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 stuff.co.nz/Ipsos 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.

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.

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:

@NgatiBird

Sorta ironic that in 1914 Mata Hari was a German agent, and in 2014 there’s Laila. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_Hari

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.

Gower asks tricky donations questions

The debate about political donations took a tricky turn on The Nation this morning. As a result of Patrick Gowers tricky questioning activists are calling for John Key to identify all people who donate to National. They don’t seem to have thought this through to it’s logical conclusion.

Patrick Gower manoeuvred John Key into a tricky position. He first got Key to confirm that he thought David Cunliffe should reveal who the two donors were that declined to be identified. Then Gower pointed out that Key had been at National Party fundraising dinners where $5,000 ticket prices for a meal were effectively donations.

Key claimed that it was different, that he had nothing to do with the donations and that it was within the rules. But handled to questions adeptly as he usually does but he looked a tad uncomfortable as he (presumably) realised he had been skewered.

Key not talking about fundraising dinner

Fancy fundraising dinners raising thousands of dollars from undisclosed donors aren’t “tricky”.

Spoiler alert! On 3 news tonight Gower will emphasis his tricky wee points win over Key and highlight the fact that National have anonymous donors, which looks a bit tricky. It’s often obvious from Gower’s interviews what story he is angling at. That’s how he works.

But it gets trickier than this.

There was an immediate reaction on Twitter, pointing out some hypocrisy from Key. That’s a fair call, to an extent.

Blogs have followed up with the attack on Key.

Martyn Bradbury at The Daily Blog in Guess who’s coming to dinner – questions about Key’s $165 000 fund raisers:

Key has said of Cunliffe that he had to be transparent over the donations ‘‘or he’s going to be guilty of being labelled as having a secret agenda which none of us can verify one way or another’’. Well Mr Key, by your very own words, don’t you have to reveal who your donors were and if they aren’t prepared to be named, do as Cunliffe has done and pay back the donations?

And ‘Zetetic’ (who has jumped back into action for Labour this week) at The Standard in Give us the names or pay the money back, John:

David Cunliffe had a trust set up for campaign donations. The structure kept donors anonymous and was within electoral rules, but was a bad look. He named three of the donors and paid the other two back. Total donations equaled $17,800 with $8,300 of that returned.

At the time, John Key called for Cunliffe to name his anonymous donors (even though the money was returned to them).

John Key received 21 five thousand dollar campaign donations (total $105k) via a dinner, and another $60k through another. He acknowledged there have been many other dinners.

Paddy Gower asked him to name these anonymous donors on the Nation this morning, Key refused.

By Key’s logic he now has to either pay back the $165k – and all the other secret dinner money – or name the donors.

Not to do so wouldn’t just be tricky, but hypocritical.

The money or the secret names John. You can’t keep both.

Those wanting to divert attention from Cunliffe and turn the heat on Key need to be careful. For one thing, the circumstances are different between Key and Cunliffe.

Zetetic makes a false claim. Key did not receive any donations. He attended the dinner and would have been the main draw-card, but any donations were paid to the National Party (via president Peter Goodfellow).

In contrast Cunliffe’s donations were for him personally, for his leadership campaign.

And Cunliffe with Labour have made a big noise about shutting down secret donation trusts. And have legislated against them. So Cunliffe’s hypocrisy is greater.

But that’s not the trickiest part of this for Labour.

If Labour activists and other political activists like Bradbury insist that Key divulges the identity of National donors, even though the size of the donations is less than the amount where disclosure is compulsory, then if they want to avoid double standards and hypocrisy they should insist that Cunliffe identifies all Labour Party donors. And Norman/Turei identify all Green donors. And Harawira identifies all Mana donors.

In Zetetic’s words, “not to do so wouldn’t just be tricky, but hypocritical” - far more so than Key.

Bradbury’s right, journalists can be ‘tricky’

In Tricky Patrick Gower at The Daily Blog Martyn Bradbury makes several points claiming Patrick Gower has made too much of his story about David Cunliffe’s late declaration of an investment trust.

This second trust issue is minor for Cunliffe albeit of some interest among the other issues of the week, Cunliffe’s leadership campaign trust, his flash house hypocrisy and the sending IT policy stuff-up.

I can’t work out what is happening with Patrick Gower. He seems to either be conducting a live job interview to be John Key’s next Press Secretary or the National Party have a few of Paddy’s family held hostage somewhere under threat of grammar lessons with Chris Finlayson because this story about Cunliffe’s ICSL Trust is bullshit.

I don’t think it should be ‘Tricky Cunliffe’, I think it should be ‘Tricky Paddy’.

That’s a bit of typical Bomber hyperbole plus a bit of humour, and I don’t think Gower is favouring Key nor National, but he is making a story more dramatic than it warrants. It’s what he does regardless of what party the target belongs to.

It is the manufactured framing by Gower that is the issue here, the attempt to validate that narrative by musings on values is deceptive at worst and useful idiot at best. 

I agree with Bradbury on this.

Some journalists try to have too much influence on news and politics, and they are not accountable to voters. It can adversely affect any politician or party who gets in the firing line.

Political careers can soar or crash and burn at the whim and heavy handedness of the media. Cunliffe is copping a lot of flak, mostly brought on by his and his party’s ineptitude. ACT leader Jamie Whyte learned how brutal the media spotlight can be.

Our top politicians need to be examined and held to account and the media take a lead role in this.

But when they over do things it can have  a corrupting influence on our democratic process.

Journalists need headlines like politicians need votes. Both sometimes ignore decency and democracy when trying to achieve their respective targets.

Both sides of the media battle can get a bit too tricky with the truth.

Nash attacks Labour media blaming

There’s been a double barrelled blast at the media from The Daily Blog.

Martyn Bradbury: The many falsehoods about Cunliffe Key is spinning with a compliant media

The rush by the mainstream media to suddenly be investigative journalists pouring over any sin committed by Cunliffe would be welcome if it had been apparent during Key’s 6 years of denigrating the egalitarian dream.

Chris Trotter: Human Error: Is David Cunliffe more sinned against than sinning?

IS THIS WHAT PASSES FOR POLITICAL JOURNALISM NOW? To breathlessly inform the world that David Cunliffe is no more immune to errors of judgement than any other human-being?

There’s a lot of support for Trotter’s views with stronger claims of media bias against Cunliffe and Labour and pro-National, for example ‘Poem':

Unfortunately David Cunliffe doesn’t enjoy the ownership of the media like john key and his national party does, to white wash, sugar coat, down play and hide the phenomenal amount of mistakes and wrong doings that they do.
Just because the media never report on any divisional factions going on within national doesn’t mean its not happening. Out of sight out of mind, right? And that’s the very reason why the media don’t, just to keep national’s illusion of unity intact.

But ex Labour MP Stuart Nash injects a dose of reality:

Chris, this is an interesting piece (and I am going to write my own tonight), but complaining about the media is the same as MPs complaining that MMP has added a rural hump into their once-safe electorates. So what.! The stories in the media piss me off as much as they do the next person, however, we know this is now the game. If you don’t like the heat then get out of the kitchen.

We all know the media hunt as a pack, and if they smell blood they go hard. At some point they will turn but the fact is that Key, at this stage, isn’t providing any scraps. Remember the discipline under Helen..?

Well, Key may be many many things, but he is not stupid. Watch the media rip Banks apart when he finally goes to trial, watch them go for Colin Craig when he queries evolution, and for Jamie Whyte when the next philosophical burb emerges from his gut…But there is one way to ensure they don’t go for you: don’t fuck up in a way that leaves blood.

The State of the Nation speech was poor form; the Key call wasn’t great; the blind trust – Labour made a rod for their own back as far as I am concerned. Matt McC is now in charge, and if he lives up to his billing, then this sort of stuff up will be a thing of the past.

But don’t blame the media. Look a little closer to home.

Cunliffe will do better; he has 8 or so months to convince the public that he is capable of leading the country. In 8 months time, no one will remember what happened 8 months ago – unless this becomes a pattern. I believe David is smarter than that. 

Cunliffe doesn’t appear to be demonstrating many smarts at the moment. He has a lot of work to do to reverse his poor media coverage. He and his Labour colleagues can’t expect any favours from the media – unless they earn them.

And going negative on their opposition like ‘Zetetic’ at The Standard -Lying Key - won’t do anything to repair their own damage. It’s a standard attempt at a diversionary attack but seems to negative and far too late, Labour have to avoid shooting themselves in the foot.

But the first comment on Zetetic’s thread is Redlogix:

I’ll go one step further – it’s obvious that Labour has traitors in its ranks as well. Mc Cartens appointment has unleashed a deluge of panic attacks on Cunliffe from the people most anxious about it. We are neck deep in a vicious battle with greed, privilege and snobbery.

There is only one possible realistic suggestion. The Left must start acting like a real political force, and take action in unity. Nothing else matters anymore.

Trotter is right. Failure now is failure for another generation.

Labour need to deal with their own demons first.

Bradbury bollocks – Shame on the rottten MSM!!!

Blaming the media for one’s political debacles is common in the blogs, like this from ‘xtasy’ at The Standard.

The problem is that many “journalists” are themselves rather right leaning, fond of Key and his government, so they willingly quote such supposed “independent” advice on matters. The Taxpayer’s Union and the likes are being quoted and invited by all kinds of MSM, ranging from the likes of Radio 1ZB and Radio Live over to even Radio NZ National (e.g. Jim Mora) for radio, also by the large TV news channels, and print media.

Perhaps we should apply the “three strikes and you are out” to all journalists quoting or inviting such organisations?

Apart from that the bias is just gob smacking, and listening in to Radio Live after 03 pm this afternoon, Duncan Garner was ranting on about Cunliffe again, and why he had not fronted up with having used a trust for assisting his candidacy in the leadership competition for Labour’s leader. He even speculated that one of the two donors that David Cunliffe refused to name, may be Kim Dotcom.

This kind of stuff comes from the likes of Garner, Gower and a fair few others somewhat regularly, and it is predominantly targeted at Labour and the Greens, while the Nats and Key are mostly let off lightly.

It seems to be getting worse by the day, and no matter how many apologies, adjustments and improvements Cunliffe may come with, he seems to be the target now, to be shot to pieces, before the election even takes place.

Shame on the rottten MSM!!!

But it looks more desperate when it is in a blog post at one of the big blogs. Martyn Bradbury at The Daily Blog in Latest msm Cunliffe feeding frenzy over donations goes into excuse and blame overdrive.

Yawn.

In a new style of campaigning via the Labour leadership campaign, Cunliffe decided to use a private trust to collect donations. The mainstream media feeding frenzy is the usual froth from a Press Gallery now seemingly taking verbatim editorials from John Key.

An absurd claim.

I don’t care that Cunliffe used a trust for the leadership campaign, this Government are well known for the manner in which they demonise anyone dissenting and the secrecy the trust provided was to protect donors, it wasn’t to hide them and Cunliffe’s offered to pay back everyone not prepared to publicly declare.

The reasons why they were anonymous is the deciding issue here, not how.

So blatant hypocrisy doesn’t matter, the left can do anything to avoid ‘demonisation’.

Voters don’t give a toss about who donated what in a leadership contest, they care about affordable housing, child poverty and providing protections to our fragile environment. They care about sustainable jobs, rising inequality and well funded education. They care about mass surveillance and unsafe work places.

The mainstream corporate media on the other hand care about constructing a narrative to discredit Cunliffe. Astounding that Judith Collins appears to front for her Husband’s company in direct conflict with the Cabinet Manuel, and we don’t see anywhere near the level of media scrutiny of that.

With media bias like this, I’m surprised Key isn’t polling 70%.

With bloggers like this I’m surprised that Mana, the Internet Party and Labour aren’t soaring in the polls.

Just kidding.

With excuses like this and blaming anyone but your own ineptness it’s not surprising the left are failing to connect with voters and that voters are deserting elections in droves.

Congratulations to The Daily Blog

The Daily Blog congratulate themselves – Happy 1st Birthday The Daily Blog - and congratulations from me too for a successful launch into the political blogosphere.

With a long line-up of left leaning authors The Daily Blog can be a useful source of views, and found (or made) a sizeable gap in the New Zealand political discourse.

TDB has chosen to promote as many controlled messages as possible and open debate is limited due to their heave moderation (selection of what comments are published). That’s not how I like to see things done but it’s their blog, their choice.

And their approach to politics is quite different too. The close their celebratory post with:

Our goal here is to change the Government and have the issues of social and economic justice addressed. We look forward to the election and the debate.

So TDB is openly a very left leaning activist site on a mission to change the government.

In contrast my main mission is quite different, to promote more honesty, transparency and better behaviour in politics right across the spectrum.

Each to their own. But congratulations again to The Daily Blog for achieving one of their goals, to become established as a significant voice of the political left.

UPDATE: I submitted a short comment congratulating TDB on their birthday post:

Congratulations on a successful first year. TDB is a useful insight into many opinions on the political left.

After about an hour in moderation (an impediment to thread discussions) my comment disappeared into the TDB trash.

UPDATE: Oddly it has now appeared.

Daily Blog poll denial – “trying to manipulate” opinion

The Daily Blog fires a double barreled blast at the One News/Colmar poll with two posts calling foul – after they claimed their own self selecting online poll might be predicting the future. It predicted the opposite of what has happened.

Martyn Bradbury claims We have nothing to fear but TVNZ Polls.

Oh the National Party that is overseeing the largest erosion of civil liberties this country has seen since the 1951 waterfront lockout while contributing to the inequality that is dooming so many has enough support in the latest TVNZ Poll to govern alone? 

Really?

So despite this being landline poll, despite 13% don’t knows, despite it being held over summer when most Green Party supporters are out in the sunshine, John Key is sooooooo popular he can govern alone is he?

Really?

These opinion polls are not reflecting public opinion, they are trying to manipulate it.

Don’t believe the hype!

I wonder if this reaction has anything to do with the poll saying the opposite of what Christ Trotter and Bradbury suggested last week – that a Daily Blog poll showing Greens ahead of Labour was a sign of changing support. See Canaries In A Coal Mine: Has The Daily Blog Poll anticipated Labour’s Collapse?

This poll showed an apparent collapse in Green support from 14 to 8% and Labour holding steady.

And Frank Macskasy is also in denial in Latest TV1-Colmar Brunton Poll – Back To The Future IV?

It was a shocker of a poll on Sunday evening (23 February); the TV1-Colmar Brunton poll had National soaring to stratospheric heights.

It was a shocker for those hoping for and predicting something quite different.

There is no figure given for Undecideds/Refused to Say, which kind of makes the stats a bit dodgy. 

The “Don’t Know/Refused to say” was a whopping 13%!

That’s a sizeable chunk of voters who could yet decide the election outcome.

But how credible is a polling figure of 51% for any political party?

The answer? Not very.

It’s credible within a 3.1% margin of error at 95% confidence – that’s polling 101.

The highest Party Vote for any political party since the introduction of MMP in 1996, was 47.31%, achieved by National in the 2011 election.

So is 51% a credible indicator for National’s re-election chances?

Again, not very.

That’s different. It’s many months until the election, many things could change before then. But it’s a strong indicator that National is in a strong position right now.

In a February 2011 TV1-Colmar Brunton poll, National stood at… 51%. In fact, the 2011 Poll is a remarkable mirror of the current Colmar results; 

So it’s credible poll result now then, it’s a result that National has achieved before.

It is further worth noting that the actual election night result on Saturday 26 November 2011 was as follows;

  • National:  47.31%
  • Labour: 27.48%
  • Greens: 11.06%
  • NZ First: 6.59%

No other Party breached the 5% threshold.

At 34% current polling (by Colmar Brunton), this is still 6.52 percentage points above the 2011 election night results. Not a bad starting point to go into an election.

But 51% for National? Not in the realm of possibility. That is the polling they started from in February 2011 – and still they finished at 47.31%.

It is in the realm of possibility.

One thing that Macskasy fails to mention is that Labour got 33% in the February 2011 poll, so they dropped more than National, to 27.28%. Going by Frank’s logic 34% shouldn’t be a credible result for Labour either.

In any case this election is quite different to 2011.

  • National look like benefiting from an improving economy.
  • Labour have dumped two leaders since the last election and are struggling with their third, and have so far failed to show any sign of rebuilding, or retiring dead wood MPs and re-neweing talent.
  • Greens held their 2001 surge in support until recently but are starting to frighten some people, plus have had negative news with Norman’s association with Dotcom revealed, his confrontation with Colin Craig and Metiria Turei’s jacket and castle publicity.

I think it’s very likely National will drop below the 50% line, under MMP we have never had a single party with a majority and that’s most likely to continue.

But Bradbury and Macskasy sound like they are flailing about and lashing out in denial of a series of unfavourable poll results.

And they might be a little disappointed that their own very dubious blog poll was not the grand soothsayer they hoped.

It’s more than a bit ironic that Bradbury accuses One News and Colmar Brunton of deliberately manipulating opinion when that’s what he has just blatantly tried to do – unless he really believed in his own bull.

 

 

 

 

Blogger linked to Cunliffe suggests incredibly vicious campaign

Blogger Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury has already had links to the Mana Party (as a paid consultant) and Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party (as a paid consultant) exposed.

Now NZ Herald reveals:

Bradbury says he regularly talks to Labour leader David Cunliffe, and his goal this year is to see Cunliffe elected Prime Minister.

No admission that Cunliffe or Labour are paying him.

Bradbury leans forward on his elbows at the cafe table: “The old rules are gone,” he grins. “This election is going to be incredibly vicious.”

Is he promising a vicious campaign on behalf of Labour or just out of the goodness of his heart? More likely it’s the only left wing party left for him to try and cosy up to.

Bradbury has separated from the Internet and Mana Parties and the Greens are unlikely to condone let alone utilise his firebrand of political activism.

What can we make of the Bradbury/Cunliffe/Labour connection? This is what Grant Robertson says about it.

Politicians can “manage the message” by talking through politically affiliated bloggers, says Robertson – whether that be Key talking to Slater, or Cunliffe talking to Bradbury.

“Bradbury is not someone I know that well, but I don’t have a high level of discomfort about him,” Robertson says.

Did Robertson say that knowing about Bradbury’s vicious intent?

It will be interesting to see how The Standard attacks this. They attacked John Key relentlessly for admitting an interest in Whale Oil.

  • KAROL: Dotcom snoopers: The “dirty, disgusting, despicable game”
    “This is looking like a sophisticated circular shell game.  Normally it’s thought that the PM’s office leaks stuff to right wing bloggers.”
  • ZETETIC: Rotten
    “We’ve always known that there were close ties between National and the abomination that is Whaleoil but now we know that the ties go right to the top.”
  • MICKYSAVAGE: John Key, Blogsters and the Dotcom leaks
    “And the confirmation that Key is regularly in contact with Cameron Slater shows how deep the relationship is between National and the Sewer is.  And there was the use of, as Key calls them, blogsters to smear opposition MPs with hints of corruption.”

With Bradbury admitting direct links to Cunliffe, an admitted lack of ‘discomfort’ from Robertson, The Standard should be horrified.

Waiting…

First response at The Standard, from ‘marty mars':

I have to say that I am still struggling to get my head around the recent news that the prime minister rings slater up and chats – and the killer is, that is only if the lying dirty wanker is telling the truth – and he hardly ever does that! Dirty, dirty fight, dirty tactics, fight to win. Wake (further) up lefties the skirmishing is here.

He missed something.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 217 other followers