TV3 gave fair coverage on Firstline of the issue I raised about the Green Party fundraising campaign for their poverty politics.
But there was one inaccuracy – I was referred as ‘a right wing blogger’. That’s hilarious.
I happen to comment predominately on right wing blogs such as Kiwiblog and Whale Oil because they are very open forums, with little restriction to commenting. The troops there will also laugh at me being called a right wing blogger.
I don’t comment any more on the major left wing blog The Standard because after being banned a number of times I have been permanently banned. They took exception to me questioning and highlighting some of their blatant lies, abuse and harrassment in posts and comments.
I was often referred to as a righty, a tory and a RWNJ at The Standard, but that was just abuse or relative to the left of Labour or Mana commenters who abuse rather than engage in discussion.
I have also been blocked from commenting at Labour’s Red Alert by Clare Curran, particulalry ironic as Clare talks about supporting open government, but in practice tries to control the party message as much as most politicians.
I don’t see myself as either left or right. I’m soft of a centrist but support both leftish and rightish policies as I see fit. Hard core righties and hard core lefties don’t understand this pragmatic political approach but centerish is by far the most common starting position for many in politics, obviously for United Future but also including much of both National and Labour stances.
TheContrarian
/ October 26, 2012i would never call you right-wing. And I agree totally with your pragmatic approach
inventory2
/ October 26, 2012You, like Peter Dunne are a product of MMP Pete. MMP has made consensus and compromise essential elements of the political process. That may not be ideal, but it is the reality that MMP has delivered.
Pete George
/ October 26, 2012Consensus and compromise have also been essential elements of the political process. In New Zealand under FPP it used to all be cloistered within a single party. MMP has just moved that to cross party consensus and compromise, which is more visible and widens the range of compromise.
BM
/ October 27, 2012Brought here RE “Politics of Poverty” concept.
I rank all of the blogs you mention above in the category of “poverty of politics”. The first three are just nearly explicit partisan hackery, the last being open/defined about its explicitness. Also, getting banned from commentating on various politicians personal political blogs doesn’t so much say about open government as it does about well… the need to do better things. I would encourage you to blog specifically about issues on your own blog more with good analysis. Political parties need to know they shouldn’t or can’t get away with overstepping claims even in their own internal ways of seeking donation all around.
Investigative journalism even in tiny pieces about internal newsletters and political tactics is worthwhile for our democracy. I encourage you to blog, seek out quality debate and such, but when you start referring to “The troops”, i.e. keyboard warriors it does your more serious political credentials no favours. People will just look at you as just another keyboard warrior politico instead of well… someone with a fresh lense to bring on things. Go soft on mentioning United Future at all, just let people know you are involved. If they like what you are writing they will start to have goodwill towards you and it anyways.
Just one thing-
“I don’t see myself as either left or right. I’m soft of a centrist but support both leftish and rightish policies as I see fit.” – “As I see fit” = Rings of lack of principles. If you want to take a centrist stance it is so much more convincing to refer to particular policies or otherwise that make that appealing in New Zealand. Or refer to bedrock principles you take from United Futures approach amongst other things. Describing yourself as “Centrish” is just simply not particularly appealing.
Kind regards,
BM
Pete George
/ October 27, 2012Thanks for your comments. A couple of counterpoints…
““As I see fit” = Rings of lack of principles”
Why a lack of principles? A pragmatic political approach does not rule out princioples – in fact I’d comfortably claim I have better principles than many blog authors and commenters I’ve encountered – especially those with more extreme left or right stances, who seem to think that any tactics are justified to achive what they want.
“Describing yourself as “Centrish” is just simply not particularly appealing.”
I acknowledge that’s a problem. It also doesn’t usuallly attract media attention. It’s a paradox, because I think most voters (and parties and MPs) are closer to the centre than either extreme.
So maybe it’s a matter of finding a better marketing description. What about radical pragmatist? Much of what I propose and promoteb is radical to the old school political activists who think there’s no way but their way.
Labour’s same-old approach and failing to rebuild, and possibly National’s current signs of failing, are symptoms of the old ways being very unpopular amongst voters. Feedback I keep getting backs this up. Many people have had a gutsful of how our democracy is abused by parties.
The best way to change our democracy for the better is for voters to radically change old voting (and non voting) habits.