The Dim-Post

November 27, 2009

Second time as farce

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 10:38 am

Although there’s been a lot of mainstream coverage of Goff’s Orewa-lite speech there hasn’t been much analysis yet. That seems appropriate for a politician as irrelevant as Goff but I’m struck by the dearth of support he’s received from The Standard and Red Alert. They haven’t even mentioned the speech – it’s hard not to read the vacuum as an embarrassed silence.

I went back and took a look at Brash’s Orewa speech – I note that it also had the title of ‘Nationhood’. Here’s Brash in 04:

So let me begin by asking, what sort of nation do we want to build?

Is it to be a modern democratic society, embodying the essential notion of one rule for all in a single nation state?

Or is it the racially divided nation, with two sets of laws, and two standards of citizenship, that the present Labour Government is moving us steadily towards?

Here’s Goff yesterday:

We can choose our future based on principle and with the interests of all New Zealanders at heart.

Or we can have a country where one New Zealander is turned against another, Maori against Pakeha

Brash:

the topic I will focus on today, is the dangerous drift towards racial separatism in New Zealand, and the development of the now entrenched Treaty grievance industry.

Goff:

. . . the government is keeping the grievance going.If you can never settle Treaty grievances, there can never be healing, and you keep alive a grievance from one age into another.

Brash:

National is absolutely committed to completing the settlement of historical grievances.  We will ensure that the process is accelerated and brought to a conclusion. It must then be wound up

Goff:

We must address grievance, but we must not sustain it.

Brash:

What we are seeing is the emergence of a population in New Zealand of multi-ethnic heritage – a distinct South Seas race of New Zealanders – where more and more of us will have a diverse ancestry. Hopefully, we will get joy and pride from all the different elements that go to make us who we are.

Goff:

There is so much New Zealanders have to be proud of, so much we have to achieve together. We can be proud of the bi-cultural foundation of our nation and the multicultural nature of our community today.

Brash:

We will deal with the foreshore issue by legislating to return to the previous status quo . . . Public ownership leaves room for recognising limited customary rights, but we will not allow customary title.

Goff:

The government has a choice between sticking with the status quo, which guarantees access but allows for agreements around customary rights, and the alternative of never ending court battles.

Labour believes in access for all New Zealanders, with respect for custom and heritage.

Obviously Brash went furthur – he promised to abolish the Maori seats, Goff isn’t there yet. But it is essentially the same speech with the same title, updated for contemporary issues.

About these ads

39 Comments »

  1. The Labour seats are a pointless Opposition at the moment, so where’s the much-vauted new Green leadership? When it comes to the Maori Party making deals to push through a (god-awful) ETS, I’d suggest Metiria Turei is the natural frontperson for discussion on it.

    Comment by garethw — November 27, 2009 @ 10:48 am

  2. How the hell did Labour’s communications people not spot the drift into Don Brash territory? Is their comms strategy THAT bad, or is Goff just making it up on the headlines of the day?

    Comment by Ataahua — November 27, 2009 @ 10:55 am

  3. Ataahua, you’re presuming they didn’t spot it? It strikes me they decided “hey it gave Brash a bounce! We need a bounce right?!”

    Comment by garethw — November 27, 2009 @ 11:08 am

  4. I prefer to think of them as PR gimps.

    Comment by expat — November 27, 2009 @ 11:11 am

  5. deliberate and disgusting – goff is toast – after the rednecks increase his support of course

    Comment by marty mars — November 27, 2009 @ 11:14 am

  6. Well, Grant Robertson is trying over on Red Alert — but even he’s just ignoring the criticism, and linking instead to Gordon Campbell’s rather strained and incoherent defence of Goff’s “postmodern politics”.

    http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/11/27/phil-goffs-speech/

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — November 27, 2009 @ 11:18 am

  7. Labour, the gift that keeps giving to John Key. What a bunch of fucking gimps, maybe Trevor is the answer, lol.

    Comment by expat — November 27, 2009 @ 11:22 am

  8. [...] it “stupid and wrong on so many levels”, MP Grant Robertson give his take, and DimPost calls it “essentially the same speech with the same title, updated for contemporary issues.” [...]

    Pingback by Nationhood, take two « Life and Politics — November 27, 2009 @ 11:41 am

  9. Wow and I thought the selective quote was the domain of a certain DPF.

    What next Danyl? Are you going to point out that both Brash and Goff used the word ‘the’ a lot in their speeches?

    Goff actually sends a lot of his speech defending Labour’s ‘Foreshore and Seabed’ legislation which considering they passed it and still think it is the right thing to do then it’s not surprising he defends it.

    He also talks about how bad the ETS is and the current short term, short sighted polices of National, all things you have discussed on your blog site.

    Comment by ieuan — November 27, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

  10. If Trevor Mallard is the answer, I expect the question gets asked a lot in anger management courses. :)

    But to be fair, in Phil’s (Nation)Hood he really is a uniter, not a divider — of the comments sewers occupied by the usual suspects of the Kiwibog Right and the Sub-Standard Left.

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — November 27, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

  11. ieuan:

    What part of “he could have stuck to the issues without the detours into gratuitous racist dog-whistling straight out of the Winston Peters playbook” don’t you understand?

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — November 27, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

  12. Ataahua, you’re presuming they didn’t spot it?
    I suppose I hate the thought that Labour is doing this deliberately. It appears their former approach, of Labour being a weak and silent opposition, was actually the better path for them.

    I wonder if Australia has a spare opposition party we could borrow…

    Comment by Ataahua — November 27, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

  13. Wow and I thought the selective quote was the domain of a certain DPF.

    ieuan, you’re clutching at straws. Half the speech is like that.

    Here are are my “selective quotes”.

    Comment by George Darroch — November 27, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

  14. If Trevor Mallard is the answer, I expect the question gets asked a lot in anger management courses.

    *win*

    Comment by Ataahua — November 27, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

  15. I think the pointy heads in labour have decided to ditch goff. At least this will give the newbee something else to say sorry for in a few years time.

    Comment by marty mars — November 27, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

  16. I think the pointy heads in labour have decided to ditch goff
    Well if you follow the narrative of what they’re trying to emulate they’ll have to!
    Brash, makes his Nationhood speech, gets a bounce, gets noticed, but gets turfed because it turns off such a huge (and growing) part of the electorate. So is Goff setting himself up as the “tough guy” that gets Labour noticed again in the “darker reaches of the NZ psyche” before being turfed out so they look moderate? (No I don’t believe Goff is into such poetic and intentional harikiri, but still…)

    Comment by garethw — November 27, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

  17. It’s getting to the point when a politican won’t be able to discuss pakeha/maori/treaty/immigration issues at all without be acused of playing the race card.
    Soon there will be a ‘law’ named to cover it {think Godwin}

    Comment by aj — November 27, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

  18. Heh I don’t mean Godwin of course, some other name . . .

    Comment by aj — November 27, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

  19. It’s getting to the point when a politican won’t be able to discuss pakeha/maori/treaty/immigration issues at all without be acused of playing the race card.

    It’s not hard to discuss race in good faith. Goff could have given a speech to a Maori audience. He could have confined himself to attacking the Maori Party and it’s support of the ETS instead of throwing in the kitchen sink of race issues: foreshorea and seabed, treaty settlements, ‘grievance’, Hone Harawira, none of which have much to do with each other. He could have not named his speech after the most famous racist speech in our modern political history.

    Comment by danylmc — November 27, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

  20. I thought he WAS attacking the MP – I don’t read it the way you have at all. You don’t think ‘foreshore and seabed, treaty settlements, ‘grievance’, Hone Harawira’ don’t have much to do with each other when it comes to the MP?

    I’d say this speech was aimed directly at the heart of the MP – I suspect Labour have sensed grassroots disenchantment with the MP and feel they can win seats from them in 2011

    Comment by aj — November 27, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

  21. Then why give it to a bunch of old white people in Palmerston North?

    Comment by mjl — November 27, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

  22. It could have been worse – he could have given the speech in Wanganui.

    Comment by Ataahua — November 27, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

  23. It’s getting to the point…

    All the things people are citing as ‘his actual point’ he had raised previously and I had various opinions on them. I felt differently about this speech, because of the sentences he said in it.

    Comment by lyndon — November 27, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

  24. On further reflection, I’m coming to the conclusion that Goff is way smarter politically than Brash. He’s successfully managed to play to the prejudices of his ethnic group, but if anyone wants to call him on it there’s the not-insignificant problem that, unlike Brash at Orewa, Goff is actually right in what he’s saying. That’s pretty damn clever, really.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — November 27, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

  25. Maybe Goff’s sacrificing himself like Brash did – play the race card for votes then let the next leader distance themselves from it (to the point of doing the exact opposite when in government…)

    Comment by gazzaj — November 27, 2009 @ 4:46 pm

  26. I think Goff needs to get some new advisers.

    Comment by piglet — November 27, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

  27. got you all talking ’bout it.
    genius – thanks to very recent rabid dog foaming at the bit of Mr H Harawira.
    yeah.

    Comment by ConorJoe — November 27, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

  28. Danyl, thanks, as soon as I ready Goff’s speech I had an urge to go back to the original.

    It’s like the US remake of an Asian action film. The general sense of it is there, but none of the substance, electricity, or grit. It is the worst of both worlds. To borrow the sentiments of a film reviewer recently discussing The Vintner’s Luck, it will divide the audience: some will be profoundly offended and outraged, while others will simply find it unspeakably dull.

    L

    Comment by Lew — November 27, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

  29. …but I’m struck by the dearth of support he’s received from The Standard and Red Alert. They haven’t even mentioned the speech – it’s hard not to read the vacuum as an embarrassed silence.

    Actually Danyl, it is called having time to read, reflect and think.

    Unlike some people most of our authors try not to go off half-cocked and blow our feet off with instant reactions. Like your post for instance. Perhaps you’ve read the site later in the day?

    It is interesting in your post that you didn’t even try to actually look at why Goff was saying this. You just did a DPF of mindless bullet points.

    Why not try thinking for a change and reduce the puerile adolescent knee-jerk reactions.

    Comment by Lynn Prentice — November 27, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

  30. Lynn:

    Don’t you have a troll farm to run?

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — November 27, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

  31. Unlike some people most of our authors try not to go off half-cocked and blow our feet off with instant reactions. Like your post for instance. Perhaps you’ve read the site later in the day?

    I have, I thought Eddie’s post was very insightful.

    Comment by danylmc — November 28, 2009 @ 4:54 am

  32. LOL,

    * the substandard militia not half cocked – yeah right.
    * having time to read, reflect and think – aka seeing which way sentiment is swinging before deciding on ‘your’ opinion.
    * Why not try thinking for a change and reduce the puerile adolescent knee-jerk reactions – what an A-**** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o30wacwdoc

    Comment by expat — November 28, 2009 @ 6:16 am

  33. So, you like John Key being in charge? He cares more about the next photo opportunity than what’s best for NZ. Go Phil, I’ll bet Key is worried.

    Comment by lemon ade — November 28, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

  34. The Labour Party have always had a “but you owe us” attitude towards the Maori Party.

    Labour have been setting this up for a while now with a series of insinuations and more blatant allegations that Maori are getting special treatment.

    I think they’re comminting political suicide.

    Comment by Neil — November 28, 2009 @ 8:16 pm

  35. dear lord, I hadn’t seen that Goff has u-turned on repealling the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I can’t believe it. The bigots have won in Labour.

    What the fuck are they doing. I really don’t think that they will be more likely to get back into power courting the red-neck vote at the expense of Maori voters. It didn’t actually get Brash into office.

    They don’t deserve to get back in either. I’ve been disconcerted by the growing thuggishness in the Labour ranks this is the last straw.

    Comment by Neil — November 28, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

  36. Congratulations, you matched up a few phrases pasted them together to make them similar then concluded that Brash=Goff in every way. My ten year son could see through the logical flaws involved in doing that.

    I remember John Stewart did a beautiful assassination of Fox News when they tried to compare Hitler with Obama in a similar tactic to what you just did. Well done you have raised yourself to the level of Rupert Murdoch and Sean Hannity.

    Word trickery does not equate to legitimate critique.

    Comment by Bob — November 28, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

  37. just “a few phrases”?

    such as –

    “But for all the criticism I have heard, most people accept that the current foreshore and seabed rules aren’t broken and they’re a good foundation for moving forward. They believe its good legislation for all New Zealanders.”

    and –

    “National wants to reopen the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Labour asks: What isn’t working? Will reopening court action help or would it see wounds fester? This is about the kind of nation we want to be.”

    only a few weeks ago Goff was apologising for the Foreshore and Seabed act. Now such a different tune.

    “National”??? wants to “reopen” this. Ah, then just what has the MP and a considerable section of the Maori community been lobbying for the last few years.

    And note the weasley “most people accept” followed by “They believe its good legislation for all New Zealanders.” “They” – notice how Goff slides around avoiding stating explicitly what he thinks.

    So much change in jusyt a few weeks. It’s clearly a cynical move to play the race card. We had plenty leading up to this from the likes of Mallard and Goff has decided that’s their strategy.

    words fail me.

    Comment by Neil — November 28, 2009 @ 10:18 pm

  38. Bob, half the speech is like that. It isn’t “a few phrases” it’s the whole goddamn thing.

    I accepted Labour’s loss with the thought that would find their direction and some humility (rather than thinking that every criticism was from either crazy socialists or NACTiods). They’ve done nothing to change. If anything opposition has made them significantly more self-righteous and insulated from criticism.

    I’ve given up. The Greens are simply a glorified lobby group in the current political environment – I could forgive Fitzsimons indulging 9/11 conspiracy theorists if they were likely to get 1/4 of their policies enacted – but they’re forever marginalised, and the current Labour hates them more than ever.

    Don’t let Labour’s warm and fuzzy rhetoric fool you. They only make overtures to the left, the environmental movement, and generally sane people in order to marginalise them. The sooner the left abandons the current Labour Party the better.

    Comment by George Darroch — November 28, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

  39. Congratulations, you matched up a few phrases pasted them together to make them similar then concluded that Brash=Goff in every way. My ten year son could see through the logical flaws involved in doing that.

    How durst you attack a live Goff in that fashion? I am quite ashamed of you! Have you no reverence for finely-restored British motorcycles? Be assured, already your scurrilous exercise in faux equivalence has been roundly ritually denounced by the rising generation of party privileged.

    Comment by joe W — November 28, 2009 @ 11:25 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 399 other followers

%d bloggers like this: