As for not knowing anything about the māori party — it seems you’re new around here. As it happens I’ve done a fair bit of research over the past few years into their political philosophy, their background and their position in NZ politics, and in particular I’ve rebutted this particularly stupid line of reasoning repeatedly — you can read some of it if you like.

As to the ‘ordinary Māori’ — I accept that they’re not discussing the matter in such words, but anyone who’s been paying any attention at all to NZ politics since Orewa has noticed that many of them are saying things like ‘we can’t trust either of these packs of white mofos, and it’s time to find our own way’. That’s what the tino rangatiratanga movement is about — Māori making their own political moves rather than granting their voices by proxy to others who have different and frequently conflicting interests.

L

“Anne’s arguement (like those of most of the economic left) begins from a fundamental misconception as to what the philosophical basis of the Maori party is”
What condescending rot. You know nothing of my political beliefs, and probably only marginally more about that of the “Maori Party”.

Yeah, I can just see the ‘ordinary maori’ at the local freezing works discussing the vexed question… “that their policy needs are more than what can be provided by a eurocentric economic class-based analysis…”.

Get down off your high horse. Most of us don’t have your eloquent turn of phrase (some may prefer to call it academic garbage) but many of us have more political knowledge and experience under our belts than you seem to have.

If the party hierarchy move to expel Harawira, they are guaranteeing negative headlines for a very long time. There’s the long drawn out constitutional process, people in Maoridom taking sides, the arguments through the media, the possible creation of a martyr, the ratcheting up of the language used, accusations and counter-accusations, maybe a by-election, maybe a new party, and much more.

I hate to sound like an old fart, but it’s a familiar narrative … Anderton, Peters, Tight Five, Turia, etc. Lots of stories about personalities – not about issues. The media will love it. I doubt that Maori Party voters will feel the same way.

If it goes the other way, a proportion of Maori will start the occupation, not of the beaches, but reclaimed land like say Auckland Airport

No wonder the National Conference didnt elect him to their board.

Resign from Parliament and seek the endorsement of the flax roots?.
Apart from the fact the money for travel and salary would stop on that day, Hone had the second lowest majority in the MP.

So much wrong with this comment.

There is this habit amongst the left to subject each of our views to the most intense analysis and the most in depth criticism.

One of the problems with the NZ left at present is that this isn’t happening adequately within the left, but is instead being shifted to those nominated temporarily as being part of “the right” for the purposes of criticism.

You are in the far left position that if another view is not as radical as yours it is a sellout.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m in the position that ’sellout’ is predominantly a label applied by the radicals to the non-radicals to make the radicals feel better about being ineffectual in politics.

Anne was pointing out that the MP position was philosophically untenable. You are (I think) saying that it is untenable but also that the Labour Party position is also untenable therefore they are both undeserving and the Maori Party should wait.

I don’t think it’s untenable; I think it needs time to be worked out. It’s a very straightforward position: tactical sacrifices for strategic gains, the electorate decides every three years whether the conduct matches the principle and votes accordingly. Anne’s argument (like those of most of the economic left) begins from a fundamental misconception as to what the philosophical basis of the māori party is. Hint: it’s not revolutionary socialism with ta moko.

For what?

Can’t you imagine anything? The Foreshore and Seabed is one thing, and the major tangible outcome upon which they will be judged. But the long-term strategic plan (as I’ve said dozens of times) is normalising kaupapa māori politics and putting Māori into a position where they can be a meaningful treaty partner with the skills and resources and political competence to build a long-term programme of policy which will work for Māori.

How about you analyse how ordinary Maori survive under Labour and how they survive under National and then make the call?

It’s not just about bare survival, which is all Māori stand to get voting directly for Labour or National in the post-Brash, post-Clark time-to-move-on era. Many ‘ordinary Māori’ believe that their policy needs are more than what can be provided by a eurocentric economic class-based analysis, and that they want a kaupapa Māori politics. Of necessity this kaupapa Māori political philosophy needs to work within existing structures, and previously the alignment with Labour was clear. But Foreshore and Seabed changed all that — it’s not so clear any more. This isn’t to draw a false equality between the two, only an observation that positive change (such as from National under Key) should be encouraged and rewarded, and negative change (such as under Clark in her latter years) should be discouraged and punished.

Schadenfreude is not a word to use when you want to analyse how Maori are doing.

I use the word because much of the response from the more intransigent segments of the economic left is along the lines of “Yuss! They failed! Just like we said they would, now the Māoris will have no choice but to come crawling back to Labour!” For one thing, it’s too early to call time; for another thing, that’s hardly the way toward partnership.

L

Ouch!

The truth is the real divide is the treaty. Its those who think the treaty and all that goes with it will lift them out of their miserable state versus those who know that it is not a miracle provider. Hone and his group think that the treaty will solve it all and if you protest enough then you will get what you want. Trouble with that is you have to live in a state of self pity AND the treaty will never solve the problem of this self impose misery.

The mainstream of the party has realised that you have to positively participate in life to get anywhere. Screaming from the sidelines (as in Hone) just pisses everyone off and people look elswhere for things to care about.
I used to think the the maori party would split over tribal hatred – but I suspect there are enough of them that now realise that there is good in sticking together. Trouble is the treaty is all based on tribal rights – and thats not good. Theyre not out of the woods yet, but kicking the screamers out is a good start.

Good point, bad spelling.

Perhaps The Standard could enlighten us on the reason why H1 and H2 treated Turia like a whore with herpes in a brothel. And I’m guessing it had nothing to do with the Foreshore Bill…..H1 and 2 are both far too {cringe} smart for that.

My view is that Maori should be able to have their property rights tested in court, like anyone else.