John Armstrong in this morning’s Herald has given his verdict on the Maori seats imbroglio. Essentially he says this was not a dispute that was going to develop into a crisis but it is an example of slack coalition management. I disagree with John’s analysis of the gravity of the situation, but I found one comment he made particularly interesting
But the National Cabinet was never going to reverse its April decision ruling out Maori seats and suddenly endorse the idea.
Really? Why then was John Key negotiating with the Maori Party over a possible deal? I am quite convinced from everything I have heard from Pita Sharples, Hone Harawira and others that they thought they were negotiating in good faith with Key about a deal. Further, that would seem to be the reason that Key went to see Hide in June.
Managing coalition arrangements is tough stuff. I played a minor part in managing theses relationships in my time as an Advisor in Helen Clark’s office. It takes enormous energy and time, a fair degree of flexibility, but above all bucket loads of goodwill and good faith. If John Armstrong is correct and National really did never have any intention of changing its position then this episode will have done far more damage to the long term stability of this government than he thinks.
” I played a minor part in managing theses relationships in my time as an Advisor in Helen Clark’s office. It takes enormous energy and time, a fair degree of flexibility, but above all bucket loads of goodwill and good faith.”
Comments “like last cab off the rank”, and calling Maori party “haters and wreckers” is bucket loads of goodwill and good faith?
Good Grief! National is still doing more for their parties than labour ever did.
What was the point of the Select Committee spending all that time visiting the Auckland maraes? If it had already been decided not to give Maori representation, the government should have been up front from the start.
biker- regardless of the wisdom of those statements the Maori Party was not in coalition with Labour at the time. I think you will find United, Greens and NZF all got their share of wins are part of the deals with Labour.
you avoid the question- what was John Key doing talking to the Maori Party if he had no intention of changing his position.
I have seen nothing to confirm that John Key had no intention of changing his position.
He spoke to one coalition partner (the MP) and they made their case. He spoke to the other (ACT) and they made their case. He then went to his caucus and they decided to scrap Maori seats. The fact that he aproached Rodney Hide with options to get the seats in show he was seriously looking at his options rather than just giving lip service to the Maori Party.
As has been said when you have two coalition partners at oposites ends of the spectrum on an issue you are going ot dissapoint one of them. This time it was the Maori party.
One could really argue that Winston got more than his share of wins under the coalition deal with labour – must to the damage to NZ.
Thank goodness the Nats are so far out in front that they dont have to sell their soul to stay in power.
Geek- Whether you agree of disagree with the Maori seats decision (some do, some don’t), don’t you agree that we all have to respect the Select Commitee process?
Although they ignored 90% of it, at least they waited for the Royal Commission to publish its report before announcing decisions.
I agree the politicle process should be respected. It seems strange that a decision was made so early although I am inclined to think it was forced by the public release of the email outlining Mr Hides position. The media push for a position forced it on to the agenda. It seems weak for the government to announce plans before the process is finished.
I would ask though, if they had not made their position clear when they had would we not be seeing claims that they are hiding and not facing up to the public? Would not the oposition be claiming that the government need to let the people of New Zealand knnow where they stand?
Biker – you can’t sell what you don’t have…
Mr Robertson is quite right, biker. Labour bent over backwards to be nice to parties that it was actually in government with, like NZ First, where senior Labour figures defended Mr Peters’ silly behaviour. Mr Robertson was clearly only talking about managing relationships with parties that Labour was in Government with and not the other parties.
Of course Labour’s ill will towards the Maori Party, which continues even to this day for some strange reason, mean the Maori Party won’t be wanting to jump in with Labour anytime soon.
Ironically I think the way Labour has treated the Maori Party means that Mr Key has more flexibility with the Maori Party than if Labour had been more civil towards them.
Grant,
your question needs only a one word answer: “triangulation”.
The Nats and Mr Key are doing a pretty good job of allowing the two ends of the spectrum to play against each other and look like they are moderate, and statesmenlike by comparison.
It’s hard to sustain but it’s classic Clinton from what I can see.
I did wonder at first why that nice Mr Key let the MP into government. Then I realised he is playing the long game. It is not triangulation so much as strangulation of any chance of the opposition having coalition partners in the future. If the Greens fail to pass 5% in the next couple of elections he could end up being PM for 20 years.
Considering that there are no dedicated Maori seats currently and it should not be policy for any government who believes in one law for all I don’t see what the problem is.
Grant, thank you for not pretending that the Progressives were in any way separate from Labour.
You’d expect a government that believes in the sanctity of legal agreements to be a bit more concerned about upholding the Treaty, though, wouldn’t you?
@ Johnbt ” If the Greens fail to pass 5% in the next couple of elections he could end up being PM for 20 years.”
We should be so lucky. Actually the way labour are going in the polls in a couple of elections they may end up falling behind other parties as even opposition.
James, on the nail. Maybe there is something to be said for intelligent, light handed coalition management? The long run outcome may be more sustainable.
James- that may well be the strategy, but the point is if you continue to string along a Party when you have no intention of changing your mind, and then that becomes clear to that party, they will not be happy. The Maori Party are not happy, and in terms of the long terms health of the coalition I think this episode will do damage.
Grant you continue to claim they were strung along yet ignore any evidence that there was a real investigations on how it could be implimented.
Grant – oh I totally agree with the long term consequences. I just think that it’s unlikely they’re thinking that far ahead, becasue in the mean time they come off looking liike heroes to the majority of the electorate.
[...] in the year I posted about John Armstrong’s comments on the loose coalition management around the Maori seats [...]