Snap poll has National and Labour level-pegging

National has caught up with Labour in the popularity stakes, according to a poll.

A survey published yesterday in the Sunday Star-Times put Labour and National level with 32 per cent support.

New Zealand First, with 8 per cent, was the only other party to secure support above the MMP threshold of 5 per cent.

The survey comes after National Party leader Don Brash appeared to get widespread support for a speech last week attacking the Government's policies on Maori issues.

The poll covered 491 people and its margin of error was 5.3 per cent.

Because it was a snap poll, there are no previous surveys with which to compare it.

Mainstream polls have been giving Labour about 45 per cent, with National in the mid-20s.

Last year National set itself an initial target of 30 per cent as a foundation to build on between now and the next election.

The Government hasn't yet struck back on Dr Brash's speech, apart from a few acidic comments. When it does, it will probably argue that statistics prove Maori are not the same and that policies must reflect that.

Health Minister Annette King has already said that Maori die younger and generally have poorer health than non-Maori.

She said that what Dr Brash described as "race-based funding" was simply doing what he called for by dealing with people on the basis of their needs.

Maori responses to his speech have been damning, but National has not been attracting much support from Maori anyway.

Dr Brash listed four other key policy areas his party must deal with apart from the Maori issue. They are: narrowing the gap between our living standards and those of Australians; ensuring every child leaves school able to read and write; dealing firmly with crime, drugs, gangs and vandalism; and ending the "creeping paralysis" of welfare dependency.

- NZPA

Do you think this could be a turn around?

Will be interesting to find out the accuracy of the snap poll. 491 people is surely not enough people for anything accurate also those that were asked would have perhaps been relatively unprepared to answer.... the margin of error 5.3% ?

I wouldn't read too much into the snap poll and am waiting for another poll to clarify things.

national knows it has already lost pretty much all of the maori vote, so don brash decided he'd shoot for a few populist votes in middle class white NZ who think they're being hard done by by government legislature on maori...

unfortunately i think it will win him a few votes.

when have national ever gone for the maori vote?

remember the fiscal envelope?

they are sticking to the party policy. don brash just has the balls to say it.

National will fail as badly next election as last one. Playing the race card may work now but come election time people will want real policies not ones like this. If it really was going to be a big vote winner they would have left it much closer to the election, not announced it this far out. They know its a short term headline grabber.

I don't think all people want real policies... a lot of people who vote probably only have a very basic understanding of the issues and the various parties policies on them. Hence United's success at the last election.

Why is it bad to represent the feelings of middle NZ, labour have pandered to the people on benefits and maoris in the past, alliance moreso.

Promising beneficiaries more money is almost blatently buying votes.

i didn't say middle NZ, i said middle WHITE NZ... there is a difference...

the only reason i say it is the main reason i try not to argue anything about race relations on these boards any more... there are very few people who actually give a shit about maori affairs on these boards - in fact i'd say a large majority are anti-maori, and aren't prepared to see past injustices put right, much like mr brash himself...

i also find it interesting, ollie, that you think mr brash has "balls" - my sentiments are quite the opposite.

You can't propose to run a country by dividing it against itself. Anyone who tries to win votes by objectifying and alienation one section of the population automatically disqualifies themselves from being taken seriously as a leadership contender.

Its quite clear Don Brash want to take National into the red neck blue collar tory populism of ACT whilst selling the country out to his big business mates.

I have a questio for all the Brash supporters: What is National's stand on the foreshore and seabed issue? I'll tell you: Brash absolutely supports the right of any land owner to own the beach and foreshore and charge what they like for access to it - its part of his free market ideology.

So while you charge off to treat the brownies a lesson with white voting power just remember your decision when some smirking land owner - brown or white, greed knows no colour barrier - charges you $20 to go to your favourite beach.

I completely agree and so does brash its the whole point of this thread.

Has brash said that he supports selling off the foreshore or or are you just assuming that because he generally supports the free market you think he is an extreme capitalist?

smf

As has been covered in this thread already he specifically said that this has nothing to do with dealing with injustices of the past.

Some people are trying to muddy the water saying his speech is racist.

Again how is one law for all racist?

No, Bob. Brashes position on the foreshore debate is exactly the sames as ACT's - he supports the unfettered rights of the landholder against what has become a common law right in New Zealand.

National knows this position is unpallatable to middle New Zealand, so instead of trying to be constructive with a solution they pander to racist fears whilst at the same time vaguely promising "One law for all" without quantifying what that means - it does in fact cover the ACT position if you think about it! Its the politics of smooth lying that everyone hated the Douglas/Prebble/Richardson era for and it seems that in his plutocratic arrogance Don Brash thinks you can still get away with sophistry, half truths and lies.

Yes indeed, one law for all - one law for all those rich enough to afford it.

Thank God we now have MMP, so if he does win his attempts to re=-start the drive to a new right agenda in a flakey coalition with NZ first, ACT and United will fall apart.

i don't think it is muddying the water at all - this 'one law for all' carry on is just a cop out imo, its the easy way to say that one doesn't agree with the current legisature on maori affairs - and basically couldn't care less if the cultural pillar of this country was knocked out.

brash doesn't believe that the treaty is a valid document to run a country on, many disagree - and so do i... when the document was created and signed maori expected to keep what control they wanted over their land and taonga, and granted them a special relationship in the governing of these aspects within their OWN country (obviously this wasn't the intention of the crown - hence the ensuing difficulties)...i don't expect anybody who isn't aware fully of the plight of maori and their culture throughout the history of this country to understand, but i'm also not about to start a history lesson...

nicely said FB.

smf: fair enough

fb: Flakey like the greens and alliance?

mate, i am all for injustices being put right... but where does it stop? all this fucking rights to the air-waves etc is where it must stop. no-one needs to own the beach.
the other point, if we are going to put the past right, it should go to all maori, just just the ones still involved in it.

national are not just going to pass a law that says the treaty is now finished (although they could), they jusy want to make things equal.

4 weeks leave a year? who is trying to buy votes?

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess, over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereigns thereof.

so why are there maori mps?

Good question djollie. There is no reason for there to be maori seats now as Maori have a more than fair representation in parliament under the mmp system. In fact there has been a recommendation for the Maori seats to be scrapped however they are probably pretty important to Labour who have traditionally always held them except for when NZ first won mostof them a few years back.

i believe nzfirst won all of them. not 100% though.

different seats makes a 'them and us' situation... that's the last think this country needs.

we need this sorted as fast as it can be so we can get on as working as one.

can anyone see this sorted in 30 years?

I think you're right djollie I'm pretty sure NZ First won all of them.

fish_boy and others.

Brash has no intention of forgetting the injustices of the past, any land which was acquired unfairly should and will be fully compensated for.

-

The purpose of the treaty was unite the country as one people with equal rights and protections under the law.

If, for arguments sake, the treaty did happen to give some sort of ‘super citizen’ rights to the Maori, which of course it doesn't, then the injustice would have been done against everyone who is non-Maori.
If that was the case then Viva La fricken Revolution! One law for all!

-

Tell me honestly, would you hold the treaty in the same revered light if it had specifically given Maori less rights than everyone else? Didn’t think so...

They are important to maori, thats why they have more seats as more have chosen to fgo on the maori roles. Maori seats in fact work against labour as if you spread maori votes across the country they would pick up more marginal seats. Winning by 6000 votes in one electorate is worse than getting 2000 extra in 3 close electorates.

djollie - lets talk about the legally standing version, its makes more sense.



The key word is kawanatanga, which means governership. Sovereignty is better translated as mana, something maori would never have relinquished, that would be like selling your soul.

fb - your points about the foreshore are spot on. This is a classic case of maori bashing and populist politics that shows the ignorance of almost every voter in NZ. Yes, access to the beaches is limited due to private ownership, but this is almost exclusively land in foreign, not maori, ownership. There are virtually no beaches that maori prevent access to. Brash will agree to more land sales that prevent access to our beaches, that you can be sure of.

what are all these special laws that treat maori better than others, anyway? are they a big deal, and how much do they cost the country to have? are they really preferential treatment, or are they just targetting a certain demographic who really need it??

i suspect that really maori aren't getting anything all that special, and Brash's just blowing it all out of proportion, feeding on ignorance and fear. politicians are good at that.

NB how he hasn't provided any concrete facts or examples, just a lot of scary-sounding rhetoric. pfft. and everyone gets all worked up about it, taking him seriously and stuff.

He has provided plenty of concrete facts and examples.

Read his speech rimu: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3545950&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue&thesecondsubsection=

well, i can't see this thread going anywhere (much like every other debate on maori affairs in CA)

as brash talks about 'one law for all' and 'racial division' its exactly what he is creating by taking away a peoples' percieved rights...

and thats all its about perception - those who believe in the system we have and despite not seeing a definite end to the process actually believe there will be one

and those that just want it to stop for their own reasons

and ollie: don't go quoting english versions of the treaty of waitangi, there couldn't be anything more stupid... anybody who has done half a maori histroy lesson knows the almos all of the treay's difficulties come from the differences in translation, and again PERCEPTION.

Personally I've always seen the Treaty as a living document; not one stuck in 1840. Hence IMO it is relevant to new technologies/issues/whatever which weren't present in 1840.
Also don't forget the Maori were not defeated by the English when the Treaty was signed in 1840, & in many respects had the upper hand INCLUDING many business operations (have a look at the ownership of many shipping co.s in the Bay Of Islands around this time).
IMO it's the early NZ governments which have much to answer for the current state of affairs...

and a lot of people share your sentiments... unfortunately people like don brash don't believe that the treaty has or should have any bearing on the way we live today... he is no less ignorant than richard prebble - and his rhetoric is has so many levels its unbelievable...

i said it before and i'll say it again, i think brash is hiding behind this 'one law for all' crap because he knows he has no maori vote anyhow - so he might as well play the populism game and try to play to hearts of white NZ, so they can come on forums like this and quote his speeches like they're the gospel and "factual"

the 'principles' of the treaty don't need to be outlined, they are contained within the document, pure and simple, brash is just somebody who can't seem to find them because he doesn't want to...

and by the way - i don't deny that labour and any other party are guilty of buying votes, but i don't believe they are guilty of buying votes by playing off the majority against the minority...

translation is never right, it can only be translated into what individuals think.

look at the bible.


there are so many points i'd love to scrap out with everyone...

but we are just going to have to agree to disagree and lets the polls decide who has most of the country behind them.

how about those all blacks?

RUGBY

The legal version is that native version, ie. the Maori version. The whole treaty issue is transalation really. The British thought they were getting one thing, the Maori thought they were getting another, because they were each reading a different version of the treaty. International law is pretty clear on which one takes precedence.

international 'law' means shit...

nz law is the only thing that matters in nz mutant.

the nz goverment could pass a law saying that the treaty was now void. that would then mean no more claims...

clearly they wouldn't do that because it's just not right. but the point is, international law means nothing.

Ollie International law does mean something. What would happen if NZ allowed all illicit drugs to be manufactured and sold over here without any consequences? I'm sure a number of countries would put a lot of pressure on us to stop. Perhaps we should change the law to allow genocide? Would International law mean shit in that circumstance? I think not.

Thats a really ignorant comment ollie. It may not mean as much as our own law but its still important. We abide by a large number of international laws and doing so is extremely important to our standin g in the world, trade deals ........ the list goes on.

So it the first RELIABLE poll Labour has dropped a whole 1% - in other words, less than the margin of error.

National jumps to 31%, buts its the same old story - the anti-government vote cannibalising itself.

Most New Zealnaders are happy with the direction of the country.

For all the desperate racist puffery from the bloodless ex-treasury mandarin who now runs National, its STILL all about the economy, innit.

Its quite funny really, under Labour, the economy has grown at around 3.5-4% EVERY YEAR they have been in power, the number of companies going bankrupt has halved, unemployment is its lowest in 20 years, we have a huge sbudget surplus, and even though our dollar is incredibly high I see manfacturing exports from Canterbury are up 33%(!!!) last year. YET you STILL here the learn nothing forget nothing Greek chorus of loser business "leaders" claiming doom and gloom under Labours economic management...

The phrase "None are so blind as those who refuse to see" springs to mind...

oops link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3547531&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

I think international law would have a thing or two to say about a country having a double standard of citizenship too...

what you don't understand about the psychie of the act voter though fish_boy, is that they apparently don't seem to give a rat's ass about the greater good... so statistics like that mean nothing if they're not paying less tax on their high income, and have abolished all laws dealing with maori affairs...

i heard a great headline on the radio the other day:

"RACIAL HARMONY - NATIONAL STYLE"

as national relieved their only maori MP of her only high profile role...

sadly ironic, but disgustingly true.

and trapper: if 'international law' didn't say anything about colonised countries treating their natives like second class citizens for centuries, why would it say anything about those citizens trying to gain some reparation? i find it really interesting that you impy that maori have some sort of 'upper-hand' or a position of dominance in some way... it seems ludicrous to me even consider that...

The Environment Act, the Conservation Act, the Education Act, the Resource Management Act, the Crown Research Institutes Act, the Arts Council of NZ Toi Aotearoa Act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act...

trapper: in a real sense (not just a legal one) what advantage do Maori have over the rest of the NZ population? Do they have more money? Are they better educated? Do they have better jobs? Do they have more positions of power? Are they healthier?

The answer to all those questions is apparently 'no'. Now I'm sure the conservative view on this is that Maori only have themselves to blame. "It's the fault of the individual not the system".

But is it not just possible that the colonisation by the Europeans is having a profound negative affect on Maori today? The Europeans attempted to bring Maori to their level of civilisation in a few years, when it had taken them at least 1000, and several false starts. I think the consequences of this are easily overlooked.

I'm not suggesting that anyone gets a free ride, but if you accept the fact that a lot of damage was done to Maori culture by colonisation, then surely we should work towards fixing the damage, and where we have to, erring on the side of favouring those who have been disadvantaged.

I don't think there is anything in NZ law that gives unfair advantages to Maori, given everything above.

That is not a Treaty issue, that is a social welfare issue.

What is the difference between a poor Asian, a poor European and a poor Maori? Skin colour???


If people are poor help them because they are poor, not because of the colour of their skin!

Treating everyone the same when they are not is an exercise in blind stupidity.

Lets imagine you have a garden. In that garden you have some watermelons and some tomatoes and some sunflowers. If you watered them all as you did the sunflowers, the tomatoes and watermelons would wither and die. Different things require different amounts of water, any fool can see that.

Trapper there is no double standard of citizenship. How many Maori do you know that are better off socio economically than yourself?

What any fool can see, fish_boy, is that your analogy is complete bollocks!

We are not 'sunflowers, tomatoes and watermelons' we are all the same thing.

It's funny how you can be anti-maori in ca or criticise them without any problems but criticise Jews or Israel and you are immediately branded anti-semitic. Perhaps the world should go back and over turn the treaty/ accord allowing Jews the right to Israel. It was just an accord after all and it is giving one race superior rights to another.

Trapper Jews continue to hold themselves out as being different to every one else and continue to get billions a year in welfare from the States. Under your analogy Jews are no better or worse than any one else and that stupid term Anti-Semitism should bre removed from English and indeed all languages. In future thay can label people racist.

Yeah, well that's the thing you obviously don't understand. We ARE different. Whether that's a product of our race, ubringing, environment, culture, or whatever, everyone is completely different.

If we can find ways to group those differences somehow, and cater to the needs of those who are disadvatanged (since it's not really practical to cater to everyone indivdually) then surely we should do it.

Maori have a whole host of problems, statisically speaking, that a lot of the rest of the country don't seem to have (and, no, it's not just social welfare). Why not try to address them? Isn't that what the government is for?

Well bearing in mind it was Nelson Mandelas analogy not mine, I'll pass on to the Nobel peace prize winner next time he pops online.

Careful fish-boy that could get thrown back in your face when Mr Blair & Bush take out the Nobel Peace prize this year....

of course its a fucking treaty issue... every maori issue relates directly to the treaty and its promises, and consequent difficulties...

you're right in saying there is no difference between poor people of different races, but the reasons behind the socio-economic status of the greater maori population are pretty clear...

later immigrants are poor on a case by case basis, but an analysis of maori history and population displacement suggests that the crown is largely at fault for not fulfilling their end of the bargain, real terms it just means that if maori were accorded the rights that they expected while the foundations of this country were being laid then the race would not be in the position they are today, i think its pretty simple - how can you not see it?

hahahahahahahahahahaha... thats awesome...

I am not anti-Maori, I think everyone should be treated equally. Any assistance given to others should be based on need not on race.

-

fish_boy, You wouldn't have plagiarised it if you didn't believe it; my comment stands.

styln, Funny you mention that styln, don't forget that the Arabs in that region were granted the whole of Jordan, a hell of a lot more than what the Jews got.

-
Exactly Trapper. It is sad but true that Maori need assistance economically and health wise. They are deserving of assistance.