Hide accused of playing race card

[SixPackBack]

I'm with Hide on this one.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592190

He said he told Prime Minister John Key on June 3 that he could not be the minister sponsoring a bill with race- or tribal-based seats on the council and he had done that not as a threat but to ensure there were no surprises in the coalition relationship.


<IFRAME onload="javascript:try { document.getElementById('adSpace3').insertAdjacent Element('beforeEnd', window.frames['INVadSpace3'].document.getElementById('adDiv')) } catch(aamErr) { }" height=0 frameBorder=0 width=0 name=INVadSpace3></IFRAME>"We believe in one law for all," Mr Hide said in Parliament, "every citizen having a vote of equal value, and every position of political power being open to every person in fair and free elections."

Not a fan of 'affirmative action'

[peasea]

I'm with Hide on this one.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592190

He said he told Prime Minister John Key on June 3 that he could not be the minister sponsoring a bill with race- or tribal-based seats on the council and he had done that not as a threat but to ensure there were no surprises in the coalition relationship.


<IFRAME onload="javascript:try { document.getElementById('adSpace3').insertAdjacent Element('beforeEnd', window.frames['INVadSpace3'].document.getElementById('adDiv')) } catch(aamErr) { }" height=0 frameBorder=0 width=0 name=INVadSpace3></IFRAME>"We believe in one law for all," Mr Hide said in Parliament, "every citizen having a vote of equal value, and every position of political power being open to every person in fair and free elections."

Not a fan of 'affirmative action'

Good on him! Having seats for any organisation based on race is, frankly, rascist.

Even a Minister of Maori Affairs is rascist. Candidates for seats should rise or fall on their own merits and if you read the Treaty of Waitangi (Hobson's correct version, not the sterilized, twisted version we currently have jammed down our throats) it states that "We are now one people".

If that's the case, and it should be, then it's one rule for all; regardless of race, colour or creed.

[ajturbo]

i support this guy.... why the hell should one person get a helping hand if the next is not allowed that same help?????

[rainman]

Not a fan of 'affirmative action'

Affirmative action's a complex thing, so I'm not going to comment on that part.

But I hope that Key sets up the Maori seats just so we can be rid of this little yellow-jacketed toad. Rodney is a dangerous fool.

[short-circuit]

Affirmative action's a complex thing, so I'm not going to comment on that part.

But I hope that Key sets up the Maori seats just so we can be rid of this little yellow-jacketed toad. Rodney is a dangerous fool.

Good riddance to Dr. Evil.

[FROSTY]

Don't like the man as a rule and Im well aware that its politicing at its best.
I DO believe in the message he's spouting though.
EQUAL rights for ALL voting Aucklanders.

[Donor]

Surely to god if the maori want maori representation, then one seat should should suffice?

I mean, given how few seats there are to represent the other 1 something million of us non maori...

But then that harks back to the old argument, aren't we all equal? What the hell do we need segregated representation for? So the buggers still have something to whine about, like how they lack so much?

I gotta get out of auckland... *fume*

[SixPackBack]

Don't like the man as a rule and Im well aware that its politicing at its best.
I DO believe in the message he's spouting though.
EQUAL rights for ALL voting Aucklanders.

..........Echo's my personal position. The supercity is ill concieved IMHO!

[James Deuce]

Bring back the WEPB!

[Devil]

ARA for lyfe yo!

Agree with Hide, I think Ms Turia's argument regarding playing the race card is pathetic. She doesn't seem to understand that while HAVING maori seats is a significant issue to a whole lot of people, a similarly large amount of people think NOT having the seats is a significant issue.

[ynot slow]

And no different to both Jim Anderton with his I want a kiwibank or I go,and Winstons attitude to the labour party,they needed the seats to govern.

Good on ACT,we are one nation,and I have no problem if maori want to keep their culture and ideals,as long as they fall within the laws I have to obey.No come to our marae,pay ME the money and you'll be able to stay with your aotearoa immigration stamp.

[MSTRS]

Hide accused of playing race card ??
Of course he is. That's only fair, isn't it? It's what the Maori Party are doing. And if it's good enough for them...

[idb]

It's Tau Henare that's grandstanding.

Hide has never threatened to pull his support for the government...just to resign his ministerial position.

Henare is being dishonest.

[Swoop]

Standing for the principle of "one person one vote".

Good stuff.

Why aren't there "Motorcyclist's only" seats on the supercity council? Huh?


Instead, people can vote for whoever is supporting their "cause". It is called "democracy".

[duckonin]

Yep Hide has my vote also...Any person standing for anything should be voted for on their merits and what they can offer, not because lollie sucking Tau Henare wants guaranteed representation for his racist regime..:no:

[Benk]

But Moari do need more assistance, and what better way of doing so by specifically having Maori involved in the decision making process?

When Maori and Europeans are on par (birth rate, employment rate, diabetes, obesity, etc, etc, etc), then we should have equal rights, but until that time, Maori DO need the additional assistance. Id like think if I (iron maiden listening, motorbike riding honky) was ever in need of representation that my country would go to bat for me.

Then again. Its always nice having someone else to blame for NZ's problems.

[ynot slow]

Standing for the principle of "one person one vote".

Good stuff.

Why aren't there "Motorcyclist's only" seats on the supercity council? Huh?


Instead, people can vote for whoever is supporting their "cause". It is called "democracy".

And IF there is a suitable maori,pacific islander,indian candidate let them get nominated and if they are worthy they're elected.

[Devil]

But Moari do need more assistance, and what better way of doing so by specifically having Maori involved in the decision making process?

When Maori and Europeans are on par (birth rate, employment rate, diabetes, obesity, etc, etc, etc), then we should have equal rights, but until that time, Maori DO need the additional assistance. Id like think if I (iron maiden listening, motorbike riding honky) was ever in need of representation that my country would go to bat for me.

Then again. Its always nice having someone else to blame for NZ's problems.

There's nothing stopping them from campaigning and being elected like anyone else. Shit if yo nigga be clued up, I be votin for shizzle!

[Benk]

There's nothing stopping them from campaigning and being elected like anyone else. Shit if yo nigga be clued up, I be votin for shizzle!

True, but why risk getting it wrong to start with.

[cs363]

Good on him! Having seats for any organisation based on race is, frankly, rascist.

Even a Minister of Maori Affairs is rascist. Candidates for seats should rise or fall on their own merits and if you read the Treaty of Waitangi (Hobson's correct version, not the sterilized, twisted version we currently have jammed down our throats) it states that "We are now one people".

If that's the case, and it should be, then it's one rule for all; regardless of race, colour or creed.

Agree 100%, Hide may not be mine or a lot of other peoples favourite politician but he is right on the money here.

[SixPackBack]

But Moari do need more assistance, and what better way of doing so by specifically having Maori involved in the decision making process?

When Maori and Europeans are on par (birth rate, employment rate, diabetes, obesity, etc, etc, etc), then we should have equal rights, but until that time, Maori DO need the additional assistance. Id like think if I (iron maiden listening, motorbike riding honky) was ever in need of representation that my country would go to bat for me.

Then again. Its always nice having someone else to blame for NZ's problems.

An appropriate perspective; before discussing the points you raised much further the much needed concept of 'defining a Maori' need to be tackled?

I would argue that many folk claiming to be Maori have the most tenuous link to Maori ancestry and are in fact 'crackers' with the slightest hint of Maori blood.

How do we define who is a Maori?

[Devil]

True, but why risk getting it wrong to start with.

True, but that also applies in both directions...

Personally, I think we're all screwed, not just in regards to the council seats.
I think the ideal of one people, one nation is great, but I dont expect to see it in my lifetime.

[rachprice]

But Moari do need more assistance, and what better way of doing so by specifically having Maori involved in the decision making process?

When Maori and Europeans are on par (birth rate, employment rate, diabetes, obesity, etc, etc, etc), then we should have equal rights, but until that time, Maori DO need the additional assistance. Id like think if I (iron maiden listening, motorbike riding honky) was ever in need of representation that my country would go to bat for me.

Then again. Its always nice having someone else to blame for NZ's problems.

Yeah I agree, there is a discrepancy between maori and non-maori in almost everything, so things aren't equal, by treating them like they are equal, you are just going to maintain that discrepancy

Not that I agree that they should be given everything on a plate....

[Benk]

I would argue that many folk claiming to be Maori have the most tenuous link to Maori ancestry and are in fact 'crackers' with the slightest hint of Maori blood.

An appropriate perspective; before discussing the points you raised much further the much needed concept of 'many folk' need to be tackled? :laugh:


How do we define who is a Maori?

A person with Maori heritage?

There is no black and white, only shades of grey (metaphorically, especially given the argument :laugh:)

[Benk]

I think the ideal of one people, one nation is great, but I dont expect to see it in my lifetime.

Bingo! And how do we work towards this goal? Not by shutting those who are most affected out from the decision making proces0s, surely.

[Benk]

Not that I agree that they should be given everything on a plate....

Yup, couldnt agree more. But maybe they could be given the recipe :shifty:

[Devil]

Bingo! And how do we work towards this goal? Not by shutting those who are most affected out from the decision making proces0s, surely.

But they're not, that's the problem. Also why this argument will go back and forwards so we should quit while we're ahead!

I dont see having Maori seats as being inclusive, I think it's quite the opposite. It creates an exclusive group that is different to the rest of us. Thats the background to my opinion really.

[Benk]

But they're not, that's the problem. Also why this argument will go back and forwards so we should quit while we're ahead!

I agree, splitting hairs, and mooting points is boring as shit :done:

[Jantar]

Being outside Auckland, and therefore about as far away from this issue as one can get, I am interested in the democratic process that would be involved if Maori were to have 2 seats.

How would those representives be appointed, and who would appoint them?

If they are selected by Maori people living in the Auckland area then does that mean those same people have 2 votes while evry else only has one?

Or if Maori seats are to allocated then does that mean a sperate Maori role just for Auckland?

Is this just another way of dividing Maori and non maori, and do those proposing this really want apartheid?

[Headbanger]

But Moari do need more assistance

Surely they get that in Jail after killing their kids?

No?

oh well, too bad.

[Benk]

Surely they get that in Jail after killing their kids?

No?

oh well, too bad.

Hahahah :laugh:

[short-circuit]

Is this just another way of dividing Maori and non maori, and do those proposing this really want apartheid?

Affirmative action is an attempt to undo apartheid (they are at opposite ends of a continuum):


Apartheid policies were aimed at advancing the lives of white Afrikaners in South Africa. There was job reservation policy aimed at improving the lives of white Afrikaners. Apartheid government favoured white-owned companies and created statutory companies for white Afrikaners. As a result, majority of companies in South Africa are owned by white people. The aforementioned policies achieved the desired results, but in the process they marginalised and excluded black people. Black people were forcefully removed from their previous property, without compensation, and said property was given to the white minority.

When the new majority government came to power, they decided to implement an affimative action campaign to correct previous imbalances. As such, the previously disenfranchised majority and minority groups are being supported by forcing the formerly privileged white minority group to implement certain policies. These policies include quotas regarding how much of the procurement is bought from non-white companies, how much of the equity is owned by non-whites, how many employees are non-white, and what position the non-whites have.

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

[Headbanger]

In all seriousness Benk, I completely and utterly disagree with you, Maori do not need more assistance, They need to stop blaming their social breakdown on others, Its a massive concrete anchor dragging on the entire NZ population.

If someone is dieing from diabetes, its because they eat shit food, not because their skin is a darker shade. Squandering more and more money down a bottomless hole isn't the answer to anything, Like all things it will require a culture shift to sort out the issues, and that has to happen within Maori not within the rest of society.We have done our bit,over and above a reasonable amount.

Until they stand up and be counted on their merits rather then their failures then the condition will never be cured.

Are Maori held back by the system?, Hell no the system is built from the bottom up to assist them, Its their parents,peers and communities that hold them back.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Affirmative action is an attempt to undo apartheid (they are at opposite ends of a continuum:


Apartheid policies were aimed at advancing the lives of white Afrikaners in South Africa. There was job reservation policy aimed at improving the lives of white Afrikaners. Apartheid government favoured white-owned companies and created statutory companies for white Afrikaners. As a result, majority of companies in South Africa are owned by white people. The aforementioned policies achieved the desired results, but in the process they marginalised and excluded black people. Black people were forcefully removed from their previous property, without compensation, and said property was given to the white minority.

When the new majority government came to power, they decided to implement an affimative action campaign to correct previous imbalances. As such, the previously disenfranchised majority and minority groups are being supported by forcing the formerly privileged white minority group to implement certain policies. These policies include quotas regarding how much of the procurement is bought from non-white companies, how much of the equity is owned by non-whites, how many employees are non-white, and what position the non-whites have.

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

dont believe everything you read on wikepedia, son.

maaaaaaari seats in local gubberment is a stupd idea. Almost as stupid as the idea of local gummerment itself.

and having race-based anything is apartheidt by whatever name its called, and it is still racism. Dont give me that bullshit about 150 years of colonialism and oppression either, I dont buy it. The only thing that local gubberment is FOR* in my view is to keep the toilets flushing, the rubbish collected and street lamps on, and to look after parks and other public good type things in the local area. If maaaaaaari owned a bit of land then away they go, they can have a representative voice but one based purely on the nebulous argument about "race" "tribe" or "ethnicity". That is plain WRONG in my view.


*assuming you buy the argument that "local" gubbermint is necessary at all, which I for one, do not.

[Jantar]

Affirmative action is an attempt to undo apartheid (they are at opposite ends of a continuum:


Auckland's Apartheid policies are aimed at advancing the lives of Maori in Auckland. There will be job reservation policy on the Auckland Super City Council aimed at improving the lives of Maori. Apartheid government favoured Maori-owned companies and created statutory companies for Maori. As a result, majority of corporations in Auckland will be owned by Maori. The aforementioned policies achieve the desired results, but in the process they marginalise and exclude white people. White people were forcefully removed from their previous property, without compensation, and said property was given to the Maori minority.

etc etc



Yep. Sounds racist to me.

[idb]

An appropriate perspective; before discussing the points you raised much further the much needed concept of 'defining a Maori' need to be tackled?

I would argue that many folk claiming to be Maori have the most tenuous link to Maori ancestry and are in fact 'crackers' with the slightest hint of Maori blood.

How do we define who is a Maori?

I believe it's essentially a self-assessment...an honesty system if you like.

[Benk]

If someone is dieing from diabetes, its because they eat shit food, not because their skin is a darker shade.

Obviously. But how do they know to eat better food? Personally, I learnt how to eat well by being educated by my parents. EDUCATED. Without education, the cycle continues, and nothing changes. This is what I mean, to think that we are all equally smart, equally fit, equally healthy, equally educated, is foolish. Some people need more help than others.


Until they stand up and be counted on their merits rather then their failures

I dont understand this?

[short-circuit]

Yep. Sounds racist to me.

I quite agree.

What about paragraph two?

[Benk]

Yep. Sounds racist to me.

Fuck, talk about a misquote. Thats such a load of bullshit, and I hope nobody (else) who reads it is dumb enough to believe it. Half of what you have manipulated into that quote doesnt apply AT ALL. I cant be fucked breaking it down, but for god sake man, do some reading eh.

[short-circuit]

and having race-based anything is apartheidt by whatever name its called, and it is still racism.

Go and look up the term apartheid - the definition differs wildly from your interpretation of it.



Dont give me that bullshit about 150 years of colonialism and oppression either, I dont buy it.

You can live in a bubble if you like - there is an extensive documented history



The only thing that local gubberment is FOR* in my view is to keep the toilets flushing, the rubbish collected and street lamps on, and to look after parks and other public good type things in the local area.

If this were true then I'm sure you wouldn't object to Maori representation



If maaaaaaari owned a bit of land then away they go, they can have a representative voice

They once "owned" the lot but their sense of ownership differs from a European understanding



but one based purely on the nebulous argument about "race" "tribe" or "ethnicity". That is plain WRONG in my view.

See earlier definition on Affirmative Action



*assuming you buy the argument that "local" gubbermint is necessary at all, which I for one, do not.

Give us one example of a first world city any where without a local government or regulatory body

[MSTRS]

I believe it's essentially a self-assessment...an honesty system if you like.

Honesty system? You are kidding. Aren't you?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Go and look up the term apartheid - the definition differs wildly from your interpretation of it.




You can live in a bubble if you like - there is an extensive documented history




If this were true then I'm sure you wouldn't object to Maori representation




They once "owned" the lot but their sense of ownership differs from a European understanding




See earlier definition on Affirmative Action




Give us one example of a first world city any where without a local government or regulatory body


We have different views. I respect that. i consider your opinion to be misguided however. I dont really have time to argue at present but I will say because my earlier rant was a somewhat unclear expression of my opinion.

If we have local gubberment at all, then it should be FOR defined purposes, and paid for BY the landowners in the area. Unless of course you support someithing like Thatcher's poll tax which was an alternate funding model that was so very sucessful in Britain in the late '80's. If you accept that hypothesis (do you? if not why not?) then what matters is not the self selected wildly variable colour of the skin of the person flushing the toilet, or putting the rubbish out, it is the fact that the tolet flushes or the rubbish is collected that is important.

One person, one vote, make the trains run on time, the dunnies flush, dont give in to pressure groups:job done.

[Hitcher]

Good on him! Having seats for any organisation based on race is, frankly, rascist.

Even a Minister of Maori Affairs is rascist. Candidates for seats should rise or fall on their own merits and if you read the Treaty of Waitangi (Hobson's correct version, not the sterilized, twisted version we currently have jammed down our throats) it states that "We are now one people".

If that's the case, and it should be, then it's one rule for all; regardless of race, colour or creed.

I draw your attention to Exhibit A: The Treaty of Waitangi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi). This envisaged a partnership between the Crown and the indigenous people of New Zealand.

The Local Government Act 2002 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM170873.html?search=ts_act_local_resel&p=1&sr=1) is probably worth a read too, while you're at it.

If you want to discard this agreement and lumber the taxpayers of New Zealand with the consequences of that, feel free to start a political party and see how many votes you get.

[Jantar]

Fuck, talk about a misquote. Thats such a load of bullshit, and I hope nobody (else) who reads it is dumb enough to believe it. Half of what you have manipulated into that quote doesnt apply AT ALL. I cant be fucked breaking it down, but for god sake man, do some reading eh.

I believe I made it clear that is was a misquote by highlighting the changed words in red. I didn't say it DID apply, just making the point that it is a racist situation to apply any form of government, national or local, on race.

[Benk]

I believe I made it clear that is was a misquote by highlighting the changed words in red. I didn't say it DID apply, just making the point that it is a racist situation to apply any form of government, national or local, on race.

Uggghhh. I comprehend what you were trying to achieve with the post, but its still a pointless, dangerous, load of shit.

[Hitcher]

Almost as stupid as the idea of local gummerment itself

So you don't believe in local democracy then? I am curious as to why you think that this is stupid/redundant.

[short-circuit]

We have different views. I respect that. i consider your opinion to be misguided however. I dont really have time to argue at present but I will say because my earlier rant was a somewhat unclear expression of my opinion.

If we have local gubberment at all, then it should be FOR defined purposes, and paid for BY the landowners in the area. Unless of course you support someithing like Thatcher's poll tax which was an alternate funding model that was so very sucessful in Britain in the late '80's. If you accept that hypothesis (do you? if not why not?) then what matters is not the self selected wildly variable colour of the skin of the person flushing the toilet, or putting the rubbish out, it is the fact that the tolet flushes or the rubbish is collected that is important.

One person, one vote, make the trains run on time, the dunnies flush, dont give in to pressure groups:job done.


Well firstly, the issue here is representation and the reason why Maori should/shouldn't feature in the decision making process at the level of local government (as they do at national level).


You have then chosen to take a swipe at the need for local government at all, and subsequently put forward your ideas on how it should be elected and for what purpose...(is that a retraction of you earlier statement that it is not needed at all?)

As far as point one - see Hitcher's links to the TOW.


On point two - start a separate thread cause that ain't the issue. However for the record: No. I am ideologically opposed to the idea of people paying to participate in a democratic process. It would no longer be a democratic process


As for "successful in Britain in the 80s" - hows the weather on your planet?

[ManDownUnder]

I want compulsory non Maori seats in the Maori party, the number to be prorated to match the general population of NZ.

I also want the land back that was taken from my relatives because they took it from the Maori. I had nothing to do with those exchanges and am now at a significant financial disadvantage. I'll draft the Treaty of Kumeu and invite a suitable number of local representatives to sign it.

I want to start the Non Maori Party, have non Maori TV, seek sponsorship for the Non Maori All Blacks, and would like the Govt to consider Non Maori tertiary Education facilities.

... I think I missed a few things - but that'll do for this week.

[short-circuit]

I believe I made it clear that is was a misquote by highlighting the changed words in red. I didn't say it DID apply, just making the point that it is a racist situation to apply any form of government, national or local, on race.

.........Fail.

[short-circuit]

I want compulsory non Maori seats in the Maori party, the number to be prorated to match the general population of NZ

And there's a need for that because......?

[ManDownUnder]

Oh hang on... look at that - I just realised that Treaty of Waitangi is a TREATY! A treatice on how to live nicely together.

It's not a constitution madating rights and prerogatives in respect of the state, individuals or groups of individuals (the right to form militias comes to mind in respect of the groups).

[ManDownUnder]

And there's a need for that because......?

They're racist otherwise (although they'd never actually admit to that...)

[short-circuit]

They're racist otherwise (although they'd never actually admit to that...)

I don't follow. According to what criteria? And who are "they"?

[short-circuit]

Oh hang on... look at that - I just realised that Treaty of Waitangi is a TREATY! A treatice on how to live nicely together.

It's not a constitution madating rights and prerogatives in respect of the state, individuals or groups of individuals (the right to form militias comes to mind in respect of the groups).

????? It's referred to in law and statutes.

In fact it's international law also. See Contra Proferentum

[humphrt]

If you want to discard this agreement and lumber the taxpayers of New Zealand with the consequences of that

What the ?!@#$. I was under the impression that the taxpayer has already more than paid its dues. I dont know the exact number but i think its in the order of billions. When is enough enough. I want to be a part of a united New Zealand but it seems that the Maori Party among others dont want this. Everything they seem to do drives a wedge into this country.

[idb]

Even a Minister of Maori Affairs is rascist. Candidates for seats should rise or fall on their own merits and if you read the Treaty of Waitangi (Hobson's correct version, not the sterilized, twisted version we currently have jammed down our throats) it states that "We are now one people".

If that's the case, and it should be, then it's one rule for all; regardless of race, colour or creed.

But...the Minister of Maori Affairs doesn't have to be a Maori.

[Hitcher]

What the ?!@#$. I was under the impression that the taxpayer has already more than paid its dues.

Those are the "dues" from breaches the Crown has made to the Treaty itself. There are still many of these still to be resolved. Remove the Treaty and we'd probably start with a clean slate based on today's asset values, not to mention all private ownership titles being null and void. Feel like buying your house back at its current RV?

Indeed removing the Treaty removes our Government. Think Maori seats are an issue now?

[humphrt]

Too poor to own a house. Maybe if im 1/32 maori though the gubberment will hook me up :done:

I think everyone has a right to be elected to a seat on any council(thingy). I dont think its very democratic to say only maori can have these 3 seats. Just the same as i dont think europeans should have specific seats. All people are equal they should have the same rights. But rights are earned not a given.

[ManDownUnder]

I don't follow. According to what criteria? And who are "they"?
The Maori party. I want white fullas in there too.


????? It's law and statute.

In fact it's international law also.
It's a contract, a formal agreement interpreted according to the law... but it... is... not... a ... law.

It's also a flawed contract, with misinterpretations causing confusion between the two variants signed, both in good faith I might add. So how does it get enforced? How CAN it get enforced?

I personally think we need to to amend it, superscede it with a Treaty of Waitangi II. And I'm not trying to be slippery here. It needs very careful consideration and obviously need to be entered into in good faith as I expect the last one was. it neds to be fair, honest, and encompass all thsoe things that we now know about our fair land and the Maori/non Maori relations, and encompass internation relations also (i.e. "fisheries" now extend... 200 miles out to sea???).

It also needs to ebrace the concept of future change, such that it can be amended over time to stay current and fair.

[Maha]

The Maori party. I want white fullas in there too.



Bring Back Mat Rata.
or someone like him cos he be dead.

[ManDownUnder]

Bring Back Mat Rata.
or someone like him cos he be dead.

Took-a-lotta-money-Morgan?

[Maha]

Took-a-lotta-money-Morgan?

Too many crooked bastards at the Beehive, they have weeded out the shameless over the years, but some have slipped back in. Mr Rata on the other hand, was good honest bloke, and highly thought of by the many.

Sort of the 'Brown Norm Kirk'.

[SixPackBack]

The Maori party. I want white fullas in there too......................

By many measures the party contains little else but white fellas.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So you don't believe in local democracy then? I am curious as to why you think that this is stupid/redundant.


4 million people clustered on a precipice on the edge of the world. We have national gubberment, regional gubberment, and local gubberment. Wny? You and I have to pay them, and they've all got their trotters well and truly in the trough.

If local decision making is good, then fine, and regional planning could be done on a national basis (crikey the country isnt that big) so maybe there is a justifcation for two layers. Maybe.

I think we only need one lot of pollies, all accountable every election cycle (ban polititcal parties and in particular their enshrining in statute in MMP and "party jumping" legislation.). One land owning man, one vote.

thats right. No women, and if you dont own land you shouldnt be able to vote.

sorry. is that OT.

[Ixion]

So you don't believe in local democracy then? I am curious as to why you think that this is stupid/redundant.

It's a nice idea. If they ever try it anywhere in this country I shall watch with interest.

[Ixion]

..Unless of course you support someithing like Thatcher's poll tax which was an alternate funding model that was so very sucessful in Britain in the late '80's. ...


Baroness Thatcher's poll tax was flawed in execution, not concept. Mainly because the implementation and execution was left to those same empire building local governmental bodies.

The principle is sound and considerably fairer than present methods.

[short-circuit]

Baroness Thatcher's poll tax was flawed in execution, not concept.

The principle is sound and considerably fairer than present methods.

Excuse me? A communist that supports a flat tax?

[Ixion]

Well, actually I don't support any tax. Don't need taxes when the means of production distribution etc are in public ownership.

But if , whilst awaiting the revolution, you have to have a tax for local purposes (as distinct from national), a poll tax is fairer than most. Particularly if you make local government stick to its knitting

[short-circuit]

Well, actually I don't support any tax. Don't need taxes when the means of production distribution etc are in public ownership.

But if , whilst awaiting the revolution, you have to have a tax for local purposes (as distinct from national), a poll tax is fairer than most. Particularly if you make local government stick to its knitting

Come on Ixion....Just be slightly pragmatic (we don't live in a Communist state - sad though that be may) So hows a flat tax gonna help or allow representation for the poor.

You're essentially proposing a User Pays system

[Hitcher]

Excuse me? A communist that supports a flat tax?

From memory the poll tax was a way of allocating local government costs on a per head, rather than per property basis. I don't think that's quite the same as a flat tax on income.

[MisterD]

(we don't live in a Communist state - sad though that be may)

Care to trade in your Street Triple for the two-wheeled equivalent of a Lada?

[Ixion]

Come on Ixion....Just be slightly pragmatic (we don't live in a Communist state - sad though that be may) So hows a flat tax gonna help or allow representation for the poor.

You're essentially proposing a User Pays system

Well, your original query was why a Communist supported a poll tax (which as Mr Hitcher notes is a tax based on a per head , or per family, basis , rather than on property value, not a flat tax. ).

If we did have a Communist state we obviously couldn't have a property based tax, cos there wouldn't be any personal real property TO tax. But there would be little point in a poll tax either, just one hand taking from the other.

As we don't live in a Communist state, we must manage as efficient and fair a system as we can in the meantime.

The present rating system is very inefficient. Communists may deplore that as much as capitalists (more so indeed, because Communists are more logical) .

Local government should NOT , IMHO , be concerned with 'rectifying' issues of poverty . That is the business of central government. Local government is to provide services and amenities. (I'm not clear why 'representation' of the poor should be a separate issue - rich or poor, one vote. The poor will always outvote the rich cos there are more of them)

[short-circuit]

Well, your original query was why a Communist supported a poll tax (which as Mr Hitcher notes is a tax based on a per head , or per family, basis , rather than on property value, not a flat tax. ).

If we did have a Communist state we obviously couldn't have a property based tax, cos there wouldn't be any personal real property TO tax. But there would be little point in a poll tax either, just one hand taking from the other.

As we don't live in a Communist state, we must manage as efficient and fair a system as we can in the meantime.

The present rating system is very inefficient. Communists may deplore that as much as capitalists (more so indeed, because Communists are more logical) .

Local government should NOT , IMHO , be concerned with 'rectifying' issues of poverty . That is the business of central government. Local government is to provide services and amenities. (I'm not clear why 'representation' of the poor should be a separate issue - rich or poor, one vote. The poor will always outvote the rich cos there are more of them)

So you don't think that the capital value of the property owned should come into the cost of rates?

A poll tax would be premised on the basis that everyone is equal and clearly thats not so.....

"I live in a mansion but I only use one shithouse"?

I think not.

[short-circuit]

Care to trade in your Street Triple for the two-wheeled equivalent of a Lada?

You'll need to do better than that

[Hitcher]

So you don't think that the capital value of the property owned should come into the cost of rates?

Most reviews of rating systems concur that capital value-based rating is a blunt and ponderous instrument. Rates also provide erroneous assumptions about what local government does. So why does local government still rate on the basis of capital value? Because it's easy.

Rates are nothing more than a tax to fund local government services and amenities. You'll always people who say that they aren't on city water or don't go to the library, swim in the pools or whatever. Tough. It's like your central government taxes: you pay for education if you don't have kids, the army if you're a pacifist, drought assistance to sheep farmers if you're a vegetarian, etc.

[Ixion]

So you don't think that the capital value of the property owned should come into the cost of rates?

A poll tax would be premised on the basis that everyone is equal and clearly thats not so.....

"I live in a mansion but I only use one shithouse"?

I think not.


If you have a "in some way" progressive central government tax system (ie rich pay more than poor) then that takes care of the "from each according to his means" bit.

The rich need to pay more toward the cost of central government and CG services. It would be impractical to fund a health system , f'instance, on a flat tax basis. Because the sick are usually poor (cos they're sick, duh) and can't afford to pay much.

But as I noted I don't believe that local government should be involved in such areas at all. And for local government services , where most services ARE universal (as you note, the rich man's dunny contains about the same amount of shit as the poor man's ), a per head or per family unit system is both more efficient and fairer. ]

More efficient because it better signals people as to the actual cost of services. At present many members of society make extensive use of services for which they "appear" to pay nothing .Of course there is no free lunch, the services are paid for somewhere. But the nexus between supply of the service and payment for it is too remote to be observable by the consumer. So many people have an interest in demanding ever higher service levels, comfortable in their (admittedly mistaken) belief that *they* do not have to pay for them.

It should be inherent in the organisation of society that every person willing to do their best to contribute to society has the wherewithal to afford all such local body services . So "affordability" is not an issue as far as I am concerned. The poor man may have less left after paying his poll tax , to buy toys like motorbikes ,but he should have sufficient to pay for all the necessities of life. Note that I said "anyone willing to do their best to contribute". That may not include all the "poor". I have no brief to provide shirkers with a life of unearned indolence. When we do have a Communist government they'll be packed off to labour camps right smartish

Nor do I consider that any tax system , or any government , should indulge in taxation for the purpose of "punishing" the rich. It is no crime to be rich , if it be obtained by honest toil.

[MisterD]

You'll need to do better than that

Better than what? I was merely an making an observation that communism isn't exactly noted for the provision of desirable toys or exciting engineering. Look at what they did to Skoda - previously one of Europe's greatest and most innovative engineering firms...

[Ixion]

You are confounding Communism with Russian

[peasea]

But...the Minister of Maori Affairs doesn't have to be a Maori.

Quite right, he could be Mongolian. Just having the position is racist. I should have been more specific.