution.

[Stu]

Ohhh, WHAT??? "compassion" instead of Conscience?? You're kidding right?

This govt at the moment is taking over 7 BILLION dollars in surplus tax from NZers every year. Allowing for say 50% of the population in NZ being tax payers, that is $3500 a year each that we are giving more to the govt than they are spending. (some more, some less)

excuse me, MORE THAN they are spending. Not "taking off the poor babies and waifs and strays". Not tainted blood money.

You are paying THOUSANDS a year that the govt is NOT USING to pay for social programmes. And yet you find the thought of reducing the amount of EXCESS they are collecting from all of us is somehow repellant? That higher taxes are some sort of salve for your conscience when you see someone that makes less than you for whatever reason? If you feel that bad, join a community voluntary organisation like Lions.

There were a lot more reasons for me opting for NAtional than just the tax cuts though. A lot of what they said made sense to me. Guess I am just ignorant and compassionless.

Stu.

[GeorgeM]

They were probably lured in by the promise of a deepening rift between Maori & Pakeha
Until this election I have to confess that I had always supported the Labour candidate, in the UK or NZ.

But the issue that really swung it for me was the Nat's stand on the Maori issue.

As I have said earlier I find it absolutely amazing that thought can be manipulated so much in NZ that the one guy who is making a rallying call for everyone to be treated equally is the one who is villified as a racist. If it is possible I ask people to close their ears for just 5 minutes to the rhetoric and to ask themselves a number of things:

1. Transpose what Brash has been saying to any other political situation in the world and see if you think that he is still a racist. In Britain wouldn't it be the National Front who was supporting special rights for those who had been there the longest? Wouldn't they be seen as the racists? Wouldn't those who said that everyone who was in the country legally should be treated equally under the law be seen as expressing the normally accepted view?

2. Ask yourselves who stands to gain from a situation where Maori get special rights and privileges. In the past it has always been the Labour movement - and even though the Maori Party took 4 constituancy seats on Saturday night Labour took the lion's share of their party vote (in effect giving the voters in these two seats two votes each). If those who had voted Maori in these seats had also voted for that party with their party vote then the Lab/Nat situation would be reversed (remember that there's only 20K votes between them), but the Maori Party representation would remain unaltered (as the 4 seats they have is too many on a proportional basis).

3. What is a Maori? This is a question that we have been told it is unacceptable under the current regime to ask, but it is central to the issue. It seems that as soon as a child is born who has any degree of Maori background whatsoever it needs special treatment as far as health and education is concerned, and magically has an affinity with the natural world around him. If the qualification for being seen as British were the same as being called Maori then we would say that a high 90s percentage of NZers were British. Why bother with this numbers game (apart from the fact that if serves the political needs of some deeply entrenched factions)? Let's call everyone a NZer, treat everyone the same based on their current needs, not tiny bits of their heritage and get on with living in the 21st century not the 1840s.

[veronica]

I agree with what you have said George, if a child is one eighth maori then its classed as 'maori' 'scuse me what about the other 7/8ths of its heritage. And how easy is it to tell the islanders from the maori, I know I can't.

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

[Avalon]

[
Replace "conscience" with "compassion" and your getting closer to the truth. No one voted National with thoughts of helping those less well off than themselves. People who voted National did so, out of self interest. " me me me..."
.

That is crap, and extremely offensive.

How dare you assume that if I voted national I have no compassion!

How dare you assume that If I voted national I did so out of self interest.

You have no idea of the amount of compassion I hold for other people.

What gives you the right to arbitarily decide why someone voted they way they did?

What exactly is so compassionate about Helen Clark's government? The woman let several police office out to hang so she could get to a bleeding rugby match! She will let needy famlies suffer because they do not have the right racial background!

Why is a tax cut not compassionate? Why is saying to people who earn relatively little, that even though we have soooo much extra money already, we will continue to take more than we need - why is that compassionate????

Im all for differing views on politics, but this "Morally Superior" attitude is quite frankly sickening. And I hate to say it, but why is that it is the Labour Supporters on this thread who feel it nessecary to do so? The national "supporters" are arguing thier case. They are not calling you heartless, and stupid because you voted labour.

Could you please offer them the same courtesy? Is that too much to ask from someone who claims to understand compassion?

[foolsgold99]

Why is a tax cut not compassionate?

Why is saying to people who earn relatively little, that even though we have soooo much extra money already, we will continue to take more than we need - why is that compassionate????



The tax cuts offered from National were not compassionate, because to fund them it would require to cut funding to the "working for familes" program which helps the poorest childern in society.

National was going to help funtdtheir tax cuts by cancelling the planed $10 a child a week increase in the family support payments due to come in April 2007, this would have increased the number of children living in poverty by 18%. Under Nationals plan, the poorest 125,000 New Zealanders would have seen average cuts in income of $20 a week, in order to help fund tax cuts of $93 a week for the richest 3% of country. For this reason alone they were not compassionate.

As for taking more than we need, the labour goverment (like in the UK) has reduced goverment debt by billions, allowing money to be spent on productive things, instead of wasted in interest payments to forigen banks.

[dave k]

[QUOTE=GeorgeM]Until this election I have to confess that I had always supported the Labour candidate, in the UK or NZ.

But the issue that really swung it for me was the Nat's stand on the Maori issue.

As I have said earlier I find it absolutely amazing that thought can be manipulated so much in NZ that the one guy who is making a rallying call for everyone to be treated equally is the one who is villified as a racist. If it is possible I ask people to close their ears for just 5 minutes to the rhetoric and to ask themselves a number of things:

It's really not that long ago since we came steaming through these islands, claiming them for our own & then fobbing the inhabitants off with a useless scrap of paper that we had no intention of honouring.
Treating everyone equally is all very well if we're on a level playing field to begin with. But we're not.

1. Transpose what Brash has been saying to any other political situation in the world and see if you think that he is still a racist. In Britain wouldn't it be the National Front who was supporting special rights for those who had been there the longest? Wouldn't they be seen as the racists? Wouldn't those who said that everyone who was in the country legally should be treated equally under the law be seen as expressing the normally accepted view?

That doesn't really work though does it? The NF represent the interests of the majority race in the UK which, quite clearly, has no need for "special rights".

2. Ask yourselves who stands to gain from a situation where Maori get special rights and privileges. In the past it has always been the Labour movement - and even though the Maori Party took 4 constituancy seats on Saturday night Labour took the lion's share of their party vote (in effect giving the voters in these two seats two votes each). If those who had voted Maori in these seats had also voted for that party with their party vote then the Lab/Nat situation would be reversed (remember that there's only 20K votes between them), but the Maori Party representation would remain unaltered (as the 4 seats they have is too many on a proportional basis).

I would've thought the Maori stand to gain, at least until the present situation is even approaching an equal footing.


3. What is a Maori? This is a question that we have been told it is unacceptable under the current regime to ask, but it is central to the issue. It seems that as soon as a child is born who has any degree of Maori background whatsoever it needs special treatment as far as health and education is concerned, and magically has an affinity with the natural world around him. If the qualification for being seen as British were the same as being called Maori then we would say that a high 90s percentage of NZers were British. Why bother with this numbers game (apart from the fact that if serves the political needs of some deeply entrenched factions)? Let's call everyone a NZer, treat everyone the same based on their current needs, not tiny bits of their heritage and get on with living in the 21st century not the 1840s.

In part I agree with you here, but I don't believe we're at such a juncture in NZ yet where this is possible.

[Avalon]

1. Transpose what Brash has been saying to any other political situation in the world and see if you think that he is still a racist.

2. Ask yourselves who stands to gain from a situation where Maori get special rights and privileges.

3. What is a Maori?.

George,

I have often wondered how best to describe what I saw as a very odd situtaion where the "out and out, in your face, no holds barred" rascism is not called that, yet the fundamental right for everyone to seen as equal under the law is called "rasicm".

Your explanation was just what I have been trying to find the words for.

Thank you

[dave k]

Dave:


I cannot in my conscience vote for any party that is as racist as the labour party is.

I hope that makes more sense.

Are we talking about the same Labour party here?

[Gran]

Just a little history here, when National went out of power the main concern of all NZers was unemployment, National had used this usual right wing policy to keep the wages down. They had also killed the unions and established Employment Contracts wherby individuals had to negotiate their own pay with their employer. This has shrunk the national pay packet and is the reason most of you are on less pay than in the UK. How many of you would be here if the National party were still running the country under that system? We have just managed to drag ourselves up by our bootstraps.

[foolsgold99]

Good historical perspective Gran.

[Quote]
From what i have understood, one of the problems though, is that there is a huge surplus of money sitting in a fat government wallet, and people want it back.
[\Quote]

No there isn't this money is being used to pay off debt. There is no big cash pile.

Far from there being billions in spare cash kicking about, the goverment of NZ is in debt to the tune of $36 Billion. Labour has reduced this debt in real terms, year after year.

In 2001 the debt burden was 31% of GDP, this year it will 25%, the aim is to reduce this to under 20% of GDP by 2015. Even this year, the Goverment of NZ, paid $2.6 billion dollars in debt interest payments, that is more than the entire cost of law and order or around 35% of the education budget. This is wasted money. Paying down debt is prudent.

National wanted to borrow $3.5 billion to fund tax cuts. This is money that needs to be paid back in the future, with interest. Surely it makes more sense to pay down debt first, and then when we're not squadering billions in interest payments to international banks, we can discuss the best way of spending any spare money?

This page gives a great breakdown of how much cash the goverment collects and what it spends it on, as you can see, when we have a surplus each year, the debt burden goes down, and we pay less interest.

You'll also notice the total goverment revenue as a percentage of GDP has fallen over the past 3 years

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/nzefo/2005/publicfinance.asp

[selchie]

Just a thought about the budget surplus...
In the US, when Clinton left office, he left a sizeable surplus (sorry, I didn't memorize the numbers). When Bush II entered office, he handed out tax "refunds" as promised. I believe every taxpayer got a whopping $300 or so. Nothing spent to pay off our National Debt. I'm sure he also made a whole bunch of tax cuts on top of that because only greedy Democrats would tax the populace so much. Then came the World Trade Center attacks, to which Dubya had to respond by invading & occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. Poof went the surplus. And now we have a devastated section of the Gulf (of Mexico) Coast, and precious little money to spend on helping the survivors and to rebuild. The moral is that planning for unforseen emergencies and having something set aside is a wise thing. (Disclaimer: this example is used purely as an example, and not as an endorsement for however much money Labour has set aside. I have no personal knowledge of the NZ surplus benefits or detriments)

Personally, I try not to pay attention to campaign promises. There are too many people promising to be my newest, bestest friend if I vote for them. I look at a party's or candidate's record to get a decent idea of what might be in store. Unfortunately people on all sides of a political fence focus on the promises made, from their own "heroes" or the other party's "villains".

About Party Racism...
I'm not sure what the issue is which causes some to call the Labour Party racist, but isn't this the party with MPs Georgina Beyer, Choudhary Ashraf, Dave Hereora, Parekura Horomia, Winnie Laban, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui and John Tamihere?

Politics, religion and the Great Pumpkin. Discussions that can destroy otherwise splendid friendships :roll .

[GeorgeM]

Racism:

The ancestors of many non-Maori have been here for more than 100 years. Is that not sufficient to qualify for equal rights? How long do you suggest that the decendents of 1940s carribean immigrants to the UK, or of Ugandan Asians from the 1970s should wait before they are accepted as having the ability to live with full rights in the UK?

How many wrongs make a right? Who says when the wrongs have been righted, the playing field levelled and everything should be dealt with on an equitable basis? Titiwhai? Hone? Helen? Dave? You can only live in the present - fight hard to ensure that everyone is treated fairly into todays world and acknowledge the injustices of the past but don't create new ones and new grievences by trying to make up for them.

Remember that there are very rich maori and very poor whites in NZ - dishing out help and dosh on the basis of colour doesn't help sort out this 'issue'.

Insight:

Some people obviously have a divine insight into the reasons why other people voted the way that they did. I only know why I voted as I did, and why a small number of other people acted in the way that they did.

According to some all who voted Lab did so out of the best of intentions, all those who supported the (boo, hiss) Nats did so out of pure greed. Perhaps these clairvoyants should be on the TV at the next election - they would save the parties and the media so much money as they do poll after poll trying to work out why people are behaving as they are!

I seem to recall being told by Lab than many ordinary NZers would be financially better off under them. Presumably despite this none of these people voted on the basis of self interest - they were all looking for the common good. Fancy a Tui anyone?

Reward for hard work:

It is not lacking in compassion to expect that when the fruit of one's own labour is given to others it is done so in a way that promotes their ability to get off that benefit as quickly as possible and into providing for themselves - a hand up instead of a hand out. Many people I have spoken with feel that in many western societies, NZ included, the current situation does too much to entrench people on benefit and too little to encourage themselves to look after their families and themselves. What is better to give to an African village - food aid year after year, or skills, tools, seeds and livestock to enable them to start feeding themselves into the future. The same holds true in NZ, Europe and anywhere else.

The trouble is that often political expediency gets in the way of what is right. Just as Mrs Thatcher and her chums stood to gain votes by selling council houses and creating a 'property owning democracy', Helen and her cronies gain greatly from having whole sections of society living on benefit, beholden to them for their next handout. Why was it that we were told on Saturday night by the chairman of the Labour Party - wait until the results from Sth and West Auckland start coming in? That where a high proportion are living on benefit - that's where the solidest block of Labour votes was cast. Or perhaps I'm being cynical and it just so happens that this is where the most solid block of compassionate people in New Zealand resides!

[Avalon]

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/nzefo/2005/publicfinance.asp

Thank you!

That is a truly helpful post :nice1

[Avalon]

Are we talking about the same Labour party here?

Yep - its the one that formulates policy based on Race not Need.

I do not find that an acceptable basis for government.

[GeorgeM]

About Party Racism...
I'm not sure what the issue is which causes some to call the Labour Party racist, but isn't this the party with MPs Georgina Beyer, Choudhary Ashraf, Dave Hereora, Parekura Horomia, Winnie Laban, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui and John Tamihere?
What does this indicate? As many racists used to say: "Some of my best friends are black". :uhoh

A racist policy is one which proposes giving different treatment to different groups of people based purely on their ethnicity. A racist party is one which proposes or supports such policies.

Labour, The Progressives, The Maori Party and The Greens support race based policies.

The Nats and ACT do not.

Your starter for 10: Which parties are racist?

[Miffy]

Great Questions Geroge M!
I've been asking similar ones but as yet have not got much of a reply.
I am going to a 2 hour " Introduction to the Treaty of Waitangi" so hopefully that can spread some light :)



[QUOTE]

It's really not that long ago since we came steaming through these islands, claiming them for our own & then fobbing the inhabitants off with a useless scrap of paper that we had no intention of honouring.
Treating everyone equally is all very well if we're on a level playing field to begin with. But we're not.



Why not ? Why isn't the current playing ground level for all those that live and grow up in NZ?

Surely all children go to the same schools.
All schools have the same curiculum
All students get to sit the same exams and are offered places at the same universities.
So everyone has the same education available
Assuming you have the correct visas and qualification then all jobs and positions are open to everyone.
We can all live where we choose and do not have to live in a certain designated area.
WE all have the same temtantions / bad influences (drugs / drink / gambling / life of crime) offered to us and it is up to us as individuals how far we want to take that course.

So why isn't the playing fields level? What else needs to be done?
just asking cos I really don't understand!

[Avalon]

About Party Racism...
I'm not sure what the issue is which causes some to call the Labour Party racist, but isn't this the party with MPs Georgina Beyer, Choudhary Ashraf, Dave Hereora, Parekura Horomia, Winnie Laban, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui and John Tamihere?


Thats the point! Just because the party has "coloured" people in it - does not mean it is not racist. Its policies are based on Race not on need. The difference here is that the policy works in favour of Minority groups, so it is not classed as racism by many people.

Would you vote for the BNP? They want to promote policy that gives better rights and benefits to "natural" brits rather than migrant communities or anyone they deem "un British". Yet when Labour do the same thing here, and promote housing schemes, healthcare and benefits which are not available unless you are Maori, we lap it up!

labour have traditionally been the party of the worker and the poor (Please correct me if im wrong on this because im not too hot on politcal history), yet here, if the poor happens to be white - well, they arent so interested.

[Miffy]

As for the election ... I wasn't eligde to vote (not been in the country long enough) but initialy I would have leaned toweards national, as they have similar views as to my own. (low taxation, self relianance, against the nanny state) BUT they have opnely stated they would like stronger links with America.
They want stronger trading agreements but to get that would mean sending Kiwi troops off to fight Amercia oil wars. Not something I could ever agree to.

[Avalon]

Politics, religion and the Great Pumpkin. Discussions that can destroy otherwise splendid friendships :roll .

Just to cheer up the day on a very serious and thought provoking thread.

A friend of mine stood in the last UK election for the Lib Dems. We used to be about as far apart as its possible to be on Politics. Over the years, ive had to learn an awful lot about what he does so that I coud offer support and encoragement.

Far from ruining our friendship, we have become even closer, and we have both learned from each other. We did however respect our differences.

He even managed to get me to change my vote! (I was (and am) a floating voter). I was terribly proud of him for standing.

Its not all bad! :)

[Moorf]

Great posts guys - from all angles and party views. I'm finding it very interesting reading :nice1

[Avalon]

As for the election ... I wasn't eligde to vote (not been in the country long enough) but initialy I would have leaned toweards national, as they have similar views as to my own. (low taxation, self relianance, against the nanny state) BUT they have opnely stated they would like stronger links with America.
They want stronger trading agreements but to get that would mean sending Kiwi troops off to fight Amercia oil wars. Not something I could ever agree to.

That was the one reason I didnt vote for them in the end too!

I wanted to hear much more clarifiaction on this, and it wasnt forthcoming.

The one thing i truly respect Helen Clark for is that she has refused to get involved in a War for Oil. New Zealand is such a small country, and would probably benefit in some way from extra trade with the US (didnt OZ get a nice fat trade agreement for sending soldiers to Iraq?), but she stuck to her guns and gave Bush the finger. :nice1

In the end, we all have sometimes complex reasons for casting our vote. It is not always simple, and in my case at least - a lot of thought and soulsearching went into it. Not made any easier by the fact that just about all parties refused to say what thier policies were on everything.

[GeorgeM]

I think that we need to be as wary of a foreign policy of 'giving the yanks the finger' as we do of sending troops to support wars for which there is little public support.

We absolutely need to remain friends with the US and the UK and Australia.

Currently our back yard is fairly peaceful, but if in the future it is less so we would be unable to defend our own land against a determined agressor. There are only 4 million of us spread around a country the size of the UK - we couldn't afford the hardware or the manpower to stop anyone who was motivated walking straight in.

That's where your friends come in. If someone knew that they could end up being stopped by the US Pacific fleet (or even a tiny proportion of it) or a British nuclear submarine (heaven forbid) or even a few Aussie jet fighters it might just make a difference.

Remember in the early 1920s we were all friendly with Japan - our ally from the Great War. A decade later they had changed tack, walked into Manchuria and as they say "The rest is History".

Indonesia isn't a problem at the moment but is very large and overcrowded. It has been an agressor in the past. Who says that it couldn't be expansionist in the future?

You never know what is around the corner - who would have predicted that Maggie's friend Galtieri would have walked into the Falklands in 1982?

The hot air on foreign and defence policy at the election was quite scary - people were deliberately bad mouthing those who could end up being our best hopes at some time in the future.

We don't need to be in their pockets, but at the same time we don't need to take every possible opportunity to diss them and to be seen to take positive relish in doing so.

[dave k]

So why isn't the playing fields level? What else needs to be done?
just asking cos I really don't understand!


OK...some thoughts on the Treaty & why, as a direct result, the playing field is not level.

Firstly, Maori had their land stolen by Pakeha settlers. This act of arrogance & greed meant that the playing field was skewed from day one.

Before we can even begin to talk about equality in NZ, this needs to be addressed.

The Treaty of Waitangi settlement process is a judicial mechanism for hearing both sides of these disputes. It is not special treatment for Maori, but represents a way of dealing with acknowledged historical injustices and restoring the honour of the Crown. Yet, instead of a property rights dispute with the Crown, Brash portrays it as a race conflict between Maori and other New Zealanders. It is a process, he said in his Orewa speech, "where people who weren't alive in the 19th century pay compensation to the part-descendants of those who were".

This is irresponsible language. It is false in every sense. It is the Crown, not New Zealanders, being called to account. Redress is being paid from assets of the Crown that were unjustly confiscated from their Maori owners, not from taxes paid by New Zealanders.

In other words, the Waitangi settlement process is simply returning to Maori tribes their own assets (or some agreed alternative) previously stolen by the Crown. How can New Zealanders, who believe that private property rights should be respected by the government, not applaud this process?

Brash infers that Maori see the grievance process as a 'honey pot', claiming that "for 20 years now, mischievous minds have been interpreting the document in ways that they envisage will suit their financial purposes."

Well...... the $$$ available to settle these claims has been set by the government at $1 billion. Although this is a substantial amount, reflecting the gravity of the original injustice, it is well below the true value of the disputed lands. It is also affordable, given that the Crown's total assets are 100 times this amount.

To date, the total Treaty settlement since 1989 has cost the Crown around $596 million. Compare this with, say, Telecom's average net yearly profits of $709 million.

If we accept one law for all, then any individual or organisation with a property rights grievance against the Crown should be entitled to proper judicial process. Why does he want to treat Maori differently?

What kind of situation would we be in if New Zealanders came to accept a lower standard for the Crown's historical and contemporary dealings with Maori tribes? This would be exactly the kind of dishonourable behaviour that created the land grievances in the first place.

I think to assume that everyone in NZ has an equal chance to succeed, regardless of their ethnicity, is naive & ignorant.

We're a long way off yet IMO.

[GeorgeM]

I think to assume that everyone in NZ has an equal chance to succeed, regardless of their ethnicity, is naive & ignorant.
As is the assumption that the degree of chance anyone at all has to succeed in NZ has anything whatsoever to do with that Treaty.

There are plenty of maori in the universities and indeed in private schools. These aren't the stereotype cuzzy bros but they are known as maori nonetheless. They are not held back because of their race. There are plenty of poor whites who go to crap schools, get a very poor education and end up in badly paid jobs. Being from the dominating culture doesn't help them one bit. It's really obscene that anyone should argue for subsidising the former at the expense of the latter. And doubly reprehensible for any party who considers itself to be leftwards leaning to do so.

Focusing obessively on the Treaty naively suggests that bringing the relationship between pakeha and maori back to what it was centuries ago is possible or even desirable. It does nothing to help the situation of poor urban maori, merely to assist the old enshrined maori aristocracy. The world has changed - wake up - it's 2005 not 1840. Today's poor, maori or otherwise, need 21st century solutions not some reworking of a pacific Magna Carta. When every treaty greivance is settled there will still be poor maori, some who have lived in poverty for much longer than necessary because of an inability to tackle the real issues.

New Zealand - it's time to move on. Only bad can come of focusing on a mythology of two centuries ago. Especially when one side only has an oral history which changes from generation to generation either factually or in interpretation.

And another thing - If the Treaty Industry is only concerned with addressing past misdemenors of the Crown why do we get claims based on the various spectra of the airwaves, the airspace over tribal land and access to bits of the seabed that it wasn't even possible to reach in the 1840s?

[Avalon]

I think that we need to be as wary of a foreign policy of 'giving the yanks the finger' as we do of sending troops to support wars for which there is little public support.

We absolutely need to remain friends with the US and the UK and Australia.


I actually have to agree with that, so I guess my last post was badly worded.

I feel that retaining links with other countries is a must, even the US. I find the US foreign policy (what little I currently understand of it) ie. you are with us or you are the enemy - is scary, and I currently would not want to align myself with that. I guess here I make a distinction between Bush and the US, just as I do between Blair and the UK.

I feel that by refusing to send troops to fight Bush's war, Helen Clark did the right thing (if not the expedient thing). I would however have supported a war that was actually justified - ie if Iraq had actually invaded an one of our allies as opposed to Bush and Blair making up some cock and bull story that they Might one day conceivable fire at us (and with the WMD's that we sold them- I mean - how could they???)

[Avalon]

I think to assume that everyone in NZ has an equal chance to succeed, regardless of their ethnicity, is naive & ignorant.
.

Why?

Do you really think that just because someone is Maori that they cannot build a successful life for themselves? That they need extra benefits not available to the struggling white child? They need extra education not available to white children? EVERY child should be educated, and have access to good healthcare. That should not be determined by your parentage. Do that and you at least give EVERY child a chance to succeed. Not everyone will make it - but you at least give everyone the same chance!

Why should we not live in the hope that everyone CAN suceed. Does it really matter that the starting post is different.

I come from a poor background. From that I have built a University education, a well paid professional career and have been able to emigrate to where i want to be. Why is it naive to hope that other people can suceed in thier dreams, regardless of thier starting point in life? (Or for that matter something that happened generations ago).

Where does that end? At what point can MY decendents go back to the UK and ask for all the land currently being used to build Mosques? (Or whatever - just being used as an eg.) Can I have some money from the french for invading my country in 1066 and killing all my ancsestors??? It would just go round in circles!

Yeah, the Maori got stitched. Good and proper. And I feel that things should be put right - quickly and fairly. But that does nOT justify ingoring the needs of people who are not Maori. 2 wrongs have never made a right yet. Simple but so true.

I really do feel that it does the Maori a grave injustice to assume that they cannot succeed without extra help. They can and they do. The help should be given to ANYONE who for whatever reason finds themselves struggling or on hard times. There are many people who struggle to get ahead and succeed - thier ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

[leosus]

All I know is what I scanned through in the NZ papers about the election. I just saw National wanting to become another one of "America's B%$#hes". We are bullies, sorry but we are. What is going on over here is not working. I am pleased to see that Labour won if for no other reason than I felt National echoed too many of our current governments' attitudes.

Reason #2123 to want to move to NZ. :)

[GeorgeM]

All I know is what I scanned through in the NZ papers about the election.
Unfortunately the quality of journalism in NZ is pretty poor and that was held up in stark relief during the election campaign.

If you have foreign policy worries it would be wise to acknowledge that Helen is far closer to Tony than Don is to George W. But the papers won't mention that...

[veronica]

going back to the history aspect and what happened with the 'treaty'.

how far back do you want to go, what happened to the first settlers of NZ, did the maori invaders deal with them fairly, would they have had redress.

The UK has had successive waves of invaders, the romans, the vikings the saxons etc. and we weren't paid anything for the land involved, it would be ridiculous to try and go back in history and right the wrongs created by those invasions. there aren't many countries in the world that haven't been occupied and people displaced/cheated etc. Let alone individual swindles by cleverer people over slower, more gullible ones. My own opinion is that while it may have been wrong that was then and this is now.

There is a quote in the bible, something along the lines of not visiting the sins of the father on the children, some one who is more bible literate than me can probably quote it word for word. Really its history and the best phrase I can think of in regard to it is 'get over it'. Its time now to move forward and the playing field should be levelled by basing welfare on need not creed. One of the slogans I noticed over the election period and thought was apt for both the UK and here was 'Welfare..Safety net...not hammock'

[Dreamer]

For those interested - comparison of "tax freedom day" across a couple of countries ...

http://www.staplesrodway.com/index.cfm/hidden/articles/PR_Tax_Freedom_Day

No surprise the UK is the worst :D

[GeorgeM]

how far back do you want to go, what happened to the first settlers of NZ, did the maori invaders deal with them fairly, would they have had redress.
Some poet said 'The past is a foreign country - they do things differently there'.

Betjamin?

[Stu]

Not so much with the political process, but kinda linked to one of the posts above.....

Oh come on Dave, the Maoris had their land stolen? No mate, not recently (like in the last century), and not all of it, most of it was sold.
Sure, sold for beads and blankets, but hell, that is all it was worth. Take the area around here, Matamata, at the turn of last century. It was swamp. All of it, covered in tea-tree with patches of kaihikatea and tanekaha. I know, my grand-dad bought the stuff for 10 pounds an acre. I have the original sale-poster advertising the blocks from 1913, with my grandfathers writing on it listing the prices of the land, and it is described as "First Class Swamp"! (sounds like buying a condo in Florida or something eh! :-) ) My Aunt used to say that the local maoris used to laugh that anyone would pay so much for such useless land. She should know, she worked with them on the farm, clearing the land and starting up the farm in 1914.

Were there land wars, sure thing, with fault not being purely on one side either, there were hot-heads and young bloods on both sides I am sure. Did immigrant want the land? Sure! However, maori tribal rivalries and european numbers and technology really doomed the combatant maori. The survivors who fought the brits were treated far more leniently than if they had lost to maori raiders.... for a start they were not all killed and eaten, and that is a big plus.
Oh yes they did.
The devastation of the maori was caused by the arrival of european diseases, and that I do not think you can blame anyone for. But by the turn of the 20th century, Maori numbers were down to abut 5% of European ones weren't they? It was to ensure that Maori still retain some degree of control of the political processes that the Maori Seats were formed. I think, personally, that by now the need for these seperate Maori-roll seats, in the MMP environment, have passed their use-by dates.

Are the maori artificially handicapped in NZ? Only in one way. Culturally. naturally everyone wants their dvd players and new Fords etc, but acquiring the wealth to afford these things, and then retaining ownership of them, clashes seriously with the Maori stone-age culture. Same goes for all the polynesian, or indeed south pacific, cultures pretty much.

Where the maori retain closer links to their old culture, there you will find them poorest. Where the maori have urbanised, moved on and adapted, you will find them far more wealthy.... just the same as anyone else in the land.

I am not saying that anyone need abandon their cultures, but I think a hard look should be taken at them, not with the rose-coloured glasses imagined by many of some idyllic peaceful lifestyle living at one with mother nature etc etc that some seem to think existed. That would be like me hankering for a return to the Viking life, not something I feel naturally suited for! Ah, the salty taste of the north sea on my face! Ah, the delight of the smoked pork and tubs of ale in the longhouses.... yeah, right.

What keeps many Pacific Islanders poor? even those making pretty good money in the cities never seem to have enough money, yes? Some sort of prejudice? Some secret anti-polynesian policy? Nope. Culture. Theirs.
Why? Well, here is one cause. Because 95% of the polynesian communities here are deeply and strongly religious,(perhaps less so with the current young urban populations but certainly on the migrant parents and more traditionally minded families) and the community pressure among these people to tithe 20% of their earnings to the local church is impossible to evade. Think that is wrong? Ask any South Auckland budgetary services, they'll tell you.
No matter how poor, no matter what they have to fore-go, lunches for kids, shoes, whatever, if they have to borrow off loan sharks, they WILL to avoid being shamed in front of their entire congregation for not trumping up their tithe money. Imagine how much YOU could afford with 20% less in your pay packet. This alone will keep these families poor, keep down their educational chances, etc etc.

Same goes for some of the maori cultural pressures, of shared communal assets, like money etc. If you have it and your cousin wants it, you tend to give it to him. Not a good way to develop your personal wealth or that of your family eh. Doesn't happen so much in more urban settings now, but sure is a problem in the older, rural communities. Things like THAT are what is keeping the maori down.

That may not gel with modern political thinking, but it is how I see it from down here in the trenches.

AND I still want my excess taxes back! (Not that I have much anyway)

Now, that post should generate some interesting replies!
cheers, Stu.

[Moorf]

What a bloomin' marvellous post, had me engrossed, and pretty much summed up my current perception of how things are - but I've only been here a v. short while and I think it will take some time before I feel I can really get to grips with the finer detail.

[dave k]

It would seem that opinion here suggests that, yes the Maori were screwed over, but it happened along time ago & we should really just forget it now & let bygones be bygones.
That we're all equal now & we all have the same chances to sink or swim.

I don't believe most Maori see it in quite the same easy, convenient way.
And nor should they as far as I'm concerned - it's not just about land or money..the ramifications of what happened during colonisation for their culture & mind-set are still echoing through into 2005, and making an impact shown quite clearly in this election.
They don't feel politically represented by the major parties - certainly not by National, and probably not much by Labour either, and appear to be making the push to go it alone. I think this is a mistake, but can equally see why they deem it a neccessary choice.

The gap is widening and attitudes on either side of the fence are becoming starkly polarised. I'm sure a large percentage of kiwis will agree with you Stu - essentially that the Maori are their own worst enemy & , if they want to stand on an equal footing with Pakeha then they should start to abandon their old models & become just like them.
And maybe that is the only way that they will thrive in this country...if so, I think that's a damn shame & another victory for White Dominator Culture chalked up.
A contentious issue is that many Maori are welfare-dependent - which brings resentment from Pakeha, & isn't a sustainable option for them either in the long term. I very much agree that welfare should not be seen as a lifestyle choice, but on the whole the work opportunities are simply not as abundant or as well-rewarded for Maori as for Pakeha.
Now I'm sure there's plenty of people who'll say "well, if they were as able & motivated as Pakeha they'd get along just fine", but it's nowhere near as simple as that. And it would take more time & more detailed discussion to get even close to the real reasons behind that, but I have my suspicions as to what one of the major causes is...

I'm just a recent immigrant to this country & have much to learn about Maori culture, but even so I'm shocked at the level of covert - and sometimes quite blatant - racism that I've seen in NZ. Kiwis have a deserved reputation for being an open-minded, fair & tolerant people, but lately I've seen & heard much to make me question that reputation.

As a footnote, I'd like to say I agree with you Moorf - this has been a thought-provoking thread & it's given me much to think about. I've questioned my own opinions & tried to understand those of other forum members.
There are no easy solutions...least of all from political parties...and the best we can do is to remain open to different points of view instead of retreating to our own defensive positions and slugging it out.

:cheers

[Timbo]

This is a fascinating thread. Thanks to all contributers.
It would be even more interesting to hear the hear things from the Maori angle though.

[Stu]

I agree Dave, the Maori may well not be well prepresented by Labour party policies, and that is why I am all in favour of them having a more maori centred party, as far as I am concerned ANYONE can have their own political party, no worries.
It is that these smaller parties have some say in parliament that we introduced the MMP system in the 1stplace. I think that now we have this MMp system though, the Gauranteed maori-only seats in parliament should be dumped, and just put back into the general vote seats. That way, if they get the support of the electorate, then they will get that representation. At the moment though, they are have a disproportionate impact on the parliamentry seats... and that is not fair.

Racism. Sure there is. I have said it before, I do not htink it is a personal racism however. It is just a them and us sort of thing, If you will all give me a little lee-way here, it goes something like....
Bloody Aussies, pack of mongrels the lot of them.
Bloody Poms, pack of mongrels the lots of them.
Boody Asians, pack of mongrels the lot of them.
Bloody Americans, pack of mongrels the lot of them.
Bloody pacific islanders, pack of Mongrels the lot of them.
Bloody Europeans, pack of mongrels the lot of them.
Bloody Maoris, pack of mongrels the lot of them.
Bloody Pakehas, pack of mongrels the lot of them.
Now, simply adjust those groups to not include anyone you are talking too at any given time, and you will have the level of racism in NZ.
Oh, bloody labour party supporters, pack.o.m's the lot of them
and Bloody Cantabrians, P.O.Ms the lot of them.
Wellingtonians, P.O.Ms the lot of them.
Bloody JAFAs, P.O.Ms the lot of them.
...and, seeing as I am from Matamata....
Bloody Te Aroha-ans, P.O.Ms the lot of them
Bloody Hamiltonians, P.O.Ms....
Bloody Morrinsvillians, P.O.Ms....
And, seeing as I live IN matamata, ...
Bloody Waharoans, POMs....
Bloody Hinureans, POMs...
And seeing as I live on the west side of town.....
Bloody Rawhiti Ave poeple, P.O.M.s, the lot of them...
Bloody Burwood Roadians, POMs.....

EVERYONE (in my obviously limited experience) does pretty much this, getting down basically to the Me and You , and I am not too sure about You (you mongrel!) level.

So if you see someone driving slowly in the fast lane of the motorway, and they are obviously either brown, green, tan, purple or pink, then "they", say a guy from the islands, will become a "Bloody Islanders! POMs the lot of them!!!".

Of course this does not apply to Efao, the decent young bloke dating your daughter, or his Dad ,Mafaeo, who you go fishing with every other weekend, they're good blokes, not like those Bloody Islanders POMs at all, say that again and you're in for a smacking mate!

Is there any overt racism? Like being made ot stand at the back of the bus? Don't be stupid. I think racism in NZ is as much a "them and Us" thing than anything else.

I am probably what you would term a racist, because having seen and lived with Maori folks all my life, I have been able to draw some conclusions that may not gel with your experiences. Do I discriminate between the maoris and pakehas? I don't think so... and given that bro Bob and his wife Te Rauna are about my closest friends, and I enjoy the company of their kids and now even my little grand-neice Rianna, I don't think I can be too racist in my viewpoints.

Mate, I have seen first hand how Maori cultural pressures hold back the Maori in many ways. I am not saying "forget it all", but there is a degree of choice to be made, you can opt for the old Maori system which results in stagnation, or you can move on into a modern more international culture. You don't give your kids a fine education in Te Reo Maori, then a batchelors course in Maori weaving and Maori language, and then accuse the world of racism because they can't get a high paying job in IT or something. That is one extreme, but here is a very low level disadvantage... if a pakehas cousin dies, you take the afternoon off to go to the funeral, yes? If you are maori, you take 2 or 3 days off to go off to the old Marae and attend the tangi. With the whole family as well. disadvantage? Sure. A Pakeha will have lost an afternoons wages, the Maori will have lost half a weeks wages. Add to that the fact that Maori families tend to be a LOT larger than pakeha ones, you have a lot more funerals etc to go to. That adds up to a lot of lost income over a year you know. That is just one small way the old maori culture disadvantages them.
The reason this comes to mind is that one of my staff has just come to me for a $100 loan until payday, coz he has a tangi to go to up north. He has to take his whole family, but he will be back to work tomorrow.The only reason he is here in NZ at the moment is that one of his in-laws died 3 months ago, and they had to come back to NZ from Aussie, where they had just set up home. Now they cannot afford to go back to aussie until they earn enough to pay for the airfares etc etc. I bet a pakeha family will not have made such a drastic decision just to go to a funeral!

Well, anyhow, I have vented, and now I have my own family visiting, so gotta go!
Cheers, Stu.

[ENZ]

This is a fascinating thread. Thanks to all contributers.
It would be even more interesting to hear the hear things from the Maori angle though.

I don't think there is a Maori angle Timbo, just as there is no unified view among people of British or other heritages about anything political.

Maori party co-leader Pita Sharples, NZ First Leader, Winston Peters and former Labour MP, John Tamihere are all described as Maori (although all have other heritages too) yet their views on many issues - including how Maori can best get ahead in NZ - could not be further apart. Pick an individual Maori and you'll find individual views.

Another point raised by stu is "what is a Maori". My neighbours appear to be wholly of very fair skinned, European origin yet when helping each other out in our gardens I was told the story of their grandmother - Nig. Nig acquired her nickname (in less politically correct days than these) because, during the summer, she turned as brown as a "nigger". It turned out, when my neighbour researched his family tree, that one of his great-great grandparents was a Maori. By modern definitions, my neighbour is therefore a Maori. What are his politics? Well, the anwer to that is between him and the ballot box. :)

[dave k]

Fair enough. And I hear your comments in the spirit they are intended.

It's just that I've heard first hand fairly racist comments directed at Maori that differed a great deal in tone & intent from the matey "us & them" remarks you speak of.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that racism here is on a par with apartheid or segregation though. I don't see how you got that impression.

I grew up in Manchester, UK and lived in a neighbourhood, socialised, went to school, etc. with Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc. - I just thought it was normal. The older I got I saw that, even though they were broadly "accepted", there was still a deep vein of resentment & low-level racism directed at these people. Sure, it didn't apply to the Asians you got to know as friends - they were somehow different - it was all the others.
I'd often be quite shocked to hear comments like "dirty Pakis" etc. etc. coming from good friends, even family members on occasion, who would never consider themselves to be racist. And it would most often be laughed off & brushed aside as good-natured banter.

But that doesn't mean it's not, by any definition, racist.

[GeorgeM]

One of the big problems with the "Maori Issue" in NZ is that it is based on history and history is based on interpretations of what happened in the past - often so far back that we have at best only written accounts, often secondhand, to rely on and often not even this.

Unfortunately all history is riddled with politics and any conventional or authorised view (such as we certainly have in NZ at the moment in this particular area) owes as much to current sensitivities, guilts, coalitions, societal mores, pressure groups etc as it does to "truth" (if such a thing can ever be defined).

Conventional views change, often radically, from time to time - frequently as a result of political changes at the top. What really happened remains the same, but the interpretation of these events can vary wildly. Don't anyone be fooled into thinking that what is the 'accepted' view of history today will endure for ever.

Hence it is very dangerous to try to base policy or to justify discrimination in the present on an interpretation of events in the past. All that will result is that one possible previous injustice is overwritten with a new and current one. Which in turn will come back to haunt our children in generations to come.

JFK said that we are all Jews and Germans. We are all sinners and we are all sinned against. The only way to sort out problems is for everyone to go forward together in good faith without looking over their shoulders all the time at what was, or what might have been. Obsession with the Treaty gets in the way of this process. One view of the Treaty is that it at least provided sufficient protection for the Maori to stop them from being treated as badly as the native populations of many other colonies - just look across the Tasman to see what happened there.

[selchie]

Aaah, so many thoughtful items to read & ponder. Thanks for the clarification on the "Labour racism" query. Yep, reverse discrimination is as bad as the other. It seems that this is similar to the situation in the US. Sadly there is a societal bias against "others", which can keep large numbers within minority populations (and non-minority members) in poverty. I doubt we'll ever get away from the haves and have nots dichotomy. Doesn't have to be race-based, but it often is. In part of the 19th century US it included the Irish, then the Italians, then...

It seems that the political parties have basically good notions of how a nation will best succeed, e.g. strong economy based on the hard work of the laborer or healthy business, etc. And so each approaches the government in a manner to promote their vision. Unfortunately human nature mucks up Utopia. People will act in their own best interests, often ignoring the needs of others (the Mother Teresas are a rare exception). In the US there is a strong culture of claiming as many "rights" (read entitlements) as one can, but little care for one's responsibilities. Thus we get social and corporate welfare.

Was it Mark Twain who said a cynic is a disappointed idealist? Well, that's me. Feh, humans.

[Avalon]

Well, after a day and a half away from my computer, I can honestly say I opened this thread with more than a little trepidation.

But look at it now. There is so much information to think about.

Dave,

Where i grew up, there was only ever one black kid I came accross. He used to stay with the local doctor from time to time and so was in our school. Then at secondary there was a black brother and sister, so the number of coloured I met rose drastically to 3!

I never really saw any racial problems, bt on the positives, i never really had any basis for a negative view either. I have always just treated people a s people. I find that works for me. As long as they are nice, It really is irrelavant what god they beleive in or who thier parents are. Og course, if they arent nice - its also an irrelavence.

My grandparents - now thay were a different matter. From Blackburn, they saw the whole town turn into a No-White enclave. That definately impacted thier POV. I know it still does in the town, as i still have friends there.

I truly believe that the answer to racism (or any other social ill) is for each individual to treat anyone else with respect and decency. We cannot force the world to behave the way we want - but we can be responsible for how WE treat others. Even others who beleive differently.

So many things are blamed on "Society". But Society is made up of individuals.

Thiis has become a great thread. :clap