14 C
Auckland
Saturday, October 4, 2025

Contribute

Home Blog Page 1863

Political Caption Competition

When Simon Bridges says he has a strong environmental record he means for the oil and mining companies

The Daily Blog Open Mic – Tuesday 6th March 2018

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.  

Colin Craig vs Jordan Williams Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal has come out with their verdict…

as a witness in this case, it was apparent to me that the Judy didn’t seem to have any comprehension whatsoever of defamation law.

There’s no love lost between the head of the Taxpayers’ Union Jordan Williams and his political adversary Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury.

“How does one be complimentary about a venomous spider, I don’t like the guy, no,” Mr Bradbury says.

Mr Craig invited Mr Bradbury to court to criticise the tactics of Mr Williams and bloggers like Cameron Slater.

“I think that Mr Williams and his friends are political sadists who are a cancer on the body politic of this country,” Mr Bradbury says.

In Mr Bradbury’s view this was less a trial about Mr Craig’s relationship with Ms MacGregor and more about Mr Williams’ angry fight with Mr Craig.

‘Pack of hyenas’ turned on Craig

Media commentator and blogger Martyn Bradbury was also called today to give evidence about his previous experience with Williams.

He claimed in court that in the past Williams had lied to him directly and “created a fake email identity” which he used to “send a false tip-off”.

He said Williams had embarked on a “political hit job” against Craig and described him as one of “a pack of hyenas” who had turned on the former politician.

“I thought (Craig’s pamphlet Dirty Politics and Hidden Agenda) was an appropriate response to a pack of political sadists,” Bradbury said.

He told the jury he thought Williams and a number of others he felt were involved in the practice of dirty politics in New Zealand were “a cancer on the body politics in this
country”.

Bradbury was asked what he thought the defamation trial was about and replied: “an angry fight between two people who don’t like each other much”.

Under cross-examination Williams’ lawyer Peter Knight grilled Bradbury about his posting blogs that had “derogatory, horrible and sleazy” comments about his client before he gave evidence.

He asked Bradbury if he thought it appropriate to “attack” Williams online given he was coming to court to give evidence against him days later.

Bradbury admitted posting about the trial last week but said he had not posted about his own evidence.

“Did you think it was appropriate given you were going to be a witness, to do that?” said McKnight.

“My understanding was that I could not talk about my evidence, I didn’t realise I couldn’t blog about breaking news,” he said.

The Court case wasn’t whether Colin Craig was awful, the Court case was whether or not what Colin had to say about Jordan Williams was defamatory and would lower Jordan in the eyes of a reasonable person.

That question seemed to have been answered on the first day when Jordan admitted gaining information from Rachel regarding Colin, promising not to tell anyone on his honour as a lawyer the information she’d given him in confidence and then telling everyone in an attempt to remove Colin Craig as Leader of the Conservative Party.

What a charmer.

The Court of Appeal has agreed the Jury’s contempt of Colin Craig outweighed the compensation and that Jordan William’s reputation meant he wasn’t worth $1million.

A wretched ugly business.

 

 

What happened at the NBR with Matthew Hooton?

So Matthew Hooton has been dumped from the NBR following one of the best columns he’s ever written giving real insight into the 9 year rule of Steven Joyce

…now say what you like about Hooton, and I have – he’s the Head of Slytherin House, the architect of the Death Star and most hilariously the moral Shepard of the Right – but he’s also the only reason I ever read the NBR.

Dumping him because the newspaper is gutless and won’t stand up to a Politician is astounding and embarrassing for the NBR especially as it happens less than a month after they had to take Bob Jones out the back and shoot him for racism.

Something the NBR escaped real scrutiny over by publishing Bob Jones in the first place.

The Publisher and Owner of the NBR has had this to say about the sacking of Hooton…

…which is interesting because the timeline The Daily Blog understands is this…

THURSDAY

The NBR called Joyce and offered him  right of reply to Joyce before the column was published. 

FRIDAY

Newspaper receives threat of legal action if NBR doesn’t retract and apologise for the column.

SATURDAY

Hooton calls the Editor and is then sacked.

 

 

…perhaps Todd Scott decided to sack Hooton on Thursday when he offered Joyce a right of reply and just didn’t get around to informing Hooton of his decision until Saturday?

However this happened, it stinks.

Whatever you think of Hooton, as a columnist he has the right to criticise and critique Politicians and as long as he doesn’t defame that Politician by lying about them, then his right to be critical of a Politician is supposed to be sacrosanct and backed 100% by his Publisher and Editor.

In this case it seems that the Newspaper has failed their columnist, their readers for being spineless and ultimately their role as a member of the Fourth Estate.

 

Dave Macpherson – At Last – we hear from Mental Health Commissioner on Suicides….

Carefully waiting until the new Government was in place, and the Mental Health Inquiry announced, to improve his appearance of relevance the Mental Health Commissioner – a staff member of the Health & Disability Commission – has finally pronounced on the state of mental health and suicides in New Zealand.

Not to be put off by the years-long public debate about this country leading youth suicide statistics from the wrong end, Commissioner Kevin Allan has bravely gone where no-one employed by the previous Government had hitherto dared to tread – he has actually (wait for it…) recommended a 10% reduction in suicides target!

That’s correct – not zero, not halving it, not even the mild 20% reduction that the current Health Minister suggested while in opposition – but a nice, fat, round 10%.

To give him some credit for picking up on the public mood, Commissioner Allan has called for a policy of “zero tolerance of suicide in services.” Note the wording here: “in services” – which means suicides occurring in Government-funded mental health facilities.

Last year, 180 of the 606 recorded suicides in New Zealand happened “in services”, so the “zero tolerance” is to the 180, and presumably the 10% reduction target should cause the remaining 426 suicides last year to reduce by 43 to 383 in the coming year.

Not wanting to be too sarcastic, I state here and now that ANY reduction in suicides is a good thing – but surely what this country wants is for us to aim a little higher – like for zero tolerance for ANY suicide, and for the country’s mental health services not to rest until that has been achieved?

Don’t worry about “in service” or in the community, NO suicide should be acceptable in a modern society, and I believe EVERY suicide is preventable, given the right circumstances and support arrangements.

This does not mean that the simple setting of a zero suicide target will overnight cause this terrible scourge on our society to be wiped out – it will take years of dedicated work in all the communities around New Zealand, a very significant increase in support from the Government, and a massive change in attitude and culture from the existing mental health services – but if we don’t aim for it, we sure as hell have no chance of getting anywhere near it!

Going back to my friend the ever-so-slightly irrelevant Commissioner Allan – where the hell has he been when our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers have been victims of suicides in record numbers over the last seven years?

Has he been shouting from his lofty Government position about how our mental health system is not working; or even yelling encouragement from the sidelines to those calling for changes? No, he’s been pretty damned silent, and now I suspect he has seen that the new Government has already mooted a separate Mental Health Commission, and is trying to prove his relevance while angling for a job there; maybe the top job?

I can’t help but feel cynical when I see this blatant jumping on of the bandwagon AFTER the hard work has been done – remembering in my own family’s case that Commissioner Allan’s office told us to go away and not to bother presenting our complaints about the “in service” death of our son to his office until AFTER all other avenues had been worked through. Given that – after 3 years – we don’t yet have a confirmed Coroner’s hearing, and that complaints to his office seem to take at least 2-3 years to reach fruition, we would be stupid, or naïve, or both, to put any reliance in a system run by this person.

 

Dave Macpherson is TDB’s mental health blogger. He became a Waikato DHB member after his son died from mental health incompetence.

Dr Liz Gordon – The planets align

I last voted for Labour in 1987. I do vote for my local electorate MP, Megan Woods, who is competent and may even be innovative in Government. Her decisive action on shonky (and non-existent) earthquake repairs is exciting.  It appears that EQC processes may at last come under the spotlight. I think the appointment of Annette King, whom I have known since well before Chloe Swarbrick was born, is inspired.  She is very focussed and able to work with everyone.

Avid readers of this blog (such as there are) should know that my three current topmost concerns are gender equality, education and justice. And, just for once, real political progress has begun (perhaps just a stake in the ground) on all three this week.  I probably won’t make many political friends for my enthusiasm, but I don’t care.  It has been a good week.  A smidgeon of hope is a beacon of light after years of the grey landscape of neo-liberalism.

These are the things that have got me excited: The potential for criminal justice reform and a significant reduction in the numbers in prisons. A review of Tomorrow’s Schools. And, while painful, the revelations of sexual misconduct against women out of Russell McVeagh, arguably until this week New Zealand’s most prestigious law firm, has galvanised people into action.

In the mid-1980s a report by Sir Clinton Roper expressed horror at the numbers in prison, arguing that we had become too punitive with 2,000 people now in prison.  Too punitive!  Thirty years later, with rates more than five times higher, the previous government proposed to build another prison.  With imprisonment rates more than a third higher than Australia, and higher again than England and Canada, with much lower rates of crime than those countries, our propensity to chuck people into prison has become an embarrassment.

Imprisonment damages communities, whanau/families and the whole society. We tend to believe that the people who are locked up are all dangerous criminals, but by far the majority are not. Half of all remand prisoners, held nowadays for longer and longer periods, never spend a single day extra in prison after they eventually get to court, either because they are found no guilty or because the sentence imposed by the courts is less than the time already served.

Minister Andrew Little’s announcement last week that the government is looking at significant penal reform is very welcome indeed. Every bit of his statement – lower numbers, treatment rather than imprisonment, alternatives to incarceration hit a good note for me. As the editor of a new book on the effects of parental imprisonment on children, I see these policies, if successful, as changing the future for so many children.  And there must be no room for failure.

Then there is the announced review of Tomorrow’s Schools, which I have been calling for for 20 years.  The last Labour-led government under Helen Clark would not countenance it, but this new government understands the need.  

There is strong research evidence that the parent-led system of school choice is not working for children.  There is simply not one jot of research evidence that shipping a child off to beyond the local school provides any additional achievement for them.  There is certainly very clear empirical evidence that New Zealand, along with other ‘choice’ countries, has been slipping down the international rankings of school achievement for 30 years.  From first to the middle of the OECD league – so much for school choice!

 

Some people are of the view that getting rid of school choice is political suicide, but I suspect that most parents are completely exhausted by the mind-numbing daily school runs.  I can see that the removal of choice alone would be frightening and of concern to people.  What is needed is something to fill the vacuum – a service that works to overcome barriers to learning in local schools, so that, to quote a once-popular maxim, every school is a good school offering good opportunities for learners. And just think how the congestion would reduce on Auckland’s highways.

So I want to congratulate the government for these initiatives, and say that as a non-Labour voter since 1987 I am pretty impressed.  Now what I am looking for, of course, is good policy followed by good legislation and finally excellent outcomes.  Then we can celebrate the money and time saved in moving towards sensible and effective systems.

Oh, yes, and to the accelerating #MeToo movement in New Zealand, where women are shaking off the shackles of subordination at work. Kia kaha!

 

Dr Liz Gordon began her working life as a university lecturer at Massey and the Canterbury universities. She spent six years as an Alliance MP, before starting her own research company, Pukeko Research.  Her work is in the fields of justice, law, education and sociology (poverty and inequality). She is the president of Pillars, a charity that works for the children of prisoners, a prison volunteer, and is on the board of several other organisations. Her mission is to see New Zealand freed from the shackles of neo-liberalism before she dies (hopefully well before!).

Why Australia’s Deportation policy is an abomination

Jacinda visited our arsehole cousins across the ditch and all she got was this T-shirt…

…Malcolm Turnbull has defended his offensive deportation bullshit by describing it as fair and just

“There is a right of appeal which a number of the deportees take up …we were both advised earlier today that just under 40 percent of those appeals are successful, so the process is in accordance with Australian law, and the process is a fair and just one.”

…what a load of crap.

There are 3 reasons this deportation policy is obscene.

The first is that these NZ ‘citizens’ are citizens in name only. The criminals Australia are deporting have lived the majority of their lives in Australia. Their crimes are a product of Australian society, not NZ society. Australia is deporting their societal failures to us, that’s not fair or just, these men are products of Australia not NZ. Some of those caught up aren’t even bloody criminals, they’ve just failed some incredibly subjective ‘character test‘.

The second reason this deportation policy is obscene is because it’s pure domestic bigotry. This policy exists because it plays to base Australian xenophobia and a deep seated anti-Kiwi resentment. We need to be brave enough to call it for what it is, racism.

The third reason this deportation policy is obscene is probably the worst one.

Australia were spooked into believing that they were about to be flooded with migrants and so built their horrible mass detention camps as their ‘Pacific Solution’. Problem was the tsunami of migrants didn’t happen, but the infrastructure for the detention camps had already been spent, so to justify their continued cost Australian politicians sated domestic xenophobia by deporting non-citizens to the Pacific Detention camps. The logic was that they are already spending the money on the detention camps, so they may as well find reasons to fill it.

It’s ugly beyond belief.

The irony of a nation founded by criminals deporting criminals shouldn’t be lost on anyone and it’s beyond time that NZ started calling Australia out for this spiteful policy.

This has become hate on an industrial level.

How NZ builds influence in the Pacific

Jacinda is off to the Pacific to desperately try to counter Chinese influence throughout the Pacific…

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on five-day Pacific Island charm offensive
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is on a five-day charm offensive in the Pacific as Foreign Minister Winston Peters signals a ”reset” and increased aid for the region to try to maintain influence.

Ardern is on her first so-called ”Pacific Mission” travelling with other MPs, business and community delegates to Samoa, Niue, Tonga and Rarotonga.

It is a route that was also travelled by her predecessors, John Key and Bill English.

Ardern told reporters there was a whole range of issues facing the Pacific – including climate change, resource use and globalisation.

…now, we could spend money on basic infrastructure or aid, but China can out spend us so how can NZ maintain its influence in the Pacific while desperately countering the outrageous level of corruption China promotes and so many Pacific Governments revel in?

Auckland is the largest Pacific Island City and we do little to celebrate or leverage off that. We need to look at offering fundamental migration opportunities for Tuvalu, Tokelau and Kiribati who face the worst impacts of climate change but we also need to think outside the square in terms of not only countering Chinese influence but beating it.

I think two ways NZ could uniquely promote its interests into the Pacific against China could be via Rugby Diplomacy and Journalism.

The All Blacks doing a tour of the South Pacific would actually be of huge cultural and sporting importance and something the Government should sponsor with taxpayer dollars to help subsidise the costs to the All Blacks as a sign of respect to the sporting and cultural contribution Pacific Island nations have provided NZ.

Why shouldn’t we use Rugby as a diplomatic tool to build standing throughout the Pacific? It’s something China couldn’t match and something NZ could excel at.

Likewise Journalism. AUT run the excellent Pacific Media Centre to promote quality Journalism throughout the Pacific. What if NZ saw the promotion of quality Journalism as a craft throughout the Pacific as a strong way to counter corruption and Chinese influence? Scholarships, Pacific News Media websites, support of local ethical journalism these could be the pillars of promoting corruption free politics and holding those Governments to account.

Rugby diplomacy and promotion of Journalistic standards throughout the Pacific could counter China and promote NZs strategic interests.

We can’t outspend China, but we can play a far smarter game.

Political Caption Competition

The image on the left from Campus is awful. The image on the right from Campus is terrifying

The Daily Blog Open Mic – Monday 5th March 2018

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.  

Open letter to Trade Minister David Parker

Thank you for your invitation to join you in Chile on 8th March, at my own expense, for the signing of the resurrected Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that your own party in Opposition said was seriously flawed.

I’m afraid that is not my idea of inclusion. I want and expect people to be engaged with and listened to during the entire decision-making process and for negotiations to be based on a genuinely progressive mandate and conducted in a democratically transparent way.

Instead, I will be spending 8th March in Colombo, where I hope to contribute to more positive outcomes by presenting at an UNCTAD High-Level Policymakers Workshop on digital trade and e-commerce – an issue of major concern in the TPPA that you are about to sign and with which your government has still not come to grips.

Perhaps former trade minister Todd McClay, who says he was not invited to the signing, would like to take my place?

 

Yours sincerely

 

Professor Jane Kelsey

 

(Meanwhile, Daily Bloggers, make sure you sign the petition opposing the TPPA-11 at Dontdoit.nz)

 

Prof Jane Kelsey

Faculty of Law

The University of Auckland

Moment Liam Dann realised his ‘Don’t Panic’ column last month may have been optimistic

The mouthpiece of the right wing economic agenda in the NZ Herald, Liam Dann, was just one of a number of mouthpieces that rushed out ‘don’t panic’ columns last month when Wall St melted down.

Liam wanted to explain to Kiwi’s as they nervously saw their Kiwsaver accounts drop that no one should panic because as far as Liam was concerned, the market fundamentals were sound.

Which is an odd belief to hold.

For the last decade, to avoid the horror of systemic financial market collapse in 2007/2008, $30Trillion has been printed and pumped into the global economy falsely creating the lowest inflation rates for 5000 years. That seems about as far removed from the concept of sound market fundamentals as The AM Show is from intellectual curiosity.

The problem now for Wall Street is structural. All that printed money wildly speculating equities to unstable and bloated levels are ripe for a meltdown because the AI trading robots will simply cut across the human greed of now for the profit margins of tomorrow.

As bond yields rise, the droids will suck money out of stocks and plunge them into Treasuries at nanosecond speed faster than human traders can match.

This reality seems to have just dawned on Liam whose latest column acknowledges that there may well be a good reason to panic after all.

You know when the establishment tell you not to panic that it’s probably the moment for you to start quietly easing your way to the exit.

There is going to be one almighty crash because the superstructure of the system can’t keep holding up the vast sums of printed money that it’s been swamped by.

Without even small environmental wins, justice is a distant dream

As the ‘left’ moves to the centre, I find myself on the further margins of the spectrum. Here I am, left of Labour and greener than the Greens, looking for everyday solutions as well as system level change to solve the problems of our era. I can’t see how incremental and conservative capitalist prescriptions can ever be the remedy for environmental collapse, economic inequality or social exclusion at their present scale. I don’t believe we can solve the big problems we face, with the same system that caused them. ‘System change not climate change’, not more exploitation and extraction to solve scarcity and waste. But even small-scale steps toward greater justice seem out of reach of even the best government we’ve had in a decade.

Even though globalisation gives us access to diversity in what we buy and where we can go, it often comes at the cost of local jobs, and environmental and social justice offshore. But local and global equality can’t be separated. And environmental, social and economic justice and equality can’t be divorced from each other either. Just as workers in New Zealand deserve safe jobs with dignity and decent pay, so do workers in factories and fields overseas. Injustices to communities off shore, or of other species or systems, are just as morally indefensible as those injustices perpetrated at home.
I’m not an economist but I’m trying to apply the same tests to the (CP)TPP as I did to the TPP. So far there’s nothing that gives me confidence that the new and improved ‘progressive’ trade deal secures any more public or private benefits than the last TPP. Minister David Parker’s promises of billions of dollars of benefits, remind me of the promises of trickle-down economics. We’re still waiting for that theory to deliver, and blind faith in idealogues’ projections is for someone less cynical, and less left wing than me.

If free trade offers such benefits, I can’t see why, even after decades of various free trade deals, we’re seeing more imported plastic shit on our shelves (and beaches), fewer domestic manufacturing jobs, and growing inequality, rather than the wealth, equality and social justice we’re still being promised with the CPTPP. If the promised advantages of free trade are more jobs and (economically) rational movement of goods, services and trade leading to more universal equality, we should have seen some of those benefits by now. How long should we have to wait? Sure globalisation and trade liberalisation have been good for New Zealand’s farming and tourism sectors, but even there the benefits and costs are unevenly spread, with costs borne disproportionately by the environment and precarious, low paid workers, while profits continue to accrue in the hands of bigger companies and bigger operations. The ‘new and improved’ CPTPP looks to deliver more privatised profits and socialised costs as free trade has always done. That just doesn’t look like a successful economic, social, or environmental model to me, when, in a generation, the nation’s rivers have become unsafe to swim in, and ‘wilderness’ areas are like some theme park so full of people and rubbish, as to be not worth visiting if you’re a Kiwi because they’re just not wild any more.

Sustainability is a three-legged stool, balancing economic, environmental and social values. Moral sustainability requires reconciliation of short and long term ecological health, local and global social equity, respect for all life and all species and commitment to maintaining integrity of ecosystems. Addressing these concerns are an anathema to capitalism and the ideology of growth.
Many of us standing on the far left can easily describe the problem. Finding solutions moderate enough to satisfy the rest of the spectrum, including the huge bloc centred around ‘middle New Zealand’, that can remedy and avoid the worst injustices, is a harder challenge when there’s massive pressure to maintain the status quo.

Is a conservative incrementalism the best that we can do? Do we just accept TINA, There is No Alternative, because in the face of the power of the global market, there really isn’t.
We’re reduced to standing on the sidelines shouting at the powers that be ‘ban the (plastic) bag’, ‘stop rodeo’, ‘end zero hours / pay all care workers fairly and equitably / regulate for workplace safety / end homelessness…’, ‘stop fisheries dumping, and by-catch to prevent extinction of endangered species’. But it feels like we’re crying into the wind ‘more justice, give us a little change’, while fishing, mining, gambling, farming, and corporate interests are escorted through Parliamentarians’ front doors with snivelling gratitude. (Electoral donations much?) If you have faith in the invisible hand of the market, rationality of well informed workers and consumers, you can trust business-oriented government. But don’t piss off industry for a start. But workers are literally and figurately more disposable. And people should be happy to have a job, any job. A rising tide lifts all boats after all.

So far, so hopeless for any prospect of moving anywhere near where the left used to be, before neo-liberalism changed the framework of options, the realm of the possible. That’s not to say that under the current paradigm we couldn’t do better. Observe Helen Clark’s support for this country to ‘ban the bag’, and to pursue drug reform with a focus on harm minimisation. These weren’t policies she openly supported or pursued when she was Prime Minister but can do so with distance from electoral sanctions.

Not known for their progressive political views, even Portugal, Spain and the United States have liberalised recreational and medicinal drug use to greater or lesser degrees. But not educated, liberal New Zealand. Taiwan and other countries have banned plastic bags, straws and other disposable plastics, but not clean green New Zealand. Australia and various Pacific Island nations have installed cameras on their fishing fleet to ensure transparency in harvest practices and to address by-catch of non-target birds, marine mammals and fish – but not ‘the world’s best fishery’ in New Zealand.
Labour-led government Animal Welfare spokesperson, Meka Whaitiri defends rodeos despite pre-election commitments to the contrary, because ‘they’re a cultural tradition’, forgetting that slavery was once one of those cultural traditions too. Our treatment of animals is an indicator of our progress toward justice, and Labour are failing to consider animal rights justice against any assumed human ‘right’ to abuse animals, treat them as property or entertainment. New Zealand has one of the highest per-capita incarceration rates in the world, disproportionately high child poverty rates, domestic violence, suicide, inequality. We can definitely do better.

Free trade, neo-liberalism, deregulated primary production and self-reporting compliance, hasn’t been so good to us so far.

Out on the left of the spectrum sometimes feels pretty lonely, as people cluster around celebrity politics on either side of the centre. The political capital available to the Labour-led government should enable them to make courageous and brave decisions. The last Labour Government was known for its glacial incrementalism. In the ‘ever upward trajectory of justice’; the current regime seems as slow, as cautious, and as wedded to entrenched interests as any. If we can’t even achieve small (promised) wins around the environment, pursuit of holistic justice seems a distant dream. System change from within, seems impossible.

Why Matt McCarten is the real reason why Simon Bridges is wooing the Greens

Simon Bridges continues to woo the Greens

Simon Bridges has defended his record on the environment in his first appearance on Newshub Nation as leader of National.

He said the party’s policies needed to evolve, and it would place new emphasis on environmental issues – but wouldn’t give any new policies.

Asked by Newshub Nation host Lisa Owen if he could work with the Green Party, he said there was a case “on genuine environmental issues”.

“I think we do have a difficulty frankly, though at the moment, which is it’s a Green party that’s red as well, its default position is to go with the Labour Party. A true Green Party in the middle that could work with both, in my view, would achieve a lot more for the environment.”

…here’s the real reason why Simon Bridges is wooing the Greens – Matt McCarten.

What many on the Left, and certainly within  the political punditry, don’t appreciate or understand is that Labour’s victory last year was set in motion a year earlier by Matt McCarten’s ‘Big Tent’ strategy that aimed at expanding Labour’s voter base while eliminating National’s support partners.

Matt knew that by killing off National’s support partners, Labour had the chance too form a new Government because National couldn’t get 51% of Parliament on their own. This is why Labour moved against the Māori Party by recruiting Willie Jackson and killed off Peter Dunne with Greg O’Connor.

The strategy worked and National were left with no coalition options.

Say what you like about National, but they learn from their mistakes far quicker than the Left when it comes to taking power. Bridges is wooing the Greens, not because he has any real intention of creating a coalition with them, but because at current polling of 5%, National just needs to shave off a couple of thousand blue-green supporters currently voting Green to sink the Party beneath the threshold and suddenly Labour don’t have the numbers they need to win in 2020.

Pundits and the Social media Left keep scoffing at Bridges trying to woo the Greens, what they don’t understand is that he has no intention of winning their hand, just a tiny fraction of their voter base so that they slip under 5% and that their scoffing is actually amplifying Simon’s message.

 

The Nation Review: Dear Matthew Hooton – your boy Simon needs you

Simon Bridges is going to need to be far better briefed than this, getting tripped up on TV is embarrassing, getting tripped up on Newshub is humiliating…

…and it was something Bridges should have been aware of, because he bloody well spoke in support of this nasty piece of spiteful legislation…

…Simon passed so much evil legislation in 9 years, it’s hard for him to keep track of them all.

Hooton helped Bridges take power and if Simon wants to keep it, Hooton needs to be inducted into the Leader’s Office immediately because this is a blunder Bridges should never have walked into and Hooton is smart enough to have prepped him.

 

 

Political Caption Competition

Seven Sharp – broadcast from inside TVNZ’s womb