The secret of National’s success – revealed.

By   /   June 7, 2014  /   38 Comments

.

labour mana greens internet

.

1. Preface

Firstly, a disclosure on my part: I am a Green Party supporter (though by no means ‘wedded’ to that  particular party – or any party for that matter).

Secondly, it is not often I write a piece criticising others on the Left. I have long held the opinion that the Left needs to work together to achieve common goals, and that public displays of discord only serves to play into the hands of the Right.  And really, do we need to give the Right any further ammunition? Especially free of charge?!

2. What the hell is going on?!

Going by recent public comments made by Labour MPs and candidates, it seems that the Labour Party is either planning to sit this election out – or some of it’s higher-ranking public individuals are out of control.

How else to explain recent statements made in the mainstream and social media by Labour people, attacking others on the Left?

A few examples.

Kelvin Davis on 28 May  (see video at 1.29);

“People can see that this is just a stitch-up and I don’t think they like seeing Tai Tokerau being traded off like that. I think they’re taking the voters of Tai Tokerau for granted.”

Chris Hipkins on 30 May;

.

chris hipkins - unprincipled sell outs - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

.

The above ‘tweet’ was supported by none other than ACT Party-member, Peter McKeefry;

and we look forward to you Chippie slamming the corruption of democracy by the left in general debate.

Meanwhile, also on 30 May,  Labour MP and one-time Party leader, Phil Goff, added his three cents worth on Facebook;

.

Phil Goff - facebook - Mana party - internet party - labour party

.

Goff makes the point,

I am also opposed to anyone buying a political party and buying influence by splashing out $3 million as Dotcom proposes.”

Funny. That is precisely the same smear that the Right continually throw at Labour: that unions are “buying influence” with their donations to the Labour Party campaign ‘war chest’.

It can only be a facepalm moment when a senior, experienced, supposedly politically-savvy Labour politician utters a statement that parrots and validates Right-wing bullshit. Nice one, Phil. Got anything on ‘lazy benes’ spending up large on SkyTV, booze, and drugs?

.

Chris Hipkins on 31 May;

.

chris hipkins - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

.

Right-wing blogger and National apparatchik, David Farrar, caught on very quickly when Kelvin Davis re-tweeted one of National Party supporter, Hamish Price’s tweets, and posed this question;

.

David Farrar - kelvin davis - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

.

Hipkins again, on 1 June;

.

chris hipkins -dodgy deals - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

 

.

And just to make sure we all got the gist of his attacks on small parties (aka, Internet-Mana), Hipkins threw this ‘grenade’ into the mix on the same day;

.

chris hipkins - small parties - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

.

Of all the statements put out by Labour’s MPs, that one has to be the most asinine yet – as blogger Jackal (et al) tried to point out to Labour’s Napier candidate, Stuart Nash;

.

jackal - jackal blog - stuart nash - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

 

.

Kelvin Davis seems unable to comprehend that a “Labour victory” is unobtainable if Labour shafts potential coalition partners.  He could not answer the simple question; “How will you achieve a Labour  victory without coalition partners“?!

This simple fact not lost on National – and the Nats have consistently out-ranked Labour in every  poll to date! (More on this point in a moment.)

Twitter-user, Andrew Riddell  tried (in vain) to point out the futility of Labour’s attacks on Mana-Internet – and was “rewarded” with a very bizarre, Winston Peters-like evasive response by Labour’s Education spokesperson and MP for Rimutake, Chris Hipkins;

.

 

chris hipkins -andrew riddell - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

.

Kelvin Davis on 2 June;

.

kelvin davis - twitter - ngatibird - laila harre - Mana party - internet party - labour party.

Kelvin Davis’ hardline statements were supported by rightwing Twitter members such as Hamish Price, Manoja St John – and by right-wing, National-supporting blogger, Keeping Stock;

.

keeping stock -  mark mitchell - kelvin davis - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

.

Note who “Favourited” Keeping Stock’s tweet – Kelvin Davis and  National Party MP, Mark Mitchell (red arrowed).

Amazingly, it was ‘ordinary’ Twitter users who tried to talk sense into Labour’s MPs and candidates;

.

They want to be be in opposition. They can’t even function together as one team.

.

Ppl don’t have the confidence to vote left bcause they can’t see how we will work together. Fix this!

.

For someone who is pro-MMP you show a real inability to think in terms of left and right blocs.

.

why use strategic friends and allies when you can just lose all by yourself?

.

if u want to win need to get around your heads around the fact that MMP rules allow what happened and be more magnanimous

.

that is not constructive. Think outside the “two big parties” box please.

.

another crack at your future coalition partners.. It’s like you know you’re going to lose….

.

Gee, , I’ve never heard you be so purposefully insulting … oh, wait. Yes I have.

.

Speaking of sell outs.. I remember the time in 1984 when I voted Labour and got neoliberalism instead.

.

Kelvin,you are in the wrong party .. join the Nats and make a REAL difference

.

It is counter productive for the left to dis the left Instead its smarter 2 wish them well & focus on a left win

.

Even more kinda sorta ironic that the Kelvin Scale is used to determine absolute zero.

.

how many tory votes do you think that tweet scored you?

.

Pull your head in .clowns like urself are gonna cost THE LEFT thats right THE LEFT. this election.

.

Is Labour on a kamikaze mission? Goff, Davis & now Nash slagging off coalition partners. This is damaging.

.

more the left stands undivided the easier it is for the country to think the right is the only consistent choice

.

The last (but not really – there were many, many more)   made the point that really counts.

3. The Primal Urge to Self-Destruct?

I’m not sure what ‘game’ Labour is playing at here. Obviously they are trying to grab potential votes that might accrue to Mana-Internet – but the process they are using is so utterly destructive that it beggars belief.

In an MMP environment, both National and Labour need smaller parties as coalition partners. This was amply illustrated in 2011, when National all but endorsed John Banks for the Epsom electorate, and made Katrina Shanks an electorate candidate-in-name-only in Ohariu, to allow Peter Dunne the opportunity to win.

National fully understands the realpolitik of MMP.

Labour – it appears – is still playing by First Past the Post rules.

National set the rules for MMP  on 14 May 2013, when Justice Minister Judith Collins told the House that National would be rejecting the Electoral Commission’s recommendations to abandon the ‘coat tailing’ provision and to reduce the party threshold from 5% to 4% [which this blogger supports]. Collins gave the weak excuse,

“Mr Speaker, of course I did not hold the MMP Review. That was a matter that was undertaken by the Electoral Commission. But I can also say that I made it very clear that we need concensus on these matters for any change and there is no concensus for any change.”

The “concensus” that Collins referred to was ACT and Peter Dunne opposing the scrapping of coat-tailing because it would significantly damage their electoral chance to win extra seats with that provision.

As Gordon Campbell wrote;

National can hardly bitch and moan about this outcome either. For nearly 15 years, it campaigned loud and long against the evils of MMP and railed for a review of its shortcomings. Yet then Justice Minister Judith Collins promptly and cynically shelved the MMP review findings, once National realised that the review’s main recommendation – that the electorate seat coat-tails now being used by Harawira and Dotcom should be abolished – would hurt its own chances of getting Colin Craig and his Conservatives and the Act Party’s latest minion in Epsom onside, and into Parliament. If the Mana/Dotcom arrangement looks like cynical pragmatism, it is merely par for the course.”

Labour needs to get their head around one simple reality; that it must – must! – play by the rules which National have set. Playing by another set of rules will result in losing the election in September and staying on the Opposition benches.

If Labour is trying to paint itself as “principled” – they have failed. Right wing blogs and even msm journalists have tarred both main parties with the same brush, as TV3 journalist, Patrick Gower did in 2011, with an outrageous claim about Labour doing “dirty deals” with the Greens. (For the record, since 2002, the Greens’ policy has been to campaign for the Party Vote, not the Electorate Vote. Gower was making sh*t up when he claimed – without any actual evidence – that Labour and the Greens colluded in Ohariu in 2011.)

Being “principled” will not prevent public attacks by  right-wing commentators; headline-hunting conservative msm journos; business interests; National/ACT; etc.

Being “principled” will simply give National a free run in this years’ election.

Being “principled” and attacking potential allies will result in under-mining potential coalition partners.

Being “principled” and attacking potential allies will result in looking weak and fractured, in the eyes of the public.

Being “principled” and attacking potential allies smacks of dis-unity. Dis-unity, in the eyes of the public, is not a Government-in-waiting. It is Labour unable to set aside self-interest and  party-politics for the good of the nation.

If the public perceive that Labour is more interested in attacking it’s own potential allies – and here is the nub of the problem – then why should people vote for such a fractious party that appears unable to work alongside said potential allies?

National – polling in high 40s and low 50s – cultivates potential allies.

Labour – polling in high 20s and low 30s – undermines, attacks, and marginalises it’s own potential allies.

Contrast Labour’s current destructive pattern of behaviour with National’s attitude, as repeated ad nauseum by John Key;

 We’ve shown we can deliver strong and stable government and can work with other parties for the good of the country, even when those parties have different policies.

Labour says that it will campaign on it’s own policies.

So does National.

But the difference  – the B-I-G difference – is that in doing so, National does not attempt to subvert the chances of it’s potential allies. Quite the contrary, it nurtures it’s potential coalition partners like a farmer tending to his flock.

Is this “dirty deal-making” as sensationalist media headline-mongers keep hysterically screaming?

.

Patrick Gower - laila harre - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

Patrick Gower - twitter  - Mana party - internet party - labour party

.

– or has National understood what the public really, really, really want; constructive co-operation between political parties?

How many times have we heard the public say, “why can’t they work together for the good of the country?”.

Well, National’s strategists have understood and implemented this very simple truism; the public do not like seeing squabbling politicians. The public want political parties to work together, collegially  to solve pressing problems.

That is why Key keeps repeating his mantra,

 We’ve shown we can deliver strong and stable government and can work with other parties for the good of the country blah blah blah.. 

That is why National is high up in the polls.

That is why Labour is floundering and losing support. And respect.

That is why the latest Roy Morgan poll – the most reasonably accurate of all polls (except the one that really counts on Election Day) – had this recent shocking result;

.

National (52.5%) surges to election winning lead while Labour/ Greens (38%) slump to lowest since last New Zealand Election as Greens propose a Carbon Tax to replace the Emissions Trading Scheme

Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows a strong gain in support for National (52.5%, up 7%) now at their highest since before the last New Zealand Election and well ahead of a potential Labour/Greens alliance (38%, down 6%) – almost matching their performance at the 2011 New Zealand Election at which the two parties polled a combined 38.5%.

Support for Key’s Coalition partners has also improved with the Maori Party 1.5% (up 0.5%), ACT NZ (1%, up 0.5%) and United Future 0% (unchanged).

Support has fallen significantly for all Opposition parties with the Labour Party down 1.5% to 29%, the Greens down 4.5% to 9% (the lowest support for the Greens since September 2011), New Zealand First 4.5% (down 1.5%) and Mana Party 0.5% (down 0.5%). Support for the Conservative Party of NZ is 1% (unchanged) and the Internet Party is 0.5% (unchanged).

If a National Election were held now the latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows that the result would be a landslide victory for the National Party and a third term for Prime Minister John Key.

 

.

That is why the Left will lose on 20 September.

Unless Labour radically changes tack and demonstrates to the public that they are more interested in working together with potential partners – than wrecking their chances at winning votes – voters will be put off. Telling the public that Labour “can work with other parties after the election” is not good enough. Labour must show it can do it.

Otherwise, as one quasi-fascist right-wing blogger put it, the public will perceive that “things are falling apart for the Labour Party“.  He may have a valid point.

Again, as Gordon Campbell stated,

 Labour may just be mule-headed enough – and tribally fixated on the FPP-era of politicking – to try and get rid of Harawira at all costs, and thereby torpedo one of its main chances of forming the next government.

At which Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish added;

 How not to win an election…

…Pretend that we still have a First Past the Post electoral system.”

It is supremely ironic that National – the champion of the Cult of Individualism – can work collectively and collegially with other political parties. But Labour – a party of the left, which espouses collective action for the greater good – is desperately and greedily scrabbling for votes for itself and attacking  potential allies.

Also ironic is that the current MMP rules were set by a National government for the benefit of National. When other parties such as Mana-Internet try to use those very same rules, the reaction from National,  the media, and other right wing commentators, is both vicious and sustained.

Unfortunately, Labour have bought into National’s strategy.  The concept of “principles” – which utterly eludes the Right – has been used to frame the issue of small, left-wing parties “coat tailing” into Parliament. It is “un-principled” when the Left does it.

When National does it, they are being “pragmatic” and duly ignore the shrill screams of the likes of Gower, Garner, et al.

Because in the final analysis, National has sussed perfectly well what the public wants.

We have three months to do likewise.

Or we will lose.

 

.


 

References

TVNZ News: Former MP Laila Harre tipped as Internet Party’s new leader

Twitter: Chris Hipkins

Facebook: Phil Goff

Twitter: David Farrar

Twitter: Hamish Price

Twitter: Chris Hipkins

Twitter: Chris Hipkins

Twitter: Jackal (Jackalblog)

Twitter: Andrew Riddell

Twitter: Chris Hipkins

Twitter: Kelvin Davis

Twitter: Keeping Stock

Fairfax media: Government’s MMP review response slammed

TV3: John Key’s State of the Nation speech – the main points

Kiwiblog: Mana-Dotcom Alliance

TV3: Dirty electorate political deals, done dirt cheap

Twitter: Patrick Gower

Roy Morgan Poll

Previous related blogposts

The Mana-Internet Alliance – My Thoughts

Judith Collins issues decision on MMP Review!

Additional

Fairfax media: Labour MPs not happy with Mana-Internet

Other blogs

The Standard: Labour’s Mana Internet Party dilemma

Gordon Campbell: Gordon Campbell on the rise of Laila Harré

The Daily Blog:  Authoritarian Labour: Why Kelvin Davis needs to STFU – and soon!

The Daily Blog:  Keep Calm And Carry On: Why the Left should ignore the next round of poll results

Imperator Fish: How to win an election

 


 

.

Why I am a Leftie

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

 

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

38 Comments

  1. Lara says:

    Despite persistent calls from the NZ public, and despite clear explanations like yours above, I don’t think they can do that Frank.

    I think the biggest problem is within Labour. It’s the old guard, who really should leave Labour and join Act. That’s ideologically where they belong. They brought us Rogernomics and began the NZ experiment with free market ideology after 1987 and they’re still there. Stuck in old FPP thinking.

    I don’t think they’ll heed this call. They’re too stuck in their thinking.

    And yes, I completely agree, I want to vote for politicians who will work together. That is after all what MMP is all about.

    Which means I’ll not vote Labour.

    • Draco T Bastard says:

      It’s the old guard, who really should leave Labour and join Act. That’s ideologically where they belong.

      Or National, United Future or NZ First.

  2. Jenny Olsen says:

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head and I wish Labour could see it.

  3. Mooloo magic says:

    I do wonder about the Labour caucus, have they already given up already on forming a government this year, have the polls destroyed the morale and confidence of the Labour caucus. Or are they so comfortable in Opposition that they have no ambitions to form a government. I also fear there are too many members of the Labour caucus who’d be more comfortable in National and Act and perhaps it’s about time those people to came clean and join those two evil parties.
    Labour seem unwilling to make a clear distinction between themselves and National chasing the so called soft middle class centrist voters and in doing so do not give the voters enough reason to vote for them. (Those who are so called Centrist will vote National and those of us of the Left will vote for a true Left wing party)

    I do wonder if the Labour party is on its death throes and this election is going to inflict mortal wounds on Labour and mean while we will be stuck with a right wing government for several more years until the Greens grow strong enough to be the main Opposition party.
    A pessimistic outlook but Labour at the moment do not inspire confidence and just looks to me as a lifelong Labour voter ( who will either vote Greens or Mana/Internet) as a tired old party that has passed its use by date.
    New Zealanders are being screwed by National and badly let down by Labour a party that has forgotten its ‘Raison d’etre’

  4. Lloyd Jordan says:

    Thank goodness finally a left respected blogger says it how it is, arrogance is not only the domain of the right, in fact through all my years of political and union work for a left progressive government I soon realised that arrogance abounds even more so on the left, the divine right not to be questioned is so ingrained it is a cancer .

  5. PB says:

    So true. Party needs an effin purge of all the National-lite idiots. National stuck with the coat-tailing provisions, so you blame THEM for any consequences – not undermine the way it will benefit the vote for change.

    Honestly, the high-sounding principles from Goff, Hipkins and co only come out when one of their clique is in the firing line. Not when our sovereignty or democracy is on the line, then they’re as wet and wishy as Washington.

  6. Gruntie says:

    So your position is “fuck principles, power at any cost”
    While would dearly love to see the end of Key Inc., it is dangerous to throw out your ethics and join the snake pit

    • Gruntie – At the moment we have a set of MMP rules. Whether we “like” them or not is moot. Them’s the rules we play by. Try playing by another set of home-made rules and you can sit righteously, saintlike, on the Opposition benches.

      So really, what you mean by “power at any cost”? It’s a blanket cliche, emotionally loaded, but ill-defined.

      There is no “power at any cost”. There is only “power by playing by the current rules”.

      Don’t like the rules? Neither do I. But playing by FPP rules in an MMP game will guarantee only one result. (Which I need not spell out.)

    • PB says:

      No one said fuck principles – the environment, cost of living, sovereignty – those are principles. Bandying words about the rules of a human made system – rules that this government set – is pure politics. If you didn’t complain when Collins ignored the review recommendation, don’t start whinging now.
      And yeah, if you’re trying to get into government to make REAL things happen, which can include making this change if you really care – don’t be an ass.

    • fatty says:

      If Labour wanted to show how ethical it is, then it should have split by now. I think if Labour does lose this election, the one upside could be that Labour begins to realise that the term ‘broad church’ compromises its ethics.
      It’s not possible to be true to Labour’s roots and be a broad church at the same time. Also, MMP means that a broad church is a weakness – it just pisses everyone off. Half of Labour want to be like Peter Dunne and the rest further to the left. If you speak one-to-one with Labour MPs, many of them are quite left thinking; so why do they sell out for big business?
      Like everyone else with a brain, I hate Peter Dunne and know how pointless his existence is, but at least Dunne had the guts to leave Labour. Nash, Mallard, Goff, Davis and Richie Cunningham don’t have half the self-respect that Dunne has.
      That’s where Labour’s ethics are at Gruntie…so don’t go talking about a new left-wing coalition not being ethical in comparison to Labour

    • Dave Rutherford says:

      I’m not certain they ever recovered from the Neo-Lib hijack by the Rogernomes. While we’ve all made excuses for them and hoped, and waited, maybe it’s finally time to accept they no longer want to be the voice of the left, and they are now more comfortable in the beige centre? All the while trading on their history to keep the votes of the poor and disadvantaged locked down.

      Another term of principled opposition and there will be nothing left to sell. Time to get real. If Labour can’t (or won’t ) see that, then their time is over, and someone else needs to pick up the mantle.

      Time to sh#t or get off the pot.

  7. Mark says:

    No Frank, what you don’t get is that most people are utterly digusted that a convicted fraudster could purchase his own political party using a few spineless opportunistic individuals.

    Most New Zealanders see it as nothing short of corruption, that a foreigner would donate $4million to people he has no political alignment with, just to subvert the rule of law and due process.

    It is so transperarent that DotCom is trying to get in place a Minister for Justice that will use their residual power to block his extradition should the Courts say he is to be extradited. You seem to be ok with this flaggerant corrupt behaviour simply because DotCom has allied with the Left Wing.

    Most New Zealanders (left and right) aren’t however, so unprincipled. They won’t play ball with a crook who thinks he is above the law.

    Individuals don’t just donate $4,000,000 without any expectation of a return on their investment, especially not shrewd business people who make millions rorting the intellectual talents of others.

    To say that DotCom is a benign benefactor, with no ulterior motive is to stretch credibility beyond breaking point.

    Labour is right to be worried of the Dot Com effect

    • Lloyd Jordan says:

      SO THE NATS GOING TO RETURN ALL THAT MONEY GIVEN TO THEM BY THE IMMIGRANT THAT BASHED HIS WIFE AND BOUGHT HIS WAY INTO NZ FOR 10 MILLION DOLLARS.. WAKE UP

    • fatty says:

      “donate $4million to people he has no political alignment with”

      Real? Can you show us where MANA has said in the past they support US corporate imperialism? I always thought MANA’s foreign policies were against US corporate interests.
      Maybe if you’d bother to look at MANA’s policies you would have seen that their foreign policy would protect KDC’s extradition – and this was created when MANA was formed.

      Or are you just repeating what Paddy Gower told you?

      “Most New Zealanders see it as nothing short of corruption”

      Probably because they listen to Gower and have never read a MANA policy document in their life. Also, who gives a shit ‘what most NZers think’ – this is MMP, niche parties matter and they hold power. There’s a big chunk of NZ who think of KDC as an Edward Snowden sort of character; he maybe wanted by the US government, but who cares what those pricks want.
      I’m yet to find someone who believes Gower’s taglines and also understands a file sharing site. Yes, most Kiwis don’t understand file sharing sites.

    • PB says:

      Sure, Mark – and until National’s corporate and US donors are as open about their interests, I’ll cry you a river.

    • Aaron says:

      So Mark, you have no problem with John Key’s “Come buy some time with me” functions? or Bank’s behavior? All of which is the standard right wing way of doing politics and is far more sleazy that Dotcom openly stating that he is spending 3 million dollars on this election.

      I think the phrase you really meant to say was that it’s “not fair” -just like kids do when they don’t get all the lollies to themselves.

      Time for you to harden up and accept that the right’s traditional advantage has been neutralized this time round.

      Please note that Dotcom is very much aligned with the left when it comes to things like the GCSB. Also note that Dotcom’s motive is very clear – he has said he wants to change the government – given that the attempts to arrest him were proven to be illegal I’d have to say you’re being a bit of hypocrite – again.

    • poem says:

      But it was national under john key who was more than willing to take Dotcom’s millions and let him into the country, and gain residency, which he still holds. Using New Zealand as a Dotcom holding pen for the Americans has sure backfired and is biting the nats on their corrupt back sides. Dotcom has a clean slate under German law and ” “The offences involved a technical breach of regulations, were “relatively minor”, and resulted in conviction on eight charges and a fine of HK$8000 (NZ$1250)” http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6548232/Kim-Dotcom-convicted-as-NZ-gave-residency

    • Ok, Mark, let’s have a look at your assertions piece by piece;

      No Frank, what you don’t get is that most people are utterly digusted that a convicted fraudster could purchase his own political party using a few spineless opportunistic individuals.

      So what you’re suggesting is that if one happens to have been convicted of an offence in the past, they should never, ever, again be allowed to be involved in politics?

      There is no such law, of course. You’re making up value judgements “on the hoof”.

      Do you want such a law? How would you enforce it?

      When you say “purchase his own political party” – does that apply to Oravida making big donations to National, and then the government okays various farm purchases made by Oravida? Does it apply to Dotcom making donations to John Banks?

      So if someone makes a $4 million donation to a left wing Party – that is “purchas[ing] his own political party”. But making a donation to a Right Wing party is freedom to choose who one supports with their own cash?

      Or are we being selective here?

      Maybe we should have State funding for all political parties and eliminate the perception of “buying favours”?

      Would you support that?

      Most New Zealanders see it as nothing short of corruption, that a foreigner would donate $4million to people he has no political alignment with, just to subvert the rule of law and due process.

      What evidence do you have – aside from ‘spin’ – that KDC wants “to subvert the rule of law and due process”?

      Especially when KDC has publicly stated he does not seek political interference and prefers to let the Courts decide matters of extradition?

      “If the courts come to the decision that I should be extradited, well then that’s how it should be.”

      http://www.3news.co.nz/Brook-Sabin-interviews-Kim-Dotcom/tabid/1348/articleID/337932/Default.aspx

      It is so transperarent that DotCom is trying to get in place a Minister for Justice that will use their residual power to block his extradition should the Courts say he is to be extradited. You seem to be ok with this flaggerant corrupt behaviour simply because DotCom has allied with the Left Wing.

      1. See above.

      2. I’m not sure how you arrive at the conclusion you’ve made by claiming that I “seem to be ok with this flaggerant corrupt behaviour simply because DotCom has allied with the Left Wing”.

      You’re making a straw-man argument and then agreeing with yourself.

      Is that a private conversation you’re having with yourself, or can anyone join in?

      Most New Zealanders (left and right) aren’t however, so unprincipled. They won’t play ball with a crook who thinks he is above the law.

      Kindly explain how KDC thinks he is “above the law” when it is the government and police that have acted illegally by (a) spying on him and (b) using an illegal search warrant.

      Any thoughts on that?

      Individuals don’t just donate $4,000,000 without any expectation of a return on their investment, especially not shrewd business people who make millions rorting the intellectual talents of others

      Can the same be said of all business people who’ve donated to National and ACT – or are we just singling out left wing political parties for judgement?

      Really, what you’re saying is that big donations to National/ACT should pass without comment – but big donations to Left Wing parties merits scrutiny and condemnation?

      Universal Translation Service: the Left should stay poor and powerless so the Right can buy whatever influence they demand at elections.

      To say that DotCom is a benign benefactor, with no ulterior motive is to stretch credibility beyond breaking point.

      Nooooo, noooooo, noooo…

      I didn’t “say” that, Mark.

      You did.

      Labour is right to be worried of the Dot Com effect

      What “Dot Com effect” would that be?

      It surely can’t be mass surveillance carried out illegally by the State?

      Or illegal search and seizures?

      Or other dubious practices?

      And really, Mark, why should you care a jot? You’re not a Labour voter.

    • Draco T Bastard says:

      They won’t play ball with a crook who thinks he is above the law.

      You mean John Banks who’s presently holding up a seemingly corrupt government?

  8. David H says:

    And why will I not be surprised that after the Next election the Greens could be the second biggest party because Labour are going to self destruct with a vengence. I thought they got Matt Macarten in to sort shit out well he must be asleep at the wheel. As for voting labour this time ….. Nope.

    • adam says:

      Matt is bloody good, but he’s not a bloody miracle worker. For me it’s just another example of why not to trust labour. They won’t repent on neo-liberalism. How the hell can we forgive if the keep embracing that beast.

      Also I wonder how much racism is going on with this? I think we are seeing the death of labour. Yeah they will limp on like the liberals did at the start of last century – but they are done as a political force.

    • mary_a says:

      David H – you are correct in your summation, re the NZ Greens.

      With the exception of very few Labour MPs and some unsubstantiated utterances from Winston, it’s the Greens which are offering up the strong challenges to government policies, making them the main opposition party. It must be very frustrating for the Green party, knowing the only way they can put their policies to work is through Labour being elected government. As a Green voter, I find the situation very frustrating!

      However, as you point out, whichever way this election goes, the NZ Greens will occupy more seats than Labour soon. They are the NZ political party to watch, for progressive policies, taking the country towards a prosperous future.

      Sorry Labour, as a former supporter from way back, hanging on to neo liberalism, keeping the old hacks from that treacherous ’80s government, is the beginning of the death knell for what was once a great party, dedicated to getting the best deal for ordinary working Kiwis. Not anymore though, unfortunately!

  9. Ovicula says:

    I’m beginning to think that most of Labour are happy with what NAct has been doing – increased spying, snuggling up to the American killing machine, attacking beneficiaries, bringing in charter schools………but realise that, after the first ACT government, they can no longer get away with doing it themselves. Therefore they’re happy to sit in opposition while NAct carries on and after three more years, when much of the damage will have been done, they’ll want to come in and make some soothing, but ineffective noises.
    I just wish their stupid sell out party would hurry up and split. Goff, Hipkins, Davis, and co. can all join National. Then the rest of us can build a left that’s prepared to do what needs to be done.

  10. Draco T Bastard says:

    National fully understands the realpolitik of MMP.
    Labour – it appears – is still playing by First Past the Post rules.

    That bits really weird. Back in the early 2000s it was said that Labour fully understood MMP and that was why they were building good, stable coalitions. National were said to have no understanding of it at all as they attacked the Labour led coalitions for being a coalition while also not have having any chance of building a coalition themselves because they kept slagging off their potential partners and their only coalition government fell apart.

    Perhaps, in Labour, it was only Helen Clark that understood MMP.

  11. Tim O'Shea says:

    I’ll tell you one thing that REALLY fucks me off, and that is when John Key says things like “all New Zealanders” or “most people” or “the majority if New Zealanders” agree with him, without any evidence whatsoever, and often flying in the face of public opinion, submissions, polls etc.

    Are you listening MARK ? If you pulled your head out of your arse and read any blogs on the subject, took the time to read an overwhelming majority of comments on Goff, Hipkins, Davis FB rants, you’d know that you are talking rubbish.

    Its been very amusing calling out dumb-arse Tory trolls on the same threads – ironically they are the ones offering Davis et al support on their anti-IMP stupidity! They make it so obvious that its so easy to spot them – clearly not the brightest pebbles in the stream!

    Just about everyone on the LEFT is singing from the same hymn sheet, the feedback to Labour is incredibly consistent – i.e. grow up and work with the (other?) parties of the left, or fuck off.

    Seeing a Labour MP bag IMP and state publically that he is focussed on “a Labour victory” is just about the last straw for me.

    Who the F are Nash and Hipkins anyway? Where have they been hiding? Up until very recently I hadn’t even heard of these anonymous nobody’s !

    I assume they must be list MPs, because I cant believe people would have actually voted for either of them! Hipkins looks like a school boy, and behaves like one.

    David Cunliffe – it’s time to rein in and muzzle these eunuchs, otherwise be prepared to see your own Labour supporters stand for the new LEFT parties, in direct opposition to these clowns…I kid you not !

  12. Stuart Munro says:

    Well. We thought Labour was fixed by giving the membership a role in leader selection. But it seems another palace revolution is under way. Goff, Hipkins and Nash should be the bottom of the list. A party would need to be truly desperate to offer such trash to voters.

    Get it sorted now Labour, if you want a real election.

  13. Marc says:

    Yes, I agree with what some commentators here say, and what Frank says about the loose cannon conduct by some Labour MPs. It is not helpful to lash out at a small party combination that will probably struggle to make the 5 per cent threshold.

    But it seems to be a mixture of arrogance and desperation, as each poll seems to now spell worse news for not just Labour, but also the Greens and NZ First. They are all down in the latest poll, so it cannot just be Labour’s performance and the conduct of some angry, frustrated MPs, some of whom have been sitting in their Parliamentary chairs for too long.

    Look at some tweets coming from Gower, listen to what Sean Plunket says on his morning to noon talk back in Radio Live, listen to the ones like Mike Hosking, Paul Henry, Garner and even Espiner and so, and read the print media editorials and political commentator columns.

    This is a major problem, the MSM, who are full of right leaning reporters, moderators and these over-paid “media personalities”, they are beating the drums for the National Party and ACT, and they are biased as shit, and make no secret of it.

    When did you watch a good current affairs program, some investigative journalism broadcast, an informative documentary, any educational or culturally enlightening program on TV? Apart from Radio NZ National, which is increasingly also becoming a middle class catering celebrity chat show broadcaster (at least for much of the late morning and afternoons), where have you last heard something informative, educating and of substance being broadcast, and that without aggressive ads drummed into your hears?

    There is a dearth of such stuff on Freeview channels (apart from perhaps Qatar based Al Jazeera), and there is very little elsewhere, where it may be widely available.

    The people are being misinformed, brainwashed and dumbed down at a large scale, and as so few get good information, most do not even know what is at stake, do not know much about policies, about issues, about the social, environmental and economic challenges we face for the future. Instead we live in a land full of too many ostriches with their heads in the sand, of opportunists who drive their debt financed Ferraris towards the cliff, thinking of no tomorrow.

    Only informed citizens and residents make real informed voters and democrats. We do not have a true democracy anymore, it is a “de-mockeracy” full of infotainment and shallow messages, where politicians try to compete with celebrities to “shine” and thus convince. That is a recipe for disaster, and that is the real reason behind the mess we have.

    The Nats are good at creating spin, at tying in key media operators, and thus get their messages out, true or false. The left is busy shooting themselves in the foot and criticising each other, and following a divided kind of campaign. So the insufficiently informed voters, simply decide on shallow, useless information and messages, and go for the Teflon PM and his cabinet club and party, and thus poll and vote accordingly.

    I am sick of Labour and Green and other pollies appearing on the Paul Henry Show, where they just get taken advantage of and asked loaded, silly questions about nothing much important. Those that are so naive, and think they can get attention by doing so, they are misguided. Run your own media campaigns, by using social media and other means, dear Labour and Greens, and stop buying into this rotten, corrupt system, thanks.

    • Peter says:

      Actually there are a couple of good political shows – Q and A and the Nation. These shows have some tough questioners and a balanced panel of left right commentators discussing the weeks political events. There’s also a show on radio live on Sunday or Saturday mornings I think which covers politics and economics.

      • Marc says:

        Peter – Yes, of course, and I watch most of them most the time, but I find them not offering too much in depth reporting and discussion, apart from the odd interview and background report.

        I was actually thinking more of live debates between politicians and advocates and commentators, not just for a few minutes, but on some major topics for at least 40 minutes. Also some history programs, documentaries on what goes on elsewhere in the world, and natural history and science programs, as we used to get a fair few years back.

        Much of that has made room for cooking, fishing, motorsport, talent shows and contests, same as soap style series. Then we get a fair few repeats of movies. But this is sadly a global trend, where quality is deemed too expensive, and in New Zealand it seems to be a bit worse than in some other developed countries, what we have left in broadcasting.

        And re these “media personalities” we have on some regular daily shows and talk back, they are so biased as they have never been. There once was a kind of code of conduct for journalists, to at least attempt to be seen as neutral, but with less public broadcasting and the private players having changed the scene so much, there are too many that simply carry their views and convictions on their sleeves, as they say. That is not acceptable in my view. We need a balance, which is no longer given.

  14. […] National wants Labour to play by FPP rules –  which certain Labour MPs have obliged (see:  The secret of National’s success – revealed). […]

  15. reason says:

    A useful quick reference point:

    Labor = bad and rotten
    National = plain evil

    I wouldn’t trust Labor ( despite them being better than the ‘ plain evil’ of the Nats ), I’d trust the greens and IMP to keep Labor ‘true’.

    Otherwise they’d backslide and be corporate box pigs in the trough just like the blue bunch presently are.

  16. It appears that NZ Herald columnist, John Armstrong, concurs with my assessments;

    But Labour is taking an even harder line by deliberately cold-shouldering its allies and thus denying them the oxygen of publicity.

    This reached extreme proportions in Labour’s initial refusal to comment on the Greens’ plan to introduce a carbon tax. Such behaviour is creating an information vacuum regarding the likely direction of a centre-left government.

    Such negativity offers no incentive for those voters who have only a weak attachment to National to switch allegiances.

    Banks’ fate just a sideshow as election looms and tension begins to mount

    As I pointed out;

    Being “principled” and attacking potential allies smacks of dis-unity. Dis-unity, in the eyes of the public, is not a Government-in-waiting. It is Labour unable to set aside self-interest and party-politics for the good of the nation.

    If the public perceive that Labour is more interested in attacking it’s own potential allies – and here is the nub of the problem – then why should people vote for such a fractious party that appears unable to work alongside said potential allies?

    Nice to see Mr Armstrong catching up. 😉

  17. […] National wants Labour to play by FPP rules –  which certain Labour MPs have obliged (see:  The secret of National’s success – revealed). […]

  18. **update**

    Hamish Price, who supported Kelvin Davis is one of his “tweets”, was campaign manager for current National MP and Minister, Nikki Kaye:

    “Hamish (Price, MP Nicky Kaye’s Campaign Manager) is the unnamed National party source…a man closely connected to Michelle Boag and someone who hates me, my father and anyone connected to us.”

    http://www.frontpage.co.nz/news/muldoons-ghost-haunts-whaleoil/

  19. […] 7 June, I blogged on the issue of Labour’s unprovoked and negative attacks on it’s potential allies. I […]

  20. […] 7 June, I blogged on the issue of Labour’s unprovoked and negative attacks on it’s potential allies. I […]


 
Authorised by Martyn Bradbury, The Editor, TheDailyBlog,