What’s National’s policy on the foreshore and seabed?

I’ll see your Maori seats, Zos, and raise you the Foreshore and Seabed.  What’s National’s policy on the foreshore and seabed?  I know National’s policy in 2005 was to assert Crown ownership…but I am interested in what its policy might be this time around.   While I am pretty confident repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act would be welcomed by the Maori Party I am also pretty confident that National’s next planned step of converting title to the Crown would be seen as a retrogressive step.

What’s National’s policy on Maori Seats

John Key may forget this too, but National’s policy in 2005 was to abolish the Maori seats (who can forget the charming Iwi/Kiwi billboards).
In the last couple of days the Maori party put everyone on notice that abolition of the seats would be opposed by them tooth and nail.
So what is National’s policy?

Key: I Have Principles I’ll Stand By, But Not Yet

At Ratana yesterday, John Key announced that it remained National’s policy to eliminate the Maori seats but it would not do so while it was not then their political interest (ie while they need Maori Party support to govern).  In other words, ‘under my leadership National will put politics before principle’.

It’s bad enough that the National party is saying ‘when we are in power National, not Maori, will decide when the Maori seats go’.  A fundamental of the concept of rights is that they should only be derogated with the consent of the right holders.  That is Labour and Green policy: the Maori seats will remain while Maori want them.  National purports the right to decide for itself when Maori will lose the right to the Maori seats.

But what’s worse is that National would not even stand by its conviction that the Maori seats have to go.  Instead, it would keep them while they are politically useful and as soon as it doesn’t need Maori support it will drop them.

I guess Maori now know how National views them: a mere political tool to be discarded when unnecessary.

Un-Intelligence

DPF is dog whistling Maori soveriegnty this morning. His post about Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara having previously commented on Kiwiblog has some DPF classic elements.

The post is primarily a twofer vanity post (1. The Herald contacts me to verify facts 2. Look how connected I am - even people recently arrested dig my blog). But, it’s also a knowing dog-whistle.  DPF knows the trifecta of Maori, terrorism and crime is an irrestibable arc light for his far-right moths. Finally, he niftily drops the phrase terrorism into his post and then disingenuously say he’s doing so for comedic effect.  Yeah, of course you were, Davey.

Farrar then helpfully links to the archived blog entry where Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara contributed some comments. I am not sure he ought have it’s not exactly one of Kiwiblog’s more glorious moments.  But it’s worth a scan - it reminds you of the high-level of intelligent debate and carefull analysis that many of his contributors make [snigger]. Here are some takeouts for more delicate readers who don’t like to sully themselves by visiting Kiwiblog:

“Tame Iti is simply a disgusting human being, and I despise him with every cell in my body.”

“The fat ugly primitive bastard” [describing Iti]

“Apparently you missed the spectacle of Mr Iti’s very own fat black arse jiggling like a load of fluttering cellulite (which it is) when the said spectacle was shown recently on TV3. Luckily his sphincter was functional because his actions resembled those of a rutting doe backing up expectantly to a rampant buck. Anything could have happened.”

“I don’t need some smart arse cheeky bitch to tell me I’m a racist. I know I’m a racist and I’m quite pleased about that.”

Yukky stuff.

Talking of unintelligent arguments I see intelligent design (aka rebadged Christian creationism) was intelligently discussed on America’s Nova channel (a PBS channel). Nova’s documentary focuses on the Dover Trial - which was about the proponents of ID insisting on non-scientific creationist ideas being foisted into the science class. The trial was a slam dunk for scientific integrity as the court found intelligent design was creationism in drag and had no place in the science curriculum. Unlike the usual American pap, Nova’s documentary is a clear-headed analysis of this issue - which is refreshing. Best of all, the documentary, Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, is viewable via the Web.

Splitting the grundnorm

You can’t, apparently - legal scholars will tell you this citing Kant, Kelsen and others*. The point is there is one rule of law. It’s been a bit of a bugger for anyone who advocates much outside the orthodoxy, particularly those who suggest parallel states or such. Davey’s, no doubt, very familiar with all this silly philosophy stuff. I’m sure I read somewhere he did a degree in PolSci.

Anyhoo, Davey’s bagging Hone Harawira for suggesting that he might oppose the State, were the State to use illegitimate violence against his people. Davey’s criticism is hardly surprising because, aside from his loose affiliation with the principles of creative and/or moral rights, he’s your garden variety conservative.

But there’s actually nothing too radical in Hone’s comments really - all he’s saying, strip back the hyperbole, is that he’ll not stand by and see the people he represents mistreated by the Police. I’m pretty sure this is part of the basic job description for most MPs; when local constituents complain of being unduly hassled, said MP should weigh-in first and ask questions later (not too late but).

If I read Hone’s comments correctly, he’s not advocating widespread disobedience, he’s simply saying that if it turns out the Police acted precipitously or improperly, or if they continue to act outside their legitimate powers, he’ll not stand silent and wait for the Royal Commission. This being the case, I’m picking he’ll get re-elected regardless of what else happens.

Hone’s not actually suggesting separatism, not on this occasion anyway, not at all. He’s merely suggesting that there’s a limit to Police power. Put like this, you’d have to wonder why Davey’s so offended by his comment? Ordinarily its the conservatives to arc-up about the excessive influence of the State? Moreover, what’s Davey doing bagging the Maori Party anyway? If this is National’s law n’order push they’re going to burn off at least one potential coalition partner real quick.

*I could have this all wrong of course, I’ll await Dean Knight’s much more informed commentary.

Out of the mouths of (brown) babes

Oh, dear. DPF is quoting Duncan Garner’s interview with a truckee from Wainui.

DPF (selectively) quotes a bit of the piece:

Wainui Truck Driver: Well bro, everytime I’ve lifted a hand at somebody and whacked them, I’ve been arrested and handcuffed and taken in. Don’t know why he hasn’t been done.
Duncan Garner: Would you like to see him sacked from Cabinet, resign from Parliament?
Wainui Truck Driver: I’d like to see him arrested just like us old nigger boys

Oh how we all laughed!

Does anyway else get, as Robyn might say it, the “serious hinks” about this post? Talk about Wat’s classic dog whistle politics.

What’s DPF saying?  That even dumb maaari boys take a dim view of Mallard’s actions? You note DPF’s chosen quote colourfully epitomises the received view of a Bro’.  God Almighty, it’s crying out for a Billy T giggle at the end of it.  Just to reinforce this is a comedic interlude in the otherwise serious business of debating whether Mallard should be hung or simply shot for getting physical with Tau and to show how even the lowest of the low “get it”.  Fuck me.

This reminds me of that show, “Kids say the darndest things” - you know where Cosby lines up an array of very young kids and primes them with questions to get the kids to spout all manner of  hilarious shit.  Because, you know, kids have nothing important to say - they’re just there for entertainment, right?
DPF digs himself and even deeper hole by using a subtle variant on the old “some of my best friends” routine by suggesting that “friends of his in Wainui” tell him this dude is a classic case of the redeeming value of capitalism.  Sam Dixon and rogernome quickly point out that, if there is a story to be learned here, it’s the value of having a safety net - a net that’s probably gone by lunchtime under any National led government (yeah, we’re looking at you, Collins).

DPF munges Maori Party analysis

DPF quotes Audrey Young’s stats on Maori Party voting. Oh, surprise, surprise, it shows the Maori Party has voted more with Labour than it has National and with the Greens more than both National and Labour. DPF quotes these stats:

Greens - 108 with, 55 against

Labour 89 with, 80 against

National 55 with, 112 against

DPF goes on with his analysis:

I have always advocated that the Maori Party leans more to the left, and that analysis tends to support that. That is not to say Natiional and the Maori Party can’t work together - of course they can. But I recall certain bloggers from the left decrying the Maori Party as right wing conservatives etc etc.

There’s some interesting language at work here. Clearly HQ wants DPF to send some fairly subtle signals. The first is to present the Maori Party as being a left-leaning party - which it kind of is. Although it isn’t a Labour party - so it’s ideological underpinnings are not as comprehensively social democratic as Labour’s. The Maori Party also has a strong conservative thread running through its rhetoric.

But while it’s clear the Maori party would be more comfortable with Labour it could theoretically work with National and as HQ/DPF signals, National doesn’t want to close the door on the Maori party either. That’s why HQ wants DPF to talk about a possible alliance.

So, what’s the point of DPF’s post? On one level, it all seems pretty obvious. But there’s a deeper strategy at play here.

The Maori Party is trying to up it’s post-election options by talking up the potential for coalition with National. But let’s face it, such a coalition would probably be a very hard sell to the Maori Party’s constituency. To make it worth the electoral risk, the Maori Party would need to secure some humungous concessions from National to make it worth the while. But notwithstanding the difficulty of such a marriage, the Maori Party has to continue to make overtures about the potential for coalition with National because it needs to have a bargaining position with Labour. Following the last election, the Green Party found out to its surprise that publicly flagging away potential coalitions diminishes your bargaining position. Why would Labour give the Greens a Cabinet seat when the Greens had already committed themselves prior to the election to working with Labour?

I’ve been impressed with Pita Sharples’ political judgements. He’s not as green as the Greens, if you pardon the pun. He wants options (or at least the impression of having options).

But why is National playing along? Let’s be honest, the vast rump of National would want to work with the Maori party like an Albino would want to work in the Sahara. But there are two reasons for National to make wooing noises towards the Maori Party:

• it’s always good to have options (witness the Greens’ gobsmacking innocence and consequential irrelevance following the last election); and
• in the process of maintaining cordial diplomatic relations with the Maori party, National is actually driving up the Maori Party’s potential barganing position in any post-election negotiations with Labour.

So, it’s important for National to continue to foster good relations with the Maori Party ‘just in case’. All the while knowing it can drive up the price Labour might need to concede to win Maori support. It’s a smart strategy. If National is going to lose to Labour because of a deal with the Maori party, National would want Labour to choke on the deal and do some longer-term electoral damage.

Labour, of course, is in an odd position with the Maori Party. Labour covets the seats the Maori Party has co-opted. The last thing Labour wants to do is make such significant concessions to the Maori Party that effectively gives away any future chance of Labour recovering the Maori seats. And yet, that’s where National is trying to drive the direction of negotiations.

Finally, the Maori Party themselves need to be careful about any future deal. The allure of government may be overwhelming - but there may be a good reason for the Maori Party to stay out of government at least for one more election.

Minority parties in government traditionally do very poorly. Smaller parties become electorally guilty by association for all of the negative aspects of the Government while being unable to claim credit for meaningful policy concessions. United Future, New Zealand First, Alliance - they’ve all had their electoral standing sapped by being in government. It’s all the more potentially lethal for the Maori Party because Labour once comprehensively “owned” the Maori seats they are occupying. If you were a Maori Party voter you might start wondering about why you’d continue to vote for the Party if the upshot is a Labour dominant/Maori Party government - you might starting wondering about cutting out the middle-person and going back to Labour.

It’s very fascinating. All concerned need to tread carefully - something you can clearly discern in DPF’s latest message from HQ.