Martyn the mastermind

Martyn Bradbury has masterminded a plan so cunning and so effective that polls and policies are irrelevant to this election. Everything is organised so the outcome of the election is inevitable no matter what anyone else tries to do.

Martyn was instrumental in setting up the Mana Party. He was instrumental in setting up the Internet Party. He engineered that planting of Matt McCarten in Cunliffe’s coterie and into the middle of Labour’s campaign team.

He was the brains behind the Mana-Internet Party merge for the election. He was right behind installing Laila Harre as leader of the Internet Party.

And Martyn is the communications guru for the New Auckland Left agenda, with central command being his The Daily Blog. He converted Chris Trotter from left wing columnist to his left hand man.

Ok, some of this could be a tad exaggerated, but Martyn is not shy of blowing his own trumpet and he has been unable to resist bragging along these lines.

And in a blog post this week he couldn’t resist broadcasting the culmination of his masterminded plan. This is quoted verbatim, no embellishment is required.

Why the polls, policy & smears now don’t matter until after 7pm September 15th 2014

There are so many twists and turns to come until the 15th, that I can not imagine that the entire Nation’s attention won’t be on the Town Hall at 7pm.

Martyn really was closely involved in the anti-GCSB protest meeting at the Auckland Town Hall last year. To remind everyone of his triumph he includes a picture of it.

That’s Martyn in a commanding position dead centre, with Dotcom under his watch.

Couple of polls out today, Roy Morgan and the Polls – and they don’t matter.

John Key could announce tax cuts from a live press conference in Hawaii, and it wouldn’t matter.

David Cunliffe could be mocked on ZB by Mike Hosking for 10 hours straight. And it wouldn’t matter.

All that matters now is 7pm Monday 15th at the Auckland Town Hall.

The beauty of what Kim, Internet MANA and those fighting the mass surveillance state have generated here for the price of just hiring out the Town Hall is the entire nations attention and total dominance of the election campaign.

Journalists like Duncan Garner, Vernon Small and Guyon Espiner have been highly critical that Kim doesn’t reveal the evidence linking Key to a conspiracy to collude with the US to entrap him right now so that they can decide if the evidence stacks up. This point ignores that throughout this case the Government have broken law, acted outside the rules and have been manipulating this process with ‘political pressure’ from the very beginning and Kim has every right to counter that by releasing the information when it’s going to be most damaging to Key.

5 days out from the 2014 election is the time that would be most damaging to Key.

There are so many twists and turns to come until the 15th, that I can not imagine that the entire Nation’s attention won’t be on the Town Hall at 7pm.

Laila Harre’s comments that Kim wouldn’t be allowed in have been seized upon as a giant awkward moment between the two. I think that’s a terrible misreading of why she said that.

The meeting will be live streamed on The Daily Blog.

Five days out from the 2014 election is the time that would be most damaging to Key. Not four and a half days. Not six days. This is how pin point Martyn’s planning has been.

We might as well forget the election campaign and ignore all the other parties. The outcome of the election rests on the Kim and Martyn show on September 15.  Trust Kim. Trust Martyn. We will have to get used to trusting them, they will be the brains and the management behind our next government.

Neither of them are standing for Parliament but don’t worry about small details like that.

What Martyn doesn’t explain is that if everyone ignores polls and policies and smears and parties and campaigning then how will they know who to vote for?

Bradbury doesn’t hint that he knows what Dotocm will reveal, which based on his usual keenness to brag about what he knows probably means he doesn’t know. But he knows that September 15 is the BIG THING and nothing else is relevant to the election. Trust or bluster?

Even if what Dotcom reveals on September 15, something so secret that he hasn’t shared the information with his party leader Harre, even if Dotcom blows Key out of the election, how will voters know who to vote for?

Will September 15 be so decisively dramatic that no one will vote? That’s not going to happen, although Martyn’s farcical circus is likely to disillusion more voters and reduce the turnout.

Or everyone will have a revelation and vote for the brilliance of Kim and Martyn? Ok, for Laila and Hone but we know they are just useful tools in this grand plan.

All eyes will be on Dotcom and The Daily Blog to see hints drip fed.

Or voters will not stand for this personal crusade of Dotcom, nor for the Bradbury bull.

Even if Key and National are seriously compromised it’s likely most of the voters won’t look kindly on the hijacking of our democracy.

A collapse in voter turnout and an election lottery is possible. I wonder if Martyn has bought a ticket. That might be his best hope on September 20.

Martyn seems to think he has masterminded a dead certain election result.

But remember that he masterminded a grand left wing co-operative for the election, and that was quickly dashed when Labour made it clear they would have nothing to do with it, and Greens had already recognised the dangers in a Dotcom led political revolution.

It has been suggested that the September 15 town hall meeting will be a bomb shell. Martyn would like it seen as a Bomber shellacking of John Key  – but we’ve seen Bradbury flops before.

Martyn’s master of his own mind but his left wing revolution may be spinning in his head.

Footnote: the comments on Martyn’s post have been mostly very sceptical and negative.

Greens versus Internet Party

The Internet Party is targeting green voters and this looks to be in deliberate competition with the Green Party.

Last year Russel Norman met with Kim Dotcom several times. He claims he was trying to talk Dotcom out of starting up a new party as he thought it would split votes on the left. That was an astute assessment, but Norman won’t have been aware of how much of a risk the Internet Party might pose to the Greens.

Norman wouldn’t have foreseen that someone working closely with the Greens on it’s campaign would have defected to lead the new party. Laila Harre was loaded with inside Green information.

And Harre has clearly positioned the Internet Party as another left of Labour party, which will have to compete with the Greens for votes.

What wasn’t known was how fiercely they would compete. We got an indication yesterday.

The Green Party announced it’s election priorities as scheduled – Green Party launches key election priority, rivers clean enough for swimming.

But several hours before the Green fanfare the Internet Party released it’s environmental policy – Internet Party to stop high-risk resource extraction -

The Internet Party wants a moratorium on fracking, the dumping of oil wastes, deep-sea and undersea extraction and other risky energy and mining industry practices.

In its final environment policy released today – its first full, digitally-driven democratic policy – the Internet Party also vows to restore the absolute right of Kiwis to protest at sea against deep-sea oil exploration.

This looks like it could be a virtual replication of Green policy. If you look at their full environment policy - Environment policy revised – the similarities are obvious.

Having very similar policies will compete for votes, but notably the Internet Party obviously tried to pre-empt the Green launch yesterday with their own green launch. It looks like they want to compete with the Greens head on.

One of the Internet Party’s main stated objectives is to remove National from Government.Elections are generally thought to be won and lost in the centre.

So it’s curious that the Internet Party has targeted the left of Labour vote, and clearly they are intending to compete strongly with the Greens.

They seem to be more intent on capturing as much of the left wing vote as they can.

This could suggest they are looking further than this election with bigger ambitions, perhaps to establish themselves as the dominant left wing party. That’s what Greens would like to become. It will be much harder for them to grow in the same space as the Internet Party.

And I wonder if there’s some payback going on for Norman not playing ball with Dotcom.

Internet Mana right and wrong on electoral reform

The Internet Party with the MANA Movement are campaigning to make changes to MMP

Internet Party

Sign the petition to give our party votes equal value by lowering the 5% MMP threshold and removing the one-seat threshold.

Who do we want to petition?

The NZ House of Representatives.

What do we want them to do?

We want Parliament to take action to make changes to MMP. The Electoral Act should be changed to give all party votes equal value. Parliament should lower the Party Vote threshold (from the current 5%), and remove the one-seat threshold (the coat-tails rule).
Why is this important?

The most important feature of a democratic electoral system is that everyone’s vote counts equally. MMP was a big improvement on First Past the Post – but some of its features still mean that some votes count more than others.

In the 2011 MMP referendum New Zealanders voted to keep MMP but to make it better. This lead to an Electoral Commission review of some of the details of MMP, including the Party Vote threshold and the one-seat threshold (the so-called coat-tails rule).

Currently your Party vote only counts if your Party either wins 5% of the vote or wins an electorate seat. Since MMP was introduced every new Party in Parliament has been a break-away from an existing Parliamentary Party.

Your Party Vote is your most important vote as it decides the make-up of Parliament. Under the current rules over 100,000 Party Votes can be wasted unless a party wins an electorate seat.

The Electoral Commission has said that the 5% Party Vote threshold is too high and it should be lowered. They recommended an initial change to a 4% threshold but also said that a 3% threshold would not create problems for Parliamentary stability. The Commission recommended lowering the threshold at the same time as abolishing the one-seat threshold. Research by Political Science Professor Rob Salmond presented to the Electoral Commission review showed that claims that low thresholds cause unstable parliaments are a myth and are not supported by the evidence from around the world. He recommended a threshold of no more than 2%.

The Internet Party has launched this petition with the MANA Movement because we believe that Party Votes should have equal value, whether or not a party wins an electorate seat.

I’ve posted a number of times on substantially reducing the threshold so agree with this aim, but I’m not sure that a petition is the best way to achieve it  fair result.

3 News/Radio Live report Internet Mana wants MMP threshold lowered

Internet Party leader Laila Harre says it is wrong that a party can get more than 100,000 votes and still not be represented in Parliament.

“In order for all party votes to have equal value, we need to see a reduction in that threshold,” she says.

Ms Harre says there would be no stability problems even if the threshold was lowered to 3 percent.

Internet-MANA would need the support of both Labour and Greens (at least) to get this changed but both those parties say they want recent Electoral Commission recommendations implemented. This would favour large parties even more, as while it would lower it would lower the threshold to 4% it would also drop the ‘coat tail’ provision which would mean smaller parties would be less fairly represented if they won an electorate.

In another 3 News report Internet Mana seeking electoral reform:

Mana leader Hone Harawira said the 5 percent party vote threshold was “undemocratically high” and should be separated from the one-seat threshold.

Internet Mana wants an equal value for all party votes to underpin any change to electoral law.

“This could be done before the election provided that those parties who have benefited from the current rules do so in the spirit of one person, one party vote,” said Ms Harre.

Calling for it to be changed before the election suggests this is more an election campaign strategy rather than an attempt to change the rules – there is nowhere near enough time to change the electoral rules this close to an election and it would be wrong to do so. Petitions

Few if any current MPs are likely to support this timeframe.

I don’t have any problem with Internet-MANA pushing for abolishing coat tailing while aiming to try and benefit from it, they are entitled to use the current system while promoting a change.

Harre and Harawira must be aware there’s pretty much zero chance of any change before the election, again I see no problem with them using the petition as a campaign tool, other parties have used petitions and a referendum promote their own agendas.

I hope that after the election they are still keen to promote the lowering or dropping of the threshold.

Faint hopes of addressing cannabis and abortion

Martyn Bradbury has written an uncharacteristically reasoned column at the Herald – Unmentionable issues need champion.

On cannabis:

At last year’s International Cannabis Policy Symposium in Auckland, Professor Richie Poulton pointed out that 10.3 per cent of users who smoke cannabis by age 15 go on to have psychotic disorders, whereas only 4.7 per cent of those who used cannabis by aged 18 went on to have psychotic disorders. The conclusion from the symposium was that cannabis isn’t the major health risk it’s been built up to be. If protecting adolescents from early cannabis use is the solution, prohibition is the problem.

Regulation removes tinny houses near schools, prohibition builds them. Between 2007 and last year, 890 New Zealanders were jailed for possession of cannabis and 737 more have been imprisoned for possession of a bong.

Our war on drugs has led us to the awkward position where the US is becoming more progressive on cannabis than we are.

I agree with this, I’ve been promoting the addressing on addressing cannabis law for several years, the current laws and application of them are not working.

On abortion:

Decriminalisation of abortion is needed now. It’s not just the nonsense of Section 187A of the Crimes Act, whereby women must feign mental distress to get a basic medical service, it’s the manner in which pro-life fanatics have managed to isolate and constrict access to abortions that desperately needs challenging by decriminalising it.

I’m 100 per cent pro-choice. Those attempting to tell a woman what to do with her body in the 21st century should be outed for the misogynistic medieval glee club that they are. Women have every right to safe, legal access to any medical procedure they require.

I agree with Green Party policy on abortion.They clearly differentiated themselves from other parties by promoting this policy recently.

But Bradbury then moves to wishful thinking.

The Green and Internet parties have shown vast courage to bring these issues into the open. Progressive voters should consider rewarding that bravery this election.

While it may be ‘brave’ introducing these contentious issues into the election debate it looks to be futile and therefore unlikely to decide many votes. Bradbury explains a major reason why:

Ever since the “anti-smacking law” fiasco, Labour has been terrified to promote any social policy that can be warped into politically correct social engineering gone mad. Amending Section 59 of the Crimes Act closed a legal loophole abusive parents exploited to escape assault charges by claiming discipline as a defence.

Watching such a noble gesture get twisted into a narrative of the PC stormtroopers of Helengrad, kicking down the front doors of honest Kiwi mums and dads to arrest them for lightly tapping little Johnny on the bottom, shellshocked Labour into never mentioning social policy again.

This has depressed the quality of political vision for the left, which is why the Greens and Internet parties’ policies on decriminalising cannabis and abortion are so welcome.

Regardless of whether that is an accurate portrayal of Labour’s position indications are that Labour don’t want to campaign on these issues. During the Labour leadership contest David Cunliffe supported reviewing abortion law:

I want to see a woman’s right to choose protected. The current law hasn’t been reviewed for many years and I think that is now urgent. The Law Commission would be best placed to undertake this review as it is a conscience issue which splits across parties.

But when Greens announced their policy he wouldn’t back it. And there seems to be no enthusiasm for addressing cannabis either.

Unless Greens or the Internet Party make these policies bottom lines in any coalition or support agreements with Labour they are not likely to get anywhere.

And that is if the left get to form the next government.

If National get back in there’s virtually no chance either cannabis or abortion reform will get anywhere in any Government programme. They would have to take their chances in the member’s ballots.

There seems to be faint hopes of these issues being prominent in election campaigning or post election negotiations.

Internet Party candidate shortlist

The Internet Party have posted their candidate shortlist online:

“Meet the shortlist of 22 for our Candidate Challenge”

This list has been chosen after a series of meetings around the country.

The Internet Party is delighted with the response to our candidate application.

About 150 people from a diverse range of backgrounds have applied. Preliminary screenings to assess potential candidates will begin soon. These are happening around the country at the dates and venues below. All Internet Party members are encouraged to attend to meet other members and your potential Internet Party candidates. Following the preliminary events, a final Internet Party Candidate Search event will take place in Auckland on Saturday June 7.


20 tickets left for tomorrow’s #CandidateChallenge at Q Theatre! Get in while you still can! Will be streamed also.


The party leader has already been chosen – Laila Harre

The combined Internet-MANA list will be:

  1. Hone Harawira (Mana)
  2. Laila Harre (Internet)
  3. Annette Sykes (Mana)
  4. John Minto (Mana)
  5. Internet candidate
    - alternating Mana-Internet from there

It’s going to be very challenging for them to get four or more MPs so the top candidates from this Candidate Challenge list are an outside chance only of getting into Parliament.


Today is a big day for the Internet Party. The final Candidate challenge. Time for our members to pick 15 leaders.

That is 15 selected from 22.

But the party executive committee will get to have the final say. The current committee is self appointed:

There will be an inaugural Executive Committee consisting of the founders of the Internet Party. The inaugural members of Internet Party Assets Incorporated will be the inaugural members of the Executive Committee. In the Internet Party’s second year, there will be an Annual General Meeting for Members to elect an Executive Committee as per these rules.

The selection process:


12.1 The Executive Committee shall determine the selection and approval of Party List candidates and Electoral candidates for election to Parliament.

Selection Pledge

12.2 All candidates must sign and agree to abide by a formal written selection pledge which shall contain (without limitation):
12.2.1. Confirmation that the candidate is a New Zealand citizen;
12.2.2.Confirmation of eligibility and suitability for nomination to Parliament;
12.2.3. An undertaking to uphold and abide by the objectives and rules of the Internet Party;
12.2.4.An undertaking to promote and abide by the manifesto of the Internet Party; and
12.2.5.Any other matters the Executive Committee considers relevant.

12.3 The Executive shall also distribute to candidates:
12.3.1. The process for resigning from the Party List or as an Electorate Candidate, as determined by the Executive Committee; and
12.3.2. Any other matters the Executive Committee deems appropriate.

Selecting the Party List

12.4 The Internet Party’s Executive Committee shall produce the Party List. The process for selecting the Party List is:
12.4.1. In a general election year, the Executive Committee shall decide the time periods and deadlines for each stage of selecting the Party List;
12.4.2. The Party Secretary shall call for nominations for the Party List in accordance with the time period and deadline set by the Executive Committee;
12.4.3. Only Full members may be nominated for the Party List. Full members may nominate themselves for the Party List;
12.4.4. At the close of nominations, the Executive Committee shall rank nominees and produce an “Indicative Party List”, with no less than 9 and no more than 121 candidates;
12.4.5. The Party Secretary will distribute the “Indicative Party List” to members for consultation;
12.4.6. Members will rank the candidates on the “Indicative Party List”, in accordance with their own preferences, and will return the ranked “Indicative Party List” to the Party Secretary within a time period set by the Executive Committee;
12.4.7. Having regard to the ranked lists provided by members, the Executive Committee will produce a “Final Party List” at its sole discretion that will constitute the final Party List.

12.5 The Executive Committee will be responsible for determining the procedure for implementing the provisions of clause 12.4 and the Party Secretary must notify all members of that procedure prior to nominations being called for.

Selecting Electorate Candidates

12.6 Once the Party List has been finalised, the Executive Committee may ask candidates on the Party List to stand in electorates as Electorate candidates.
12.7 Which electorates candidates are asked to stand in is at the discretion of the Executive Committee.
12.8 Party List candidates may decline to stand in an electorate and can remain on the Party List.


12.9 In determining the ranking of candidates in the Final Party List, the Executive Committee shall actively maintain and promote economic, cultural, social, ethnic, age, geographic, and gender diversity, and will promote equality as far as is practicable.

Democratic participation

12.10 Every Member is entitled to actively participate in ranking the Indicative Party List.


12.11 The Executive Committee is empowered to remunerate members of the Party List through agreement with them.

The process promotes participatory democracy but the final say on everything is by a (currently) non-democratically chosen executive committee.

It appears that the leader (Laila Harre) was head hunted and appointed by the executive.

Harré and non-disclosure of political commentators

Laila Harré’s political associations were well publicised late last month, but earlier in the month she was posing as a political commentator without disclosing her interests.

On May 3 Harré  was a panellist on The Nation. She is described on the programme website as “former Alliance MP and unionist”.

She was introduced on air as “former Alliance MP now political adviser”.

Yesterday Stuff reported:

Meanwhile, Norman revealed that new Internet Party leader Laila Harre had wanted to be a Green Party MP before she quit her adviser role in Decembern. 

A spokesman confirmed she was also on the campaign committee until a fortnight ago.

Being on the Green Party campaign committee is a very significant factor in assessing what Harré said. I remember at the time thinking that some of her comments sounded very party specific rather than simply left leaning.

This was also about the time she was talking to the Internet Party about joining and leading the party. On 29 May (Radio NZ “Laila Harre new Internet Party leader“) Harré said she had been approached “about a month ago” by Vikram Kumar and had met Kim Dotcom “about three weeks ago”.

It would have been awkward for Harré to disclose early discussions with the Internet Party but there is no excuse for not revealing her close involvement with the Green Party.

“Blogger and pollster” David Farrar was on the same The Nation panel, while his National associations are it is widely known in political circles casual viewers won’t be aware of them so that should also be disclosed each time Farrar appears as a commentator.

Why did Harré suddenly pop up on a political panel? She had been out of public political arena for some time until then.

This raises important questions.

How do political panellists get chosen? Is it entirely a function of the programme to seek a range of opinions? Or do political pundits (or their parties) promote themselves to get some airtime?

Disclosure of political interests should be a standard practice. Many viewers won’t know any affiliations, especially current involvement in political activities. Then viewers, listeners and readers can judge the comments of the commentator accordingly.

Without proper disclosure it is easy to assume some degree of neutrality.

Whether it is the programme that fails to properly disclose or it is the commentator who is lying by omission it is very poor practice.

It would be simple to make proper disclosures and should be a standard practice in political programmes.

How Internet/Mana will appear on the ballot #2

As per the previous re-post, how will candidates and parties be placed on the ballot paper:

I presume they won’t stand candidates from both parties in one electorate.

It will depend on where they are on the candidate list alphabetically as to how far below (and in the left column) the umbrella party will be listed, also alphabetic.

In Te Tai Tokerau in 2011 Hone Harawira was the second of four candidates listed. The layout would be similar to this:

Te Tai Tokerau result 2011

Mana would not appear beside Harawira – Labour would be just above his line.
Internet Mana would have been tenth, after the Green Party.

I wonder if the separation will affect the likelihood of two ticks for Harawira/Internet-Mana.

Sample ballot paper:

Seeking the youth vote

The Internet Party and MANA Movement is seeking votes from youth currently not interested in voting.

…enrolling and encouraging to vote as many new and current non-voters as possible, specifically (but not exclusively) targeting the young, Maori and Pasifika individuals.


The messengers look a bit out of synch with their target constituents. The presumed top four on the Internet Party and MANA Movement:

1. Hone Harawira (MANA leader)

Hone HarawiraBorn 1955 – 59 years old

2. Annette Sykes (MANA Party)

Annette SykesBorn c. 1961 – about 53 years old

3. Laila Harre (Internet Party leader)

Born 1966 – 48 years old

4.  John Minto MANA Party

Born c. 1953 – 61 years old

Photos obtained were as recent as possible.



The ‘new Auckland left’

Who is involved in the ‘new Auckland left’? There are a number of pieces in common in an interesting political jigsaw.

The well signalled deal between the Internet and MANA parties and the surprise appointment of Laile Harre as the acceptable-to-MANA leader of the Internet Party has set the cat amongst the campaign pigeons.

Kim Dotcom has done the rounds of parties looking for a way into Parliament for his new Internet Party. It’s been reported (and admitted) that Dotcom has been visited a number of times by Winston Peters, Russel Norman and Clare Curran. He ended up finding a willing partner in Hone Harawira.

Despite much bluster from some in promoting a cosy electorate deal between MANA and Labour it also seems to have set Labour against Internet/MANA – see Labour staunch in contesting Te Tai Tokerau.

A number of interconnections have become apparent.

Harre has been a member of Labour, New Labour, then an MP for the Alliance Party, eventually becoming leader. She has recently worked for the Green Party and considered putting herself forward as a candidate. There have been conflicting reports, of her pulling out and of Greens rejecting her.

Matt McCarten also began in Labour, and then progressed to New Labour and the Alliance, taking over leadership from Harre. He then switched to the formation of the Maori Party, and then moved on to the Mana Party.

In February McCarten was recruited as David Cunliffe’s chief of staff with claims he would be a significant driver of Labour’s campaign this year.

Interestingly Wikipedia says:

McCarten has previously distanced himself from attempts to forge a new Left Wing party in New Zealand.

It would be interesting to know what McCarten thinks of the Internet-MANA deal and of Labour’s apparent commitment to strongly contesting Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau.

A close friend and union associate of McCarten, Gerard Hehir, is secretary of the Mana Party and as such is set to be on the Internet-MANA campaign committee.

Left wing political commentator and columnist Chris Trotter, who also has a union background and has served on the Labour Party’s council, seems to have embraced the Internet/MANA movement and has been highly critical of Labour for not giving up Te Tai Tokerau to Harawira – see Authoritarian Labour: Why Kelvin Davis needs to STFU – and soon! at The Daily Blog. He has also just posted Keeping Our Eyes On The Prize at his Bowalley blog.

What does all this mean?

Some things are becoming clearer but much remains uncertain. Perhaps an inveterate bragger has let slip a hint.

Martyn Bradbury advertises himself as be a leading left wing political activist, organiser, recruiter and party starter.

Last year it was revealed he was a paid adviser to the MANA Party (he didn’t disclose it in his blogging and media activities). He was later linked to the start up of the Internet Party where he had asked for remuneration – also not disclosed.

But Bradbury has a propensity to broadcast his political prowess, activities and ambitions.

On the announcement of Harre as Internet Party leader – The potential for a Labour-Green-Internet-MANA majority.

This will become a game changer if Internet MANA pull the don’t knows to their flag.

What should excite progressives this election is the possibility of a Labour-Green-Internet MANA majority. The Left have never been able to be truly progressive because conservative brake pedals like NZ First and United have always dragged it back, if the majority were Labour-Green-Internet MANA however, there would be no conservative or neoliberal brake pedals.

A Labour-Green-Internet MANA majority is a unique opportunity for genuine progressive change, such opportunities rarely come by and when they do they must be risked.

There could be a bit of a problem here. Both Labour and Greens seem to have recognised the substantial risks of working with Dotcom and they seem to have backed off any involvement. They also presumably recognise that if Internet-MANA succeeds it could deplete their share of the party vote.

If the Internet-MANA gambit fails it could destroy Labour and Green election chances, and if it succeeds it could seriously reduce Labour and Green power if they end up dependent on Harawira and Harre for votes in Parliament.

And Labour probably won’t appreciate being told which electorates to throw by people with obvious interests in other parties and potentially detrimental outcomes.

Today in Q&A: Josie Pagani as a commentator Bradbury at least embellished the chances and possible effects of a minor comment by Josie Pagani:

The constitutional crisis that Josie’s idea would plunge NZ into if Cunliffe had taken her advice, would become a global news story. To change the rules of the election 4 months out from that election would create catastrophe as an immediate legal challenge to that decision would be forced by those political parties currently using that strategy. There would be rioting in the streets as those whose vote suddenly becomes voided by this unprecedented and unconstitutional change go berserk at what would be perceived as an illegal tactic to erase the voice of everyone not voting Labour, National, Green or NZ First.

Now I appreciate I’m not everyone’s cup of tea and that my setting up of political parties to provide parliamentary math game changers annoys some in the established left and has the Wellington Twitternati in constant fits of rage, but I don’t think I’ve ever suggested tactics that would see the country plunged into a fucking civil war.

The likelihood of riots in the streets and civil war are very dubious from a population increasingly bored and turned of by politics. Fits of rage are fanciful effects of Bradbury’s claimed prodigious party setting up .

Bradbury then may have revealed a bit more about what may be behind much of the current left wing arrangements, if he is not exaggerating that too.

What’s going to be interesting this time around for the election, despite the best attempts by some msm pundits, is that the Left may against all predictions and odds win. Unfortunately for the msm however, they don’t have any actual insights into the new Auckland Left that is now influencing so much of these strategic moves.

Election night coverage by both major networks could sound like crickets chirping if their lack of analysis starts to fumble when the results begin rolling in.

Internet MANA means the game has changed, the msm haven’t comprehended this yet.

Internet-MANA may have changed then game, for the time being at least. The media will presumably be looking into various political possibilities, including the influence of the ‘new Auckland left’.

Bradbury’s overstatements are well known. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t provide useful hints – and he might one day strike the political jackpot.

Politics can be fickle and ambitions don’t always work according to plan, especially when requiring the buy-in of multiple factions and multiple parties. Labour seem to be already resisting being organised to play a wider game.

Kelvin Davis tweeted:


Sorta ironic that in 1914 Mata Hari was a German agent, and in 2014 there’s Laila.

Harre is now very openly working for (and is being paid by) the big German – although the Greens may feel a bit betrayed, she presumably has what could be useful inside party information.

It could be prudent for David Cunliffe to check out where Matt McCarten’s loyalties lie.

Labour staunch in contesting Te Tai Tokerau

Labour seem staunch in their determination to contest the Te Tai Tokerau electorate. This is at odds with what has been described as “the new Auckland left”.

Kelvin Davis, Labour’s candidate for , continues to promote his chances in contesting Te Tai Tokerau for Labour against Mana’s Hone Harawira (electorates will be contested as MANA, only the party vote will be sought for Internet/MANA).

Davis linked to Today in politics: Saturday, May 31:

Davis will put in 110pc to win Tai Tokerau

Retread Labour MP Kelvin Davis likes a rugby analogy. And he is adamant he will not lay down or allow Labour to cut a deal in Te Tai Tokerau for the election, backing himself to take the seat off Mana leader Hone Harawira. “I played rugby until I was 40 so, in 20 years of senior rugby, not once did I step on to a rugby field and want to come second.” He says he is the most logical, intelligent, and sensible person to become MP for Tai Tokerau.

He is clearly backed by Labour leader David Cunliffe as interviewed on Q & A yesterday.

Corin Dann: …in Te Tai Tokerau can you give voters an assurance that there’s going to be no cup of tea deal to ensure that Hone Harawira has a clear run at that seat?

David Cunliffe: I can assure voters that Labour is contesting vigorously all seven Maori seats and we think we have the opportunity to win all seven.

Kelvin Davis is a terrific candidate as you have no doubt heard, he is passionate about representing the people of Te Tai Tokerau, and we’re backing him to do that.

This follows a Radio NZ report on Friday: Labour says no Te Tai Tokerau deal

Mr Cunliffe said he expects that Kelvin Davis, who was 1165 votes behind Mr Harawira at the 2011 election, to run a vigourous campaign. He said there would be no deals with other parties until after the election on 20 September once it is known what voters want.

Mr Davis is adamant he is in the competition to win. “It would be immensely damaging up in Te Tai Tokerau. The people up there do not want to see an MP whose prepared to roll over for anyone. They want somebody up there who’s prepared to stand and fight for what’s important to them.”

He told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report programme on Friday the Internet-Mana alliance is a ruse and a scam and he would fight them for the seat.

“I’m the best person – the logical, the intelligent, the sensible person – to become the Member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau. They can see through this whole ruse. Basically it’s a scam to get their vote.”

Hone Harawira said Mr Davis had lost the seat several times before and is confident his constituents supported the alliance.
Mr Harawira said opposition parties shouldn’t be fighting each other. “We can either focus on attacking one another and end up with a limited number of seats and no possibility of changing the Government or we can be intelligent enough, and big enough, and bold enough to work together.”

Davis has continued the attack against Internet/MANA on Twitter today:

Sorta ironic that in 1914 Mata Hari was a German agent, and in 2014 there’s Laila.

Davis has been criticised by some on the left who want to see co-operation amongst parties “for the greater good”. A comment on Davis’ Twitter page:

Will Edmonds Yup, previous Labour voter, but disgusted by your apparent inability to work for the greater good on this issue. You’ve lost my vote, just ridiculous.

Chris Trotter blasted Davis on The Daily Blog in Authoritarian Labour: Why Kelvin Davis needs to STFU – and soon!

DAVID, MATT, SOMEBODY – PLEASE! Tell Kelvin Davis to pull his head in. His outburst on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report this morning was way beyond embarrassing. The ill-considered slagging of Hone Harawira and the Internet-Mana Party (IMP) not only reflected poorly on his own political skills, but it also raised doubts about Labour’s overall ability to read what is happening in the run-up to 20 September.

Trotter seems to be swept up by the Dotcom/Mana mania, where some on the left seem to think it will be the saviour of the Left’s election chances. But trotter het”s unusally carried away.

It wasn’t just the absence of any semblance of strategic – or even tactical – understanding that was so worrying about Davis’s performance this morning, it was his barely concealed aggression. There is an anger in Davis that calls into question his suitability for any kind of public office. Anger, and what appears to be a classic authoritarian character structure (the two often go together).

Just listen to how he describes his family in the potted biography Labour has displayed on its website. Davis tells us that he is “married with three beautiful, intelligent and respectful children”. It’s the use of the word “respectful” that gives him away. His need for respect and his use of the word as a distinguishing character marker, as in: “My children show me respect – do yours?”, tell us a lot about Davis’s personality and where he most likely fits on the Left-Right/Authoritarian-Libertarian grid.

My guess is that he occupies a position that places him towards the Authoritarian end of the Authoritarian-Libertarian gradient and well to the right on the Left-Right spectrum.

Very ironic that Trotter wants to dictate to Davis and at the same time accuses him of being authoritarian.

There seems to be a battle looming on the left, and Labour seem to be staunching up against the attempted takeover of the left – and Government – by “the new Auckland Left that is now influencing so much of these strategic moves”.

Cunliffe and Davis at least are clearly in the camp that wants to see Labour dominate in Te Tai Tokerau and dominate the left. The election itself may be just another battle in a bigger war – if Internet/MANA can establish credibility and build themselves into a cohesive political force.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 216 other followers