Britain’s Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer has called for the abolition of the unelected House of Lords. From what I can discern this has attracted wide-spread support, not that Starmer needs it as his Party will bolt home in the next election.

The House of Lords is a disgraceful anachronism, its existence grossly inconsistent with democratic principles. The sole argument in its favour I’ve seen proffered, essentially amounts to criticism of the Lower Chamber. That in fact is not an argument.

There are very few real democracies in the world today. New Zealand certainly doesn’t qualify with its race-based system actively promoted by the current government. This will be the major factor in the electoral debacle they will experience next year.

If you doubt that then try a meaningful poll across the nation instead of the stacked questions with current polls, i.e., “Which worries you most?

  1. The cost of living
  2. Inflation
  3. Crime,” (and so on).

Such polls invariably see a media response, “New Zealanders greatest concern is the cost of living” etc. Try a sizeable nation-wide poll and add in “race relations,” or more specifically, “maori favouritism” in the list of concerns and you will find the reality of what is really upsetting New Zealanders across the country.

But back to Britain. There’s no need for an Upper Chamber as New Zealand has proven for the last 8 decades. Likewise with Australia and its over politicised society, thanks to the unnecessary existance of an Upper upper chamber, its so-called Senate.

So too America with its outrageously undemocratic but powerful Senate providing 2 seats for each state. Thus Wyoming with its 600,000 population, Hawaii with 1.5 million people and Alaska with 750,000 have the same representation as California with its 40 million population, New York with 20 million and Texas with 30 million. Hardly democratic and yet further testimony to the undesirability of an outmoded written Constitution.

Once Britain has dumped this outrage, hopefully its next reform will be ending the ludicrous monarchy.

Arguments proffered in the monarchy’s defence is that it’s a harmless, powerless entertainment with economic value for tourism reasons. I find it hard to believe that any tourists visit Britain because of the absurd monarchy’s existence.

The issue arises here when there’s talk of New Zealand abandoning the monarch as our Head of State. Specifically, it’s claimed that the Governor General is a mere powerless figure-head.

Tell that to Australians who have never forgiven the sacking of Whitlam by Governor General Kerr, a pariah figure to this day.

Furthermore, it may be Hamish Keith and I are the only people alive who know of a similar incident here. That was back in 1973 when the Governor General point-blank refused to carry out an order from Prime Minister Norman Kirk. There was a major showdown and only when threatened with the sack did the Governor General eventually succumb.

I will not outline why this occurred as the Governor General’s stand was understandable, aside from which no-one would believe it. In hindsight, apart from causing terrible hurt, it was bloody funny, I emphasise in hindsight. The key parties are now all dead but not so their offspring.

There’s no question democracy is terribly flawed, not because of its structure but its periodic abusers. But there’s equally no question it’s massively better than its alternatives, as evidenced world-wide.


Maybe not so fast Sir Bob – ask the Spanish what they think about monarchy following Tejoro’s little venture back in the day. Maybe the a modified argument as per your final paragraph can be applied here i.e.. ‘There’s no question democracy under a constitutional monarch is terribly flawed, not because of its structure but its periodic abusers. But there’s equally no question it’s massively better than its alternatives, as evidenced world-wide.

Hi Sir Bob, fascinating read as always!
In an interview 2-3 years ago, you mentioned that former Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk was an absolute prick.
Are you able to explain how so?

I prefer the status quo. My reason for this consistency. Any President would be elected and likely be political. A President will face re-election and so another change. With the Royal family you have consistency and longevity.

Not a very good argument but that is my preference. Can I ask you to consider how you would feel with President Adern? President Shipley? President Key? President Clark? and god save us President bloody Bulger!

I can only reinforce that there is deep concern among many, many people about “maori favouritism” as you call it. Nobody’s fooled. Everybody knows it has nothing to do with redressing historical wrongs or rectifying entrenched disadvantages suffered by maori through no fault of their own, but everything to do with a disgusting, greedy maori elite making a very undemocratic grab for money and power. They don’t care a fig about their own people.

    Completely agree-the Section 4(4) of 3 waters has now been amended to read ” Te mana o Te Wai applies…”not only to all freshwater, but also to all coastal water and all geothermal water”
    The name Te Mana o Te Wai is a dead giveaway, but devil is in the detail-the water now belongs to Maori tribes. If you want to use water-they now own you.

New Zealand elections are usually won or lost on a margin of >5% of the total population. New Zealanders who identify as Maori vote for Labour (or Centre-Left) in the ratio of 8:2. Without the Maori vote, no Labour Government since WW2 would have come into power.

The prospect of losing the Maori seats, and (say) 50% of the Maori vote in General seats, is an existential nightmare for Labour. And, for the first time since MMP, there are very real prospects that the Maori Party could pick up many of those votes. In less than one year, Labour has to securely buy those votes and make sure they stay bought.

Hence, the air of desperation and urgency in passing Three Waters, Maori Health, etc, etc, etc.

But National also has a horse in the race. As the bidding war between the three left-wing parties becomes more and more outrageous, there’s a fair chance that a large number of non-Iwi Maori will become embarrassed by the blatant avarice, re-writing of history, divisiveness, and attacks on democracy. If National comes over as also sympathetic to the cause, but much less extreme, it stands to do well out of this faction.

Offa Ucksakecinderella November 26, 2022 at 7:06 am

News Flash

” and today the government is giving Maori more money “

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: