90% at Nelson meeting would vote for a single issue Together New Zealand Party
by John Ansell
Around 100 people came to my talk at the Nelson Suburban Club on Wednesday.
It was a good turnout, considering none of the local media picked up on my press release, and the only promotional ads were quite small.
I extended my slide show to present photos I’d taken at the Nelson Museum’s Taranaki Wars Exhibition, as well as recent Treatygate protest action.
Thus my talk ran to 90 minutes. But no one seemed to mind, and there were some good questions at the end.
(Well, actually one person minded. A drunken heckler called me a racist bigot, before being jumped by about ten audience members. Thanks guys!)
The Nelson Museum Taranaki Wars Exhibition accepts
the Maori view that accounts of the cannibalism of
the Harriet’s crew were ‘sensational’ .
Here’s the view of Captain Lambert of the Harriet’s rescue
ship. I asked the audience what motive a British captain
would have had to lie to the House of Commons.
After running through my Treatygate evidence at length, I proposed my positive solution: a Together New Zealand organisation that would demand a unified, non-racial state and an end to the National-Maori-Labour-Greens policy of state-sponsored separatism.
Many people have been urging me to start a single-issue political party. So I asked the audience to be honest with me.
I asked them whether, when push came to shove, they really would vote for such a party. Or whether, in the end, they’d still feel too wedded to, say, the National Party’s economic policy, or the Labour Party’s social policies, to sacrifice their normal voting habits for a single issue.
I told them I would quite understand if they were not prepared to go that far.
But despite my exhortation for absolute honesty, over 90% of the audience raised their hands to say they would vote for a party whose sole policy was to remove the Treaty road block.
Now obviously the audience was hardly a cross-section of New Zealand society.
But equally obviously we should explore the concept further, since those 100 people probably share the views of 80% of New Zealanders on the issue of racial privilege.
I will soon be setting up the Together New Zealand Trust. If we get enough support, the next step may well be a Together New Zealand Party.
Coming soon: detailed pictorial posts on the latest Te Papa Treaty Debate, Waitangi, and the Nelson slide show.
Well done John and I’d back a ‘Together New Zealand’ Party ahead of a rehashed existing party. New leaders and new Politicians so just ask and I will help. It needs to be not politically aligned to any existing Party.
It will be hard work but can be achieved.
Well done
You cannot register a party without 500 members. You cannot have 500 members till they have something to join. Where do we sign up? How much is the membership fee?
Patience, Troppo, the election isn’t for another 21 months
Tropicana, not troppo.
john
check out change.org site
it is a petition site that allows you to on forward the votes to up to forty different recipients emails address politicians news papers etc
wonderful tool to bring about change
if your provide a copy of your ” manifesto ” and names of people you want to receive emails im more than happy to set up on your behalf
gives people a vote
and a voice and counts the votes as well
paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz
Remmember this
Classic
Yes John, right behind you on this. Lets get the ball rolling
Thanks Gary. May not be politically correct but anyone with a sense of humour could appreciate it.I do miss Billy T who could find humour in almost anything.
I would also, without hesitation, vote for a ‘Together NZ Party’. Failing that, “None of the Above” ( if only there was such an option!!) would get my vote!!!! All the incumbent parties are a total waste of space. To me, this racist apartheid system we have here now is by far the biggest issue in NZ now. Fix that and the rest may just fall into place by itself!
Derejk, I too think that the different treatment of part-maoris and of pacific islanders is the most dangerous problem for NZ’s future
Many thanks John for your brave endeavours in exposing the TRUTH about this litany of lies regarding the TOW rort.
Evil increases when good men do nothing.enough is enough.
I will support your single issue party it is that important for the freedom of present and future generations.
I too would support a single issue party. I’m sure you would get maximum exposure once the media knew you were setting up a political party. They’d start off with the far right, racist party and Hone would say you’re the nearest thing to Hitler the world has ever had, but people will see through that i’m sure.
Political Correctness has so much to answer for in the western world.
It’s given rise to minorities and stifled democracy. It really has turned the world on its head.
Marvin, you are right about the likely reaction, because it has always gone that way before. There is much less evidence that enough people would see through it – a great many don’t. I am by inclination not in favour of single issue parties, but if there is no alternative I would in this case vote for it; the issue is so important it eclipses almost everything else. But I am much more in favour of strongly lobbying selected existing parties until they are persuaded it is in their political interest to include our objectives near the top of their manifesto. This needs thinking through very thoroughly.
The members of our Chamber of Chamberlains respond to only one stimulus: fear.
If the Scaredy-Nats feel the fear of loss of power, they will change their policy in a heartbeat and their principles faster than that.
JP The trouble with existing parties is that they say all the right things and then do an about face after being elected. National in 2004 were going to end Maori privelege, abolish Maori seats etc etc. They turned out to be worse than Labour once they got into Government.
I think a single issue party could work, though if it started to poll well I’m certain that National would do another flip to try and win back votes. I would be fine with that if they could be trusted.
Also any single issue party would have to be crystal clear on how they would allot their votes on other issues. Perhaps polling the public on anything contentious may be the way to go.
Yes, but in 2004 National was a completely different beast, led by Don Brash – who would have delivered but for Labour’s bribes. John Key ? Not the same party at all – his middle name is “Appeaser”. I stand by my comments, and believe that unless a like-minded billionaire steps out of the shadows quite soon – you would be better to work on the Conservatives, and possibly NZ First. Don’t underestimate the cost or the effort involved in starting a new party and fielding a candidate in every electorate. And you would need to have at least a semblance of agreed policy on other key issues as well, otherwise you are too easily shot down in debates, and made to look ridiculous. You would only have one chance – fuck it up and the whole cause is lost.
To be credible, a single-issue party would not be able to take a position on any other issues. Its MPs would vote as individuals on all but the core issue.
This would have to be written in blood up front on Day 1.
As soon as potential voters from the Left began to suspect that the Together NZ Party was really a Trojan horse for, say, libertarians, we could kiss goodbye to any hope of support from blue collar, traditional Labour voters – a core constituency.
Thus our views on other issues would have to be suppressed until we had achieved our one goal. Otherwise we’d soon splinter into factions.
We could vote on those issues, but only as individuals.
I’ve already seen this problem arise in our Treatygate email group.
Whenever we’ve allowed ourselves to get diverted into areas like climate change or economics or gay marriage, we find we are no longer united.
John Robinson and I, for example, hold diametrically opposed views on virtually everything, only coming together on Treaty issues.
If we wanted to pursue our other interests in Parliament, we would be wise to do so under other banners once our goal of a colourblind state has been achieved.
I would love to see you hold the balance of power.
I would not expect you to make any consessions in regards to forming a government. I would rather see National or Labor forming a government with Mana and the Greens. Im sure you would only come back stronger after something like that.
John Phillips,
I think that the way forward needs to be a campaign that has clear objectives but is open to modifying (NOT the objectives but) the method through which those are achieved as we go along.
I don’t think lobbying the current crowd will work. The ONLY way the current crowd would take any notice is if thousands and thousands and thousands of people began to demonstrate on a regular/daily basis, there were nationwide marches to parliament of thousands of people etc. A sort of NZ version of the Arab Spring. And the reality is that this is not going to happen any time soon. People are too cautious, too busy, to non confrontational.
The other problem with going in the lobbying direction is that even if it got to the stage where there was enough noise being made to make some of the current crop take notice, the result would be a few little sops made to our cause in the name of ‘inclusion’ and expediency. Every little sop made would see the supporters drop away and the noise abate. Soon the noise would be below the radar again and it would be back to business as usual. We must ensure this does not happen or we might as well save our time and money and enjoy what of it we have left of it now.
The only way I see that has any real chance of genuine success is to move forward with a political entity – a single purpose political movement. The only viable contender I can see out of those currently standing is Colin Craig but he will need to grab this issue and make it his banner FAST.
In the meantime and assuming the Conservative link does not pan out, I think we need to work on finding an articulate and charismatic person who can lead our political movement from the front. JA can work on generating awareness and the truth as he does now. We need to take a leaf out of the Maori Party book and make MMP work for us. Just imagine if at the next election there was a parliament with 32% National, 32% Labour, 5% NZ first, 2 % Maori Party, 10% Greens and 19% Together NZ? Our cause would hold the balance of power and could govern with whoever agreed to work to dismantle the separatist state with us.
The pathetic track record of both National & Labour on this should fool no one. There is no way I can see that either can attempt to take the high road and seriously cut our support away. The initial tactic of everyone else would be to attack us as anti Maori racists. I think that by the time it became clear that support for our cause was actually high and growing they would have seriously burned their bridges with voters.
The flexibility part can come in if during this process it becomes clear that there is a genuinely better alternative in the political ranks, someone we can join with and they can take over the mantle. But I think we need to work hard starting now on getting a political movement and party into place.,
For me, ditto to everything Mike said. Well thought out, Mike. I’m trying to think of an articulate and charismatic leader to lead from the front. I’m not sure he would do it, but Owen Glenn immediately comes to mind for some reason. If he believed in this strongly, I’m sure he would do a good job.
Bob Jones is another but he has previously had a shot at this and probably wouldn’t do it a second time.
There is also Leighton Smith who would be excellent but again, probably not interested in the political scene. He at least feels strongly on this issue.
There must be someone out there but maybe we lack high profile people – as far as I know anyway.
Helen, my opinion on your choices:
Owen Glenn is a greasy individual (at least appears that way to me) who has made large donations to a number of opposing political parties. Why? He can’t believe in all of them. Seems like currying favour to me. Wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him and as he is somewhat….portly, that’s not far at all. Does not present well on TV.
Bob Jones too old and too much history for most people I feel. Could be worthwhile if he weighed in as a supporter and generated more publicity.
Leighton Smith? well maybe. I do not listen to him much so have only snippets to go on. But would he be interested?
Still, keep them coming. I can’t immediately think of anyone at all. I did have Prosser at the back of my mind for the last couple of years. Now he’s so far back he’s fallen off.
I also agree with John Phillips about other policies. I do think that while it needs to be a clear single purpose movement to end Treatyism it must also have some idea of a general economic direction and policy.
I do agree that as well as attacking on the ‘racist’ front, the enemy would attempt to derail by trying to trip up spokespeople on social and economic issues. I’m not too sure too much detail would be needed. Nat & Lab are pretty close in fiscal policy and although Lab is into more social engineering, Nat has moved towards their position under Key. Together NZ could shadow their more centrist and common policies and thus defuse much of this potential for damage.
I think reasonably middle of the road declarations, no asset sales, leaning more towards traditionally conservative values, do not forsee any significant changes in monetary policy blah blah and that TNZ would work with any and all parties if an economic policy or initiative would lead to a better nation.
But push push push how much is drained out of peoples purses each year by Treatyists, explain that if the weeping sore of Treatyism was gone NZ would be a better place under almost any other doctrine.
There are a fair few who write on the NZCPR website. Muriel Newman, David Round. Don’t know if they want to become a messiah. I always said if I won $25 million in Lotto, I would form a party…The Non-Maori Party so I could represent “my people” as that fat racist Turiana Whatsherface pretends to. Everything she wants for “her people”, I would also want for mine!
Yes, as I said before, if NZ can fix this Treaty apartheid cancer, all the rest (ie economy, welfare, crime etc) may just fall into place by itself….or certainly become better than it is now.
Yes, we have to clear the road block before we can focus on the road.
I suppose you all realise that it is a big ask to form a Party at this stage. Look at Colin Craig – he just got his numbers (needed to actually form a Party) not long before the last election, so we would have to expect the next election to pass and aim for the one after that. Can we wait that long? Enormous (irreversible?) damage can be done in that time as it seems to be accelerating like never before at the moment – especially under slippery Finlayson’s watch.
I’m sure you are right with your comments about my suggestions, Mike. I was just trying to think of people off the top of my head. There must be someone who knows a good person who could/would do the job if we stick with trying to form a single issue Party.
I could get 500 members now, Helen.
It really has to be this election or never. After that will be too late.
I agree John – the damage will be too great to fix by 2017. Actually, Don Brash said that some years ago and he has been proven pretty well correct.
I think what NZ needs is it’s own Bastille Day.
I don’t think we want to go storming prisons, Peter. That would liberate too many of our opponents.
Storming of the Bastille – preferably without the guillotines ? Hmmm – yes, that would work, but man, what a job it is to get NZers en masse sufficiently worked up about anything that they would take to the streets in great enough numbers. Too distracted by rugby, netball, Shortland Street, and other trivia to be bothered. Happy enough with their “bread & circuses”. If that were not so, we would not be in this state of siege in the first place.
On the matter of a strong, articulate, charismatic leader: I can’t really think of one – but a couple of thoughts: history tells us that the most successful (for better & worse) are usually absconders from an existing political party, who have become disillusioned by that party. So they are a known political face and have some experience of how politics actually works on the inside. My other thought is that for this cause an articulate Maori, who holds the same views as we do, would have a huge advantage – and could not easily be dismissed as a racist redneck.
I have no names to suggest at present, just trying to stimulate the thinking of us all. If I were absolutely forced to make a snap nomination right now it would be Colin Craig, even though he does not yet fit either of the above criteria.
Brendan Horan?
Has he been completely rehabilitated yet ? If not, the possibility of unresolved scandal would be a killer.
Horan is everything thats wrong with NZ politics, and as a person is an arrogant greedy lying sneaky a.hole.
The minute other issues or current political parties are connected to this campaign you will see a portion of the 80% falling away. Unfortunate, but that’s what will happen.
I think keeping it simple and clean will guarantee the most success in terms of attracting the largest number of supporters/voters. That’s why it needs to be a strictly single issue party and one that’s not connected to any of our existing political parties.
Yes, John. It definitely has to be for this election so we don’t have much time to mobilise the troops if that’s the way we are going to go. I half agree that an existing political figure could be a good bet but Kasbar is right – we would lose some. We want to gain people, not lose them.
If a candidate went on TV and just said that his/her aim was to stop racist maori privilege and as for the rest of the political issues – well, they would likely get better by themselves once the rotten cancer had been eliminated, a lot of people would agree. National got in with a “three strikes and you’re out” policy but forgot to mention that prisoners already in jail would all start at zero even if imprisoned for the 50th time…. and the PC judges are a joke. What thinking intelligent person has any respect for these PC parties that do nothing but lie and play on words. Recent case the Radio NZ reporter killed by some loser that should have been in prison at the time. And then they gave him manslaughter instead of murder.
I agree wholeheartedly Derejk – the outcopme of that trial was a disgrace. That bastard should be locked away for life. And his nasty young accomplice should have been convicted as an accessory to murder, instead of which he walks free. Makes my blood boil.
* outcome
I would not get too sure about the 80% support at this stage. Yes, that number – possibly more – when pushed for an answer will agree with us. But translating that into active support is another matter. Many don’t see the issue as being as important as we do, and will need to be educated – and others will agree with us but will not want to cast a vote outside of their traditional pattern. So although it may be a factor, I don’t think that you can conclude that we already have this level of support that could be eroded by the “wrong” choice of party /leader. That support has to be built first, until it reaches critical mass and becomes the no. 1 election issue. I still think that there is a head start to be had if we can go with an established party and its resources. If we can’t do that, then plan B would be to start a new party. I just don’t see it as plan A – but I am always open to persuasion.
I’m with you on this one, John P. There is so much involved in starting a new Party and it would be so disappointing if, in hindsight, we wished we had gone with an established Party who have already done all the donkey work and just need to start loudly promoting the Treatyist problem. I would hate to see the election looming and we still weren’t getting through to the Sheeple.
I’m thinking Colin Craig here even though he is not quite right as the Leader but we can’t seem to think of anyone better at the moment and he does agree with us. Does he agree strongly enough to push it firmly though because that’s what it needs?!
However, if NZ First, especially Prosser, started also promoting this subject very loudly, they might also be a force to be reckoned with. Sadly, even though I more or less agree with Prosser’s comments, even though he went a bit too far, has he damaged himself in the eyes of too many others or are they like me and willing to give him another go? Winston has had several chances and hasn’t done anything so I’m not sure I can trust him.
Helen, going by the trend of the last several years, the masses are usually not willing to give anyone another go, except for Hone Harawira and certain other Maoris of course … remember Tariana Turia’s disgraceful “holocaust” statements for example ? But if you upset the adherents of whatever is currently Politically Correct (feminists, Maoris, gays etc.) you are pretty well finished. Everything else you have ever achieved or said suddenly counts for nothing and it’s game over with the hordes bellowing for blood. An ugly modern-day reality. Prosser’s recent piece in Investgate on Maori & Treaty issues was right on the button, but now it will be eclipsed and forgotten.
As for Colin Craig, your question on whether he agrees strongly enough with the importance of the Treatygate issue to push it hard is very relevant indeed. At present the answer is that we just don’t know, and we need to find out. Does anyone know him personally ? We need his answer as soon as possible if our support for him is to be considered seriously. And not just some vague back-room chat; a clear and unambiguous public statement would be best.
I’ve met him personally but apart from that I don’t really know him. I wonder if an approach from John A would be best although I can ask him how strongly he feels if anyone thinks it would help.
I actually agree with JA that a political party set up for this needs to be a single issue party with MP’s voting on conscience on every other matter.
The biggest problem with this is that it would be such a huge change for the political climate that I’m not sure that the public would have confidence in it working.
I can see the current parties trying to sow doubt and concern in a runup to an election by playing off candidates against each other. For example if a fiscal conservative was on the list along with a socialist spendthrift they would constantly work at claiming such bedmates could not possibly coexist and that everything would turn to custard should the party gain real power.
The NZ public is used to seeing parties bloc vote on all sorts of issues and while we might moan about it there is also an expectation of it happening and a fear of the unknown if it didn’t.
Mike, you have outlined two very good reasons why a new single-issue party is not the best available option, and I agree with you. But reading your first paragraph, was that what you intended to say ?
IAt the moment I do think a single issue party is the best way to go.
It is simple
It grabs attention
It will not as of itself get bogged down in other issues that are not central to the main policy.
However it is very different to the normal political landscape . I was outlining some of the pitfalls. I think they will need to be intelligently managed and the public will need to be educated about how the party would operate so that there could be confidence that the party and/or economy were not going to fall apart should the party gain real power.
I think at present there is a political climate that could work in our favour somewhat.
The old policy lines between parties have become blurred, especially Labour and National. The loopy Greens are way Left. I suppose the Conservatives could be considered Right. But in between there is Labour and National, the long term main players, shadow boxing around each other and not managing to convince too many people that they are all that different. Add to this the fact that in the past Labour has gone way right and National (asset sales not withstanding) has gone left, especially socially and I think people generally may not be too spooked about a bunch of people who state that they don’t intend to head off on a wildly different economic direction (like say the Greens) but are just there to stop the Terrible Treaty Train.
Management & communication will be the key (no pun intended)
Too much damage has already been done and too much money has already been spent, to delay setting up a new single-issue party any longer. To wait for another five years could see a new constituional republic in place and we would be unable to change things.
A new party needs to be in place for the next election.
I am ready to join and vote now.
I disagree about the conscience vote idea on all other issues. In my view the party should state that it will enter into a supply and confidence agreement with whichever other party has the numbers (along with Together NZ) to form a Government, as long as they will implement the Together NZ policies. This would give the voters confidence that there would still be stable Government if they gave their vote to Together NZ.
Graeme, that’s fine as far as it goes, but makes things very awkward as far as other policies go.
If TNZ stated they would support whatever party had the most number of votes as long as the TNZ policy of dismantling the separatist state was implemented then you tie all TNZ & all its MP’s into voting as a bloc with this other party no matter what its other policies were.
While we all want to see our the racist policies ended it could be very difficult to force TNZ MP’s to vote against their principles on other policies simply because the agreement said they had to.
I think that it should be workable to enter into just a supply & confidence agreement with any party (as long as TNZ policies were implemented) and vote on conscience on other matters.
That’s basically what National is doing now with the Maori Party. Act and UF.
Sorry Mike I am confused – did you not end up saying basically the same thing as Graeme ? If so, no problem, because that is the only way a new party could be structured. Bear in mind that under MMP any successful MPs would almost certainly be from a list, not electorate votes. Just like NZ First. The difference is that NZ First have been around for quite some time, have an established support base, have seasoned MPs and a charismatic leader. Tall order to come from nowhere and get above the 5% threshold in 20 months from now. Not impossible, but very hard. And failing to get the 5% means certain annihilation and the root cause is lost. That is my fear with starting a new party from scratch. But if that is how it is decided, then I really hope to be proven wrong.
As for conscience votes not involving confidence & supply, surely any coalition would be with the most like-minded party ? So the issue should not arise much, if at all. BUT there would have to be consensus at caucus level on all other issues if they were to vote as a bloc. I’m afraid that the more I think about it, the harder I see creating a cohesive brand new party to be, in the time available.
The advice of more than one seasoned political strategist is needed. Quite urgently.
“The advice of more than one seasoned political strategist is needed. Quite urgently.”
VERY URGENTLY in my humble opinion. I agree with your comments John P. I worry about the lack of time and the enormity of setting a new Party up and gaining sufficient support in the limited time available. However, like you John P I hope I’m wrong and will support whatever is decided upon.
Yes, so will I – because above all I unreservedly support the core cause. However I would like to see evidence of realistic strategic thinking that will give us the greatest chance of success.
JP, Graeme seems to believe that a single issue conscience voting party is not workable. He seems to think it would be necessary to tie TNZ MP’s to another parties policies and agenda as long as this other party agreed to TNZ’s anti separatist agenda. I don’t think this would be a good idea.
While I agree it would not be necessarily easy, I do think that a conscience voting single issue party is workable. If only one party exists with which to form a government, then make a supply & confidence agreement with them as long as they agree to implement TNZ’s policy, but vote on conscience on everything else. If the only available option does not want to implement TNZ policy then stay in opposition and work to bring down whatever government may be formed.
If several choices are available and they all agree to implement TNZ’s policies on condition of S&C then TNZ can vote on which one to go with.
The conscience voting scenario is basically what exists now with National, Maori Party, Act and UF.
I do agree it will be a huge ask to form a viable party from the ground up and have it be a genuine contender for the next election. But I don’t see any alternative at present. On our side we have what I think is a massive sleeper issue, buried but simmering. I don’t think any other existing party (in parliament) can try and hijack the issue from TNZ if and when it starts to boil over IF we have become organised. Only the conservatives may try to come on board as they have made noise on this issue in the past.
However I don’t see lobbying Colin Craig to be much good at this point. Politicians are notorious for keeping mum until they can see which way the wind blows. We need to keep up the publicity and blow the whole festering mess open.
THEN if Mr. Craig sees the potential and wants a piece of the action TNZ can enter discussions.