Showtime! Thinking About Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party



As [Labour Prime Minister, Michael Joseph] Savage progressed around the country it became clear that something extraordinary had been unleashed in the usually staid New Zealand voter. In town after town, huge crowds gathered to meet the Labour Prime Minister. Halls overflowed. Stadiums were hired. Stadiums overflowed. [New Zealand historian, Barry] Gustafson records that “Savage’s speeches to crowds of up to 30,000 were among the most moving and inspiring in a New Zealand election campaign.”

No Left Turn – Page 166


FEW, IF ANY of those attending Kim Dotcom’s “Party Party” at Auckland’s Vector Arena on Monday, 20 January 2014, will be unaware that they are participating in a major political event. As far back as September, Dotcom was telling his Twitter followers that a political party was in the offing and yesterday he tweeted its name – “The Internet Party” – and promised “to make politics interesting.” The larger than life German Internet entrepreneur went on to say that his new party would aim to “activate non-voters, the youth, the Internet electorate.”

The Vector Arena seats 15,000 people and as of this morning (15/1/14) 15,000 people had registered their interest in attending. That is a huge audience for a political message. You have to go back a very long way indeed to find a political event of remotely comparable size. Nearly forty years ago, in 1975, the National Party Leader of the Opposition, Rob Muldoon, attracted 6,000 supporters to a rally in the Wiri Wool Store, but, as the above quotation makes clear, you have to travel back in time to the General Election of 1938 to find political audiences in the five figure range.

And to those who say: “Oh, it’s all just the usual Dotcom razzamatazz, there’s no substance there.” Just take a look at Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi and Beppe Grillo have been turning razzamatazz into votes for the best part of two decades.

Forza Italia! and Grillo’s Five Star Movement are not electoral parties in the traditional sense, rather they are opportunities for political excitement, for the sort of emotional release that being a part of a huge and enthusiastic audience makes possible. Don’t think political meeting – think rock concert or religious revival.

TDB Recommends

If Dotcom has been studying the Italian examples, especially Grillo’s Five Star Movement (which won 25 percent of the popular vote in last year’s Italian general election) then he will understand that the fuel which fires such electoral phenomena is the disillusionment – bordering on hatred – which voters (especially young voters) feel towards the political class.

These professional politicians, who seem to speak a language and act in accordance with a belief system which is quite foreign to ordinary people, remain coldly unmoved by the demands of democratic majorities. They may be members of different political parties, but the policies which they espouse are almost all variations on the same neoliberal and profoundly undemocratic themes.

Frighteningly homogeneous, the political class never saw a Budget that couldn’t be improved by slashing social spending, or a Statute Book that could not be stiffened with a few more curbs on personal liberty and a host of new surveillance powers for the State. (All in the name of “National Security” of course!)

The other feature of Berlusconi’s and Grillo’s reconfiguration of Italian electoral politics is the way in which they were able to bypass the political class’s mainstream media allies and enablers. Berlusconi was able to do this by virtue of the fact that he personally owned most of Italy’s broadcasting networks; Grillo by using his extraordinarily influential blog, (according to Technorati one of the top 10 blogs in the world). With these personalised communications vehicles at their command both men were able to simply go over or around the normal journalistic gatekeepers and opinion-shapers and speak directly to their followers. The resulting impression that there was something transgressive about the bonds forged between these rogue politicians and their disaffected viewers/readers only made their messages more powerful.

If Dotcom is able to combine these three elements: popular mistrust of the political class; an unmediated means of communicating with the masses; and carefully staged opportunities for cathartic political release; then he has every chance of polling well above the 5 percent MMP threshold. Indeed, given the huge number of politically disengaged citizens (many, if not most of them, young) Dotcom’s Internet Party could end up (if I may borrow Fairfax journalist, Vernon Small’s, metaphor) throwing a huge spanner in the works of the 2014 General Election.

If I was John Key, I’d be doing everything I could to speed up Dotcom’s extradition – while I still had the power to do so.


  1. it’s the internet party… with no website

    just googled “kim dot com internet party” and only news results


    maybe he doesn’t want us to know his actual, you know, like policies

    or maybe he doesn’t have any more than two or three?

      • nubcake. unbelievable.

        did your parents not teach you manners?

        I would expect with this much media hype for the website to at least be up with a “coming soon” message, under construction.

        with this much news and hype it’s immaterial that it hasn’t been “officially launched”

  2. Forza Italia! and Grillo’s Five Star Movement are not electoral parties in the traditional sense, rather they are opportunities for political excitement, for the sort of emotional release that being a part of a huge and enthusiastic audience makes possible. Don’t think political meeting – think rock concert or religious revival.

    Or the Hate Sessions in George Orwell’s “1984”?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if KDC’s Party does breech the 5% threshold. His Party reminds me of Bob Jones’ New Zealand Party in 1984, or Peters’ NZ First in 1996 (before he shot himself in the foot by coalescing with his mortal nemesis).

    KDC’s party will make the perfect repository for the anti-establishment vote.

    But it won’t be plain sailing for KDC. He will have to select suitable candidates and as Peter Dunne’s sudden worm-inspired resurgence showed in 2002 – he had better choose wisely. Dunne’s coterie of coat-tailers turned out to be a particularly bizarre, unstable bunch.

    And once the Party wins seats – who will it support? A Left or Right bloc?

    Unless Dotcom has leftist tendencies that I’m unaware of, my guess is that he will either coalesce with the Nats (as Peters did in 1996), or act as a spoiler toward reforms by a Labour-led government.

    In which case it will achieve precisely nothing except make the electorate even more cynical toward the political system.

    My belief is that Dotcom will (mostly) take votes from the Right, rather than Left. So National could suffer the same fate it did in 1984. As Jones’ party cannabalised Muldoon’s support, so Dotcom will probably do the same to Key.

    As Chris said, if I were Key, I’d be very, very worried.

    The question is; what will eventuate post-2014? That is the big Unknown.

    And we have enough of that kind of thing from Winston Peters.

  3. As a matter of interest, Jones and Peters’ parties gained the following;

    1984 – New Zealand Party:

    Votes: 236,385
    Percentage: 12.25%
    Seats: nil (election conducted under FPP)

    Jones’ Party took enough votes from National to allow Labour to win the election by a comfortable 136,660 votes.


    1996 – NZ First

    Votes: 276,603
    Percentage: 13.35%
    Seats: 17 (election conducted under MMP),_1996

    At this election, National’s and Labour’s support dropped respectively by 1.18% and 6.49%. Perhaps more (conservative) Labour supporters switched to NZ First, as Peters’ comments indicated a preference for a Labour-NZ First coalition.

    So, it’s apparent that third parties can act as ‘spoilers’. By what do they present as a credible, constructive alternative?

    • However, NZ First went with supporting the National Government – how trustable does this make NZ First?

  4. So will this be the party of facilitating the thieving of other people’s intellectual property then? KDC DOES need to take some responsibility for what goes on on his site, as do others who offer similar services, have a bit of feeling for the likes of Eleanor Catton

      • I agree with you there, but how can he lie straight in bed, knowing where so much of his wealth is coming from.
        I do have to ask if you think that if it is okay to rob banks so long as a bunch of other people are doing it to.
        Have you not heard the expression “2 wrongs don’t make a right”
        Sorry, but while I don’t think that he should be set apart for this this, notice my first comment did mention that, I just do feel comfortable with him anywhere near govt.
        I will not be voting for him for that reason, as one of the reasons I will never vote for a party that John Key leads is sort of the same, I believe the way he made his money was borderline criminal as well

        • The people who want Kim Dotcom’s head on a plate couldn’t care less about Eleanor Catten. They are prtecting Hollywood and the big music industries and care only for the excessive and overprotected property rights which they are trying to get enshrined in the TPP agreement.
          If I thought that the present laws were fair I wouldn’t have any sympathy for Kim Dotcom but its a bit rich expecting him to have a conscience which his persecutors certainly dont have.

      • What exactly does not exist, are you going to try and tell me that someone who writes a book or some music has no right to royalties from it?
        Okay then so how about Megaupload was KDC’s intellectual property??

        • An author is entitled to royalties on any books sold, but if a book is shared around he is not entitled to royalties from the additional readers of it.

        • I’m saying, as Stallman does in the link I gave you, that “intellectual property” doesn’t exist. What does exist are patents, trademarks, and copyright, but that are very different pieces of law, which very different histories, and different purposes.

          Copyright was created so that people would publish stuff (books at that time) which would eventually become part of the public domain. The temporary monopoly on sales it grants was a carrots for authors and publishers, it was never meant to be used to criminalize people engaged in non-for-profit sharing.

          Your claim that DotCom was making money from copyright violation is nothing but corporate propaganda. What he made money from was advertising; the digital equivalent of billboards on the street-facing side of a storage locker complex.Yes, some people were using their lockers to store unlicensed copies of copyright materials. But in order to know that, DotCom and his staff would have to violate his users’ privacy by inspecting the contents of their lockers, which would be about as ethical as NZ Post opening your mail to make sure you’re not sending packages of copied CDs (as people do).

          So the reason DotCom’s business was able to be used for copyright violation was because he held himself to a higher standards of ethics than the spy-happy National Party. If we has trouble sleeping at night, I’d suspect it’s because he’s been targeted and attacked by two governments (US and NZ), not because he’s done anything wrong.

        • So, I take it the following businesses who provide exactly the same service should also be shutdown and their owners / shareholders be charged?
          * Dropbox
          * justCloud
          * livedrive
          * CrashPlan
          * ZipCloud
          * SugarSync
          * SOS
          * mozy
          * Carbonite
          * Hightail

    • The discussion of intellectual property is an involved and long one.

      Common as Air is a good book to read to start thinking about the wider implications.

      And the video series for the time-poor Everything is a Remix

      Along with technology that allows P2P exchange come the possibility to change distribution models. The possibility of Eleanor Catton directly benefiting from authorship of her book by allowing distribution and asking for payment by Bitcoin is one example. This has positive impacts on the environment as well as direct payment to the author. I have used similar systems myself to help pay for intellectual property and reimburse artists directly.

      For an example is the LoTR fan-film “Born of Hope”, and the Kickstarter fundraising for a Veronica Mars movie. (Yes – I have teenagers in the house).

      With current technology there is the ability to change business models for promotion, and distribution models which eliminate waste and provide the public with direct investment in their favourite artists. This is also a great environmental way to distribute material – little or no material use.

      Younger people understand this, and view with scepticism a move to retain the status quo because TINA. They see clearly that there are many – and so should we.

      • +1 everything Molly said. There is also animator Nina Paley, who released her film Sita Sings the Blues under a CreativeCommons license, and says she’s made a better living from donations and Sita merchandise than she ever would have from selling her film to a corporate distributor to be encumbered with crippleware (DRM):

        • It seems that more and more artists are releasing stuff to be shared around freely, because they are pissed at the so called promoters that keep taking and taking, and pushing up the price. All copyright does is make the promoters rich, and for doing NOTHING.

          When KDC’s last site went down I lost thousands of pics and movies of my son, and other family members who are now gone. All gone now Erased thanks to the FBI and Warner Bro’s. So anything I can do to fuck up their profits I will do it!

  5. Why would any intelligent and self-respecting left wing activist join a political venture with this obese poser, with his net worth of $200million gained from dubious sources, his outrageously ostentatious lifestyle including palatial property complete with pet giraffes, the pink Cadillacs, Lamborghinis etc and for when he’s really in a hurry the helicopter (which is also handy when he blows half a million on a fireworks display), and his convictions back home for 11 counts of computer fraud, 10 counts of data espionage, insider trading and embezzlement among other offences, and whose first political action in this country was to donate $50,000 to John Banks???

  6. My thoughts extend in the same direction Raegun…the Banks Dotcom affair is a bit like the hooker being arrested but not the pimp or the john really.

  7. I fear that Chris is right on this one! We have indeed now a scenario where the existing parties represented in Parliament are viewed by the vast majority of the population with some degree of cynicism. Even the parties people tend to traditionally vote for, they are not really seen as parties that the voter fully supports. It is usually a choice between evils, what motivates people these days, to vote for one or the other party.

    We also have a society here in New Zealand, like in virtually all “western”, developed societies, a growing lack of interest in “serious” politics. Yes, most despise politics, have no trust in the existing system, certainly no trust that it can reform itself and bring about good, significant changes. There is with the now dominant commercialised media furthermore a degree of poor information, where “news” are not so much proper information sharing reports, but snippets of often emotively presented happenings, of single line headlines, of stuff about personalities, how they “feel”, “suffer”, or on the other hand “succeed” in something.

    It is all a world of infotainment, of superficiality, of shallowness, of sensationalisation, of basically wide scale dumbing down and misinformation. People spend hours on the internet, to only in some cases read and get informed, but in most cases, to “socialise” in cyberspace, to seek entertainment (games, videos, movies, music and chat and more) and do a bit of necessary buying, scrolling and banking.

    Life is “organised” along work, shopping, travelling to and from work, travelling to and from shopping, having the odd night out, of planning holidays, saving for a car, home or gadget, and individual decisionmaking is reduced to exactly making limited decisions about the just mentioned.

    A “streamlined”, standardised, mechanised, computerised, controlled life is the daily norm for most, and if you drop out of it due to illness, accident or else, you run the risk of sinking into marginalised existence at the expense of the rest, which is feared by most – almost like death. Death in itself does get avoided, does not exist in the minds of people in daily lives, and it is otherwise all about me, me and mine, and the rest are beyond the realm of what most want to be bothered with.

    A fractured society, a divided society, where a large enough section lives for most of their available time in or on the edge of cyberspace, which has become part of “normal” life. It is artificial, but that does not matter, humans in Japan, China, big US and other cities live stacked on top of each other in high-rises, surrounded by inhumane surroundings, so living in little dwellings with access to the escape of cyberspace is enough for most to survive in.

    Comes a “Dotcom” with promises of “freedom”, of “fighting the establishment” (dominated from Hollywood and possibly Wall Street, and the Pentagon), who offers free wifi and other stuff, and the many bored to death “modern” citizens, especially the younger generation, see a “light” or a “beacon” shining. It is a bit like a political “rock star” surfacing, and he has been successful too, he is challenging the legal establishment, the Prime Minister, the US NSA and more, how exciting that is.

    Like there were enough fools who once voted for a Bob Jones and his New Zealand Party, like there are those charmed by one Winston Peters, like those that also years ago cheered on the “Sunny Boy” John Key, the fairlytale hero, who made it from a state house home to a multimillionaire, I fear there will be enough idiots and poorly informed, short-sighted, and naive dreamers, who will give the Internet Party their votes.

    It is a mystery what Kim Dotcom and his “party” (no surprise it will be announced at a “party”!) actually stands for apart from free wifi, privacy on the web, freedom to use the web, and the likes. But people these days do not worry much about what really matters, as they are deluded and brain washed like never before. It is just another short lived “phenomenon” that is about to start here in little NZ, same as such have occurred in other places over recent years. In a few years time few may want to think about it all.

  8. Frank:
    >> Or the Hate Sessions in George Orwell’s “1984″? <<

    What you mean like the daily hate-mongering against Colin Craig on this website of late?

    Seriously, this is cheap shot Frank. Much as I'm skeptical of DotCom's motives, he's shown more appreciation of principles (like "freedom of expression", and "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure") than most current politicians of either the "Right" or the "Left".

    I agree with your Bob Jones comparison though. There's about as much chance of the Internet Party (if it were to get 5%) supporting a "Right Bloc" led by Key's National as there was of the Māori Party going into coalition with Helen Clark's Labour in 2005. They may remain outside government, as the Greens did in their first couple of terms, and vote issue-by-issue. But after seeing DotCom touring the country speaking against the GCSB Bill with Shearer, Norman, and Bomber, I just can't see him siding with National much.

    I think Peter is right that DotCom's party won't attract hard lefties, who will vote Labour, Mana, or NZ First. It also won't attract core Greens voters, although it might suck off some of those who vote Greens as a protest against the major parties, and/or for their support for cannabis legalization or open source software. They will probably attract a lot of the libertarians who used to vote for ACT, or Libertarianz, eg the Young ACT types who forced Brash to discuss cannabis law reform as ACT leader. They will probably attract a lot of swing voters who are as disillusioned with National as a lot of Labour voters were in 1990.

    This means the Internet Party is bad news for Key and NatACT, and to me that's good news.

    • In some ways I see some of this representing the utopian ideal, I guess you know what it is, and we are doing what could be seen as a transition to it. If only the displaced and jobless were sharing in the spoils of what they used to do that is now being done by machines, but of course they aren’t, are they, a very few are becoming hideously rich from it all, while the seething masses at the bottom have less and less to divvy up among themselves (low wages, subsistence benefits).
      Meanwhile back in the real world, people like Eleanor Catton are having the rewards of their efforts stolen from them, and like it or lump that is the world we live in at the moment. In the other world KDC would not have made squillions of bucks, do you get that, at least

      • As I posted upthread, the Intellectual property argument as it stands is too simplistic – and the opportunity to protect/reimburse artists in a more direct way exists alongside the ability to transfer by P2P protocols.
        A couple of simple examples of what current IP legislations prohibit you from:
        – Uploading a video of a birthday party if you sing the song “Happy Birthday to you” because that song is copyrighted,
        – Uploading any video which may have a television or video or soundtrack in the background that is copyrighted – ie. forget those home movies with your child dancing to the Wiggles, (though posting that online comes with a whole lot of other considerations),

        Archetypal stories, previous film references in movies all build on other peoples creative processes.

        An interesting storyline to read up about is George Lucas and his decision not to release the original Star Wars movie in DVD or BluRay format.

    • “Cheap shot”?!

      Not sure what you’re referring to, Danyl. I think you’ve mis-interpreted what I’ve written.

      As for your comment about ” the Internet Party is bad news for Key and NatACT” – I believe I’ve said the same thing. My suspicion is that a KDC Party will attract votes predominantly from Nation, not the Left.

      But then again, we’ll have to wait and see what policies KDC offers.

      As for Colin Craig, the comments on this blog are (predominantly) critical – not hateful. There’s a difference.

      Craig has made utterances about woman and gays which demand a response. Free speech cuts both ways.

      • Comparing DotCom to Big Brother is a cheap shot.

        As for Colin Craig, I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve criticism, I’m saying he doesn’t deserve *attention*. There’s a difference.

        • Comparing DotCom to Big Brother is a cheap shot.

          Nope. That’s not what I was referring to.

          I quoted Chris here;

          Forza Italia! and Grillo’s Five Star Movement are not electoral parties in the traditional sense, rather they are opportunities for political excitement, for the sort of emotional release that being a part of a huge and enthusiastic audience makes possible. Don’t think political meeting – think rock concert or religious revival.

          My response,

          Or the Hate Sessions in George Orwell’s “1984″?

          – was purely to those two entities, and how large political gatherings/events can have emotional ventings, as Orwell described in “1984”.

          No link to KDC.

          As for Colin Craig, I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve criticism, I’m saying he doesn’t deserve *attention*. There’s a difference.

          As part of the political structure (which Craig is), there is merit in discussing him and how he could, potentially, gift National a third term in office.

          In that regard he warrants scrutiny, analysis, and criticism (where warranted).

          Don’t forget that Colin Craig’s Conservative Party (which I like to refer to as the CCCP) polled double the party votes than ACT did in 2011, though neither managed to cross the 5% threshold ( It was only because Banks won an electorate seat that he got into Parliament (after a very dodgy deal with Key), whereas Craig did not, so missed out.

          Accordingly, he cannot be so easily dismissed. Like Winston Peters, he is a “wild card” this election.

          • This is a bit after the fact but…

            >> As part of the political structure (which Craig is), there is merit in discussing him and how he could, potentially, gift National a third term in office. <<

            The main way he stands a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected is by getting all the scary lefties to have a hernia about him, which can only encourage the ultra-conservative right to vote for him. The best way to fight a desperate publicity-seeker who wants you as enemies is to ignore him. Totally.

      • “…from Nation, not the Left”

        Freudian slip there Frank?

        By the way how do you marry up your view that this was great publicity provided by Whaleoil when a certain person has been conspicuous by his absence here and is refusing to talk to media about the topic?

    • It’s interesting here that the Greens are not placed as left-leaning, which to me is incorrect – one only has to read up on their policies and look up their voting stats in parliament, which have shown consistently they are much more hard-core left leaning in all issues than labour and NZ First and the Maori party. Some exceptions to this are their policies around freedom of expression, democracy, accountability and freedom from state monitoring and policing, which one could argue are associated with old fashioned totalitarian left regimes. Yes, there are some who vote for them purely for environmental reasons (and some protest votes too) and are economically right-leaning but in my view – most of them have little idea about what the green party actually stand for, as your analysis of voters shows (not you, but in how you correctly show that some vote).

      • >> Some exceptions to this are their policies around freedom of expression, democracy, accountability and freedom from state monitoring and policing <<

        Rubbish. The Greens voted against the Search and Surveillance Act, the Activism Suppression Act, and many other such Acts cooked up and passed by "old fashioned totalitarian left regimes" like National and Labour.

  9. Personally I’m waiting for KDC to post detailed party policy. Until that time I see little point in knee-jerk analysis. If his policy is sound, and he makes it clear who his preferred coalition partners might be, and I like what I hear, he can have my vote. After all, the ONLY reason I have been voting lately is to NOT vote for John Key. I’m not at all convinced Labour (or the Greens for that matter) will ultimately deliver the sort of NZ we aspire to. What I do know for CERTAIN is that National is destroying this country.

  10. Good to see that you connected the fat corrupt German with the (not quite so fat) corrupt Berlusconi.

    • My view is New Zealand is a basically corrupt society in which an increasingly boring conformity and uniformity is enforced on the grounds it somehow respects ordinary people. In reality it respects only the dead. I always thought Dunedin was a university party town and Queenstown an international party town. But apparently the rights of a the old ordinaries to quiet life is the higher priority. Well at least Dotcom and Bernasconi were into parties and good looking women. Funi is fun and beauty heals.
      Personally I prefer the Australian attitude that good looking solo mums have the right to have sex all day and be provided with 24 hour child care. Tony Abbot came out for sex. To me we are not a serious nation when we take women politicians so out of shape as Paula Bennet and Judith Collins seriously. Women primarily control and drive their interests thru good looks. Men generally intellect and less now strength.
      The NZ Political class are the most discredited in the world. Few young people will have heard of Simon Bridges, Jamie Lee Ross or Hipkins. Like MFAT most probably excepting Bridges and Cosgrove rlike MFAT represent a position held by a minority of bureaucrats.
      Australian liberals and British Tory Party stand for something. Less government and a belief the growing medical and social worker professions are unaffordable and undermine freedom. The English Key Party and even Act have never stood for anything they historically represented and are currently just a variation on the standard bureacratic PC view.
      In terms of internet freedom and the surveillance state- I believe the police view that the authorities need to know everything is wrong. NZ is a variety of class and ethnic interests and ordinary and intelligent people are increasingly different species. If diplomats have freedom from camera and street surveillance in Wellington the freedom should be extended generally to the middle class suburbs and universities. Lowering entrance standards generally results in the need for surveillance. To put it bluntly politicians and individuals need to be able to develop their ideas and realtionships in private unless they are communists or of islamic religion.

  11. Kim Dotcom is right on the money. He’s businessman and he knows what he’s doing. Unfortunately, he’s a threat to the right which are on panic mode.
    But given Dotcom a democratic passage to succeed, he will advance technological development in New Zealand, something the right wanted to control and restrict to their own..

    • Which members of the right? As far as I can tell we are loving these revelations as it shows up the new political vehicle for what it is. A cynical attempt to manipulate the outcome of the next election for the left.

  12. This is a good analysis Chris. My main concern is that his history of supporting the Act party and his focus on being so rich and materially greedy is not discussed. These are things that he has in common with John Key. I for now will never vote for someone who does these things. To me, there’s already enough policy that covers the internet, freedom of expression, socially-minded and left-wing and environmental thinking in the Green party and Mana, and there’s no need for a new purple party Like .Com’s.

  13. What he should do is hold the party, but just ask for a $2 buck entry fee to cover costs….that way it’s not “free” therefore keeping the Electoral Commission happy….I really want to go to a party!

  14. I have dozens of mates who simply don’t bother to vote because, in their view, they’re all just as bad as each other…. they’re apathetic, and reluctant to support any political party because all they ever see is broken promises from politicians who are more interested in feathering their own nests.

    Along comes Dot Com, who does’t need the money, but who has a hell of an axe to grind against the NZ Government. He sticks it to John Banks and makes funny music videos, perfect for sharing on Facebook, making fun of dodgy politicians and eloquently expressing the popular Gen X/Y view that all politicians are a bunch of crooks who don’t give a toss about normal people. Furthermore, he’s making noises about free wifi and internet (and how attractive is THAT to anyone with a smart phone??)

    I see Dot Com getting lots of votes from those who are disillusioned and apathetic with politics, who wouldn’t have otherwise bothered to vote at all…. and this could make a real difference in favour of the Left. After all, is he really likely to form a coalition with Act or National after the way they’ve treated him?

Comments are closed.