On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person like Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
wrote:
Perhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate
disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation.
You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with
this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no
longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and
those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to
what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise
later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for
them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to
come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that
coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with.
Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political
party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would
be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is
supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as
ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are
unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the
other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common.
Do you really not understand that?
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person likePerhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate
disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation.
You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with
this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to
what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise
later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for
them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to
come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that
coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with.
Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would
be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is
supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as
ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are
unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the
other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common.
Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by >politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that >it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >overseas as a war dance.
These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture >and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:That is your personal opinion - like most of what you say, Tony, it
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person likePerhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate
disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation.
You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with
this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to
what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise
later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for
them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to
come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that
coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with.
Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would
be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is
supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as
ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are
unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the
other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common.
Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by >politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that >it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >overseas as a war dance.
These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture >and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.I doubt you represent any other persons culture, but that is not what
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:03:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person like
Perhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate >>>>>disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation.
You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with
this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to
what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise
later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for >>>them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to >>>come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that
coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with.
Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would
be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is
supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as
ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are
unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the >>>other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common.
Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by >>politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that >>it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >>overseas as a war dance.
These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture >>and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.
Correct. While the two co-leaders of the Maori Party were each
elected with over 50% of the vote in their respective electorates, the
other Maori Party MPs were elected with well under 50%. Maori who are
on the General Electoral Roll cannot vote in Maori electorates. So
the Maori Party cannot lay claim to representing the will of all
Maori. There are significant numbers of Maori on the Maori electoral
roll that voted against them, and significant numbers of Maori not on
the Maori electoral roll.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:03:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyWow, have you been given some communication skills training? OR was that little jewel accidental. THey say enough monkeys given enough time could write the bible.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:That is your personal opinion - like most of what you say, Tony, it
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person >>like
Perhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate >>>>>disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation.
You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with
this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to
what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise
later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for >>>them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to >>>come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that
coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with.
Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would
be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is
supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as
ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are
unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the >>>other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common.
Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by >>politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that >>it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >>overseas as a war dance.
does not necessarily represent what other people think.
I understand but it is you that does not - they "claim" to represent Maori - got it? I was referring to that claim not what you claimed, jeez you are slow.These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture >>and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.I doubt you represent any other persons culture, but that is not what
I was claiming - they are representing the interests of those that
voted for them, as well as for all New Zealanders. There is a
difference, but you may not understand . . .
On Sun, 25 May 2025 12:00:51 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:03:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person like
Perhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate >>>>>>disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation.
You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with >>>>>this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>>>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to >>>>what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise
later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for >>>>them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to >>>>come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>>>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that >>>>coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with. >>>>Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>>>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would >>>>be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is
supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as
ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are
unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the >>>>other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common.
Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by
politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that
it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >>>overseas as a war dance.
These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture
and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.
Correct. While the two co-leaders of the Maori Party were each
elected with over 50% of the vote in their respective electorates, the >>other Maori Party MPs were elected with well under 50%. Maori who are
on the General Electoral Roll cannot vote in Maori electorates. So
the Maori Party cannot lay claim to representing the will of all
Maori. There are significant numbers of Maori on the Maori electoral
roll that voted against them, and significant numbers of Maori not on
the Maori electoral roll.
Would any MP claim to represent the views of all in their electorate?
- they tend to represent the policies of the party they belong to
which may represent a majority of those who voted in that electorate
(except of course list MPs)
In theory a person that is not of Maori descent could stand in a Maori
seat - I am not aware of it happening, but if that person had the
support of the electorate, why should they have to be.
Similarly we
have less influence as voters on list MPs - we have seen from all
parties why some were sufficiently low on the list that they were not >expected to be elected . . .
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:32:34 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>We are in agreement then - the Maori Party are aware that they do not
wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 12:00:51 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:03:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person like
Perhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate >>>>>>>disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation. >>>>>>You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with >>>>>>this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>>>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>>>>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to >>>>>what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise >>>>>later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for >>>>>them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to >>>>>come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>>>>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that >>>>>coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with. >>>>>Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>>>>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would >>>>>be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is >>>>>supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as >>>>>ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are >>>>>unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the >>>>>other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common. >>>>>Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by
politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that
it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >>>>overseas as a war dance.
These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture
and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.
Correct. While the two co-leaders of the Maori Party were each
elected with over 50% of the vote in their respective electorates, the >>>other Maori Party MPs were elected with well under 50%. Maori who are
on the General Electoral Roll cannot vote in Maori electorates. So
the Maori Party cannot lay claim to representing the will of all
Maori. There are significant numbers of Maori on the Maori electoral >>>roll that voted against them, and significant numbers of Maori not on
the Maori electoral roll.
Would any MP claim to represent the views of all in their electorate?
No. What planet are you on?
No, clearly they do not represent the views of all Maori, but then no- they tend to represent the policies of the party they belong toSo you concede my point that the Maori Party MPs do not represent
which may represent a majority of those who voted in that electorate >>(except of course list MPs)
Maoridom.
Which is why I believe that preferential voting as they have inIn theory a person that is not of Maori descent could stand in a Maori
seat - I am not aware of it happening, but if that person had the
support of the electorate, why should they have to be.
Correct - but electorate MPs can be elected despite the fact that most
in the electorate did not vote for them.
Similarly we
have less influence as voters on list MPs - we have seen from all
parties why some were sufficiently low on the list that they were not >>expected to be elected . . .
On Sun, 25 May 2025 22:03:51 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:32:34 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:We are in agreement then - the Maori Party are aware that they do not
On Sun, 25 May 2025 12:00:51 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:03:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person like
Perhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>>>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate >>>>>>>>disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>>>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>>>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation. >>>>>>>You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with >>>>>>>this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>>>>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>>>>>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to >>>>>>what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise >>>>>>later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for >>>>>>them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to >>>>>>come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>>>>>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that >>>>>>coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with. >>>>>>Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>>>>>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would >>>>>>be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is >>>>>>supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as >>>>>>ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are >>>>>>unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the >>>>>>other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common. >>>>>>Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by
politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that
it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >>>>>overseas as a war dance.
These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture
and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.
Correct. While the two co-leaders of the Maori Party were each
elected with over 50% of the vote in their respective electorates, the >>>>other Maori Party MPs were elected with well under 50%. Maori who are >>>>on the General Electoral Roll cannot vote in Maori electorates. So
the Maori Party cannot lay claim to representing the will of all
Maori. There are significant numbers of Maori on the Maori electoral >>>>roll that voted against them, and significant numbers of Maori not on >>>>the Maori electoral roll.
Would any MP claim to represent the views of all in their electorate?
No. What planet are you on?
get all the electoral votes in the Maori seats, or all the Party votes
- just as for example Peters and Seymour do not get all the Maori
Votes in their electorates.
No, clearly they do not represent the views of all Maori, but then no
- they tend to represent the policies of the party they belong toSo you concede my point that the Maori Party MPs do not represent
which may represent a majority of those who voted in that electorate >>>(except of course list MPs)
Maoridom.
party represents all of their electorate.
My point was that I also do not claim that any other party represents
all Pakeha, or all immigrants, or all of any particular group
Which is why I believe that preferential voting as they have in
In theory a person that is not of Maori descent could stand in a Maori >>>seat - I am not aware of it happening, but if that person had the
support of the electorate, why should they have to be.
Correct - but electorate MPs can be elected despite the fact that most
in the electorate did not vote for them.
Australia could be an improvement on our system.
Similarly we
have less influence as voters on list MPs - we have seen from all
parties why some were sufficiently low on the list that they were not >>>expected to be elected . . .
On Sun, 25 May 2025 22:03:51 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:32:34 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:We are in agreement then - the Maori Party are aware that they do not
On Sun, 25 May 2025 12:00:51 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:03:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person like
Perhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>>>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate >>>>>>>>disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>>>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>>>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation. >>>>>>>You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with >>>>>>>this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>>>>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>>>>>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to >>>>>>what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise >>>>>>later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for >>>>>>them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to >>>>>>come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>>>>>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that >>>>>>coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with. >>>>>>Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>>>>>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would >>>>>>be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is >>>>>>supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as >>>>>>ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are >>>>>>unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the >>>>>>other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common. >>>>>>Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by
politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that
it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >>>>>overseas as a war dance.
These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture
and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.
Correct. While the two co-leaders of the Maori Party were each
elected with over 50% of the vote in their respective electorates, the >>>>other Maori Party MPs were elected with well under 50%. Maori who are >>>>on the General Electoral Roll cannot vote in Maori electorates. So
the Maori Party cannot lay claim to representing the will of all
Maori. There are significant numbers of Maori on the Maori electoral >>>>roll that voted against them, and significant numbers of Maori not on >>>>the Maori electoral roll.
Would any MP claim to represent the views of all in their electorate?
No. What planet are you on?
get all the electoral votes in the Maori seats, or all the Party votes
- just as for example Peters and Seymour do not get all the Maori
Votes in their electorates.
No, clearly they do not represent the views of all Maori, but then no
- they tend to represent the policies of the party they belong toSo you concede my point that the Maori Party MPs do not represent
which may represent a majority of those who voted in that electorate >>>(except of course list MPs)
Maoridom.
party represents all of their electorate.
My point was that I also do not claim that any other party represents
all Pakeha, or all immigrants, or all of any particular group
Which is why I believe that preferential voting as they have in
In theory a person that is not of Maori descent could stand in a Maori >>>seat - I am not aware of it happening, but if that person had the
support of the electorate, why should they have to be.
Correct - but electorate MPs can be elected despite the fact that most
in the electorate did not vote for them.
Australia could be an improvement on our system.
Similarly we
have less influence as voters on list MPs - we have seen from all
parties why some were sufficiently low on the list that they were not >>>expected to be elected . . .
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:32:34 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 12:00:51 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:03:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person like
Perhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate >>>>>>>disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation. >>>>>>You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with >>>>>>this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>>>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>>>>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to >>>>>what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise >>>>>later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for >>>>>them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to >>>>>come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>>>>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that >>>>>coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with. >>>>>Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>>>>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would >>>>>be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is >>>>>supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as >>>>>ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are >>>>>unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the >>>>>other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common. >>>>>Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by
politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that
it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >>>>overseas as a war dance.
These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture
and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.
Correct. While the two co-leaders of the Maori Party were each
elected with over 50% of the vote in their respective electorates, the >>>other Maori Party MPs were elected with well under 50%. Maori who are
on the General Electoral Roll cannot vote in Maori electorates. So
the Maori Party cannot lay claim to representing the will of all
Maori. There are significant numbers of Maori on the Maori electoral >>>roll that voted against them, and significant numbers of Maori not on
the Maori electoral roll.
Would any MP claim to represent the views of all in their electorate?
No. What planet are you on?
- they tend to represent the policies of the party they belong toSo you concede my point that the Maori Party MPs do not represent
which may represent a majority of those who voted in that electorate >>(except of course list MPs)
Maoridom.
In theory a person that is not of Maori descent could stand in a Maori
seat - I am not aware of it happening, but if that person had the
support of the electorate, why should they have to be.
Correct - but electorate MPs can be elected despite the fact that most
in the electorate did not vote for them.
Similarly we
have less influence as voters on list MPs - we have seen from all
parties why some were sufficiently low on the list that they were not >>expected to be elected . . .
On Sun, 25 May 2025 12:00:51 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:03:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:42:11 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:The response by rich in this extract (renamed) shows just how far a person like
Perhaps that is indeed the problem; you do not recognise the cultural >>>>>>performance of the other parties as including the deliberate >>>>>>disruption of other parties - parliament is a cultural performance as >>>>>>much if not more than it is a forum for seeking consensus and >>>>>>dispassionately discussing proposals for regulation or legislation.
You have reached new heights of absurdity and incomprehension with >>>>>this statement, to the point where any further rational debate is no >>>>>longer possible.
To be blunt, you are talking irrational crap.
In summary, it is the job of each MP to try to persuade parliament and >>>>those that vote to implement policies and pass bills that relate to >>>>what they have campaigned on, and for the many issues that arise
later, to represent to the extent possible those that have voted for >>>>them. That is why most MPs are in a political party - it is easier to >>>>come up with policies that will get at least some support, and even >>>>oppositions MPs do at times get bills passed. The other side of that >>>>coin is that most parties will resist bills they do not agree with. >>>>Each politician is selling himself or herself as well as the political >>>>party they belong to - they will resist bills that they believe would >>>>be resisted by those that voted for them. The Maori Party is
supporting the interests of their voters in exactly the same way as
ACT MPs represent those that voted for their party - there are
unlikely to be many of either party that also support policies of the >>>>other party, but with some parties there will be policies in common.
Do you really not understand that?
Rich can go to defend the indefensible.
I lesson for all children to not lie and to not allow themselves to be led by
politics.
Read the last paragraph if you wish - it is absolute bollocks to suggest that
it is OK to make parliament look inept with a poorly executed Haka seen >>>overseas as a war dance.
These three fools do not represent Maori any more than I represent my culture
and to suggest they do is the stuff of insanity.
Correct. While the two co-leaders of the Maori Party were each
elected with over 50% of the vote in their respective electorates, the >>other Maori Party MPs were elected with well under 50%. Maori who are
on the General Electoral Roll cannot vote in Maori electorates. So
the Maori Party cannot lay claim to representing the will of all
Maori. There are significant numbers of Maori on the Maori electoral
roll that voted against them, and significant numbers of Maori not on
the Maori electoral roll.
Would any MP claim to represent the views of all in their electorate?
- they tend to represent the policies of the party they belong to
which may represent a majority of those who voted in that electorate
(except of course list MPs)
In theory a person that is not of Maori descent could stand in a Maori
seat - I am not aware of it happening, but if that person had the
support of the electorate, why should they have to be. Similarly we
have less influence as voters on list MPs - we have seen from all
parties why some were sufficiently low on the list that they were not expected to be elected . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 149:21:50 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,572 |