There is clear dissension in the National Party over its policy of abolishing the Maori electorates.
National appears to be backing away from one of its major policies - abolishing the Maori seats in parliament.
The party now accepts it doesn't have enough support for the idea and that pursuing it may jeopardise a potential coalition deal with the Maori Party.
But....
National leader Don Brash is rubbishing claims the party is softening its policy on the Maori seats.
Brash is pouring cold water on suggestions National is rethinking its plan to abolish the seats.
"I'm making it clear to you the National Party remains committed to the abolition of the Maori seats," he says.
There they go again. Pragmatism before principle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Brash needs to put a lid on this soon. He doesn't have control of his troops.
"Troops" generally have an understanding of who or what they are fighting for. These guys don't. Brash saved them from near extinction but now they know better.
"There they go again. Pragmatism before principle."
But didn't ACT's leader call for backtracking on this immediately after the election to help form a government - a clear case of pragmatism if ever there was?
Did he? I don't remember that. I didn't think ACT's policy on abolition of the Maori seats was negotiable.
See http://www.act.org.nz/news-article.aspx?id=27399
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/event/story.cfm?c_id=1500891&ObjectID=10346465
"Act leader Rodney Hide has said National should ditch its plans to abolish the Maori seats so it could form the next government. "
and
"Mr Hide said National should accept it does not have the electoral mandate to scrap the Maori seats and should shelve its plans. It should also change its position on the foreshore and seabed. "
Thank you. I stand corrected.
In which case you might like to amend your above post in the interests of intellectual honesty to reflect that even ACT is prepared to change its policies to accomodate the Maori Party. That's not a bad thing - Hide was being pragmatic in the interests of the centre-right.
The one difference I would note is that National has signalled this at its conference, directly to its members, where they can comment on it at length prior to the next election.
Hide changed ACT's position three days after the election with no input from ACT's members or opportunity for them to comment.
You have pointed out what ACT did and you are at liberty to do so and use this blog to do it. What makes you think I support everything ACT does? I support Brashs' position on this one. Just as I have supported other positions he took which National turned into perceived "flip-flops" over the Cullen Fund, 4 weeks holiday and Kiwibank.
Post a Comment