As the person who first reached out to Sue Bradford for a coffee to discuss joining the MANA Movement over 3 years ago, I have mixed feelings about her decision to resign from the Party now MANA has reached an alliance with the Internet Party.
I have a huge amount of respect for Sue’s passion and activism, she is a taonga for the Left, but where she and I part ways is in strategy and tactics.
MANA could have entered this election with the minimal resources and up hill battle they always wage to gain representation, or they could look at an alliance with someone who could open up another electorate while providing technological upgrades and resources.
The alliance also has the potential of gaining far more real gains for MANA voters if they have the numbers to negotiate hard with Labour post election.
I just don’t believe we have the luxury of telling the 285 000 kids in poverty that we preferred principled opposition than pragmatic co-operation.
I wish Sue well. She is family, and she always will be.
You’re right again as you so often are Bomber as far as your comments regarding the benefits this alliance offers. But if you know Sue as well as you say and I am sure you do, then you also know she was never going to compromise her values in the face of KDC’s. She is and always will be a no holds barred fervent supporter of the left and a committed revolutionary.
No, you and Bomber are both wrong. While I don’t agree with much of Sue Bradford’s views I respect her moral integrity and consistency. The hypocrisy of claiming to work for the disadvantaged while being funded by a multi-millionaire convicted fraudster / embezzler / insider trader is breath-taking to say the least and will be a huge weakness during the campaign. Some may be taken in by the bread and circuses distractions, and possibly even enough to increase the number of MANA’s MP’s and hold the balance of power post election, but does anyone see this relationship lasting long or ending well?
Ditto, Martyn. Huge respect for Sue. She is a woman of integrity and dedication. When she speaks, we listen.
On the point of the Mana-Internet Party co-operation, whilst I understand her reservations, I don’t accept we have the luxury of being “purer than pure” about this.
If we need an example why the Left must take every opportunity to rid ourselves of this government, it is this; https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/28/we-wont-survive-this-government/
You’re saying it’s OK to compromise principles for money?
Reading Comprehension, it’s good stuff.
You should get some.
Sorry Martyn but I’m with Sue Bradford on this one .
” I just don’t believe we have the luxury of telling the 285 000 kids in poverty that we preferred principled opposition than pragmatic co-operation. ”
A Government without principles , or at the very least with an ability to look the other way is just another dodgy regime able to be tinkered with by rich people . That’s how we got 285 k hungry kids in the first place . We , the people individually can afford the odd fall from grace from time to time but not our Government . Not ever .
My personal feeling is that Kim Dotcom is a fish hook covered in fish hooks . I do truly hope I’m wrong and will be overjoyed and will personally apologise here if I am . Sadly , I think he has more agendas than the bible rewritten by Chinese corporate Leaders .
Given that it’s a campaign-length alliance, after which they either part ways or renew the agreement, I’m ok with the arrangement, but I most certainly agree with you on this point:
“My personal feeling is that Kim Dotcom is a fish hook covered in fish hooks. I do truly hope I’m wrong and will be overjoyed and will personally apologise here if I am.”
Countryboy – what you really mean when you say 285k kids living in poverty is:
We have many children (almost 285K) suffering child abuse due to their stupid parent(s) having too many children, spending their money on smokes a booze, wanting a living standard that means their children starve, who think they have the right to demand money from other taxpayers to live as they wish, etc, etc.
In this country we have a very wealthy dairy industry. But the farm workers in that industry all get paid less than the minimum wage (for the hours they work) – and by the statistical method used to calculate that 285k figure – they are all living in poverty – but guess what – they dont think that. The live in houses that everyone complains about in south auckland – cold, uninsulted in most cases, kitchens that only half work. But they can live quite well on what they get. They dont demand the taxpayer subsidize them (the farm owners would like that though…) – they feed their kids properly, they have gardens and they dont spend money on – well shit they dont need.
Its the endless moaning by the Sue Bradfords of this world that lead people to think that we have to divert more and more taxpayer money into welfare that is wrong. Yes – some need more help – but when I hear of a mother of 6 in auckand saying she cant afford rent – then shes abusing her children. She has to move in with family or friends or move. She aint going to get a job with 6 kids so she should be heading out of auckland to live where its cheaper – and better for her kids.
Easier said than done. No woman with a large brood is going to move away from family support. If you had raised a family you would know that. it can be cheaper in the country if you can afford a vehicle and the considerable maintenance costs that go with owning one when traveling large distances on a regular basis. However this is not the case for the poor as compared with the underpaid which is the group you are comparing these urban poor with. We’ve all done it hard mate . That not what the issue is, the issue is that wages and salaries in NZ are 40% below where they should be,working conditions are unsafe and offer no incentive to train if you can actually get training. Big deal if we have a bunch of underpaid drongos in the dairy industry who are stupid enough t o tolerate crap working conditions. It doesn’t make it right or even OK . It just makes us and them dumb muthaf**kers for tolerating it.
I just love your intellect Barry. xxx
Blah blah blah prattle prattle rhubarb… Right wing crap does bugger all except spread mindless greed and stupidity. It doesn’t feed kids either
Blah blah blah prattle prattle rhubarb… Right wing crap does bugger all except spread mindless greed and stupidity. It doesn’t feed kids either
Firstly, Sue almost singlehandedly advocated for beneficiaries in her parliamentary terms during Labour’s “jobs jolt”, the two Paulas “war on the poor”and continues with AAAP.
“Work with and struggle against” is old activist shorthand for being involved in conditional strategic alliances or in an organisation you do not totally agree with.
Sue managed this for some time in the Greens and Peoples Centre but obviously did not have similar patience for Mana, New Labour or the Workers Communist League.
You win some you lose some is my attitude after her condescending remarks about “beads and blankets” on RNZ yesterday making out that Mana people are thick or something.
InernetMANA’s alliance is short term only with lots of wriggle room if it does not deliver as hoped. Mana’s strength in the community is what really counts between elections, and the IP deal should not affect that.
The trouble with Sue’s position is that she seems to simply have a problem with Kim Dotcom being wealthy. Recently the courts allowed publication of the charges against Kim Dotcom, which his lawyers didn’t want. The only thing I could see they were charging him with was that MegaUpload was hosting material that may have been breaking copyright laws. Whether MegaUpload itself was breaking any copyright laws by storing this material has yet to be decided, so he is essentially an innocent man. So where is the problem with his party and Mana forming an alliance?
I have known Sue on & off since the 1980s,her sheer dedication to workers rights,the right of the unemployed have never waivered.During my time at the Wellington Peoples Centre ( a collective,which provided free advocacy,cheap g.ps,dentists,complimentary health practitioners,free counselling and a variety of other things which changed over the fifteen years it was open)anyway Sue always made time for us, often spoke at our A.G.Ms, when she could.I suspect that this recent experience with Mana would have hurt Sue but cemented her commitment to remaining an Activist, which does allow one to maintain integrity,& purity of values.I find this subtext that Sue is somehow being politically naive laughable.She has more experience in this arena than anyone else in the Mana movement.I am however looking forward to seeing some policies, esp economic that include costings.I am also looking forward to seeing whom it is that will get the second spot on the list.Given that we do not know whom this individual is & yet the position is guaranteed,hardly democracy in action!!I will follow with interest.Personally I congratulate Sue and am really thankful for the incredible contribution this woman has made to the political landscape of Aotearoa.Let us wait & see what sort of lasting impact/legacy Dotcom leaves us with.
Martyn – have you offered Sue the chance to write about her reasons for leaving the party on TDB ?
If you don’t I am sure that Cam at Whaleoil will be more than happy to give her the floor.
Sue’s departure from the Mana Movement is politics’ loss.
There aren’t too many out there who dedicate all their efforts to working unselfishly attempting to improve the lives of low waged workers and beneficiaries. I’m sure Sue will still be advocating for the poor and underclass until her dying day. Such is the calibre and conviction of the woman, something which is to be both admired and respected. If nothing else, in leaving Mana, Sue has demonstrated she is a person who stands by her strong principles.
Perhaps Sue is the person to consider setting up a decidedly left wing workers’ party. Can’t think of anyone better to do so.
Whatever she decides to do in the future, I wish Sue well in her next cause, whatever it is.
Strategy and tactics? Honestly, what do you know about either of those things you blowhard?
Sue Bradford has experience of both in spades and she is making a principled call that this marriage of convenience makes no sense politically.
The fact you can’t see that says it all about your political naivety.
Sue has achieved real gains – what have you ever achieved apart from profile?
Politics is supposed to be the art of the possible. In that respect the Internet-Mana Alliance fits with a possible winning strategy. However haven’t NZ politics seen this before? There used to be another Alliance of the left involving Laila Harre and the leader Jim Anderton which didn’t last very long because at some point somebody compromised on principle. Likewise the Maori Party joined a National led government and promptly lost two seats. Politics then is the art of cooperating with competing interests for the greatest good for the greatest number.
Comments are closed.