Talk:New Zealand First
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This New Zealand article has some associated metadata templates to display political party colours and names in election candidate and results tables.
The table below shows the content of these metadata templates, and provides links for easy access to these metadata.
|New Zealand First — political party metadata|
Is "non-white" really correct? I'm not from NZ, but I seriously doubt it. I'm guessing these probable racists wouldn't want Russians or French jews coming over either, all of whome are quite clearly white. Even if they are ambivalent about europeans, I bet they'd oppose Turkish immigration.. you may find a non-white Israeli, but you won't find a non-white Turk.
Now if they really do just oppose immigrtion from *specific* places, that should be made more clear, since opposing specific migration patterns usually just means you don't support multi-culturalism but that your also not a racist. But, as it stands, this article basically says this is an abnormally inclusive racist party. JeffBurdges 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- The party tends to aggravate racial and social tensions in order to appeal to popular support- it's not directly racist as such. The phrase non-white was evidently false as the party's figurehead leader is half-asian, half-maori. The issue as Winston Peters and the party claimed it was that immigration was "out of control" and was "eroding New Zealand's Culture". I edited it closer to NPOV and it's hopefully satisfactory now. --54x 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, this really needs updating to reflect the party's current situation now I look more deeply into it. Maybe I'll have to find some free time for it- they're now in coalition with Labour. --54x 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
NZ First's leader isn't white, he's Maori - although most Maori are perceived as white by non-New Zealanders. Despite Winston Peters' obvious charisma and intellect, NZ-First is not an intellectual party per se. As such Russians or Jews would not really be an issue for NZ-First voters as the party has no cohesive doctrine other than populism. New Zealand doesn't have any substantive history of anti-semitism and it is a nation of immigrants, so the NZ-First party isn't quite comparable to European anti-immigration/nationalist parties. Turks probably wouldn't be much of a problem either because they look much like Greeks or Italians, but just so long as they try to be like "us", don't wear distinguishing clothing or spend too much time at a mosque (preferably not at all). The party strongly plays upon the in-group/out-group dynamic of conservative political psychology.
NZ-First is more of a "sentiment" party - i.e. it panders to people's sentiments and prejudices which Winston Peters then gives a veneer of rationality to. Asians look really different/act really differently and are present in large numbers - so they're more of a threat to your average redneck than a French Jew is. It's basically the same formula that you get anywhere - anti-intellectual populism targetting ethic minorities, criminals/underclass, the "elite" (intellectual or economic), welfare beneficiaries (i.e."bludgers"), blah, blah, blah. Just listen to a typical talk-back radio caller (in any country) and that is NZ-First's target voter: simplistic thinking, self-righteous, slightly paranoid-victim type.
Very roughly speaking, and for the benefit of foreign readers, if you could take the economics of the USA's Democratic Party and splice it onto the social conservatism (minus the religiosity) of the Republican Party - then that would be NZ-First. By European standards NZ-First would be more centre-right than hard-right. It has a "softer" edge -for lack of a better term- than its European counterparts do. Its leader Winston Peters is a former member of NZ's conservatives - The New Zealand National Party. NZ-First's former deputy leader Tau Henare is currently a member of The National Party. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The article presently states:
- Much of the New Zealand media[attribution needed] criticised this move [to take the Foreign Minister position] as a withdrawal from Peter's earlier position (outlined in his "Rotorua speech") that his party would sit on the crossbenches and thus stay out of government, eschewing "the baubles of office".
I think the [attribution needed] can be removed. I doubt that anyone would argue that there wasn't widespread criticism in the media (regardless of whether they think it was deserved). It is not difficult to provide lots of examples, for example NZ Herald, NZ Herald, Scoop (ACT press release), Dominion Post, Sunday Star Times. Not all of these are from the time of Peters' appointment, because it's harder to find stories from 2005, but all refer to the criticism. Would the article gain much if we added all these references to it? It would way overbalance the referencing of the article - that is the only sentence to have a reference now, and adding several more to it is just emphasizing this one moment of Peter's career. Would adding a single reference as an example be sufficient? Or should we reword the sentence to be more specific, saying "X criticised Peters, saying 'blah', and Y joined in with 'blah'..."-gadfium 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- One or two references would establish the fact -- I wouldn't worry about unbalancing anything by providing good references. I reacted to the "Much of the media..." formulation, which sounds like weasel-words at the best of times, even when referenced. So I endorse your last suggestion -- we could say something like" "X reacted to Peters' becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs, seeing a change in attitude towards "the baubles of office" since the delivery of the Rotorua speech." -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Can you have a go at drafting that?-gadfium 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- We could say:
Some reaction to Peters' becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs detected a change in his attitude since the "Rotorua speech", which had spoken of sitting on the cross-benches (and thus staying out of government) and eschewing "the baubles of office".
- For example: section "Baublewatch" in Audrey Young: "PM marks Peters' report with 'pretty good effort'" in The New Zealand Herald, 26 November 2005, retrieved 2008-02-06.
- "WHO WILL NEW ZEALAND FIRST GO WITH?": An address by Rt Hon Winston Peters to a public meeting in Rotorua, Wednesday 07 September 2005, at the Rotorua Convention Centre, Concert Chambers, Lake end of Fenton Street, Rotorua, 12:30pm. http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/content/display_item.php?t=1&i=2092, retrieved 2008-02-06
- I think that's pretty good. Put it in the article.-gadfium 05:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)