Home Blog Page 2187

Hone showing more dignity in defeat than Russel Norman has ever managed in victory

4

Screen Shot 2014-10-07 at 9.10.05 am

Here is Hone’s incredibly graceful interview on Native Affairs.

Once again he manages to show more dignity in defeat than Russel Norman has ever managed in victory.

I’m waiting for Russel Norman to now start blaming Nicky Hager for the Greens low election result.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Key’s sick version of making state homes into an episode of ‘the block’

15

i-want-change

The Cabinet reshuffle of Housing with multiple Minister’s now overseeing it bodes ill for the poor of NZ.

National have decided the solution to the horror situation of the increasing numbers of NZers living in cars is to flog off the state house stock to religious groups to manage all in the name of solving child poverty.

National don’t care about Child Poverty other than its embarrassment factor, but with the vast chunk of voters loving Key, inequality can be safely ignored. Consumer capitalism and neoliberalism place personal success above everything else. Your success is yours and yours alone, it has nothing to do with invisible hegemonic structures like race, class, gender and orientation so when you ‘fail’ (are poor), well that’s your fault too.

Look at the number of NZers who resist feeding hungry kids at school because they believe it is the parents responsibility, regardless of the fact that the benefit was set by Ruth Richardson to be slightly below the nutritional needs of  a person so that beneficiaries are always hungry, despite the appallingly low hourly pay, despite the insane property speculation by baby boomers and overseas investors.

If you are poor, it is your fault and assistance is only offered as an after thought, not a solution, that’s why when National moved to start throwing state tenants out claiming ‘no state homes for life’, Nu Zilinder’s cheered.

They are still cheering.

The euphemism National use to justify flogging off State Homes and starting Auckland’s urban sprawl in Hamilton is ‘community-provided social housing’, it’s an abdication of social obligations to religious groups so the Government aren’t responsible any longer.

With property renovation porn the leading TV flavour right now, Key’s sick version of ‘The Block’ has beneficiaries renovating homes  only to then be forced to sell that state house to a ‘community-provided social housing’ agent who prosecutes the beneficiary for having a lodger they haven’t declared, forcing the beneficiary onto the street, while Paula Bennett ends the show by burning the house to sell the land to an overseas property developer.

Housing the poor is no longer a serious goal, rampant property speculation and an unchecked property bubble means most NZers false sense of wealth is all they have. The idea of allowing poor people to have homes in such a hot market is not acceptable to those creaming it from multiple property ownership and everyone else who aspires to multiple home ownership.

If National were serious about housing the poor, they would build MORE state homes, not flog them off and pass the buck to churches.

Those with the money write the rules while the poor huddle and shiver in cars.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

New terror warning

1

10701995_10152748212888629_3998498136736715951_n

New terror warning

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Ethics, broadcasters and Skycity

12

SkyCity-protest-post-Budget-May16-NZH

Ethical standards in journalism and broadcasting have been dropping for a long time and it’s no surprise to see the new lows plumbed by TV3 News and Current affairs head Mark Jennings who now approves broadcaster Paul Henry continuing with his “private” deal to promote Skycity casino.

Last weekends Sunday Star Times describes how Henry is one of Skycity’s “ambassadors” – free meals, drinks and accommodation at any time – as part of a “long-standing relationship” between the casino and what the SST describes as a “controversial broadcaster”. (I can think of a host of other more appropriate titles for Henry – and no, journalist is not one of them)

In January Jennings told the New Zealand Herald that a commercial relationship with Skycity would not be appropriate for Henry on the news and current affairs show – The Paul Henry Show.

Jennings now says that because no money changes hands – Hey Presto – it’s not a commercial arrangement!

Just how pathetic and sordid that sounds is lost on Jennings whose grasp on ethics or moral behaviour is less secure than a circus performer’s grip on a greasy pole.

So Henry is approved in his role pumping up patronage at Skycity for along with TV1’s Mike Hosking who is equally compromised.

Neither of these men can claim independence or professionalism in their broadcaster roles – they are corporate chatterlings.

And underlining just how sick their promotion of Skycity is an article in this morning’s New Zealand Herald reporting that people seeking help for problem gambling are at an all time high with Pasifika people showing the steepest increase.

None of this is surprising because Skycity’s pokies are designed to addict vulnerable people – and the most vulnerable are the hundreds of thousands of low-income people who gamble from a mixture of hope and desperation.

Stealing (because that’s what it is) from the pockets of low-income families is where Skycity gets the money to give Henry and Hosking their untold freebies and where the money will come from to build the new convention centre in John Key’s sordid deal with his favourite corporate.

No wonder Hosking and Henry are such cheerleaders for John Key and Skycity..

And don’t hold your breath waiting to see if The Paul Henry Show or Seven Sharp will cover the story…

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Income Tax to Vote for

6

Screen Shot 2014-09-12 at 3.38.04 am

On Sunday I saw on TV3’s Three60 (episode 28) a speech by David Cameron announcing his party’s policy on income tax. The highlights (with British pounds converted to $NZ at ÂŁ1=$2):

  • first $25,000 tax free (up from first $20,000)
  • top rate of 40% to kick in at $100,000 (up from $83,800)

“With us, if you work 30 hours a week on minimum wage you will pay no income tax at all. Nothing. Zero. Zilch” (David Cameron promises tax cuts… Independent, 1 Oct 2014). While not a particularly radical tax cut, its main effect would be to increase aggregate demand (unemployment reducing stimulus). Its political aim is to be aiming tax cuts at low-income and middle-income earners.

In UK terms it is somewhat disingenuous, in that it also offers tax cuts to high income recipients. Persons earning $500,000 would get a tax cut too, though their proposed reduction will be the same as that received by a person on $100,000; therefore smaller in percentage terms.

What matters to us in New Zealand though is that this UK Conservative Party tax scale is well to the left of anything offered in New Zealand by the Labour Party or the Green Party. It also recognises that one of the two most important first steps to getting beneficiaries into part-time work is to not require them to pay tax on their meagre wages. (The second step is to ensure that it is easy for beneficiaries to get back on a benefit when their casual part-time job comes to an end.)

 

What the timid NZ left parties were offering

Labour’s income tax policy was:

Green’s income tax policy was:

 

What might have made them electable?

These were my suggestions in my September 5 posting:

Labour’s income tax policy could have been:

  • first $9,370 tax free
  • top rate of 36% to kick in at $70,000

Green’s income tax policy was:

  • first $9,370 tax free
  • top rate of 40% to kick in at $70,000

My suggestions would have delivered tax decreases to the poor; and increases to the rich (incomes over $90,000 on the proposed Labour scale; incomes over $79,425 on the proposed Green scale).

Significantly, by British standards, my suggestions, too radical for New Zealand’s left, look conservative even for Conservatives. New Zealand’s economic policy consensus is very right-wing.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Rachel Jones – Me, Me, Me! Meh.

28

cult_of_me_button-r61de412b59ab48cdb19c28aced1391b4_x7j3i_8byvr_324

“What’s Labour going to do for me?” was the most frequent question I heard on the campaign trail.

It was a depressing indictment on the cultural shift that neoliberalism has wrought in New Zealand (and around the world as Paul Verhaeghe described last week).

Sadly, it didn’t come as a surprise. One of my first activities as a newly fledged party activist involved collecting signatures for the Paid Parental Leave petition at a women’s expo. About half the women I approached told me assertively that there had been no such luxury in their day. They had done it tough, and every mother coming after them could do it tough too, damn it. Paid parental leave was just another handout, and one they weren’t in line for, so therefore one not worth supporting.

When it’s hard to convince women to support working mothers being able to spend more time with their newborns you know we have some problems as a society.

Many New Zealanders no longer seem to care about how their neighbours are doing, the collective good or the type of country in which they live when it comes to policy. Instead, they want to know what’s in it for them.

And, if there’s nothing in it for them, then it’s an uphill battle winning their vote.

It was a theme that played out over and over again, in regional New Zealand at least.

For some, it was about attitude. I lost count of the number of times I had people, particularly small business owners, tell me that they worked hard and deserved to do well. To hell with others. If those pesky beneficiaries really wanted to work, they would. If not, then they should be punished for their poor decision-making and laziness, not rewarded.

For others, it was about accumulation of wealth. My campaign manager copped an earful from a local union member about how he wouldn’t be voting Labour because of the introduction of capital gains tax. Never mind that this worker was one of the now working elite, protected by a union, paid well and in secure employment. No, now that he had got himself ahead by investing in property, he was going to yank that ladder right up behind him because he didn’t deserve to pay tax on his hard earned capital gains. A Labour government would penalize his hard work and steal his money.

And for yet another group, it was about relative status. Middle-aged women, doing very nicely thank you very much, were among the worst. Typically they had older kids or none at home, were working, and had a mortgage, but enough left over for a trip to Aussie and to have the hair and nails done. Labour’s got nothing for me, they’d claim. I won’t get free doctors visits, or cheap housing or a wage increase. Why would I vote Labour to give those things to someone else?

Why indeed. Without a tangible offer to improve such women’s daily lives there was no incentive to vote left. Mention their kids or grandkids and a brief flicker of life would flame in their eyes but quickly die again. You could see them calculating the possible benefits and then dismissing them as irrelevant. Labour was the party for bludgers, not their kids. Their kids and grandkids weren’t going to need handouts; they were middle class!

And what about workers earning slightly above minimum wage? They didn’t want to vote for the minimum wage to go up because that would make them feel closer to the bottom again. Having colleagues paid less than you when you are on $16 an hour gives you status, class. That gap is important to their self-identity.

Yes. Thirty years of neo liberalism has changed our mindset. Individualism, aspiration to wealth, and the perceived ability to self-define class status have eroded the once-shared values of fairness, egalitarianism, and solidarity.

But more than that, the right has so effectively claimed the narrative that workers no longer identify with the left. Somehow, the right has persuaded working women and men that they are on a journey towards wealth. All the good kiwi has to do is work hard while making sure those around them aren’t unfairly advantaged with handouts and benefits and extra help. Because, deep down, most kiwis still understand that not everyone ends up on the rich list. There will be losers. Just as long as it’s not them.

Should the parties on the left pander to this egocentric view of the world? Or should we hold firm to our values and wait for some calamity to drive people back to us? Or, better yet, can we somehow convince “middle New Zealand” that we all do better when we all do better?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Pat O’Dea – Stop Deep Sea Oil (shhhh don’t mention climate change)

5

protests-1200

Last Tuesday I went to the anti deep oil drilling protest in Queen Street, where we marched up to the Sky City Convention Centre. After a number of speeches were given. We were all asked to hang around for the rest of the day outside conference to make a show that we were still there and not going away easily.

And that is what we did.

After about an hour of nothing happening, I asked if I could make a statement on the Auckland Coal Action campaign against the coal mine at Mangatangi. No one else was using the sound system and nothing else was happening. So they (reluctantly) agreed. Sensing the organisers suspicion, I tried to relate their protest against unconventional fossil fuels, like deep sea oil, to climate change, and the need to stop coal. The organisers shouted me down and telling me to “shut up”, and “keep to the subject”. Which I took to mean, only talk about the environmental risks posed by deep sea oil spills, and not the danger to the climate that such technologies pose. (Even though these risks had been fully covered already by all the previous official speakers). When in response to their shouted objections and heckling I said, “Even if we stop all unconventional fossil fuel technologies like deep sea oil, and fracking, and tar sands, and shale oil, there are enough conventional fossil fuel reserves to still destroy the climate.” I was immediately told to “get off” their sound truck.

After I spoke the crowd still sat around, no one got up to speak, nothing else happened, and people just started drifting away.

So what moved me to speak as I did, at the anti deep sea oil drilling protest?

Last year I went to a talk given by Green Party MP Gareth Hughes about the campaign against deep sea oil, that he gave at the Auckland Green Party HQ in Mercury Lane.

What I took to heart from Gareth Hughes speech that day, was this, he said, “If we really want to stop deep sea oil drilling we must fight it on climate change grounds.”

The reason for this, is that the evidence about climate change is so overwhelming that it cannot be refuted, by the oil companies.

In New Zealand objections based on climate change grounds are not allowed, by law, to be taken into consideration by New Zealand judges and courts when granting planning consents for new mining and drilling permits.

The evidence is so damning and the consequences are so terrifying, if this evidence were allowed to be heard, no new coal mines, or oil wells would ever be granted permits again.

So the government, at the behest of the oil and coal companies, have made it illegal for such evidence to be allowed in planning consent hearings.

My question is this: Why do we also publicly censor ourselves over these matters?

 

Pat O’Dea is the Mana spokesperson for climate change issues.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Burqa’s, Mulsim bashing and the sudden need by Key to reinvade Iraq

9

Screen-Shot-2014-06-22-at-8.17.38-am-300x224

I love how Key can tell the NZ media before the election that we won’t re-invade Iraq, and then as soon as he wins, just shrug it off and look to do just that.

Not content with the ability to spy on all of us to ‘protect’ us from terrorism, Key now wants to play soldier by re-invading Iraq because the other 5 Eyes are doing it and we don’t want to miss out on all the fun. That IS has occurred because of the instability created by the vacuum of invading Iraq the first time around on the grounds of weapons of mass destruction that never existed would be hilarious if it weren’t so bloody tragic.

In the new Nu Zilind post National’s incredible win, the PM can shoot an infant live on Seven Sharp and National voters will claim it was self defence by Key. If John says there are boogeymen wearing Burqa’s under the bed, NZers will squeal in fright and demand he sends in the SAS.

With their full spectrum dominance of the political system and acquiescence of the media, Key can re-invade Iraq without any real protest. The false flag nonsense of 800 Australian cops arresting 1 person for a supposed ‘terror attack’ alongside the ongoing fear campaign against Muslims drummed up by National’s favourite hate speech blogger and the NZ Herald has done enough to suddenly convince NZers that IS is some sort of threat to us justifying invasion of Iraq.

Seeing as we haven’t yet answered questions about possible war crimes in Afghanistan, rushing off to help US drone strikes blow up everything from IS fighters to wedding parties seems rash. Thankfully for the Government, we have the intellectual curiosity of scared mice, so Key will be able to say to us that the amount of NZers who want to fight for IS is surprisingly high and the vast rump of NZers will accept it without question.

I can’t recall Key ever having any problem with the NZers who want to go and fight for the IDF to commit war crimes against Palestinians, but we don’t really ask those questions in NZ do we?

On ANZAC Day many NZers will piously stand near the graves of the war dead and pay lip service as some desperate attempt to create a nationalism deprived them on Waitangi Day. They will mouth the words that ‘we will never forget’ while their Government re-invades another country under the usual false pretences of freedom and democracy without one second of self reflected irony.

Another day in the land of the wrong uptight crowd.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

How was raiding Nicky Hager’s home for 10 hours so important?

139

10701942_10204058679040698_1235571147073205882_n

“I believe the police actions are dangerous for journalism in New Zealand.” 
– Nicky Hager, 2014

 

You would think would you not that there were many crimes in NZ worthy of investigation far more important than raiding an investigative journalists home.

Not in the new Nu Zilind though, in the new Nu Zilind, investigative journalists who embarrass John Key are lying communist scum. We know this because NZers overwhelmingly rallied to John Key despite the sleaze and dirty politics revealed in Nicky Hager’s book.

In NZ, John Key can do whatever he likes and NZers love it. We are a cargo cult minus the cargo.

I can’t recall a 10 hour search of the Roast Buster boys (1 of whom was the son of a cop). How come none of those boys boasting about raping women had their homes and computers searched for 10 hours? Isn’t it eye watering what the NZ Police get to decide what is investigative worthy and what isn’t? Remember, originally they wouldn’t investigate Banks, but Hager? He’s lucky to have not been arrested for Treason.

Isn’t it hilarious that none of the allegations mentioned in the actual book are being investigated by the Police, but the journalist writing the book is now under investigation.

We should be eternally grateful for the truth Nicky revealed with Dirty Politics – that he’s had his house raided by cops should shame us all. Publishing stolen emails IS NOT ILLEGAL if the material meets a public interest threshold, the Courts when smacking down Slater’s attempt to gag the media clearly ruled the material Hager had been given WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST so the cops raiding his house for 10 hours is a blatant attempt to intimidate.

The pathetic attempt at a justification for these Police State actions by Slater are so intellectually shallow and beneath contempt they aren’t worth the waste of oxygen repeating.

Many NZers invested so much personal ego into the vacant aspiration of TeamKey they remain wilfully prejudiced against Hager no matter what. Post Key’s staggering political victory, this is the new Nu Zilind, and in the new Nu Zilind wilful prejudice rules. We love everything casual, especially our fascism.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

How come we have to pay for an upgrade for Auckland’s electricity infrastructure? Wasn’t Key the one who sold 49% of our power companies?

21

Screen Shot 2014-10-06 at 9.03.16 am

How come we have to pay for an upgrade for Auckland’s electricity infrastructure? Wasn’t Key the one who sold 49% of our power companies?

For all Key’s ‘use of the word ‘freak’ to explain this power outage, it was a weakness well identified before it happened.

The only comfort are all those Auckland National Party voters sitting in the dark wondering how well known weaknesses within the network weren’t being solved by the free market.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Will Obama’s Bombs Stop Beheadings? Russell Brand The Trews

0


Will Obama’s Bombs Stop Beheadings? Russell Brand The Trews

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Why the Green Party should not go to the centre

53

Screen Shot 2014-09-28 at 8.06.37 am

Since the election many commentators have argued that the Greens are too left-wing and the party would do better if it moved to the political centre.

Most of these commentators endorse the Greens’ strong environmental stance, but say the party’s social and economic policies are too radical.

On the positive side, such comments implicitly recognise the success Greens have had in raising environmental consciousness among New Zealanders.

But they also show that developing environmental awareness is not always accompanied by an appreciation of the radical social and economic measures required to deal with the ecological crisis. Gareth Morgan’s views illustrate the point. He argues for a blue-green party which “must be centre, its policies must be palatable to either National or Labour.”

However, a truly green party can’t avoid taking stands to the left of both Labour and National when both those parties are reluctant to bring to heel the main corporate despoilers of our environment.

Why shouldn’t the Greens be to the left of Labour and National when both parties:

  • support deep-sea drilling which threatens our coastal environment and, if successful in finding oil, contributes to global warming.
  • have allowed New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions to increase through weak emissions trading schemes.
  • support trade and investment agreements (like the Trans-Pacific Partnership) that will allow non-New Zealand corporates to weaken our environmental protections.
  • support the Five Eyes spying network, which enables the US and UK governments, in particular, to spy on its political adversaries, which include environmental campaigners.
  • propose transport budgets with too little expenditure on environmentally friendly public transport, cycling and walking.

Contrary to what many critics are saying, Green policies on social justice, peace and human rights reinforce rather than detract from the party’s environmental stance.

Critics of the Greens commonly see politics through a “two-party” lens, even though we are now seven elections into a proportional MMP system. Twenty eight percent of the electorate has just voted for parties other than National and Labour. The percentages for both National and Labour might continue to decline, as they did in this election (compared with with 2011). We are moving towards a European-style multi-party parliament where several parties (including the Greens) end up as significant players. It is not helpful for any of the (presently) smaller parties to be seen as clip-ons to either Labour or National.

Right from the time greens first entered New Zealand politics, as the Values Party in 1972, they have never seen themselves as a clip-on environmental party. The Greens actually have a more comprehensive approach to the critical human and environmental problems than either Labour or National. On quite a few issues Labour has a dollar each way, not wanting to offend, on one side, progressive minded people, and on the other side, the corporate establishment.

The Greens were right to advocate for a Labour-Green government, because Green policy overlaps more with Labour’s than National’s. But this doesn’t mean Parliament is divided simply into those that are with National and those who side with Labour. To think this way is contrary to the ethos of a multi-party political system. The Greens should be willing to work equally with all parties when there is common policy ground. On some issues this means working with National. On others it can mean working across the spectrum with smaller parties, however “right” or “left” they may be. In 2007, when I was a Green MP, I organised a press conference with ACT, United Future and the Maori Party which succeeded in pushing a hesitant Labour-led government to abolish the sedition laws. The Greens ability to do this sort of thing is enhanced if its MPs act respectfully and collegially with all other MPs including, this term, the leaders of the National, ACT, United Future and the Maori Party.

The beauty of the a diverse, multi-party MMP parliament is that most New Zealanders now believe they are being represented by a party which has views close to their own (although those who voted Conservative or Internet Mana will now feel left out, because our party vote threshold is too high).

A Green move to the centre in pursuit of Cabinet posts would betray all those who have just voted for the party’s left-of-Labour policies. The nearly 11% who voted Green would no longer be properly represented in Parliament. That would be a big blow to the credibility of MMP.

A Green move to the centre would also slow down progressive change, including protection for the environment. The ultimate driver of good change via Parliament is not the composition of a Cabinet but public opinion. New Zealand didn’t turn its back on mining the conservation estate because the right people were in a National cabinet. Public criticism, which Green MPs helped mobilise in protests, was the primary factor. Which party would be there to argue against New Zealand getting involve in America’s Middle Eastern wars (environmentally destructive among other things) if the Green Party shifted towards the political centre?  Both National and Labour, to their shame, committed special forces to Afghanistan, and support America’s new bombing campaign in Iraq. The Green Party has a vital peace advocacy role, on behalf of a big chunk of New Zealanders.

New Zealand will be poorly served if all its parliamentary parties try to crowd the centre, largely upholding the status quo and not adequately addressing the real social, economic and environmental problems that we face.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Curwen Rolinson – OURTEAROA: Bringing Back Civil Society and a Progressive Nationalist Youth Organization

2

5754054-4x3-700x525

Like just about everybody in the political prognostication and power-projection game, I make a regular habit of entrail reading. The trouble with entrail-reading, however, is that it customarily requires the beast you’re looking into to be dead, its belly slashed open like a Tauntaun whose life force, along with its intestines, slowly seeps out into the snow.

So it was with the nominal Left immediately following the 2014 election. Labour’s dropped into the low 20%s, there’s still upwards of a million non-voters, and even that great verdant hope the Green Party managed to lose a percent and a caucus member. Looking at the preliminary results late on election night (and far too early on the following Sunday morning) … once the incredible jubilation at New Zealand First’s result had died down (which took some hours along with much music and dancing), it really DID feel like the guts had been ripped out of the relatively more left wing of our politics for guys like me to pour over for weeks to come – looking for some hidden sign about why this happened and how to prevent it ever recurring.

[Because I’m acutely aware that I’m writing two weeks after E-Day, and that it’s entirely possible that you’ve already trawled to death any number of political postmortems which arrange various combinations of percentages and absolute figures in pursuit of closure … if another round of that’s going to bore you, feel free to skip to the conclusion. It’s something ENTIRELY different.]

The lessons I took from polling day were as follows:

National dropped nearly 50,000 votes. This is good. It indicates people in their “core” support base are FINALLY starting to grow weary of endless unfulfilled promises and ongoing dodgy-looking policies and politicians.

Despite the fact it’s still a huge number of non-voters, turnout improved slightly from 74% to 77%. Considering the ABSOLUTELY HUGE EFFORT put in by organizations like NZUSA in getting out the vote, and the eased restrictions on advanced voting … this is just absolutely mind-boggling, and hardly something to celebrate. I’ll consider this gall-ing bladder in more detail a bit later on, but for the moment it’s enough to state that there’s a feeling out there in the electorate that neoliberal (or centrist-moving) parties and their policy-menus don’t tempt still much less represent many voters; while the fact NZ’s political civil society has become all but vestigial means it’s more difficult than ever to actually reach out and energize voters without having to rely upon a clown-car full of partisan uber-hacks to have the wherewithal to do it.

Now as applies the conventional (somewhat softer) Left bloc … Labour dropped from 27.5% and about 615,000 votes down to 24.7% and somewhere in the region of 519,000. That’s incredible. The main opposition party is handed a spying scandal, actual evidence that the Prime Minister lied numerous times in an area he said he’d resign if falsehood was proved, a horrifically unpopular and damaging neoliberal governmental economic agenda … somebody event puts out a novel-length hard-copy best-sellling proof of a Watergate slash Stalinist Salami Tactics style dirty tricks campaign on behalf of the Government … and yet the main Opposition party STILL somehow manage to LOSE somewhere in the region of a hundred thousand votes.

And apparently, some people still think changing just Labour’s leader is going to be sufficient to save the New Zealand left 😛

Meanwhile, over in Lothlorien … the Green Party somehow managed to shed 40,000 votes; going from 11% and 247,000 to 10% and 211,000. I’m sure there is some capacious and considerable headscratching going on inside The Greens about how, exactly, they managed to turn an agenda full of reasonably pleasant-sounding centrist-appealing fully costed policies and a weakening Labour party into a worse result than they enjoyed last time.

Russel Norman blames InternetMANA. I like to blame the sort of milquetoast rhetoric that sees Norman setting the Greens up as being less inclined toward state intervention in the economy than National. We’re probably *both* right to a certain extent, but the fact that I’m blaming Norman moving the Greens into the center, while Norman’s blaming things on the further left … ought to tell you something about how we each view the New Zealand electorate.

I would also like to take this opportunity to state that not all New Zealand First faithful were pleased to see MANA go from the House; and I mark the passing of the party that gave us FEED THE KIDS with great sadness. Still, the fact they only managed to add 2,500 votes (taking them from 24,000 to 26,500 and from one seat to none) despite having four and a half million dollars as well as clearly and singularly awesome policy may evince that personalities such as Harawira’s and DotCom’s are even more capable of dissuading voters than Cunliffe’s. (Also, isn’t it funny how nobody actually credits Labour with winning Te Tai Tokerau, but instead insists other parties won it for them)

[Made it through all the numbers? Right. Here’s the important bit. Prefaced by more numbers!]

New Zealand First, however went from strength to strength – building on our impressive return in 2011 to increase our vote by nearly 40,000 and add 4 MPs to our Caucus. I like to think this evinces the growing popularity of an unapologetically economic nationalist and anti-neoliberal party and policy-set. I’ll blog more about what this means for the NZ Left in the near future (hint: Awesome, awesome black-and-silver things!) but for the moment I want to talk about the incredibly long electoral “shadow” that I feel has been cast not just by NZF but also by Labour and The Greens.

We’ve got a situation now wherein the right-wing neoliberal no-future bloc is, for the first time in half a generation’s worth of election cycles no longer gaining votes and support. I think I was in intermediate the last time this happened. Unfortunately, we’ve also reached a point wherein – with the exception of New Zealand First – left-wing parties aren’t exactly gaining support either. Quite the converse, in fact.

What the surge of NZF support tells me is that there is a growing vibe in the electorate for uncompromisingly statist economics and an aggressive, bellicose protest voice in the House. This hasn’t translated into corresponding greater support for either the Labour or the Green Party – because the literal hundreds of thousands of Kiwis out there who might have voted for these parties previously, or who would have vaguely considered the possibility of doing so this time are standing in that “shadow” of democratic engagement *behind* our parties rather than the light of actually being engaged. They’re behind us, rather than off the political spectrum entirely because many of them genuinely believe in and identify with many of our values … but feel there’s barriers (whether of policy or personality or something else entirely) to their greater participation in – or even voting for – an organized political party.

We can venture any number of party-specific reasons why this is so. Some Labourites presumably don’t like the guy leading the party (whomever it might be) and/or the neoliberal policies Labour keeps running with election after election like raising the retirement age and taxing the middle class’s retirement savings. I’m not quite sure *how* to explain the Green Party’s reduced vote in 2014, as I don’t know their voter-base well enough – although it does seem interesting that NZF’s vote has gone up by nearly 40k while the Greens’ has deteriorated by about the same figure. There’s also an argument that #DirtyPolitics actually helped rather than hindered the right wing by switching tens of thousands of voters “off” politics because they mistakenly believed that we’re all as bad as the Nats and had the sense that no matter whom they voted for, they’d be electing a “politician”.

So the really big question that every serious politico should be asking is this: how do we reach out to these million non-combatants and bring them out of our democratic shadow and into the light.

It seems like the main vehicles we’ve used to foster political engagement for the last few cycles – whether political parties, or non-partisan voter-mobilization projects like Rock Enroll or the Electoral Commission just simply aren’t working; and at the same time, the growing disconnect between political parties and the non-hack portions of the electorate is only widening, with corresponding deleterious effect upon the ability of parties to actually represent the concerns, vision and aspirations of electors – much less encouraging people to join up, and play an active role in keeping those policies and parties fresh and relevant to the electorate.

As applies my own experiences with New Zealand First, and more especially NZ First Youth … for about six months in the run-up to the election, I had a near constant stream of people hitting me up via social media, calls, and even random encounters in the street to tell me two things: first, that they genuinely and strongly supported our economic nationalist agenda; and second, when I asked if they’d be keen to translate that support to the next level by joining the party … it kept coming back to a few core themes about why even in its present 21st century state, they couldn’t … just yet. Rest assured, I’m working on ’em 🙂

What this tells me is that at the same time Kiwis are getting ever more disenchanted with, and disenfranchised by the present government; they’re less able than ever to express opposition in our institutional and parliamentary political process thanks to an ongoing breakdown in the way parties act as an opinion conveyor between polis and policy elite.

A number of potential remedies for this have been suggested, ranging from direct democratic measures like binding referendums through to changing the electoral system or mandating that parties reform themselves. Each have their merits, and to that list I’d love to add broadcasting standards for political journalism; but given that, to my mind, the stumbling block for democratic engagement at the moment is many of the parties themselves, I’m most interested in extra-parliamentary political vehicles for engaging with, shaping and transmitting public opinion.

Organizations like Generation Zero have already had some considerable success with this, from an environmentalist perspective and with a view to engaging youth; while Bomber and others played a role in getting tens of thousands of people informed, aware, and pissed off enough to be taken into political consideration when it came to the GCSB bill.

These two causes have now attained recognizable salience in the Kiwi electorate, along with the twin forces of economic nationalism and anti-neoliberalism as core parts of what New Zealanders want out of their politics.

I contend that this occurred in no small part because there were extra-party and extra-parliamentary organizations and organizers prepared to put in the hard yards to make events happen, interface with political parties, and otherwise co-ordinate, contribute to, marshal and immanentize public sentiment on these issues.

The effects have been palpable and obvious – even if, in the case of environmentalism, it’s taken some years to go from an activist-niche cause to something so pervasive and prominent in the Kiwi political consciousness that even the neoliberal National party has to maintain a “BlueGreen” interior organization to accommodate environmentalism in its deep-blue right-wing politics.

That’s the power of civil society, particularly when the already established political vehicles are being average with taking up or implementing a concern.

It’s my contention that just as civil society was able to propel environmentalism along with widespread concern for privacy rights and opposition to mass surveillance into the political limelight previously; there’s now a present need and vacancy for civil society to do something similar with economic nationalism. Previous efforts in this area back when neoliberalism was last seriously challenged in the mid-1990s like the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA) met with some marked success; and it certainly seems like popular opposition to privatization, land and asset sales offshore, and other issues of economic nationalist salience such as the TPPA is at a twenty first century high.

With this in mind, I’d like to take this opportunity to call for the creation of a new extra-party political vehicle focused around linking up youth with economic nationalism in a similar manner to how Generation Zero’s done an exemplar job with youth engagement and climate/environmentalism issues.

As I’ve already said, there’s a huge swathe of unrepresented opinion out there in the polis on these issues; and due to the nature of economic policy, it’s my generation – the youth, some of the least-listened to voices when it comes to economic policy – that will be bearing the brunt of the consequences for a failure to act in our own future.

Let’s call it “OURtearoa”. Watch this space for more details.

 

“Curwen Ares Rolinson is a firebrand young nationalist presently engaged in acts of political resistance deep behind enemy lines amidst the leafy boughs of Epsom. He is affiliated with the New Zealand First Party; although his postings here should not necessarily be taken as indicative or representative of NZF’s policy or views.” 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date

40

.

20-september

.

Counting of Special Votes are completed and the Electoral Commission’s final election results have been announced;

National: 47.04 (60 seats – down 1)

Labour: 25.13 (32 seats – no change)

Green Party: 10.70 (14 seats – plus 1)

NZ First: 8.66 (11 seats – no change)

Maori Party: 1.32 (2 seats – 1 electorate, 1 List – no change)

ACT: 0.69 (1 electorate seat – no change)

United Future: 0.22 (1 electorate seat – no change)

Conservative: 3.97 (nil seats – no change)

Internet Mana: 1.42 (nil seats – no change)

 

It is interesting to compare the 2014 results with the 2011 Election figures;

.

party votes - 2014 -2011 - general elections - new zealand
* Predominantly electorate based-parties

.

Other results

 

1. Final enrolment rate:

2011: 93.7%

2014: 92.6%

2. Total Votes counted by Electoral Commission:

2011: 2,278,989

2014: 2,416,481

Increase: 137,492

3. Voter turnout (as a percentage of enrolled electors):

2011: 74.2%

2014: 77.9%

4. Advance votes cast:

2011: 334,558 (14.7% of voters)

2014: 717,579 (29.33% of voters)

Increase: 383,021

 

Observations

National

National lost it’s overall majority in the House, though with ACT’s single MP (and to a lesser degree, Peter Dunne), they will most likely still maintain a de facto majority regardless.

My belief is that National’s party strategists were acutely aware that once Special Votes were counted, they would lose their 61st MP, Maureen Pugh. This was a re-play of the 2008 and 2011 elections, where election night results were only temporary, and National’s numbers were pared back (usually by one seat) after the counting of special votes.

Little wonder that Key and National Party strategists have been very, very, very eager to form coalition deals with ACT, Peter Dunne, and the Maori Party. Despite Key’s noble-sounding public pronouncements,


“It’s more about, you know, the kind of inclusive government we want to have other parties working with us…

[…]

But equally, we sort of know each other quite well now, after six years we got a bit of a sense of the areas of importance and significance to each other and in a perfect world we don’t want to pass legislation 61 [to] 60 votes the whole way through, we do want to work with other people.”

Yeah, right, whatever. Key wasn’t being “inclusive” or “magnanimous” – he was playing his cards right, knowing full well what the Electoral Commission was going to deal out to his Party two weeks after  Election night results.

National’s coalition deals with three minor parties was their “insurance policy”.

For the next three years, Key will be praying nightly to the political gods for all his MPs to remain  alive, loyal,  and healthy (in that order). At 60 Members of Parliament out of 121, National cannot afford too many by-elections or defections.

ACT

Not just on political life-support by the good graces of the National Party, but more importantly, ACT’s 7,200 drop in their Party vote signifies New Zealanders’ lack of appetite for any further right-wing, neo-liberal “reforms”.

This is something Key and National Party strategist should take careful note of. National’s increase in support may reflect a current preference by voters for a “steady-as-you-go” regime – not further radical moves to the Right.

It is also something that Left-Wing parties should take note: New Zealanders have expressed a subtle distaste for neo-liberalism. We need to capitalise on that.

On a side-issue, if ACT’s Party Vote is destined to reside with a tiny hard-core element of incorrigible, fanatical, right-wing voters, then what is the value of gifting Epsom to ACT if no other candidate will coat-tail into Parliament on the success of someone like John Banks or David Seymour?

There can only be one possible benefit to National: ACT is the “trojan horse” whereby unpopular right-wing policies (eg; Charter Schools) can be introduced as part of sham “coalition negotiations”. As Cameron Slater’s malicious right-wing blog was used to conduct “second track” vicious attack politics on National’s enemies, ACT’s usefulness lies in enacting right wing policies Key  may not wish to be closely associated with.

United Future/Peter Dunne

UF’s drop in it’s Party Vote – by well over a half – signifies that voters see Dunne fully as a one-man band. He may continue to win Ohariu on Electorate Votes, but his low Party Vote results preclude any other UF candidates “coat tailing” into Parliament on Dunne’s localised success.

A Party Vote for UF has therefore become a “wasted” vote, and eventually National will ask itself a question, “Why are we supporting Dunne when we might as well go hard out to win the seat ourself, with one of our own candidates?” When the Nats cannot even pin unpopular policies on Dunne – what is his purpose to the centre-right bloc?

As well; the day that Green Party voters wake up to the reality that supporting the Labour Candidate, instead of their Green candidate, with the Electorate Vote,  is the day Dunne loses his seat. His presence in Parliament is based purely on some Ohariu Green voters voting shambolically rather than  tactically.

Mana-Internet

Interestingly, the Mana-Internet alliance was the only electorate-based Party to actually increase their overall Party Vote:  from 24,168 in 2011 to 34,095 on 20 September. ACT and United Future between them lost much of their support. And whilst the Maori Party lost only 132 Party Votes – they lost two electorates; Tamaki Makarau and Te Tai Hauauru to Labour.

As history shows, Hone Harawira only lost his seat – Te Tai Tokerau – after Labour’s candidate was endorsed by John Key and Winston Peters, along with some very shady back-room dealings by the Maori Party.

Subsequently, the  mainstream media,  indignant commentators, etc, all piled on to the battered and bruised body of Mana, the Internet Party, Kim Dotcom, and Hone Harawira. However, New Zealanders should never forget;

  • Through Kim Dotcom’s refusal to buckle to State power, we discovered that the GCSB had been illegally spying on 88 New Zealand citizens.
  • After Kim Dotcom’s efforts, we now know that mass surveillance is being undertaken in this country. This is the new reality which the media seems to have over-looked (as per usual) in their constant demands for sensationalistic news stories (as if living in a mass-surveilled society wasn’t sensational in it’s own right).
  • Yes, Kim Dotcom did fund the Internet Party to the tune of around $3 million.
  • Compare that to  National spending $2,321,216 from wealthy benefactors for the 2011 general election.
  • And contrast with the  $60,082  Mana spent    at the same time. When did the media ever question the David-VS-Goliath battle between National and Mana in 2011? The answer is blindingly obvious.

New Zealand has a fine tradition of giving people a fair go.

We like to think we help one another.

There is also a darker side to our nature. Some call it “The Tall Poppy Syndrome”.

I call it bullying.

Less words. Same meaning.

Something  Patrick Gower might reflect on.

Conservative Party

Whilst I am no fan of Colin Craig and his ill-considered mish-mash of populist and right wing policies – I do recognise that National’s on-going refusal to carry out  reforms to MMP – as recommended by the Electoral Commission in 2012 – is persistently creating bizarre and undemocratic results.

The Conservative Party polled 95,598 Party Votes – three times as high as the Maori Party, which was able to bring in a second MP on Te Ururoa’ Flavell’s “coat-tails”. Yet the Conservatives have no MPs, despite out-polling the Maori Party.

(Yes, I understand that the Conservatives achieved only 3.97% of the Party Vote. But who is say they would not have gained extra votes had the Party threshold been dropped to 4%, as the Commission recommended?)

Green Party

Of the left-wing parties, the Greens fared better than Labour or Mana-Internet. Clearly, their extra 9,986 Party Votes came from Labour’s drop of 10,402 votes. Their campaign was well-targetted; they stayed consistently on-message; and their Party was not under-mined by loose-cannon-candidates engaging in open sabotage. (ref)(ref)(ref)

At  257,356 Party Votes, the Greens increased their support from their 2011 result ( 247,370 Party Votes). Their overall percentage dropped only because the overall number of Party Votes cast increased this election by 137,492.

NZ First

NZ First benefitted from the increase  in voting this year. The scandals exposed in  “Dirty Politics“, and the political fallout that affected Labour, escaped Winston Peters who has continually portrayed himself as “above petty politics”.

Peters, however, was not quite sufficiently  “above petty politics” to  under-mine Mana Leader, Hone Harawira, in his bid to retain Te Tai Tokerau. By endorsing Labour’s Kelvin Davis, Peters plotted with John Key and the Maori Party in an unholy, manipulative, venal  triumvirate to destroy the Mana Movement.

Peters can get down and dirty with the worst of them, it seems.

Like Peters’ broken promises post-1996, the public will soon forget Peters’ quiet  treachery. Unfortunately.

Labour

Ye gods, where does one start…?!

  • The billboards which promoted electorate candidates – and mentioned the all-important Party Vote in barely-discernible small letters?!
  • The constant attacks on a potential coalition support-partner by Labour candidates?!
  • Allowing certain media political commentators to frame the narrative on coalition partners – thereby forcing Cunliffe to  look too eager to “do the right thing” according to certain pundits?! (ref)(ref)(ref)
  • Engaging in internecine warfare, whether pre or post-election – simply the most futile act that Labour could possibly engage in. Did they think no one would notice?
  • Changing the leader, post-election. Does that mean Labour never had confidence in Cunliffe in the first place, and this his appointment was a mistake? Does that mean Cunliffe’s replacement may also be a mistake? Does it mean Labour has 100% confidence in their new Leader – until they don’t? So… why should the public have confidence in Labour’s new choice of a new Leader, when s/he may be temporary?

Perhaps Labour’s worst mistake of all the above was constantly deriding the Mana-Internet alliance. The constant attacks on Hone Harawira and his Party signalled to the public that Labour was weak; full of self-doubt and lacking in self-confidence. Labour’s  desperation for votes was so dire that they were willing to attack and destroy a potential coalition ally, to cannibalise their electoral support.

That showed weakness.

And the public took note.

Contrast Labour’s treatment of Hone Harawira and Mana-Internet, with how John Key related to ACT, United Future, and the Maori Party: with confidence; courtesy; and collegiality.

When Key refused to make a deal with Colin Craig’s Conservative Party, he did so with professional courtesy. There was never any rancor  involved, and despite refusing any Epsom-like deal, Key still left National’s options wide open to work with the Conservatives.

Key even flip-flopped on his previous hand-on-heart promise never to entertain any coalition deal-making with Winston Peters;

I don’t see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead,” – John Key,  2 February 2011

When the public looked at Key, they saw a politician who said categorically he would be prepared to work with anyone.

The public liked that. The public want politicians to work together for the good of the country. Key not only said as much – he demonstrated it by working with parties as disparate as ACT, the Maori Party, United Future, and the Greens (though the latter not in any formal coalition agreement).

When the public looked at Labour, they saw a left wing party willing to consume another left wing party, to further their own selfish agenda.

Key showed collegiality and co-operation.

Labour exuded desperation.

Whoever leads the Labour Party after 18 November – take note.

Media

The  closet, political “party” in this election – the mainstream media. Acting much like a ‘spoiler’ for the Left, it did it’s damndest to engage in “gaffe” journalism; focus on trivia (scarves, holidays, etc); and failed to chase up real stories when they hit the public.

The nadir of junk  ‘journalism’ came when Mike Hosking interviewed both Nicky Hager and National Minister, Steven Joyce, on 14 August,  over revelations contained in the expose, “Dirty Politics“.

As I wrote previously, when I reviewed this segment of “Seven Sharp”;

I encourage people to watch the opening segment, where Mike “interviews” Minister Steven Joyce, and then interogates and derides author, Nicky Hager.

Any pretence that Mike Hosking is an “unbiased journalist” has been firmly dispatched. The man is a mouthpiece for the National government and his behaviour and line of questioning proved it.

.

Seven Sharp - 14 august 2014 - nicky hager - steven joyce - dirty politics

.

Nicky Hager’s investigations have uncovered practices that can only be described as an abuse of power by this government.

Did Hosking ask challenging questions to the Minister? Answer: no.

Did Hosking put specific examples requiring explanations to the Minister? Answer: no.

Was Hosking’s line of questioning relevant to the book and offer insights to the viewer? Answer: no.

Hosking then asked hard questions from Nicky Hager, who to his credit realised that he was being set up as the “fall guy” for the story.

This was not journalism. Not even close. It was superficial, Fox-style partisan politics masquerading as “informed debate”. Again, not even close.

The only television I have seen in my life that came close to Hosking’s slanted, pro-government performance was during my visits to Eastern European countries in my late teens/early twenties. In those times, Eastern Europe was ruled by well-policed, undemocratic, One Party “communist” regimes. Television “news” was little more than a mouthpiece for the government – no questions asked. There was never even an attempt at balance.

Hosking would have fitted in perfectly.

As far as I am concerned, Hosking’s “talent” lies elsewhere, but not in journalism. Perhaps a PR/spin-man for a cereal company or arms manufacturer or bordello run by the Chow Brothers (he’s already sold his soul, so the other bodily bits should be equally saleable).

On The Daily Blog, on 3 October, Keith Rankin made this pertinent observation

 Note that the apparent conservatism of the mainstream media is due it being almost completely bound to the prevailing consensus; far more bound to it than even the politicians themselves.
Which, when you think about it, makes perfect sense.
A media “bound to the prevailing consensus” will reflect the nature of that “consensus”. If the prevailing public consensus  is sufficiently conservative enough to return a National-led right-wing bloc with an increased majority – then the media is unlikely to run counter to the popular current.
Little wonder that the likes of Gower, Garner, Hoskings, O’Brien et al, can get away with overt anti-left sentiments. They are speaking to an audience in a vast “echo chamber” encompassing at least fifty percent of the population.
Little wonder also that a “respected” newspaper like the NZ Herald could get away scott-free with what amounted to an obvious, shabby, politically-motivated  smear campaign with the Donghua Liu Affair in June, this year.  Evidence uncovered by this blogger and a person closely connected to the media  (by-lined as  “Hercules”) points to collusion between the Herald and Immigration Minister Woodhouse’s office to use attack politics and mis-use of information released under the OIA to undermine the leader of the Labour Party.
But even when  there is no real news to report, just  take a leaf from the Patrick Gower Manual of Loud, Excitable, Sensationalist Journalism: make up any ole BS.
Or even when the story is about John Key on the cover of Rugby News magazine, TV3’s Tova O’Brien still managed to make a childish quip at the end – denigrating David Cunliffe. Even though the story had nothing to do with the Labour Leader, O’Brien couldn’t resist a parting shot at Cunliffe,
“So once again the blue team gets one over the red team.Yes, it’s cringey, but it’s left Cunliffe looking whingey.”
Childishly stupid? Indeed. But that’s the style of “news” reporting dished up to the public in 21st Century New Zealand.
Labour, the Greens, and Mana were fighting a political battle on not one – but two fronts. National was only one – and perhaps the lesser of the two opponants they faced. This was not an election – it was the re-annointing of our Dear Leader.
.
  portrait of a prime minister
.


 

References

Electoral Commission:  2014 General Election – Official Result

Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2011

Electoral Commission: Party Votes and Turnout by Electorate

NZ Herald: Final election results in – National loses majority

Dominion Post: National loses majority, Greens pick up one

NZ Herald: Special votes see Greens gain seat, Nats lose

NZ Parliament: The 2011 General Election

TVNZ ‘Breakfast’: Coalition deals signed – ACT and United Future

Radio NZ: Big change in Maori seats

Dominion Post: Lots left to be desired

Twitter: Patrick Gower

NZ Herald: Govt rejects recommendations to change MMP system

NZ Herald: MMP review recommends lower party threshold

Scoop Media: Māori Party’s first list MP Confirmed

TV3 News: Labour candidate makes more ‘Shylock’ comments

Fairfax media: Mallard’s mad Moa blurt

Fairfax media: Winston Peters backs Labour’s Kelvin Davis

NZ Herald: Election 2014 –  Hone’s call to arms after Winston backs Kelvin

Fairfax media: Kelvin Davis blasts Mana Party

TV3 News: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong

TVNZ: David Cunliffe stands by decision to take family holiday

Election Ads: James Dann – Labour Party – 2014 General Election

Frankly Speaking: The secret of National’s success – revealed

Scoop Media: Patrick Gower interviews Labour leader David Cunliffe

Radio NZ: Cunliffe says no to Internet-Mana

TV3 News: Cunliffe – Labour, NZF, Greens ‘will work’

NZ Herald: Cunliffe on Dotcom – ‘We have nothing to do with him’

TVNZ News: No deal – Key leaves Colin Craig out in the cold

Fairfax media: Possible coalition line-ups after election

TVNZ News: Winston Peters not grabbing John Key’s olive branch

NZ Herald: PM rules out any NZ First deal

TV3 News:  Cunliffe apologises ‘for being a man’

The Daily Blog: When the media say they covered Dirty Politics – did they?

TVNZ: Seven Sharp 14 August

The Daily Blog: National Party Spice Boys

TV3 News Bulletin: Tuesday 30 September 2014

TV3 News:  Key nestles in with the All Blacks

Previous related blogposts

Winston Peters recycles pledge to “buy back state assets” – where have we heard that before?

The secret of National’s success – revealed

Election 2014; A Post-mortem; a Wake; and one helluva hang-over

Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot

“Dirty Politics” and The Teflon Man

The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed


 

.

david cunliffe stood up on the issue of domestic violence

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Is Russel Norman’s spite rant against Hone & Laila deflecting Green Party election failure?

71

Russel-Norman_0

Russel Norman – you are the leader of the Greens, you are not Trevor Mallard on roids.  

My criticism of Russel Norman’s bizarre and ill spirited spite rant against Hone and Laila has provoked an adolescent and juvenile response on Twitter from Russel…

Screen Shot 2014-10-05 at 5.09.25 pm

…and Russel is 100% right. As a champion of Internet MANA I was terribly, terribly wrong and I offered up my slice of humble pie the very next day on how wrong I called it. I honestly believed that if NZers saw the real Dirty Politics/Mass surveillance John Key, kiwis would recoil from him. Helen Clark was crucified for signing a painting she didn’t paint, a speeding ticket, energy saving lightbulbs and water saving shower heads, Key’s henchmen on the other hand were alleged to have blackmailed an MP, hacked Labour’s computer and downloaded their entire database, were handed SIS information to embarrass a political opponent, attacked public servants and planned a corporate hit job on the head of the SFO. Add to that the mass surveillance falsehoods exposed by Assange, Snowden and Greenwald and it never occurred to me NZers would vote for that.

In the end, Nicky Hager was right. Dirty Politics worked and hoping to reverse 6 years of media collusion with Key’s black ops team in 6 weeks was in hindsight a false hope.

Kim is the first to admit the demonisation of him damaged Internet MANA, and I’ve given my thoughts on the Moment of Truth, but to blame a wronged person whose only difference is that he has the wealth to fight back for the well co-ordinated hit job he suffered at the hands of the media and Government seems churlish in the extreme by Russel. To put the boot into Hone, Laila and Kim by buying wholeheartedly into the mainstream narrative while refusing to criticise that media for their abdication of fourth estate responsibilities  is beneath the leader of the Greens.

If Russel is now through with blaming everyone else for the election result, will he be turning that same level of Canberra viciousness to his own performance as leader of the Green Party? Here is a leader who said 15% was their target, a Leader who has had plenty of exposure, plenty of years in the media spotlight, a Leader who has had every advantage while Labour is in disarray to push the vote up.

So what the hell happened then?

I certainly believed they had 15% in them, great candidates, a solid set of policies, some which cleverly managed to straddle the left/right divide and seek voters from the soft blue without alienating their environmental base, so what went wrong?

Well, apart from a pretty lacklustre appearance from Russ who seemed to think it was all a bit beneath him at times, the Greens ran the worst billboard campaign of any election I can remember. Their weird ‘Love NZ’ Billboards looked like they were promising more traffic congestion, child poverty and polluted rivers – they didn’t look like the political solution at all. The messaging was ill conceived and had as much marketing success as abattoir slaughter house photos bearing the McDonald’s ‘I’m loving it’ logo.

Where’s Russel’s responsibility for that messaging decision?

The entire country was plastered in these weird billboards, and managed to  communicate nothing but negative gut reactions. The party machine on the day once again failed to spark and the lack of traction despite the Greens large social media footprint are all questions Green members should be demanding answers to. Seeing as Russel promised 15% and managed to under deliver by 30% – is it time to call into question his Leadership in all of this?

If under performing by 30% while slagging off Hone, Laila and Kim and moving the coms team to the centre is the best Russel can manage, perhaps Green supporters might start asking aloud what could a Kevin Hague co-led Green Party alongside Metiria achieve instead?

Russel’s behaviour in all of this is beneath the leader of a political party, his spite rant and the twitter insults he followed his tweet to me up with are more graceless boor than the actions of a genuine leader. Personally disappointing for him and embarrassing for the Greens.

Russel Norman is much better than this childishness and the Greens can’t be happy having their brand now associated with bitterness. Russ needs a herbal tea and a massage.

It is sad in the extreme that Hone can continue to show more dignity in defeat than Russel Norman has ever managed in his years of victory.

After bashing Hone, Kim and Laila, I’m waiting for Norman to now attack Nicky Hager for publishing Dirty Politics to excuse his election result.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

STAY CONNECTED

11,996FansLike
4,057FollowersFollow

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service