Truth, Willie Jackson

Willie and JA II

Page Two Boys Willie and JA are still going hammer and tongs in Truth. Last week, Willie unloaded his customary evidence-free barrage of denigration, diversion, and dodgy endorsements…

Truth cutting - Ansell's lies never stop

This week, I respond by tallying the insults, conceding that Willie is the superior abuser, then putting up screeds of evidence that I invite him to match…

Truth cutting - Let's debate the facts, Willie 1 - 21-3-13

Truth cutting - Let's debate the facts, Willie 2 - 21-3-13

Every column by Willie is like a gift from God, so I slipped in some questions to make sure he replies. It will be interesting to see how he avoids answering them.

My column did not appear exactly as I wrote it, so you may prefer to read it here:

Willie, let’s debate the facts.

By John Ansell

Willie Jackson: thanks for your entertaining column last week.

I particularly liked “you are just dumb and no nothing about history.” Oarsome.

Oh, and you called me a racist twelve times in two columns, then asked readers to “Remember, the big trick of racists is to call everyone else racist.”

How can I argue with such logic?

By the way, the racist accusation count between us after four columns is actually 14-0 if we include your two “rednecks”.

Add your 3 “nutcases”, 3 “stupids”, 2 “filthys”, 2 “fools”, a “madness”, a nonsensical”, a“sick”, a “silly”, a “weak” and a “like a holocaust denier”, and your margin of victory in the personal insult stakes blows out to 37-9.

Yes Willie, when it comes to name-calling as a substitute for fact-finding, you leave me for dead.

Now to those annoying facts.


Ceding sovereignty: Salmond v Ngata

You suggest that Dame Anne Salmond must be more truthful than me because she has been honoured (by Helen Clark, not royalty) and presented with a  New Zealander of the Year award (by pro-Treatyist Jim Bolger).

Dame Anne is certainly a famous pro-Maori historian. Against her view that “‘kawanatanga’ was not an accurate or even plausible translation of sovereignty”, I put the word of a Maori statesman we both admire.

Sir Apirana Ngata said this about Article I:

‘These are but a few words but they indicate a complete cession. This was the transfer by the Maori Chiefs to the Queen of England forever of the  Government of all their lands …

And what is a “Government”?

The English word is “Sovereignty”… the term “Government”, as used in this article of the Treaty, that is, it is the absolute authority over the people which the article transmits into the hands of the Queen and her Parliamentary Council.’

The chiefs knew they were ceding
sovereignty for a higher prize

The chiefs at Waitangi saw the value of exchanging their control of New Zealand for peace, security of property, and the membership and protection of the greatest empire on earth.

Before being won over and signing Te Tiriti, sceptical chiefs made their concerns about ceding their sovereignty clear to Hobson.

Te Kemara:

For the Governor to be up and Te Kemara to be down – Governor high up up up, and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm, a crawler. No no no, O Governor.”

Kawiti:

We do not want to be tied up and trodden down… What! to be fired at when quietly paddling our canoes by night! I, even I, Kawiti, must not paddle this way, nor paddle that way, because the Governor said ‘No’… ”

At the Kohimarama Conference of 1860, 200 loyal chiefs, many of whom, like Tamati Waka Nene, had been at Waitangi 20 years earlier, passed a resolution that pledged “to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the union of the two races”.

By signing Te Tiriti, they saw the value of relinquishing control for a higher prize.

Ngata said confiscations were fair
punishment for rebellion

On land grievances, you say “the overwhelming wrong was against Maori.” You provide no evidence.

I again call your man Ngata:

‘Some have said these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the Sovereignty and authority to make laws.

Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment.

This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in light of the Treaty.’

So to disagree with me, Willie, you have to also disagree with your greatest statesman.

Was Apirana Ngata a racist too?

Which meaning of a word in an 1840
treaty do you accept — 2013 or 1840?

You wheel up several Maori linguists to assure me of what I already know: that words (in this case ‘taonga’) change their meaning over time.  That’s not the point.

Here are three questions I challenge you to answer:

  1. What evidence (not friends) have you got to back up your claim that the definition I produced of ‘taonga’ from the only dictionary current in 1840 — ‘property procured by the spear’ — a definition provided by chief Hongi Hika — is only “one of many definitions”?
  2. Since you admit that the word has changed its meaning, how do you justify, when talking about what the chiefs meant in 1840, using the more modern, all encompassing, highly convenient meaning of ‘treasure’?
  3. Even if ‘taonga’ did mean ‘treasure’ in 1840, do you really believe that those chiefs thought “their taonga” included resources like the electromagnetic spectrum that did not then exist, and which their people would play no part in developing?

A hollow holocaust

You remind us of the outrageous claim by the Waitangi Tribunal that the colonisation process has been a ‘holocaust’. If so, how come there are ten times more Maori people today than there were when the ‘holocaust’ began?

What kind of holocaust allows you to live in David Lange’s family home and drive your son to King’s College in an SUV?

You say 4% of Maori were wiped out in the wars of the 1860s, but nothing about the 40% wiped out in the pre-colonisation wars of the 1820s and 30s?

You say the Crown “engaged in a scorched earth policy… killing women and children”. I’ve searched without success for evidence. Do you have any?

You say you were “proud of the way [your] ancestors fought against the Brits”.

The name Jackson suggests that some of your ancestors were the Brits. Why, unlike Sir Peter Buck, who was equally proud of both sides of his ancestry, do so many Maori pretend they are only Maori?

A genuine holocaust

Why did you not respond to my four examples of Maori atrocities against innocents who were not at war? Since you lie with impunity about my ancestors, I’m forced to tell the truth about yours.

Here’s what your Ngati Mutunga forebears got up to in the Chathams, courtesy of an author you admire, Michael King:

‘The Morioris were taken prisoners, the women and children were bound, and many of these, together with the men, were killed and eaten … “They were laid out touching one another, the parent and the child …”

Some of the women with stakes thrust into them, were left to die in their misery … Nearly all the Morioris belonging to Waitangi were exterminated.’

Now there’s a Waitangi grievance for you.

Together New Zealand

I’m doing as you suggest and thinking about starting a single-issue party. I’d call it Together New Zealand.

And I can think of no better founding quote than that of the great Maori leader of the early twentieth century, Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck):

“Beware of separatism. The Maori can do anything the Pakeha can do, but in order to achieve this we must all be New Zealanders first – one nation, one people, closely-knit  people, a people of singular contentment, a people of a sense of trust and mission, a people no longer insular. 

Above all, we must all work together – work, work, work – and have a national pride and character built upon faith and love, which is our greatest  heritage.”

So, as you like to say, Willie, who should readers believe?

Sir Peter Buck, Hongi Hika, Tamati Waka Nene, Sir Apirana Ngata, and me?

Or Dame Anne Salmond, Doug “Graeme”, Sir Tipene O’Regan, John Key, and you?

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “Willie and JA II

  1. I was stunned at Willie’s response. Actually I’m starting to wonder if he left school in Standard 3 or had a very brief time at school because his powers of reasoning are very much lacking.

    I found it incredible that he could say that the meanings of words change and today a word written in 1840 means something else and gave all sorts of for instances, like gay and others. He sounds too thick to realise that in 1840 words in the Treaty meant one thing and that’s as far as it should go. You don’t now in 2013 go by a meaning of today when referring to an ancient Treaty of 1840 which is what he is advocating. You go by the meaning at that time!!

    You really don’t have to be very bright to work this out which leads me back to my conclusion that his education was rather brief. Perhaps we should sympathise with him and make allowances??!!

    I can’t wait for your response, John. It would be great if this could keep going for some time so the masses have time to actually wake up and start to pick up on what’s being said.

      1. It was said with tongue in cheek, Barry, hence the question marks and exclamations after my comments. No way could I ever sympathise with such a money-grubbing twister of the facts.

    1. I agree Helen. I have also wondered why he appears so uneducated and ….well…stupid. On the one hand he tries to portray himself as a wise oppressed grieving “native” but in reality he is as dumb as they come. Having just finished “The Great Divide” and seen the wisdom and insight in the old maori Chiefs speeches, many in English, and then read Willies inability to comprehend basic facts, I think Willie should be ashamed of himself. Some of those old maori chiefs speeches from the 1800s, written and recorded word for word, articulate and wise, would put me to shame. I would think he was just a bully at school ….and that MO, combined with the race card, has served him well since.

    2. Agreed. 99% of the time liitle willie j. behaves just like a little kid doesn’t he. It’s like he was indoctrinated so young in life that no amount of logic can open his tiny twisted low IQ tribal fixated mind to any point of view other than the separatism doctrine. Like a child he resorts to name calling and bullying, but on his own face to face with none of his friends about and none of the distance that printed word provides i bet he would be intimidated by the truth and provide no “comeback” other than the weak racist remarks he defaults to when challenged. All in all a very sad little individual is our wee Willie, he knows he has to cling to his argument and doctrine as without it who is he? That’s right NOTHING, he would be unemployable in any other non-racist country.

      1. Spot on, Jonathan. He’s really a nobody trying to be somebody. His favourite ‘comeback’ is ‘no, no, no’. He really doesn’t have the thought processes to produce anything other than those words interspersed with ‘racist’ and other ridiculous comments that just don’t fit the facts.

        No, it’s very obvious his education is seriously lacking and he’s worried sick that his little rich (at our expense) world just might come to an end when the truth is out there and accepted by those whose minds are still closed.

        He’s a very sad case and he will be even sadder when the money scramble all comes to an end for him.

  2. That’s a brilliant answer John – thank you.

    I listen to jackson and tamihere on Live when they are discussing part-maori lying garbage. I consider them to be enemies of NZ and I listen to them because of the enjoinder to “Know thine enemy”. They are both awful parasites on our taxpayers. They are not maoris, only PART maoris, and they have declared war on the rest of us. Decent people should slap them down before they destroy our country any further.

    1. Yes Barry i agree with them being as if enemies to our country. I have had many laughs listening to their BS on radiolive, but in the back of my mind i think “should i be listening to this, am i supporting their position on radio by doing so. It makes me wonder how many of their audience are just listening for similar reasons, so they can have an interesting conversation over dinner about the two idiot racist part-maori troughers on talkback and their latest anti-NZ spin.

  3. An excellent response John.

    The more Willie argues (?) the more he allows us to see the elevator really is stuck between floors. Poor old JT has tried to stop him engaging with you unfortunately Willie is not smart enough to take heed of the advice

  4. Absolutely wonderful, John. Willie just sounds like a potty mouth bully school kid who thinks we should all believe him just because he says it louder and meaner than someone else does. He is incredibly stupid.

    You have more knowledge and understanding of maori history and culture than he does, that must be very embarrassing for him. I know I feel embarrassed for kiwis when I think that foreigners might see him on TV and think we are all like that!

    I certainly hope this public debate continues because it can do nothing but help our cause!

  5. Just sent an e.mail to the human rights office. Copied & pasted below. I will post their reply when/if I get one.

    Dear Sir/Madam, 21-3-13

    As a non-maori New Zealander, I am racially discriminated against every day. Special maori privileges, handouts, grants, a race based political party, fishing and seafood allowances, special quota for maori only for certain jobs, even a maori rugby team that I am not elligible for…..and the list goes on.

    This is not acceptable for any of us oppressed NZers born with no maori blood. What happened to “equality”???

    Also, there is no such country as “Aotearoa New Zealand”. I live in New Zealand. If you want to change this country’s name, please have the decency to let the people have a say on this matter.

    Every single day of my life, I am subject to racial discrimination. Please do something to stop this. Just because I am in the majority ( ie non-maori), does not mean that we can not be race based victims of obscene discrimination.

    Rgds

    1. That’s excellent. Maybe we should all cut and paste it, add our own details and clog the inbox of the Human Rights Office.

  6. That’s priceless, Derejk, but so true and when you see it all written down. My word, we really are discriminated against.

    I know someone of non-Maori blood who trained as a Chef. She had to buy all her own knives (very expensive item), uniforms etc but another person training alongside her with some Maori blood, had all hers provided free of charge from the Government. Midway through the course she decided it wasn’t for her and then took up nursing training. Again, everything she needed was provided but not for people without any Maori blood. They had to provide their own necessities.

    Just another example of racial discrimination. We should all be protesting very loudly but I bet many outside these institutions don’t realise what is going on. However, there must be enough inside them who do and who should be raising merry hell.

    1. I know a woman who was training, many years ago, to be a nurse. When the team she was in attended a course to indoctrinate them in certain bedside manners for Maori only she questioned why any patient should be treated differently. The tutor gave a her a degrading dressing down in front of the team. That woman is now working in a hardware store, a good nurse in the making lost forever.

    2. When I studied A+ (computing related) during the course you build a computer. The Maori attending had the entire course paid for, and applied for extra course related costs, which they spent on more expensive parts for the computer you build. The day we received the parts, they stopped showing up to course

      Sneaky way to get a free computer if you are of part-Maori blood

      1. They (the bludgers only) would go to the top of the class when it comes to rorting the system and taking advantage of the handouts. They were at the head of the queue when ‘cunning’ was handed out.

        Sorry if I sound racist here but I see it and hear about it over and over again so it is actual fact, sadly.

  7. Yes, Helen – but they DON’T raise merry hell. Most people are scared when all said & done – and not brave enough to risk their own necks by blowing the whistle on these scams that almost never get challenged in the public forum. And it has been going on for at least 20 to 30 years now. There have been a very few examples that have actually reached the media – about nursing & also teacher training I seem to recall. But they eventually just drift away without really being addressed. And they are just the tiny tip of a large and dirty iceberg. That is the stealthy process by which we have arrived at the point we are at now, and the Maori biases are so entrenched that they have become the new norm. Hardly anyone under 30 even thinks there is all that much wrong with it, such has been their thorough indoctrination at school & university. It is an evil that needs to be stopped.

    1. Indeed, everyone should lay a complaint based on our governments continual breach of article 6 of the declaration of human rights

  8. Just heard on the radio that the tuhoe mafia are in the final stages of a $170 million settlement ( I thought they just got another ‘final’ settlement last year?!!) from us mug tax payers courtesy of Hone Key & co and also included is co-governing “their” lands!!! Then, a far longer and detailed piece about a Wellington ( or should that be ‘Whellington’ ??!) school going for the world record of simultaneous texting….which as we know, is far far far (wha wha wha !!!) more important!! FFS Key grow a spine!

  9. Hey about that…I got a reply from the Human Rights Commission; Copied and pasted below…..
    ———————————————————————————
    Thank you for your email, which was received by the Human Rights Commission on 21 March.
    It is difficult to provide a response to your email, as I do not fully understand the nature of your complaint, so I suggest we have a telephone conversation so I can learn more about your concerns.
    Please telephone 0800 496 877, or alternatively if you provide a number I can contact you. We are able to provide confidential services for interpreting in 42 languages, and NZ Relay Service for those with speech or hearing impairments.
    Yours sincerely
    ————————————————————————————–
    So I replied this afternoon….my e.mail copied & pasted below…

    Hello XXXXXXXXXX, 22-3-13
    Thanks for the reply, but I would prefer not to talk on the phone. I believe you understand exactly the nature of my complaint. I made it very clear.

    I am a NZ human being and you are in the ‘NZ Human Rights Commission’. But because I am not a part maori human, I am not entitled to the privileges, handouts, special treatment and rights that the part maori humans get. As you are a representative of the HR Commission, I am requesting that you rectify this racist situation.

    As I said previously, with examples, I am racially discriminated against every day. I have no access to the racist privileges, special treatment, handouts and rights that maori are entitled to because of my race. By logic, that makes me a victim of racial discrimination. How can this be?

    I am nauseated by this discrimination where I am denied my right to equality in NZ.

    Believe me XXXXXXXXXX, this is no joke. I am deadly serious and believe that in this day and age, there is no need for racial discrimination of any kind in NZ.

    I beg you to do something to stop this racial discrimination/abuse that I, and all other non-maori ( ie the majority of the NZ population) endure, every day of our lives. I am feeling I have no where to turn. Please help.

    Rgds
    ————————————————————————————–

    I’ll keep you updated with their reply when it comes. In the meantime I urge everyone to lay a complaint. If you are a NZ human and you do not have the same rights as other NZ humans because of a race based issue, then you have a complaint!
    I believe we must complain and get these complaints on record. As the Chinese say…a thousand mile journey begins with the first step !! I wonder how far this particular journey will go?!

  10. Derejk you are amazing and what a brilliant idea. I look forward to hearing what sort of reply you will get. This will really get them going I would think and it will be interesting to see how they handle it.

    I’m thinking seriously of doing the same thing but will let a few days pass. They will probably guess we are working together but, what the heck. Word of mouth and especially the Internet gets word out there very quickly.

    Wouldn’t it be great if the Internet went viral, as they say, and they were inundated with letters.

  11. In the Tainui Settlement 1996 our head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) apologized for the historical injustices of the past effectively confessing guilt followed by and prior to lower crown (government) officials repeating the apologies over time. The Treaty represented a signed agreement between two nations, the British Empire and Maori. It’s important to note the ‘Crowns subjects’ are subordinates (second class citizens) in this official arrangement and includes all NZ’s including Maori due to their dual nation status meaning they are in a position to move between ‘subject, second class citizen status’ to the equivalent of Queen Elizabeth’s II status-agreement between two nations. If the Treaty is to become non void, our Head of State and/or Maori collectively are the only one’s in a legal capacity able to remove the Treaty from any constitutional framework that we currently have. ‘Subjects’ (second class citizen) lack the hierarchical high ground to create the type of change in question and seems a no brainer to affect this line of thought given the circumstances at most leading into racism territory, dividing the nations subjects, racism being the catalyst for the meltdown.

    John Ansell all Crown subjects need to accept what our Monarch had genuinly expressed and reinforce in everyday NZ society. You appear disgruntled and twisted distancing yourself from what your leader is instructing you to be. It’s a shame moreso for the fact that you intentionally divide naieve NZ’s at the the expense of blaming Maori for your personal woes. Undermining the queens apology is treason in the eyes of loyalist observers.

    1. Andrew, do you think Her Majesty has read up on New Zealand history? (Both sides, I mean.)

      The Queen is a mouthpiece of the government. She does what the government tells her. The apology she was reading was Jim Bolger’s (or more correctly the part-Maori Doug Graham’s).

    2. Andrew Lange, I could not disagree more with almost all of your assertions. You have bought into the “Treaty was a partnership” myth. May I recommend you read the recently published “Twisting the Treaty” for a very good account of the true facts.

  12. Andrew, ‘Maori’ weren’t a ‘nation’. They were a mishmash of tribes and there was absolutely no cohesion of any kind. They were continually at war with each other and would have eventually died out completely if Britain hadn’t intervened. They were Stone-age people and as such had absolutely no concept of nationhood, although gradually through inter-action with the missionaries, settlers and others the more intelligent ones could see the vast benefits of such.

    Don’t forget a good number of them approached and asked Britain to take over and for them to be the Queen’s subjects along with everyone else. There was no ‘dual nation’ status ever mentioned or implied. They were the Queen’s subjects along with everyone else – equally – One People.

    You should read up about the Kohimarama Conference in 1860 where many reiterated their allegiance to the Queen of England – effectively ratifying the Treaty in other words.

    1. Ian Wishart’s excellent The Great Divide gives an excellent account of the Kohimarama Conference and its significance.

      With 200 chiefs present from all over New Zealand, it was then the largest gathering of chiefs ever held.

      The month-long conference ended with a near-unanimous declaration of loyalty to the Queen as sovereign.

      Thus it essentially ratified and replaced the Treaty of Waitangi as the ultimate confirmation that the chiefs accepted British rule in exchange for protection from invaders, private property rights, and equal membership for all their people of the then-greatest empire on earth.

      Those grateful chiefs thought they had struck an excellent deal, and history shows that they were right.

      Today’s Maori stirrers are from the same minority of families as rebelled against the Crown and those 200 chiefs at that time.

      They were a noisy minority then, as their descendants are now.

  13. What a twisted load of bollocks from Andrew Lange. The treaty bound everyone into the same set of laws, rights and privileges. To try and assert that it made an ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ set of citizens is a regurgitation of the spurious and nauseating nonsense that we have come to expect from treatyists, now thoroughly discredited. I suggest Mr Lange (any relation to the fat dimwit that started this mess?) disappear back into his treatyists hole.

    1. There was nothing dim about David Lange’s wit Mike. And it was Geoffrey Palmer who did all the damage with his Treaty “principles” and pushing for a Constitution, not Lange. All your other comments are fair enough.

  14. I read this website for updates regularly. I am a big fan of John Ansell personally and also this cause because I have done the homework. I also have enough vision to see where NZ will end up for my children and their children if this separatism is not arrested, if it is not already too late.

    As have most contributors to this blog I have read a great many books, articles and letters of the 1800-1900 era, studied carefully with an open mind what has been claimed and published as fact by “historians” in recent years.

    Subsequently, I simply refuse to believe that the authors of those early works were prolific liers whose intention was to oppress Maori, steal their land and destroy their culture. It is just not a credible argument, spin (i.e. intentional distortion of the facts or lying) was totally unacceptable during those times.

    Jackson, Mutu, harawira, Turia and the many others around them, simply dont care about the truth regarding NZ history. The battle will not be won by winning an argument with them over history. The average Kiwi doesnt even know history beyond a Penguin Book and wouldn’t know who to believe when push comes to shove.

    The fact is our education and political system has already indoctrinated a hoard of younger supporters under these activists who actually believe maori oppression and dispossessions because that is all they have known.

    If you tell people lies often enough and slowly change enough laws to support those lies that picture becomes a reality. Like it or not Chris Finlayson is in his position of political abuse and able to get away with handing over our birthrights because the voter has let it happen.

    To slow this plundering of our nation down, stop it then unwind the thundering juggernaut within will take more than John Ansell, a few public meetings and a website arguing with a racist moron like Willie Jackson. The silent majority must be alerted, awakened and angered enough to stop it at the ballot box. The 2014 electon is the key to saving New Zealand as we know it in my view.

    The single issue party is a commendable idea, but in my honest opinion, it is doomed to fail before it starts. Kiwis just will not get their heads around voting for a one issue party in our corrupt two party dictatorship system. They like the thought but when they get into the box? Nah.

    Of the political parties currently registered in NZ only the Conservative Party holds a glimmer of hope to rise up and gain enough seats to stop the advance of separatism through National. Like it or not that is the reality. NZ First survives only under Peters and Act is dead without Epsom. Rodney Hide might be lured back but Act as a party will go nowhere. Neither of these parties has a future in their current forms.

    Does the Conservative Party actually recognise the potential of Treaty issues? Do they have the strategic vision and unity within the ranks to act on it even if they do? Who would know? From what I have seen so far the only thing that matters are moral issues and the pointless opposition to gay rights, a battle they have already lost.

    The anti gay marriage stand will get them supporters but it will box them into the Christian space well below 5% because real Kiwis dont vote for Christian parties, the left wing media will be relentless with Colin Craig.

    The Conservatives won’t win a seat, Epsom will vote National just to be certain they don’t get a repeat of the John Banks fiasco. The Epsom voter won’t be used or abused again in my view. It is possible Rodney Hide or John Boscawen may resurface but the Act party will go nowhere under them because neither are personally capable of rebuilding the party to be the force it once was.

    The potential that the Conservatives hold for 2014 is huge. They should be active and up in arms over Treaty issues. The benign silence on this simply says that they don’t support their own policiies of racial equality, one man one vote and a single electoral roll.

    Why is it that they seem to lack the spine to make a stand? Leaving it until election year is not smart politics. Our identity as New Zealanders and our sovereignty is under serious threat so why aren’t the Conservatives making Treaty related issues thier own? Any ideas?

    1. KC, your post is absolutely admirable – such common sense. I have to say I totally agree with you on all your points. Have you written to the Conservative Party? If not, please do and put the whole scenario to them exactly as you have posted here.

      I can see why people want a single issue Party but there is such an enormous amount of work involved and I just can’t, unfortunately, see it getting off the ground in time for the the 2014 election. I don’t want to pour cold water on things because change MUST happen and it MUST happen in time for the 2014 election otherwise I fear it could be too late.

  15. I may be wrong but I sense a growing frustration with Politicians pushing through policies which are clearly against the wishes of the majority. Apart from equality issues such things as asset sales and smacking legislation come to mind. Muriel Newman has picked up on this and has been asking the question on the NZCPR site as to whether people would vote for a party committed to greater democracy. My view is that for a new party to succeed it will have to adopt a policy of binding referendums on important issues, or perhaps something like Amy Brooks 100 days concept. It may even be sensible to submit the equality issues we all want implemented to the referendum process. What could be fairer than that.

  16. I know it costs money, but JA has an advertising background, and an advert like the Tui’s ad where the whole country seems to know the “yeah right” catchphrase could work wonders. It does not take intelligence to “get it” and its often humourous. The Tui’s ad is probably the most popular ever to hit NZ. Imagine an even better one strategically placed or shown on TV to hit the treatyists right between the eyes ( metaphorically of course…. that ‘s nothing to do with my uncontrollable violent streak…ha ha !!)[joke, Glenn]. The possibilities are only limited by our imagination…..and $$. JA did the iwi/kiwi adverts, and they were popular…until Hone Key became a traitor. The way I see it, the unintelligent masses must be targetted because otherwise we are only preaching to the converted. Just a thought; my 10 cents worth.

  17. KC I agree totally with your analysis of the situation.

    I have previously mentioned on this blog that the only current party in Parliament with a proven track record of anti separatist issues is NZ First.

    The case I mentioned was their T O W deletion Bill 2006.which was defeated at the second reading in the House.Betrayed by National and Finlayson,and others.

    They NZF have refused to participate in the current multi party Constitutional Review

    I am not a NZF member.

    Time is of the essence with this issue, Going it alone as KC has stated is a strategy heavily weighted toward failure.

    Better to be aligned with a Party that is more likely to be acceptable to the voters and be returned to the place of power.

    2014 Key is going to need a coalition party to remain in power.

    Should be holding “conversations” with likeminded existing parties that have a realistic chance of getting into the “place of power”

    That however is not going to happen as JA has stated he is not pepared to “cuddle up” to any of the current crop of parties.

    However as time runs out, he may be persuaded to a change of heart on this matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s