Bradbury claims disputed – dirty politics?

The sun rose this morning and Martyn Bradbury made some claims about Labour and the Greens, and Greens and National, that have been disputed – some say he is wrong.

Bradbury has been promoting Labour and their conference over the weekend. Like co-Daily Blog stalwart Chris Trotter he seems to be manic depressive on politics.This was one of Bomber’s very enthusiastic phases, so much so that  Shayne McLean @NZGTMedia tweeted:

@BowalleyRoad meanwhile Martyn Bradbury looks like Labour has given him an Apple laptop to match the one Dot Com bought him

That refers to his of colluding with party operatives for money – is he being used by Labour in some sort of attempted ‘dirty politics’ two track strategy as described by Nicky Hager in his ‘Dirty Politics’ book? Chapter 1 The Rise of the Bloggers, Page 16:

The idea that Key, as party leader, would be presented as friendly and positive, while other people did the attacking.

Slater and Ansell understood this tactic because they had been working together closely on precisely this sort of arm’s length attack campaigning in the previous months.

Slater wrote back saying “If the Nats won’t attacj [Labour] then let us, but we need some cash to do so…I can put together a consortium of bloggers to attack…

Bradbury was posting conference reports on over the weekend. On Saturday he said:

Beyond all the nice words in public about the Greens and NZ First there are private mutterings. At this Conference, Labour were going to tell New Zealand who their preferred political partners would be so that there is no confusion about what form of coalition government could be formed post the election, but those plans of transparency were put on hold when the Greens and NZ First refused to agree to that announcement.

Inside NZ First, the Ron Mark faction who are closer to National than Labour don’t want to commit and within the Greens, James Shaw doesn’t want to lose the strategic edge he’s created by working with National.

In Notes on the Labour AGM Danyl at Dim-Post disputes this:

I don’t know about New Zealand First but I checked with the Greens and no such approach or proposal was made to them. I guess Labour are still seething about the Red Peak thing and prevailed upon Bomber to write this. It’s not true.

Danyl helped James Shaw in his campaign to become Green leader so I presume he has contacts high up in the Green Party.

Green supporter Weka also commented on Bradbury’s claims at The Standard:

There’s a few probems with that. One is that we only have Bradbury’s word that Labour had intended to make an announcement re coalition partners and that NZF and the GP refused. I’d like to see that corroborated somewhere else (Bradbury’s stance on the whole GP/National thing doesn’t make any sense, he also hasn’t backed up his claim and I think this makes him a biased and unreliable source on this issue).

If it is true, we’d also need to see the reasons that the GP refused, they might have been quite valid.

The other problem is that Bradbury is expressing opinion that Shaw can make the GP form a coalition with National, but it goes against all the evidence. Please have a look at my link above for an explanation of why it’s not Shaw’s choice, and how it would be extremely difficult for that to happen even if Shaw wanted it (which he doesn’t). It would require a nationwide change of stance amongst the membership including going through a remit process at least one AGM. Have a go at explaining how you think that might happen, because I can’t see it.

When you make factually incorrect assertions as you did with your first comment, you damage the left. What you said is almost word for word a right wing dirty politics meme aimed at undermining the GP and thus preventing a left wing govt. Is that what you want? If you can back up your statements, please do so, but I’m afraid ‘Bradbury said it’s true’ doesn’t count in this case.

And Joseph commented on The Daily Blog:

Highly unlikely, because the Greens public position is still to govern with Labour. This position was confirmed during the recent leadership contest where both Shaw and Hague said they did not support forming a govt with National. Someone spinning you, Martyn?


As I said on Martyn’s blog, I think it is flat out false that the Greens rebuffed Labour and he is being spun by someone. The Greens position is firmly to work with Labour to form a govt and James Shaw stated in the recent leadership campaign that he did not support forming a govt with National. He would not be leader now if he’d said otherwise. It is the Party that makes the decision on coalition choices and they are clear on this.

I can’t find any response from Bradbury on this. He has in his conference review Labour Party conference 2015 – winners and losers he has reiterated his claim of Greens working with National:

Identity Politics – the inability for identity politic activists to debate the issues in a way that doesn’t cause allies to become enemies and alienate the broader electorate has seen identity politics put on the naughty step for some time out.

It gives the Greens some room to move on those issues but that could also erode the strategic edge the Greens have by pretending to work with National.

He seems to be trying to shame the Greens into shunning any contact with National and devoting themselves to becoming an obedient add-on to Labour’s election ambitions.

Is Matt McCarten using Bradbury here?

After Bradbury’s over-enthusiastic (paid for) promotion of the Mana Party and then the Internet Party last term perhaps Labour should be very worried about his association with them.

Especially if he makes things up, or is a ‘dirty politics’ repeater of misinformation fed to him from within Labour.

Bradbury is a political mercenary (similar but different to Cameron Slater) but apparently is not yet recognised as potentially toxic to Labour.

Ironically one of his first conference tweets:

Which journalist will be the first to now misrepresent what Annette King said as a ‘sugar tax’

Has Bradbury misrepresented the Green’s relationship with Labour? If so did he dream up his claims or was he fed them? If he was fed them, by whom?

Blogs on first day of Labour conference

The Standard has been oddly quiet about the first day of the Labour conference. Anthony Robins put up a post in the early afternoon yesterday – Labour’s conference which quoted a couple of preview comments and then said:

This year’s conference has more “closed” (media excluded) sessions than most. Some of the media are a bit miffed about it – they need copy to file poor things. I would have gone for more open sessions myself, but it’s Little’s first conference as leader and he’s playing it cautious. No doubt the media will find something to fill the column inches with.

I’m not at conference this year, and lprent is overseas, but some Standardistas are going so no doubt we will get reports. Have a great conference all…

There was some pre-conference discussion – very mixed and a significant amount was not very complimentary.

Greg Presland commented:

Stephanie Rodgers and I will both be there and will no doubt report on things that we can.

I also expect numbers to be down. I know quite a few people who will not be there for various reasons. Palmerston North is more out of the way and after last year there is still a bit of fatigue.

Some of Ad’s recent posts indicate the importance of making sure that things ramp up next year and I think the Party needs to think about doing things for activists to increase enthusiasm.

Colonial Viper:

Holding the Conference is Palmerston North doubles or triples the cost of attending from regional areas of NZ like Otago, as compared to holding it in Auckland. Which means that ordinary people can’t get there. The Labour Party of the 10%.

Presland later:

I just arrived and the mood is remarkably upbeat. Numbers are apparently much stronger than some have talked about with 500 being mentioned.

Little else was reported from the conference.

A very late comment from Leftie:

Just read a very positive report on TDB by Martyn Bradbury, who has, in the recent past, been no friend of the Labour party. Worth a read, look forward to more reports on the conference.

So no report on the conference from The Standard yet but there’s one at The Daily Blog.

Labour Party Conference 2015

By Martyn Bradbury

It is the 99th Conference of the NZ Labour Party and instead of looking excitedly towards their 100th birthday as the oldest political party in Parliament, Labour, after one of their worst election results ever, face deep existential questions about their political relevancy, what they actually stand for and how they will woo voters back to voting red.

But that links to Waata News:

Labour Party Conference 2015
Friday 06 November 2015

It is the 99th Conference of the NZ Labour Party and instead of looking excitedly towards their 100th birthday as the oldest political party in Parliament, Labour, after one of their worst election results ever, face deep existential questions about their political relevancy, what they actually stand for and how they will woo voters back to voting red.

The shadow of last years electoral meltdown has strategists, political gurus and polling shamans all desperately searching entrails to make meaning of a result that seemed counter intuitive to every crazy twist of what was easily the weirdest election ever undertaken in Aotearoa.

It is this above all else that haunts Labour.

How do you appeal to an electorate when the majority of that electorate voted for John Key DESPITE all the filthy tactics of National’s Dirty Politics, DESPITE using the Secret Intelligence Service to falsely smear Phil Goff months before the 2011 election, DESPITE mass surveillance lies and DESPITE abuses of political power not seen since the Waterfront lockouts. Helen Clark was crucified for signing a painting she didn’t paint, yet here we have the PMs Office colluding with spies to smear opponents, handing sensitive information to far right hate speech bloggers and allowing the security agencies of America to have access to everything any of us do online.

How do you come back to an electorate who simply shrugged to all of that and turned a blind eye to National’s corruption?

You start by trying to work out why they turned that blind eye. Many NZers who voted for Helen now vote for John – why? This middle class now earn more from their property speculation than they do from their actual job. Labour’s challenge is to try and convince someone who has this year alone earned 24% in untaxed property valuation to vote with their social conscience instead of their wallet.

That’s a very difficult job.

After rambling on he concludes:

These long suffering Labour members and Union affiliates are still waiting for a policy platform that speaks to their aspirations right at a time when Labour are trying to attract voters with very different words and values. Maori flocked back to Labour in 2014 – where is their articulation of political interests? Women within Labour are still being scolded for pushing for greater representation because of the way it gets sold in the media and Trans rights aren’t on any agenda.

How will the stake holders within Labour promote progressive policy that don’t isolate the middle class property speculators Labour are trying to win over?

Things to look for will be how Labour respond to the TPPA now the text has been released, how well Andrew Little performs in his speech and how much patience supporters, members, volunteers and affiliates are prepared to give a Labour Party that can’t work out if they should be planning a celebration or funeral after 100 years.

So just questions from Bradbury.

But he has a post actually at The Daily Blog. The headline is odd – Why Brooke Sabin highlights the media ban – Labour Party Conference 2015 after hours  – as is the opening few paragraphs about Bradbury trying to find a late evening place to eat.

I add these details because the Labour Party Conference 2015 has surprised me. I thought I was turning up to give a political party the last rights. I was wrong. I can tell you the Labour Party are still very much alive and still very much focused on winning 2017.

I’ll go into details on how they intend to do that tomorrow, but the factionalised fighting has ended, the Caucus has united around Andrew Little as leader and Little is developing into a leader who can challenge Key.

I’m not sure how he has managed to determine that in one evening of a party packaged event.

In the past my excitement for Labour was over what I hoped they could achieve rather than what they could actually do, this time around I feel there has been a major change behind the scenes in areas Labour needed to change to become an effective machine.

But all of that for tomorrow, let me just point out the breathless Brooke Sabin report on the TPPA. Brooke says Labour were blindsided by the release of the TPPA text – that’s simply not true, Labour were aware far earlier in the week that the text was likely to be released and Little’s 5 bottom lines still stand, it’s looking more likely that Labour will turn the TPPA down than support it if the issues around asset sales to foreigners stands. You wouldn’t know that if you had watched TV3 on Friday, and Brooke’s report shows exactly why Labour are so keen to tighten media interaction at the conference.

Bradbury has very little to say about the conference except for satisfying his hunger and a comment about the TPPA – Little said something about that in his speech last night but Labour have not highlighted that in their social media.

So not much has come out. Does “Labour are so keen to tighten media interaction at the conference” apply to members and their social media interactions?

UPDATE: Greg Presland has put up a post this morning at The Standard, also with an apparent media focus: Which Labour Party Conference is Brook Sabin at? although he does begin with a bried conference report:

Day one of the Labour Party has passed. Numbers are damned good for a provincial centre, over 520 registered delegates not counting observers. The mood is upbeat with some very good speeches last night, a well deserved gold badge for Maryan Street, and much emphasis on the importance of activists in what we do for the party. And last night was marked by much laughing and singing and the occasional imbibing of liquid refreshments and despite suggestions to the contraryStephanie Rodgers and I did not eat all the pies.

He then digresses and like Bradbury complains about Sabin’s pre-conference item on 3 News.

He then discusses Labour and the TPPA in general terms:

Obviously the Labour Party needs to go through a process to make a final decision. I am not breaching any confidences by saying that some within caucus are supportive of free trade.  And I am confident that further analysis of the investor state resolution procedures will also trigger the breach of another of Labour’s bottom lines that “Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest”.

I don’t expect a final response soon from the party. I doubt that it can make a final call on the protection of Pharmac because as far as I am aware that detail has not been released and is in a still hidden document. And the bottom line on meaningful gains for farmers in terms of tariff reduction and trade access will need to be assessed properly although the Dairy Industry’s initial response suggests that the gains are marginal at best.

Not much out of the conference there. He then closes with another complaint about the media and “poorly designed spin trying to create the impression of a crisis”.

It appears that Labour is trying to keep divisive issues like the TPPA subdued at their conference and will continue their appeasement of both sides of the TPPA fence.

Little’s speech on Sunday may give a better idea of where Labour currently stand on trade deals.

“What we are witnessing in real time is a growing Police State”

Martin ‘Bombastic’ Bradbury posted Why the latest details on the Police harassment of Nicky Hager should lead every news bulletin

The true scope of Police harassment directed at Nicky Hager should send a deep chill through each and every NZer.

What we are witnessing in real time is a growing Police State with all the casual fascism of a book burning around a BBQ.

There’s certainly cause for possible concern and certainly scope for clarification about how banks may hand information over to the Police, but that seems to be a tad over dramatic.

The Police have also understood the deep negative egalitarian anti-intellectualism that infects the NZ psyche. The desire to hold the powerful to account is perceived by this culturally cringed rump of NZ as being a smart arsed stirrer who simply  by their ability to string together a coherent question makes them a target for ‘oh-you-think- you’re-smarter-than-me’ styled resentment.

The cops know this and know that their extraordinary harassment of Hager will be ignored by the mainstream media and will be seen as just desserts by rump NZers who still think the biggest issue with Dirty Politics is that Hager used stolen e-mails.

He ignores the fact that the Herald published  Police got Hager data without court order yesterday, except that he then quotes from it. Radio NZ and Newstalk ZB also reported on it.

…this is clear evidence of the NZ Police bullying and threatening companies with adverse legal ramifications if they don’t hand over information on a  journalist who had embarrassed the aGovernment – note, not one bloody search order or warrant has been signed, this is just the NZ Police using threats.

I haven’t seen any evidence of bullying or threatening, and Bradbury provides none.

This abuse of police power to attempt to arrest a journalist who embarrassed the Government should lead every news bulletin in this country, but because our mainstream media have deteriorated into clickbait entertainment banality, the ramifications of this type of abuse of power aimed at journalists holding the powerful to account isn’t explained to voters.

No wonder National are still polling near 50%.

He also provides a visual link of national to the Police actions.

David Fisher in the Herald article also provided an indirect of National to Westpac releasing information to the Police.

No wonder Internet-Mana polled 1.42% in last year’s election (I think Bradbury was confident of them beating the 5% threshold) and is nowhere to be seen.

The problem with all these conspiracies is that important issues get drowned by dodgy dramatics.

Police versus The Daily Blog, free speech and censorhip

A clash between bloggers and business, with claims of heavy handed attempts at censorship – from a blog renowned for censoring comments.

On Thursday Martyn Bradbury posted overdramatically The NZ Police would like to have a word with me.

In this media landscape where progressive voices challenging authority get strangled off on a near monthly basis, hearing that the NZ Police are suddenly looking for you gives one a slight cold shiver up your spine.

I’ve just been contacted by friends that the NZ Police are keen to speak to me*. A Detective no less. I’ve been asked to meet with the Police tomorrow at midday to discuss this blog by John Minto.

Mr Talley and his rich friends certainly seem to have a lot of pull to be able to get Detective’s to contact blogs wanting a chat about negative coverage.

I will state here so there is no confusion, I will not censor or remove John’s blog from this site.

I  won’t be intimidated or threatened or pushed around by monied industries who make workers lives a misery.

I will explain that in polite language to the Police tomorrow.

If you don’t hear from me after midday Friday, I’m guessing it will be because I’m under arrest.

Welcome to the new world of intimidation.

Welcome to Bradbury’s same old dramatics.

He refers to another Daily Blog post, by John Minto, where he refers to someone as “butcher of meat and workers” and repeat’s a Mike Treen comment accusing a company of being “reactionary corporate murderers”.

And Minto calls on a boycott campaign.

Consumer products from South Africa were targeted. Companies importing South African wine were picketed and normal business disrupted while people were urged to boycott the likes of South African guavas and dried apricots.

Consumer boycotts themselves are difficult to make economically effective but coupled with a little bit of creative shopping their effect can be dramatically multiplied.

People would go into supermarkets with their car key and quietly puncture the bags of dried apricots and scratch the labels on the wine bottles to make them unsaleable. People would also take packets of dried apricots from the shelf into their supermarket trollies and deposit them at the bottom of the deep freeze under the frozen peas.

Small acts of civil disobedience like this are an appropriate response to the vicious attacks on workers’ rights.

So the aim is to sabotage products with an aim to sabotage a company. I don’t know how valid their complaints against the company – Talleys – is but this looks a bit like the campaign against TV3 for reducing current affairs by canning the John Campbell show. Sabotaging TV3 would significant;y reduce television diversity and coverage of current affairs.

Then yesterday Bradbury poisted again: NZ Police request Minto blog be removed or censored 

I have spoken with the Detective handling this case. He has asked me to remove or censor John Minto’s civil disobedience blog for public safety reasons.

I asked under what law the Police were asking me to do this and the Detective replied no law, they were just asking me to do so.

I asked if there had been an official complaint, the Detective said no, the blog had just ‘come to their attention’. I asked if the Police regularly monitored blogs to see if they were breaking laws he said no but this one had.

The Detective again asked if I would remove or censor the blog, I told him that no I would not as the principle of free speech was one I took seriously.

The Detective said I would be contacted next week.

Talley’s is a company with a well known track record for maiming their own workers, adopting hunger to starve 5000 kids as a negotiating tactic and Union busting work conditions. The only public safety issues here are the way Talley’s treat their workers, not activists intent on resisting the cruelty Talley’s operates under.

The Police should be arresting Talley’s, not demanding I censor blogs.

If Minto, Treen, Bradbury and accomplices manage to drive Talleys under that puts more than 5,000 people’s jobs at risk. Those workers may not appreciate campaigns against their livelihood.

From what Bradbury has said the Police didn’t ‘demand’, he describes it elsewhere in his post as ‘requested’ and ‘asked me’.

Involving the Police in trying to moderate blog posts does seem heavy handed by presumably someone associated with Talleys.

But the accusations and language used by Treen, Minto and Bradbury are quite extreme and could be legally actionable.

Many of the comments on both posts are also extreme.

One comment, by unionist and ex Labour MP Darien Fenton is more calm and chilling.

Next thing you’ll get a legal letter threatening you with defamation. So will John. You can add it to the pile they’ve already sent to the MWU.

There seems to be a flurry of threatening legal action to try and shut down commentary, with Colin Craig still promising multiple defamation actions and Jordan Williams yesterday actually filing against Craig.

There’s serious issues here involving free speech rights and responsibilities.

People with the financial or legal means of challenging online speech could be reasonably protecting themselves from damaging and false accusations. Or they could be using an imbalance of power to threaten and intimidate to clamp down free expression.

And people like Minto, Treen and Bradbury could be bravely holding corporates and rich and powerful people to account. Or they could be maliciously trying to damage businesses and threaten jobs.

It could be a mix of all of those things.

I don’t think taking conflict to extremes wil do either side any favours.

What should Talleys do when they don’t like the ‘free speech’ of Minto and Bradbury at The Daily Blog?

They could do what many people do on blogs – respond in comments and state their own case. They could also submit a right of reply. But Bradbury and the Daily Blog are notorious for filtering comments – that’s their own way of censoring.

Which makes “The Police should be arresting Talley’s, not demanding I censor blogs” rather ironic.

Bradbury is standing up against enforced editing, fair enough for that, but censors his blog himself, I’ve experienced that myseklf and many others have claimed comments submitted to The Daily Blog never get pass moderation.

On a supporting post at The Standard – Williams sues Craig and Bomber takes on Police – this comes uip in comments:

Mike the Savage One 10

Again, I tried commenting on TDB, from a different computer, again, it is blocked, that site has been seized by the cops, I bet, perhaps with GCSB assisting.

All Progressives out there, this is damned SERIOUS, we are being ATTACKED by state authorities, this is NO joke!

  • The Fairy Godmother 10.1

    No comments on this topic on the DB since 2:53 so I guess the site may have stopped comments due to legal advice. That’s my pick.

  • Anne 10.2

    They have a technical problem MtSO. It’s been going on for about a week now. Comments are ending up somewhere in space.

It’s been going on since The Daily Blog started – comments often end up “somewhere in space”.

Talleys are understandably annoyed at comments made about them which may be defamatory.

Bradbury is understandably annoyed at the Police becoming involved in asking for the editing of posts. But complaining about attempts at ‘censorship’ when he is renowned as a heavy handed censor himself is more then a little hypocritical.

Free speech is being drowned out here by a cacophony of extreme action and extreme overreaction.

Stink bombing Mediaworks

Martin Bradbury seems to be very sour about Mediaworks – in fact bitter about media in general.

How’s this for a stinker of a bombing?

Rachel Glucina, Pebbles Hooper and Cameron Slater – the MediaWorks dream team?

While the total meltdown at Mediaworks continues, it seems apparent that Duncs Garner and Heather Duplicitous aren’t going to be enough to stop TV3 from imploding under it’s own self mutilation.

Paul Henry has been a total flop, the axing of Campbell Live for political purposes ratings suicide, newsworthy? and the manner in which management have conducted the entire fiasco a lesson in how to destroy your brand in 6 weeks.

I am suggesting MediaWorks a saviour – why pretend to be anything other than what Mark Weldon and Julie Christie really wants TV3 to be – an unquestioning mouthpiece for the National Government.

Put hate speech merchant and part time fascist Cameron Slater on with pretend journalist Rachel Glucina to host the 7pm timeslot and call it ‘Open wide’. Each weeknight Cam and Rach spit on poor people and laugh at books. Pebbles Hooper can join in half way through with fashion advice for the homeless which always ends in her making jokes about dead babies.

For MediaWorks they can drop the pretence of being a reputable news organisation and for Rachel, Cam and Pebbles, they get to do what they love, voice ill informed right wing nonsense which is so hip with the kids these days.

Between climate change denial and kissing John Key’s arse, they can cut the crap and get to the big issues like ‘why are feminists hairy trolls’, ‘why are Unionists commie scum’ and ‘why are Maori’s so smelly’.

Cam can give weekly updates about conspiracies on who from the Labour Party is plotting to goad him into suicide while promising a big new news blog that never arrives, Rachel can tell everyone she’s in PR while turning journalistic tricks for the PM and Pebbles can mock people with disabilities.

TV3 and RadioLive seem to be still functioning to me, perhaps the meltdown was a bit of projection.

In comments Dave Head challenged Bradbury on some of his bitterness expressed as personal insult:

Actually Martyn her name is Heather du Plessis-Allan and I think she deserves a bit more respect than you just gave her by mutilating her name. In the last 6 months the results of her investigative reporting has certainly been seen by more people than anything you have written.

I thought you might have modified your style after getting dropped from national radio. I have in the past agreed with most things you have commented on. But this TV3 thing has warped your sense of proportion and detracted from the real broadcasting issues in NZ.

Bradbury responded:

I recall her atrocious piece sucking up to Cameron Slater on Seven Sharp one week before Dirty Politics broke – I tuned out after that Dave.

If every media organisation he does a story he disapproves of is forever after condemned then he will be left with nothing but himself in the debris.

Prentice, Bradbury and Slater feuds interspersed with Standard history

There seemed to be a bit of a lull in the Lynn Prentice (The Standard) versus Martyn Bradbury (The Daily Blog) feud but it has flared up again with the two trying to demonstrate who is the most bitter and obnoxious. The ongoing Prentice versus Cameron Slater (Whale Oil) feud is also in the bizarre mix of history and hissy fit.

In an otherwise interesting history of the origins of The Standard – A short history of The Standard – Maoriland Worker – Prentice managed to lace it with vitriol aimed at Bradbury and Slater.

In fact he made his attacks on Bradbury the main focus of the history.

There were some ridiculous statements by Martyn Bradbury at The Daily BlogBombast earlier this month continuing his snide comments about this site. His claims that the Labour activists founded the original Standard back in 1936 are bullshit. He gets there by ignoring the history of parent publications and where they formed from.

Clearly the bombastic author of that post was written by someone who spent his education in obtaining a master of  ill-informed juvenile ranting rather than learning much of history of the local labour movement (or much of anything else). So I dug around to see what I could find on the net about The Standard 1.0 and it’s parent publications to give that Mr Bombastic some remedial education in the local history that he is so clearly lacking.

Why the hell Prentice laced what could have been a great historical reference with feud fodder is hard to fathom.

A bit of history about The Standard follows, then a shot at Slater.

This can be seen quite clearly in the distortions that are the history of the Whaleoil blog. Because of its obsessive need by a broke (after his insurance disappeared) Cameron Slater’s need to please his larger funders of money and influence, the site would wind up getting into trouble doing the types of stories that please those funders. This is why Cameron Slater spends too much time in court. They’re still doing it today as far as I can tell.

Then a blast at both Bradbury and Slater.

The Standard 2.0, was deliberately designed by authors and myself who run it to be more like the early Maoriland Worker than Whaleoil or The Daily Bombast.

We haven’t taken money from any organisation including the PR industry, political parties or even from unions like the Daily Bombast does.

The repeated references to ‘Bombast’ in relation to someone else are ironic.

A bit more history and back to the feud.

We can do it with no tolerated external interference apart from obeying the current law (something Cameron Slater apparently has issues with) and the odd polite request from organisations we respect like unions or leftish parties.

And his conclusion includes a double barrelled blast.

Having learnt the lessons of the past (and those of other blogs in the present), that is what we intend to continue to do. That is what having sense of the history does for you. You don’t fall into the same operational organisational traps that the Bombast (set up and still supported by union funding) and Whaleoil (apparently mainly arsehole funding) appear to have tripped into.

That’s a bit of a shame because it would have been a good historical reference without the vitriol.

And it seems to have provoked a vitriolic response from Bradbury:

Your magnificent pettiness Lynn helps explain why the Labour Party had such a pitiful election last year. You have the social skills of a cancerous tumour.

When I say ‘The Standard is a Labour Party Blog’, I don’t mean that MPs feed Standard Bloggers information for black ops purposes. They are in no way shape or form similar to how the Nats use Slater. I’m sure there is pressure and terse words at the way the Standard conducts itself at times, but nothing more than that. When I call The Standard a Labour Party blog, I mean in the sense that…
-the original Standard in the 1930s was set up by Labour activists
-the latest incarnation in 2007 was seeded by the Labour Party
-And like the Labour Party, the Standard can be an alienating, tantrum throwing, bitter pus pit who can’t play well with others.

Grow up

Bradbury has a valid albeit overstated point saying “the Standard can be an alienating, tantrum throwing, bitter pus pit who can’t play well with others” but he obviously has a bit of difficulty playing well with others too. He could follow his own advice and ‘grow up’ but it doesn’t look like happening.

Prentice has achieved quite a lot with The Standard, but respect of himself and of the Labour left are not part of his successes.

Prentice and Bradbury represent the largest two political blogs on the left in New Zealand. Slater represents the largest on the right.

We are poorly served in political debate online by the three of them. No wonder the general voting public is turned off by politics.

UPDATE: And Prentice blasts back.

You have said that before in the post that I responded to. Is that all that you have? Parroted slogans?

You are wrong in all of your final three assertions. As I said in my post, you could do to learn some actual history rather than making up silly myths.

– The original Standard was setup by unionists, and run by them for 50 years from the Maoriland Worker to The Standard 1.0. Sure there was Labour party activists involved throughout (once the Labour party got formed). You’d kind of expect that to happen because they were also labour movement activists. People don’t fit neatly into the discrete labels that simple fools want to slogan them into.

– The current Standard was similarly set up by labour movement activists. Some were Labour party members, many were unionists, some had no party or union affliations. This is also not unexpected in a site from a labour movement that was pretty damn diverse back in 1910 and has been diversifying ever since.

– We tend to respond to your pettiness and snideness with pointing out the facts, in this case in 2000 odd words. If I creep a little terseness in because I doing it to educate a lazy fool, then you can hardly blame me. Fix your own stupid attitude and you’ll get less attitude from me. I’m getting really tired of having to respond to your stupidity.

“Fix your own stupid attitude” could equally apply to Prentice.

Where exactly is the backing for any of of your assertions. When did you invent these? Or are you just parroting someone else’s opinions – like Cameron Slater? Because that appears to be what you are becoming.

Ironic. The three of them can be as bad as each other.

Bradbury refutes claims on journalist images

Martyn Bradbury has emphatically denied claims that he viewed images of a journalist and said they could ruin her career. After the release of embarrassing photos of RadioLive political editor Jessica Williams and accusations that Ben Rachinger had used them to pressure/blackmail it seems that some people have put one and one together with vague memories claimed a ten. It was then claimed on Twitter that Martyn Bradbury (Bomber) had “let’s also remind viewers Bomber had seen the material and intimated it might ruin the journalist” (Giovanni Tiso) and “Martyn Bradbury blogged about having seen the revenge porn images and how it would ‘ruin the career’ of Ben’s ex” (Coley Tangerina). Bradbury has posted a strong denial of this in The latest Rachinger twists and turns and Wellington Emerald Stormtroopers.

Here’s what I actually wrote…

I will say this about Rachinger, if the comments from a certain female political journalist ever see they light of day, they will never work in the industry again

..I had heard about comments made by a Journalist to Rachinger, that is what I was referring to. Claims by ‘Coley Tangerina’ and Giovanni Tiso that I viewed anything are a total lie.

That clearly doesn’t mention images or photos at all, just comments. But it is also potentially confusing, especially without seeing the whole context. It’s not clear whether “they will never work in the industry again” refers to Rachinger, or to the journalist. It could be easily taken either way. I’ll try to get clarification.

I removed that comment as people involved felt it was offensive, which was not my intention at all. The point I was making was the Left have a tendency to see traitors everywhere…

Sure Ben hasn’t helped his cause one inch, but not hacking the Standard deserved some recognition, not pitchforks.

I have no idea of how and what has occurred here, and am as surprised as anyone that there were images released, but the ongoing smears and misinformation by some on Twitter not only reinforce the original point of the blog I wrote about the Left on Twitter, but it’s also childish.

A fairly clear statement that Bradbury was unaware of the images. It could be construed that he was aware of the images but was surprised they were released by my assumption from reading this is that Bradbury did not know the images existed until they were posted on Monday.

However “a total lie” and “misinformation’ may be a bit strong, it’s more likely to be imprecise memories and jumping to conclusions, which are common in social media. But for the wider story Bradbury’s clarification removes from the jumble of evidence one ‘proof’ that existence of the images was common knowledge amongst journalists prior to their publication this week.

As a side story, @b3nraching3r seems to be off-line again.

UPDATE: Martyn has given me some clarifications (at The Daily Blog):

1. The Journalist

2. I’d heard many different things after that blog, I was surprised by their release, not their existence

I had seen nothing, I had heard something that a Journalist had said to Rachinger, that was what I was referring to in the blog. Suggestions by Coley and Tiso that I did are a lie

Bradbury versus The Standard, continued

Martyn Bradbury at The Daily Blog has been feuding with The Standard for several months. It seemed to be as a result of  bitterness after Internet-Mana’s demolition in last year’s election. Bradbury in part blamed the Labour Party for that.

There was a bit of a make up recently but animosity has broken out again.

In Compare how long Slater’s complaint gets investigated to investigations against him Bradbury hit The Standard on something they are very sensitive to.

Compare that to Ben Rachinger who has made a complaint to Police with evidence showing Slater allegedly paying Rachinger over $9000 for black ops information and plotting a cyber crime to hack into a Labour Party blog.

Bradbury didn’t name The Standard, which is childish. But calling his fellow lefties “a Labour Party blog” raised hackles in  comments.

Peter Brittenden

Martyn I thought Ben Rachinger was allegedly paid to hack into The Standard. I didn’t realise it was a Labour Party blog site.


It’s not, and MB knows it’s not, he is spreading misinformation by saying that. Obviously the war between TDB and TS is still raging.

Bradbury responded:

Wow. Just Wow. You read that blog, and all you take from it is a war with the standard? That’s almost as petty as their sad post today, the poor wee things. I’m starting a war am I? Forgive me, weren’t the Standard the very same blog who were claiming the pony hair pulling story was bullshit? That Standard?

The Standard was set up by the Labour Party, the original creation of it was as a Labour Party newsletter for christ’s sakes. It’s a Labour Party blog, that’s why Slater was trying to hack it, to attack the Labour Party. You want to twist that into a ‘war’ go ahead champ. It’s not a war, it’s just a deep dislike of people as pompous as them. The Labour Party and the Greens got their lowest votes in the election, perhaps the bloggers on the standard might want to consider how vicious and tribal they come off when they throw tantrums as an explanation as to why no one wants to vote for them.


Actually I was reading blogs on the Daily Blog when you and Lprent were fighting with each other on here. That’s why I thought the war between you two was still raging, even though I know you hate Labour as well.

I do not think the pony hair pulling story was bullshit.

Have always believed that The Standard is not a Labour Party blog, just like The Daily Blog is not a Labour party blog.

Troops from The Standard joined the discussion. Anthony Robins:

Hi Martyn. Why do you keep repeating Slater’s lie that The Standard is “a Labour Party blog”? As you delete this question (for the fourth time) ask yourself why you are so full of hate. It’s sad. Bye now…


Wow Anthony, you are so self involved it comes across as terribly desperate. When people read the spiteful way you throw tantrums, do you think it helps them want to vote for the Labour Party?

As I said above, The Standard was set up by the Labour Party, the original creation of it was as a Labour Party newsletter for christ’s sakes. It’s a Labour Party blog, that’s why Slater was trying to hack it, to attack the Labour Party.

You read all that blog and all you have is some tantrum over not being a Labour Blog? Wow. Grow up champ.

I don’t hate you, I just dislike the manner in which your blog has personalised public attacks against me, end up sounding like a bunch of children in a playground and most recently your blog was the first to attack the pony tail story and then ever so quickly changed your tone when the PM admitted it and apologised.

I at least have the decency not to post on your blog, perhaps you could extend the same courtesy. Now bugger off.

Bradbury tends to be intolerant of criticism – note that Robins had four attempts to comment. It’s impossible to tell how many others may have tried to join the discussion but comment filtering at The Daily Blog is common.

Next up was Te Reo Putake:

The ‘labour party website’ dig at the Standard is really just Bomber’s little in joke. In the same way, I’ve been known to refer to TDB as the Palestinian Popular Front’s digital newsletter. Yeah, I know … it was funny at the time. Sort of.

There’s no real problem between the two sites, but it is a bit churlish to not even acknowledge the name of the blog in the post. It’s the Standard. I’m not sure why the name of the blog that was the proposed victim of Cam’s cyber bullying was left off the post and I’m sure it has nothing to do with the latest Open parachute rankings. Probably.

It was “a bit churlish to not even acknowledge the name of the blog in the post” – but TRP resorts to his normal levels of snide digs. And he denies reality (not unusual for TRP) with “there’s no real problem between the two sites”.

Bradbury’s response:

Hi TRP – You’re the same one who wrote on The Standard that the pony hair tail pulling story was bullshit because it appeared on TDB. How did that work out champ?

Do you think your petty point scoring is what will attract progressive voters or are you too tribal to notice?

Petty point scoring seems to be in overdrive between The Daily Blog and The Standard.

Meanwhile at The Standard  Robins had taken a return swipe at Bradbury in his post Update on dirty politics developments:

Martyn Bradbury, who hates us so much that he cannot even bear to mention our name…

The biggest voices for the left in the New Zealand blogosphere going hammer and tongs is not a good look for political prospects of the left.

The Daily Blog spike

The Daily Blog is has congratulated itself for a record month of hits last month, beating Kiwiblog on the April Open Parachute blog ranking, the first time a left wing blog has done this.

Milestone for The Daily Blog

For the first time in NZ Blogging history, Kiwiblog has been beaten by a left wing blog.

few people believe Whaleoil’s numbers are real, so Kiwiblog has been number 1 or 2 since the blog rankings began and this is the first time it’s been third.

Many thanks to our readership and our bloggers.

Fair enough. Something they can be proud of. But this was due to one thing, the Amanda Bailey/John Key ponytail pulling story. With the right stories it’s easy enough to get spikes in numbers. It’s much harder to sustain those numbers.

Here’s the numbers for the last few months:

  • September: visits 504,304 page views 813,779
  • October: visits 210,877 page views 347,647
  • November: visits 160,716 page views 259,736
  • December: visits 126,534 page views 203,1264
  • January 2015: visits 116,155 page views 188,868
  • February visits 121,994 page views 205,870
  • March visits 163,445 page views 274,075
  • April: visits 353,964 page views 511,527

So April was over double March.

Weepus Beard commented:

Congrats on the visits/month stat, and the statistics king David Farrar will be seething at his demotion.

I’m surprised he hasn’t congratulated TDB himself but then he only comments on/misrepresents stats that support his own narrow, right wing view of the world. He deliberately ignores/misrepresents any stats which damages that view or supports any socially responsible view of the world.

Strange to turn congratulations for The Daily Blog into baseless diss of Farrar. And it should be noted that The Daily Blog beat Kiwiblog on just one of the two measures.

  • Kiwiblog April 2015: visits 311,709 page views 566,587

Kiwiblog still had 10% more page views. And Open Parachute is just one way of ranking sites. Currently Alexa shows:

  • Kiwiblog – rank in New Zealand 273, global rank 135,533
  • The Daily Blog – rank in New Zealand 868, global rank 283,412
  • The Standard – rank in New Zealand 1,489, global rank 364,133
  • Whale Oil – rank in New Zealand 138, global rank 79,442

Weepus Beard continues:

I’d like to say though that these very encouraging views per month are not translating into comments. The heart of a blog is in it’s commentators and some improvements could be made on the back of this result.

TDB authors are the equal and in some cases way better than The Standard authors but this does not seem to make much of a difference.

I’m not qualified in blog studies to know what improvements might be made to increase the number of comments left here at TDB.

There’s a number of major reasons why The Daily Blog usually gets significantly fewer comments than The Standard and Kiwiblog.

Weepus Beard comes up with one of them:

Aha! I think I’ve got it. One of the reasons why TDB visits do not translate into comments is…

…real socially conscious people with real social,ly conscious comments to make do not like their having their comments stuck in moderation for hours upon hours as if we were mistrusted right wing trolls.

No one likes their comments going straight into limbo, having to wait until a moderator gets around to publishing it.

That’s if they release it. The Daily Blog has a reputation for ‘disappearing’ comments that it doesn’t like. Martyn Bradbury has been known as a site censor and comment manipulator for a long time.


  • It takes time to build up a commenting community (especially with the above practices). The Standard and Kiwiblog have been going much longer than The Daily Blog, and people tend to stay with what they are familiar unless there’s a compelling reason to switch favourite commenting communities.
  • The Daily Blog’s target market tends far left. Bradbury has associated himself with small parties and narrow interests, like Mana and the Internet Party. The Standard has Labour and Green and Mana supporters, a much wider catchment.
  • Bradbury has a credibility problem, often being an over the top ranter who is wide of the mark in his claims and predictions.
  • After the disappointment of the last election there was much less frequent posting at The Daily Blog.Number of posts is a significant factor in number of visits, number of views and number of comments.

The Daily Blog deserves some statistical glory for their April results, but that doesn’t mean it will become a sustained recovery. See what May’s rankings are to see how much it settles back, unless they manage to break another big story.

In praising Martyn Bradbury

Greg Presland has joined the list of bloggers praising Martyn’ Bradbury’s handling of the Key/waitress/hair story.

Firstly in relation to the story I wish to praise Bomber Bradbury’s handling of it.  Unlike Cameron Slater and his attempts to bring down Len Brown with the Bevan Chuang story Bradbury did some important things.  He let the story be the story and did not inject himself into the story at all.  He let the waitress tell her own story in her own words.  And unlike Slater whose grandiose yet ridiculous plan to have Len Brown removed from office and John Palino somehow installed as mayor Bomber had no intention of achieving any particular goal.  He just facilitated the telling of a very creepy story.

He also quotes Danyl Mclachlan of Dim-Post:

[Bomber] simply published the waitress’s own account as a primary, information-rich source that the mainstream media could base their stories off. Reporters called the PM, but the scandal had already broken and the media were all matching each other’s stories. It couldn’t be shut down. And Bomber kept himself out of it all. That approach – publish a primary source and make it available to all media simultaneously – turned out to be a really awesome way to get the story out there.

I have also said that Bradbury deserves some praise for how he presented the initial post that broke the story.

But Presland and Mclachlan take a very narrow view, focussing on the first post only. Bradbury has gone on to try and link it all with Dirty Politics – his next post on it headlines this:

UPDATE: The Prime Minister and the Waitress Part 2 – Dirty Politics?

This post, about the horrendous Herald coverage of the issue – opened with a photo of David Farrar with Rachel Glucina with this caption:

Rachel Glucina and Government pollster and right wing political blogger, David Farrar

Glucina was at the centre of that controversy. I haven’t seen anyone – including Bradbury, Presland nor Mclachlan – provide any evidence that Farrar (or Cameron Slater or the Government) had anything to do with this issue.

But Presland and Mclachlan compared Bradbury extensively with Cameron Slater.

In pushing Dirty Politics links they are all playing dirty, while praising Bradbury for playing it clean. Sheesh.

I don’t think it’s deliberately hypocritical. Most likely they are blind to their double standard.

And before Greg accuses me of suggesting a conspiracy again, this is probably not a co-ordinated or planned approach.

Left wing bloggers seem so obsessed with ‘Dirty Politics’ and the narrow definition they try to apply to the term they are blind to their own mode of operation.

To keep Felix happy I won’t say they’re playing ‘Dirty Politics’ themselves (I understand what you want that term to mean Felix) so I will describe it as playing dirty to promote a political attack.

As Presland did in his post after praising Bradbury.

Rachel Glucina’s attempt at turning the story around by suggesting there was a political angle in the complaint failed miserably and only succeeded in providing an institutional target and showing that Dirty Politics is alive although not so well.

If Felix was consistent he would point out that this doesn’t fit his version of Dirty Politics.

The right had no where to go on this.  Every time one of their nodding heads in the media tried to turn the story around there was blow back.  And as the story took off and international media ran with it you could sense John Key’s credibility ebb.  Crosby Textor will have their work cut out to repair this fiasco.

I think Greg pushes the CT conspiracy quite often. And he brought Farrar into the post:

The response of the right wing bloggers has been interesting.  David Farrar obviously wanted to have nothing to do with it and his early post inappropriate if accurate was as realistically as positive as he could go.

So Farrar “obviously wanted to have nothing to do with it” but Presland said “I wish to praise Bomber Bradbury’s handling of it” – that’s in relation to the story which was Bradbury’s first post but that’s disingenuous considering Bradbury’s ‘Dirty Politics’ follow-up.

Cameron Slater  is obviously no longer running pro Key lines and is preparing to support his mate Judith Collins in a leadership battle that when it occurs will be bloody and divisive and will leave National in far worse shape.  Let’s be real here.  There is no other leader of the quality of John Key in National.  The possibility of a leader emerging from the ranks of Collins, Joyce, Bennett, Adams or Bridges is one that fills me with confidence that the the next Government will be a progressive one.  Key is their only chance.  And he has been significantly damaged.

Slater’s lack of complicity (despite Presland associating him with it) is turned into a lame leadership hit.

Slater’s line on the story, that the left had stuffed up the chance of a political hatchet job spoke volumes about his world view.  He could not believe obviously (donotlink link) that a left wing blog could publish a story with no intent other than making sure that the story was told.  Subsequent posts suggesting that the waitress should toughen up just reveal a shallowness of human understanding that has always been apparent.

So “subsequent posts” at Whale Oil are relevant but Presland tries to judge Bradbury on one post in isolation “with no intent other than making sure that the story was told”.

If Presland wishes to “praise Bomber Bradbury’s handling of it” then he is in effect praising Bradbury’s attempts to widen the issue in to another example of ‘Dirty Politics’ – which Presland also does himself. He commented here yesterday:

Basically I thought Bomber did really well, way better than Slater in his attempts to achieve similar things.

Presland has been an integral part of an attempt to tie the Herald, Slater and Farrar into the hair story as an example of ‘Dirty Politics’.

He speaks on behalf of all at The Standard:

The rest of the posts were spontaneous. We do not sit down and coordinate and plot posts as part of some conspiracy. Well intentioned individuals post about aspects that they think are important and interesting.

A number of bloggers at Dim-Post and The Daily Blog may have also been spontaneous and un-coordinated.

But they all seem to be singing the same tune – Bradbury impeccable, Key/Herald/Slater/Farrar/right dirty.

If it’s all spontaneous (and it may well be) does that just indicate “well intentioned individuals” are already thoroughly indoctrinated in the ‘Dirty Politics’ campaign?

In praising Martyn Bradbury for one isolated play they have ignored the bigger game and seem oblivious to theirn involvement in the whole dirty sport of politics.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,132 other followers