John Tamihere: National MP for Waitakere

You read that right: John Tamihere is eyeing up the wrong party. Let’s list his positions:

• Supports asset sales 
• Supports charter schools 
• Opposes marriage equality 
• Has attacked welfarism and advocated for the privatisation of welfare delivery 

First of all, let me be clear about a few things; I like John Tamihere, I think he's an outstanding communicator, a strong advocate for urban Maori and I’d welcome his return. However, he’s a poor fit for Labour 2012. Tamihere’s economic liberalism and social conservatism will sit awkwardly with Labour MPs and members. I struggle to see how Tamihere can reconcile his values and beliefs with Labour values and policies. As one example, in 2010 Tamihere rejected class politics writing that:

The large number of so-called working class people have now migrated to the middle class. As a consequence, describing your politics in a class way is no longer sustainable.

Well, this may have held true under Clinton’s America, Blair and Brown’s Britain and Clark’s New Zealand, but following the global economic downturn the left is tilting back towards class politics. Barack Obama, and to a greater extent Ed Miliband, are staking their re-election on class politics. Obama’s strategy in, for example, Ohio is aimed squarely at winning “blue collar workers” (what we call the working class). Miliband’s strategy is aimed at amplifying class tensions and painting the Conservatives as governing for their own class. If the economic situation in New Zealand worsens, the safe bet is that Labour will follow suit and pivot towards the working class. This would further marginalise Tamihere. However, as an identity politician Tamihere can find common ground with some of his colleagues. He sits well with Labour on Treaty and Maori issues. Having said that, that’s where it ends.

In any event, it’s all academic. Even if Tamihere were a lefty liberal Carmel Sepuloni has the Waitakere branch stitched up, Nanaia Mahuta has rejected his return (and I’m not surprised why) and David Shearer appears lukewarm. If Tamihere cannot win the support of Labour’s West Auckland branches he will need to win the support of the Maori caucus and David Shearer to ensure he receives a winnable list position. Unlikely.

Another route to return for Tamihere is Tamaki Makaurau. But, again, that’s a poor fit. Not because he won’t or can’t win, but because Willie Jackson will want that seat if he decides to stand. However, if Auckland becomes two separate Maori electorates then both could stand; Tamihere in the electorate that incorporates West Auckland and Jackson in the electorate that incorporates South Auckland. What, you ask, happens if West and South Auckland form part of the same electorate? Well, then one of either Tamihere or Jackson would have to stand down or it’s back to aiming for Waitakere or a list position. Whatever way you look at it, Tamihere’s route to return will be very, very rough.

UPDATE: Tamihere gave an excellent interview this morning. He rejected "Rogernomics", read neoliberlism, and spoke of a need to "regrow activism" and change New Zealand's macro economic settings. A clear tilt to the left and an attempt to reconcile his views with the views of the Labour Party.

Study reveals racism in the media

Confirming what most of us already knew, a study has revealed that the mainstream media is guilty of portraying Maori poorly. The researcher team consisted of six academics and the paper was published in the New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship. The study examined:

Television news coverage of Māori stories gathered from Te Kāea (Māori TV), TV1 (both English-language and Te Karere), TV3 and Prime during a six-month period. They looked at how many Māori stories there were, and the tone of each piece.

They found Māori stories made up less than two per cent of the news items in the English-language newscasts and the majority of these items encouraged viewers to think about Māori in terms of violence towards and abuse of babies and children in their care.

The media play a prominent role, if not the most prominent role, in encouraging and cementing negative perceptions of Maori. The stories the media tend to single out, think crime stories, do not reflect the reality for most Maori and most New Zealanders.

It should be asked, however, whether or not we can blame the media for demeaning Maori. After all, that is what the consumers want – controversy and crisis. Nothing screams controversy and crisis better than a brown man and bad behaviour. The question, therefore, is whether or not there is a problem with the media or a problem with society.

Demand for controversy and crisis means racism is a profitable industry. Consumers enjoy Maori controversy and crisis, the media responds and ratings increase, revenue growth occurs, bosses and shareholders are happy. Repeat formula.

I am also attracted to the analysis that the media is an instrument of the capitalist class and racism in the media is an attempt to divide and rule the working class.

Racism is certainly a profitable industry and the second analysis is attractive too, but I think the explanation may be a little simpler: we’re still suffering from a colonial hangover.

The consequences of this hangover are severe. The media’s portrayal of Maori threatens the progress we’ve made in race relations. It encourages antagonism, both on the part of Maori and non-Maori.

This is why Maori TV and shows like Marae Investigates are so important – they portray Maori in all their diversity and they challenge mainstream portrayals and perceptions. 

Having said that, I doubt that Maori TV, Maori radio and Marae Investigates alone are the answer to racism in the mainstream media. These initiatives are counter-weights, but not solutions by themselves. We need a cultural change in the media and in society, and until we achieve that we may keep sinking.

UPDATE: I don't think we have racist journalists. However, I think there is an underlying imperative for negative stories re Maori. Every journalist I've ever met, and I've met more than a few, was utterly professional and certainly not racist. 

Sort it out, Labour

David Farrar makes an interesting point;

What is interesting is that Labour may have relatively few Maori MPs after the next election, unless they do some recruitment into high list placings. It is rumoured that Horomia may retire also, and Mahuta is staying on but concentrating mainly on family for the next few years.

On top of Mahuta, you’ve got Shane Jones, Kelvin Davis and Moana Mackey. Only four Maori MPs would be historically quite low for Labour. Labour may give high list rankings to some of their Maori seat candidates – but then of course that may help the Maori Party keep those seats.

I do not like this. In my opinion Labour has always taken the Maori vote for granted. The party establishment treats Maori support as a given, almost a right. If Labour continues to treat Maori support with casual disregard then the electoral consequences will be severe.

Traditionally, Maori voted Labour because Labour was the best of a bad bunch. However, in 2010, Maori have genuine political alternatives. National has shown that, under the right circumstances, they can accept some aspects of tino rangatiratanga and advance Maori aspirations. The Greens worldview is in most respects comparable with Te Ao Maori and NZ First offers a creed of nationalism that appeals to many Maori. And of course there is The Maori Party. Unlike in the past Maori can easily shift their vote to other Parliamentary parties.  

In such a crowded political market place Labour needs to do more. Labour appears to be operating under a mindset stuck in 1984 where the Maori vote only determined the outcome in four safe Maori seats. As such Labour could easily disregard the Maori vote without suffering electoral consequences. However, this is 2010, the political landscape is wildly different. Maori are a growing demographic and consequently a growing electoral power. One would think, in the interests of longevity, that Labour would be making a concerted effort to solidify the Maori vote. In 2008 women and to a lesser extent the working class ditched Labour. If Labour continues to disrespect Maori support then Maori may follow suit.    

Labour needs to rebuild trust among Maori. Following the foreshore and seabed controversy and more recently Phil Goff’s Nationhood speech Maori trust in Labour has dwindled. Having only four Maori MP’s feeds the perception that Labour just does not care about the Maori vote. National has really stolen the initiative in terms of the Maori vote. By entering into an agreement with the Maori Party the Nats have created the perception that they are willing to enter into a good faith relationship with, at first glance, ideological foes for the good of the country. Over the past two years the Nats have continuously offered the Maori Party small concessions thus reinforcing the perception that the party is no longer hostile towards Maori aspirations.

Labour needs to get it together. The party is incompetent in every respect. Without the Maori vote Labour cannot hope to ever occupy the Treasury benches. Women love John Key, urban liberals are few and far between and the working class by and large no longer identify with Labour. If Labour does not change tact add they can surely add Maori to the list of disaffected supporters.