Really solid call, and timely comments about the divisive politics being imported from America at the moment.
ACT was never going to work with them anyway so that’s a silly addition.
As for NZ first I bet he changes his tune if they get in power. Hopefully they won’t though.
I like Chris, if Labour had better potential coalition partners, I’d likely be voting for them. Unfortunately, TPM in particular just seem hell bent on dividing the country along racial lines.
Given ACT have also ruled out a coalition with NZ first, it would be great to see National also rule out working with them.
As much as I dislike NZ first, the only way labour forms a government with the current polling is if NZF break the 5% threshold and acts as kingmaker to push them over 60 seats. Without NZF in coalition it’s either a national/act government or a national minority government.
I suspect Labour would rather spend a term in opposition than a term being Winnie’s bitch, after what happened last time.
I think this country is already divided along racial lines. People seem to be uncomfortable with TMP or anybody else pointing this out though. I guess we all want to pretend all races live in harmony holding hands and singing kumbaya.
Look at the apoplexy pakeha went through when the hospitals modified their triage rule to acknowledge that Maori get horrible outcomes from the health system for example.
I disagree that Te Pāti Māori want to “divide the country” and I’d certainly say they’re less divisive than Act or NZ First.
Te Pāti Māori want to increase the provision of targeted services and transition services for māori to be provided by māori, which makes a certain kind of sense, as far as instilling trust and providing services in a culturally appropriate way.
Historically, māori have been put at a disadvantage by colonial systems, and so the equitable thing to do is to provide targeted support and this is a role only government can really fill.
I don’t care about that, I’m talking about the co governance aspect of three waters. Incredibly undemocratic.
Bold claim, makes me think you aren’t really sure what co-governance involves.
I’m actually quite familiar with the proposal, and how it involves handing over a huge amount of control over our built infrastructure to Iwi, for very tenuous reasons.
Now fuck off with the condescending attitude.
You are aware that iwi consultation on most natural resources by local government has been the norm for several decades though, right?
Consultation, yes. They don’t get a 50% say, in addition to the same vote we all get.
You do understand that’s different, right?
Yes they’re different, my point is that consultation with them has not resulted in any negative outcomes I can think of. That’s why I reckon increasing their role in resource governance makes a lot of sense, especially given the context of pre-colonisation customary rights over water and te tiriti. Why don’t you think they deserve a partnership role in governance?
I recommend reading the He Puapua report to get a better understanding of the purpose and intention of co-governance. It’s a slog but well worth it.
Co-governance does not afford them a 50% say. It is an equal split of Iwi and Crown representatives that decide on guiding principles, advice and direction for the actual water boards. Also, decisions require a 75% majority, so it’s not like any one group can take over.
This is all ignoring the fact that co-governance is pretty much the bare minimum the crown should do based on The Treaty of Waitangi.
How so?
