During the election campaign, the Maori Party complained vigorously about Labour Party ads claiming that they had voted with National 227 times and that a vote for them was a vote for a National-led government - and even had a complaint upheld in principle by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Now, Tariana Turia seems to be doing her best to show that Labour was right after all. Tariana should do the decent hting and admit her complaint was bogus - but I'm not holding my breath...
Tools for democracy
Themes:
New Zealand
Overseas
Friends & Others
Blog Archive:
-
▼
2005
(1564)
-
▼
October
(137)
- Written questions
- Meet Jack
- Christians and Halloween
- Some quick and dirty statistics on Question Time
- Devil's Night
- Tonga and the death penalty
- Tonga: keeping up the pressure
- It's official
- New Fisk
- An indictement
- A final kick
- Proud to be PC
- Satire that might have been
- Mapp vs the Waitangi Tribunal
- Neither consistent nor liberal
- New kiwi blog
- Miers steps down
- Something to watch in Auckland
- Out of names II
- Embarassing
- New kiwi blog
- Mapp vs the HRC
- Why we shouldn't keep prisoners in vans
- The Brown amendment
- Parliamentary statistics
- More thoughts on the opposition reshuffle
- Eradicating equality
- New kiwi blog
- More wind?
- An unwelcome milestone
- Rather strange
- Iraq gets a constitution
- Tortured to death
- The power of quiet resistance
- Sedition in Australia II
- I'm sure Don Brash will pay it for them
- The consequences of tougher sentences
- The Pacific Forum and the Pacific Plan
- Ending the democratic deficit
- New Fisk
- Out of names
- The spirit of Parnell
- Labour Day
- Frog week
- A seditious question
- Sedition in Australia
- Surprise, surprise
- New Fisk
- Cat, meet pigeons
- Biggest hurricane ever
- Spanish judge issues arrest warrant for US troops
- Is monetary policy doomed?
- Even Saddam deserves a fair trial
- Cabinet announced
- The next three years
- One of the cleanest countries in the world
- Captain Jack gets his own show!
- Relief?
- Cabinet changes
- Interesting reading
- Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?
- Habemus government
- Cullen on history and the foreshore and seabed
- Britain's kiwi refusenik
- Grossly dishonest
- Wishful thinking or outright deceit?
- Starving them out
- When show trials go bad
- Going beyond Iraq
- No defence
- Enforcing the Refugee Convention
- A wasted opportunity
- KeepLeft retires
- The Brethren Again
- New Fisk
- Backlinks
- Lobbying the TEC
- Destroying freedom in order to "save" it
- The waiting may be over
- Convenient
- Spotting Shenzhou
- They have liftoff
- Of course they should
- A few thoughts on the Greens
- Fighting corruption in Iraq
- Hypocrisy
- History repeats in Darfur
- The new and the old
- Lu Banglie is alive
- Protecting Milford
- No connection?
- Not smurfy
- 10/10: Abolition in New Zealand
- How local democracy works in China
- Laws apply to other people
- "The president leads the interview..."
- 10/10: World Day Against the Death Penalty
- A Bill of Rights for Australia?
- Lots of Fisk
- Interesting reading
-
▼
October
(137)
4 comments:
Oh please... Anyone with half a brain can see that a vote against Labour policy is not the same thing as a vote for National policy.
The raison d'etre of the Maori Party was the foreshore and seabed legislation. Everyone knows this and if Helen is not willing to give ground but Don is then she has nobody to blame but herself if the Maori Party continues to talk to National.
Besides, most pundits agree that it is no more than a negotiating stratagem. True hypocrisy would be to present themselves as a real alternative to Labour and then meekly sign up to Labour policy with a few minor concessions just to get a cabinet post.
Posted by JamesP : 10/11/2005 07:51:00 PM
Yeah I think it is just negoptiating - of course if national bends over entirely it would be rational for them to act in the interests of their suporters and back national (although I think that is almost impossible).
I think national is trying to help the maori party screw labour also.
Posted by Genius : 10/11/2005 09:07:00 PM
JamesP: Of course the Foreshore and Seabed legislation is their reason for existence - and if they can screw that kind of deal out of National, then all power to them. But at the same time, in retrospect their complaining seems a bit rich, to say the least.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 10/11/2005 11:34:00 PM
I'd say she had every right to complain because the argument was always based on a demonstrably false premise. The fact that, just maybe, the conclusion might turn out to be correct does not validate the argument.
Posted by JamesP : 10/12/2005 12:05:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).