If National wins ...

[elZorro]

Brash called for an end to race-based policies. That's not negative - it's sensible. and therefore quite positive. Unfortunately it's all been swept under the carpet for another year or two.

FP, according to Wikipedia, the speech (whether unintended or not) also served to reinforce racial stereotypes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orewa_Speech

If you have not already read it, have a look at "The Penguin History of New Zealand" by Michael King. It's a sad but unbiased commentary on pakeha dealings with Maori, amongst other things.

http://www.writerscentre.org.nz/michael_king.php

John Banks: looks like he's become overconfident. The rules were deliberately left open so that 'anonymous' donations could be slipped in quite readily, and he collected a great deal of cash. Did he also arrange 45 special deals for the 45 donations? I bet he did quite a few. Are these in fact bribes?

This is a huge mess, tarring National ranks. But it has provided hope for Labour supporters. Some I met today had lights in their eyes..

[slimwin]

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

I read A History of New Zealand twice and I didn't find it unbiased at all. Especially its "facts" about early NZ settlement which were of course passed down by word of mouth. Certainly some parts have now been disproved. Remember, history is written by the victors in any conflict not necessarily in line with the truth so history is never excactly the truth. I spent 12.5 years overseas returning in 2007 and was staggered to see the division in NZ. I actually struggled with it. European history proves that different cultures living in society without the same ethos ends in conflict. Any close follower of recent EU politics/news will know what I mean.

I never heard the Orewa speach but if the gist was together forward as one people then I hardly see that as racist. I see it as pragmatic. Not to discount peoples culture as irrelevant but one does not rate higher than the other and none above common law.

[fungus pudding]

MVT under the electoral act the percentage of party votes also effects the list seats as most of the party vote in Epson originally went to National. If National wins Epson do they loose a list MP as the percentage of the party vote overall only entitles them to so many seats Will the party vote increase enough to allow an extra MP I doubt it. Or is my interpretation of the law wrong

I think I read somewhere that once the number of seats is established that stays set until an new general election, but I don't recall where I read that. If I'm right then they will simply win Epsom and bring in the next list member. If I'm wrong then they'd make damn sure that Act put up a good candidate and help them win it.

[elZorro]

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

I read A History of New Zealand twice and I didn't find it unbiased at all. Especially its "facts" about early NZ settlement which were of course passed down by word of mouth. Certainly some parts have now been disproved. Remember, history is written by the victors in any conflict not necessarily in line with the truth so history is never excactly the truth. I spent 12.5 years overseas returning in 2007 and was staggered to see the division in NZ. I actually struggled with it. European history proves that different cultures living in society without the same ethos ends in conflict. Any close follower of recent EU politics/news will know what I mean.

I never heard the Orewa speach but if the gist was together forward as one people then I hardly see that as racist. I see it as pragmatic. Not to discount peoples culture as irrelevant but one does not rate higher than the other and none above common law.

Surely Wikipedia, having been vetted and edited by any who feel they have some knowledge on the subject, is at least as accurate as other media, Slimwin. It's like Trademe, self-policing. Maybe the Orewa speech was meant to be polite to all, but a lot of red-necks thought it spoke to them. The speech was another backward moment in NZ's history.

Regarding Michael King's work, I understand he spent years of his life compiling it, with the help of researchers at Waikato University's Library. He was at great pains to just report that historical research impartially. I'm impressed you read the book twice. Once you start reading it, you cannot put it down.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

elZorro Wikipedia when you go there how do you know it has not been edited in the last two minutes by some idiot with B.S. I would not even bother going there, let alone believe anything on Wikipedia.

[elZorro]

elZorro Wikipedia when you go there how do you know it has not been edited in the last two minutes by some idiot with B.S. I would not even bother going there, let alone believe anything on Wikipedia.

I have to repeat that I've found it very reliable, although in one or two instances it didn't have much detail. Here's Wikipedia on its own accuracy..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Regarding the Orewa speech, an ill Michael King heard and responded to it, not long before he died. He'd have been very disappointed with the response from some NZers I would think.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

elZorro When was the substance of that link last edited. Nothing In my opinion on Wikipedia can be relied on & that includes the above link. I will not even bother to look at it. Do you check everthing you read on it with a reputable source like the encyclopedia Britannica. I just go to a reliable source in the first place.

[elZorro]

elZorro When was the substance of that link last edited. Nothing In my opinion on Wikipedia can be relied on & that includes the above link. I will not even bother to look at it. Do you check everthing you read on it with a reputable source like the encyclopedia Britannica. I just go to a reliable source in the first place.

PTC: if you read the article, it states that the reliability is at least as good as Britannica.

Here's Michael King talking about the Orewa speech. He certainly considers both sides. Note how he understands that everything is not black and white (by that I mean clearly one or the other).

http://www.anewnz.org.nz/paper_comments.asp?paperid=30

Michael King: The Pakeha I know who are most comfortable with Maori culture and with Maori colleagues are the people who know most about them and who are culturally equipped to interact with that culture. And one of the reasons I write books instead of doing other things is because I believe that information dissolves prejudice. Information shared by the family. And people need information.

He predicts it will be perhaps 1,000 years before NZ has one indigenous culture, rather than two. When you think about it, has our Pakeha NZ culture evolved yet? Tell me what it is, when any Maori influence has been removed.

Sadly, Michael King and his wife died in a car accident just 2 months later.

http://bookcouncil.org.nz/writers/kingmichael.html

[Major von Tempsky]

As a 5th generation NZer I must note that "Pakeha" is an insulting term (have a look at a few translations) and I certainly do not accept it.

I do not use insulting terms for Maoris why should I accept insulting terms for myself?

I am an NZer, a Kiwi, but never a Pakeha or pakeha either.

King is a left wing, politically correct, wishy-washy white liberal. His work is rubbish.

[fungus pudding]

As a 5th generation NZer I must note that "Pakeha" is an insulting term (have a look at a few translations) and I certainly do not accept it.

I do not use insulting terms for Maoris why should I accept insulting terms for myself?

Except maoris have been told that the word 'maoris' itself is an insult. It isn't of course. It's a correct English plural of Maori as any dictionary will confirm. But because the maori language doesn't have an s, a bunch of Maori academics have decided a decade ago that English shouldn't apply the s to references to maori things. It's rubbish of course, and I'm pleased to see that I'm not the only one to use english plurals.