NZH
"They're his coalition partner, does he support the racist campaign they are running?" party leader Russel Norman asked NZPA. "The Prime Minister speaks on behalf of all New Zealanders, and the vast majority of New Zealanders are not racists and are very uncomfortable with what ACT is up to and I think it essential he condemn this kind of racist campaign."And what does key say?
This morning, Mr Key told reporters there was nothing new in either the Act advertisement - which was "factually incorrect" or Mr Ansell's subsequent comments and he was not bothered by them. "What happens with him and the Act Party, frankly I don't give a toss about, but at the end of the day I don't think any of us would be surprised that he's making those comments." He said the comments would not sour National's relationship with ACT.Yep the prime minister doesn't give a wank about it - no issue, not bothered. He should care but smile and wave can't see the votes in it, so out of sight - out of mind.
Mr Key said the advert and comments would not affect National's intentions regarding the Epsom electorate where it has essentially allowed ACT to win a seat, giving it a presence in parliament.I suspect this position will change as we get closer to the election. Act are going down and brash is going with them. Brash does not realise that kiwis like their racism more downbeat than this - a bit more under the carpet. I don't think kiwis will vote for these Act idiots and i hope they see the truth of key before it is too late.
2 comments:
cuz
dunno how to send u this...
so ill post here.
heres the link..
http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/the-great-truth-robbery-by-amy-brooke/#comment-1189
and heres my note to them....
i was googling the man who had designed an ad for don brashs' Act, and came here...
how refreshing to find a column with such one-sided views and blinkered arguments.
a truth robbery?
i have so many questions for you, and wish we could speak.
but lets start with this one...
you say that in 1974, the new zealand governments' definition of maori was 50% genetic inheritance.
what you fail to mention, are the surrounding circumstances.
maori (1/2 caste or more) didnt get the general vote until 1975, so what possible difference could their genetic makeup have?
in 1975, those maori with over 50% blood were finally eligible to take part in the european electoral system.
through depopulation from disease and intermarriage, the split between maori and european had changed from 75% in 1853 (the first time europeans started voting) to less than 10% (8.7%) in 1975.
4 maori seats came into being in 1867, but 4 seats versus 72 was hardly sharing the power, or the direction of a country.
maori voting power had been diluted by statute.
maori hadnt been able to vote in the general elections for 122 years.
how do we find the direction for this country that will take into account the hopes dreams and needs of us all?
what languages should we learn/teach?
how should we pronounce place names that are from a culture that obviously not everyone wants to embrace?
how do we, as responsible citizens of this country, fairly and with respect to all, right the past wrongs (well, not so past...), effect lasting changes to our government policies and ensure a state that caters to those that have not been well catered to, while meeting the needs of those who have had a lions' share.
we must allow this pacific island nation to become what it could be, what it should have been.
a place for all, with acceptance and tolerance.
i look forward to further discourse.
john flavell
Good one cuz - we need to get a guestpost organised for your thoughts - I'll give you a call tonight.
Post a Comment