“Their Hysterical Reaction Tells Us…”

Martyn Bradbury on Brexit an enormous threat to global economy:

I don’t think most people understand just how much danger the global economy is now in…

The initial shockwave…

We have an undeclared currency war erupting…a global economy already on its knees.

Brexit is a terminal blow.

I didn’t think the British would leave the EU because I didn’t think they were so masochistic, but the inability of the political elites and corporations that have benefited from globalisation to understand the anger of working classes being hurt by the extra competition has seen the great dream of a unified Europe end.

Let’s be clear – this is a shocking result because it turns everything on its head.

The irony of the British wishing to escape the parts of globalisation they didn’t like could in turn create a global economic collapse that a burns them as badly as it burns everyone else.

Brexit‬ is a result of the working classes being hurt by globalisation…

I suspect there is more in it and many more reasons for why people voted the way they did than “the working classes being hurt by globalisation”.

Some like Bradbury are claiming it proves their pet theory.

Bryan Gould writes: Their Hysterical Reaction Tells Us Why The Remainers Lost

It’s a bit more complex than that too.

Among the many hysterical reactions to the Brexit decision, a particular post on Facebook caught my attention.  The author was convinced that the decision to leave was the equivalent of the Visigoths’ sacking of Rome; civilisation itself was apparently in its last days.

It did not seem to occur to him that the decision to leave the EU was the product of a vote in which a majority of his fellow-citizens had simply, as part of their democratic right, acted on a view, or views, on a subject of interest to the whole community, that were just as valid as, but different from, his own. 

The barbarians whom he castigated were not invaders from elsewhere; they were Britons like him, enjoying the same right as he had to consider the issues and express a view.   It is what is called democracy.

The fury and hatred aroused by the discovery that there was actually a majority that disagreed with those who thought that they alone were capable of reaching the right and proper decision – and the vitriol with which those sentiments are expressed – provides us with an insight into the mentality of many of those who simply could not believe that any view other than theirs was possible.

For them, whether to remain or leave had ceased to be a practical issue to be calmly and rationally assessed.  It had passed beyond the bounds of rationality and was approached with all the zealotry of the religious fanatic. “Europe” had become a symbol of who they were or wished to be – making common cause with all those of similar sensibilities across the continent.

It is becoming clear that many Labour voters – almost certainly a majority – voted to leave.  It is true that Corbyn, partly perhaps because his heart wasn’t in it and partly in an attempt to placate his critics, found himself caught in a sort of no-man’s land. 

As a consequence, the Labour leadership missed the chance to place itself at the head of that majority who were fed up with the obvious, serious and growing deficiencies of the EU as a model for European integration.

That’s a different reason altogether to Bradbury’s “working classes being hurt by globalisation”.

Among the many insights the Brexit decision provides is a spotlight on how far detached most of Labour’s parliamentary leaders are from the voters they claim as their own.

It’s not just Labour’s parliamentarians who are detached. I have no idea what attachment Bradbury has to the working classes.


Bradbury versus Police – against the tide

There’s been a big show of social media support for Martin Bradbury’s right to free speech after police asked him to take down a poster that was highly critical of the police.

Bradbury’s poster suggested that the police recruit people who want to rape with impunity.

See: BREAKING: Police threaten Daily Blog editor with 6months imprisonment & $5000 fine for parodying their Roast Buster Rape inaction

And The Standard in support (with the offending/offensive poster): Perhaps the NZ Police should do their frigging job properly!

I support free speech in general, and I have serious concerns about how the police have handled the Roast Busters cases, but I didn’t join the protest because I thought Bradbury’s poster was overly offensive and unfair on many Police.

Some in the police may not take the crime of rape seriously enough but I am fairly sure many do. It is a very difficult crime to deal with and I have faith that many police officers do their best with it.

Police management certainly deserve scrutiny over this, and the way the Roast Busters cases have been handled deserves scrutiny, but that doesn’t justify depicting all in the police force as protected rapists and enablers.

A stink Bomber won’t help.

So I’m protesting against the tide, I think the offensiveness of Bradbury’s post went too far and didn’t deserve to be supported.

Colin Craig’s final word

Colin Craig appeared on Citizen A in a discussion with Martin Bradbury and David Slack. They talked about Auckland’s gridlock problems, youth rates & work and safety standards, and the line between political satire and defamation.

Each of them also had a final word. This is Colin Craig’s.

I actually think we’re at an interesting time in New Zealand politics. We are seeing some change. Now, obviously the Conservative Party is a part of that, but not only that.

I think what we’re going to see over the next while is a renewal, politicians that have probably been there far too long are going to start falling away, we’re talking about a number of them now looking at local body positions, mayoralties, whatever. It’s about time.

I think we need a different kind of politics in New Zealand, pragmatic.

As a centre right mainstream party we like pragmatic, but I think you can find pragmatic on both sides of the house, and I think we’ve got people who are willing to be more about consensus politics.

That’ll be great for this country.

Craig seems to be positioning himself as more moderate and accommodating than some of his more conservative supporters might like, but having mentioned pragmatism, Craig obviously recognises that success of the Conservative Party depends on establishing a broader appeal than a a truly CONSERVATIVE party is envisaged as being by some.

Interesting that he didn’t mention referenda, something he has said is his party’s bottom line. He may have to move more towards pragmatism and consensus on that ideal.

His general ideas on the direction he thinks politics may move are actually very similar to my own, which is quite ironic considering the criticism I get from Conservative Party supporters at Kiwiblog.

I think there’s a place in our political mix for Craig and his party, they would add value to our politics. If they do get a foothold in parliament there’s a risk some Conservative MPs may end up being liabilities or embarrassments, but every small party is at risk of that – as are the large parties, as the Gilmore debacle shows.

It’s a shame the MMP threshold wasn’t 3%, the Conservative Party would stand a good chance of giving that a good crack and if it looked feasible it would encourage more to vote for them to get them over the line.

But 5% is going to be a much more difficult target to achieve. Craig has sufficient resources and seems to have the determination, but money and guts isn’t all it will take. Craig will also have to learn and adapt smartly, and will need some luck. And a lot could depend on whether the media gods help or hinder him.

One thing’s for sure, the above is Craig’s final word on Citizen A this week, but it will be far from his final word in politics.

Is GCSB spying on me?

Ok, I realise they would only do it on behalf of the SIS, or the Police, or John Key, or David Shearer (what politician can you trust?) – but being paranoid seems to be the “Look at ME!” thing to do right now.

The Mana Party think they may be included in the 88 who have been allegdedly illegally spied on.

John Minto in particular seems to be starting to get suspicious – John Minto curious to know why house full of tiny microphones.

And Martin Bradbury wonders if  he’s a target in Did the GCSB spy on MANA members? Bradbury claims to have been the driving force behind Mana starting up after Pita Sharples wouldn’t let him lead the blogging for the Maori Party.

I have been critical of the Government and I helped argue for the creation of MANA – has the GCSB spied on me?

Am I threat to national security?

This week we have all become Kim Dotcoms.

Ah, not me, I did just eat a bit of chocolate but I’m not claiming to be anything like Dotcom yet.

Maybe Bradbury’s nickname is as good as inviting the SIS to his IP address but I just can’t see why any spooks would be interested in a benign middle of the road centrist like me.

I’m sensible. And the GCSB obviously doesn’t do sensible, they wouldn’t know sensible if it waved a red flag in front of their cyberspace.

And anyway, I’ve used GCSB as a tag that often lately they probably think I’m just another overblown blogger like Bomber.

Whoops, shouldn’t use that word, it might attract attention.

Another Patsy Bradbury interview

Another patsy interview by Martin Bradbury at The Daily Blog, – Interview with Jacinda Ardern

First question:

We have 270 000 children in poverty, a real unemployment rate in double figures and the highest inequality on record yet according to the latest Roy Morgan Poll, National are more popular today than they were on election night. Why has the land of egalitarianism turned its back on the poor?

Ardern didn’t have much left to add so waffled. Next question:

We know the Government need to distract from bad news when they start bennie bashing. Why do we love to attack those on welfare so much?

Answer again unneccesary. Third question:

The working poor look at the pathetic hourly minimum wage and look at the welfare cheque with envy. Instead of blaming the union busting neoliberal policies of the early 1990s under National to explain why they get such a paltry amount, the working poor blame beneficiaries. How does Labour appeal to the better angels of their nature?

And so Bradbury goes on, and on. Ardern gives him time to catch his breath between statements.

Ok, that’s a bit harsh, some of his subsequent questions were brief and Ardern’s replies lengthy, but there was little probing and much providing patsy questions for an Ardern easy ride.

Droughts and farmers versus beneficiaries

As areas of New Zealand declared drought zones in social media there’s been a growing number of comparisons made between assisting farmers compared to not assisting low paid workers and beneficiaries.

Martin Bradbury at The Daily Blog: How the hardship of farmers and beneficiaries differ

Don’t you love how when farmers face hardship the Government can’t rush fast enough to their aid with drought welfare, yet when the poor face hardship the Government responds with drug testing, contraception for solo mothers and 40 hours forced labour in a private prison.

Helen Kelly at The Standard: We’re all beneficiaries now

The recognition of the need to provide income support to farmers during this drought period is illustrative.  It illustrates the importance of having a comprehensive social protection system that steps in when things go wrong including the weather as in this case.   It illustrates the benefit of Farm Owners of having a union that the Government supports and is prepared to fund to provide much needed services such as co-ordination, animal welfare advice and counselling.

Solo mums are a bit like these farmers.  They are working but not earning and need community support to do that.  For them, they now have to attend job preparation courses and look for work.  They can be drug tested, boot camped and have their benefits cut if they don’t answer the phone when WINZ rings them about something. 

Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish (satire): Bennett announces drought relief get-tough measures

Ms Bennett accepted that there was no evidence of widespread abuse of the scheme by farmers.

But she insisted that the new rules were necessary to keep farmers on the straight and narrow. 

“Struggling farmers who are doing their best to manage and who are looking to find alternative work have nothing to fear,” said Bennett. “These rules are about helping to break the cycle of farmer dependency. Some of this dependency is inter-generational. We can’t afford as a nation to have hundreds of farmers begging for help each and every time a drought is declared.

“It doesn’t matter whether you’re a farmer or a solo mother,” said Ms Bennett. “If you want a handout from this government then the same rules apply.”

Robyn Norrison New Zealand Labour Party Facebook:

As a side note the farmers moan cause they have no feed for their animals and the govt pays them compensation, what about all the low paid families out there that are having trouble feeding their children where is the govt then, making things worse for them.

Mickysavage at The Standard:

There is a certain irony that farmers, who have a reputation for denying that climate change is occurring and opposing provision of social welfare for members of our community who need it should now be seeking a benefit because of a drought that is undeniably a symptom of global warming.

(micky, a one season adverse weather event in parts of one small country in the world is not “undeniably a symptom of global warming”.)

Comments on blogs follow similar themes of “poor beneficiaries” and “undeserving farmers”.

Low paid families already get government assistance continually through benefits, Working For Families, accommodation allowances, doctors subsidies etc etc. (some farmers may also qualify for some of these).

Some are questioning that farmers facing extreme short term difficulties are getting state assistance.

And they want people who are already getting state assistance, sometimes long term, to get more assistance.

It’s financially tough for people on low wages and benefits.

But it’s hard to compare assistance programmes for farmers who are having short term one off problems due to an abnormal weather event, and a mother who some say should have the freedom to choose the DPB for twenty years without question. Or a worker who receives Working For Families tax credits year after year without question.

And I find it highly offensive to make sweeping statements like “… farmers, who have a reputation for… …opposing provision of social welfare for members of our community”.

Also offensive is the “farmers make money so are bad and deserve any kick in the guts they get” attitudes alongside “poor beneficiaries deserve more and more and more”.

This is just blind bias or ideological pissy politicking.

I acknowledge that it’s only short term tough for farmers – but this means with short tyerm assistance they will be back to earning money and paying taxes again soon.

And I know that being stuck on a benefit without being able to find a job is tough, often for longer than a season of dry weather. And solo mothers and families on low wages can experience long term tough.

But that doesn’t justify denying any other state assistance from anyone else.

Farmers who go broke may become beneficiaries.

We are all a part of our state, we are all due some level of state assistance when justified, and we have to understand there will always need to be tough decisions made about the level and length of state assistance provided.

Bomber and climate bullshit

Martin Bradbury had a moan earlier this week about being ignored by MSM while The Standard got all the attention for Labour’s leadership coup cock-up.

Maybe his blatant bullshit (unless he just makes things up without knowing any facts) is one reason why the MSM doesn’t take what he says seriously. A comment at The Standard calls him on a porky:

Why is that Bomber thinks he can lie so openly and still taken seriously?

“The reason climate deniers like Slater and Farrar keep the spin lies going is because for them, it’s a cultural war. Slater and Farrar can not ever agree that human pollution is causing the planet to heat because it forces them to reflect upon the free market they slavishly worship.”

Ok…..What say you Farrar?

“…what my view is, that there is global warming, and human activity is causing it, but that the extent of the warming is debatable and not as large as originally projected.”

So Farrar may disagree with the extent but he quite clearly states he believes it is happening and that humans cause it.

Where is the integrity?

It doesn’t look like there was any attempt at integrity. Is that why Bomber isn’t taken very seriously? He has been dropped by both Radio NZ and Truth, possibly for this reason.

Whale Oil and Truth

An announcement yesterday by Cam Slater on his Whale Oil blog seemed to take virtually everyone by surprise:

Announcement: Whaleoil Appointed Editor of Truth

Internet shock jock goes mainstream

“Wellington, you’re on notice – be afraid.”

New Zealand’s number 1 news and opinion blogger Cameron Slater has today been appointed Editor of the Truth.

Slater has been brought on board to fundamentally change the way newspapers deliver to their audiences. Newspapers worldwide are in decline, due, Slater says, to a tired old business model that no longer works.

“We’re not going to spend $4 million on a paint job and then deliver the same tired old paid-for shit.

“Most of the media in this country is weak, and it’s paid for. The integrity in news went ages ago.”

Slater is adamant that the backbone of New Zealand – the people who work – are not getting a fair shake from government or the system. He aims to change that.

“Each and every one of us has got an investment in NZ Inc, and the majority of the people in charge of the place are taking the piss out of our investment.

“We’re going to keep the buggers honest. There’s no better disinfectant than sunlight.

“To use a tired phrase – if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, so Wellington, you’re on notice – if you’re having a lend, we’re coming for you!”

Changes will be rolled out over a period of months and will include both print and a 24 hour news website to support the paper. Slater aims to alter the approach to news presentation significantly.

“We took the pulse of the nation, and it had nearly bloody died.

“No bastard wants to read old news – they can get that online. We’ll be more of a views-paper that promises to deliver REAL news, REAL opinion.

“The people are numb from the eyes down with the diet of PR’d crap they get now. I will not do it to them anymore – it’s not right.”

It will be a huge challenge trying to revive a very tired old scandal rag but it actually makes some sense. It’s easier to redevelop an existing institution than start from scratch. Truth could be almost totally revamped without objection, in effect it could be used as a virtual blank canvas on an existing frame.

Whale has two huge advantages over just about anyone else – he has built a substantial following on his blog, and much of that will at least have a look at how Truth is transformed.

There have been mixed reactions to this announcement. Various MSM have covered it, including the Guardian in the UK (on a blog).

On Whale’s announcement post there have been many comments of congratulations and support. Kiwiblog is also mostly supportive albeit with a few grizzles – Whale appointed Truth Editor.

The Bradbury Bombast

Martin Bradbury surpised almost everyone revealing he had been a truth columnist, until now – Cameron Slater as the 4th Journalist of the Apocalypse – why I resigned from Truth.

No, I couldn’t work for Christian Family man and gun fetishist Cameron Slater. He’s not a journalist, he’s a far right hate merchant whose blog borders on hate speech. He fluffs his page view numbers with biblical quotes and gun porn while waving his proGay marriage flag around to hold the high ground on an issue more to confound and blunt his opponents attacks on him than any real personal values of equality.

So once I heard he had gerrymandered his ascension to editor, I decided to leave.

It’s funny to see a left wing hate merchant whose blog (and rants in other forums) borders on hate speech accusing Whale of bordeline hate speech. He rants further on in his post:

He will have an impact as corrosive as Satan’s sperm and it will surprise many how successful he will be. Expect vicious personalized attacks, union bashing, Maori bashing, leftie bashing, pro gun nonsense, worship of Judith Collins, climate change denial, etc etc etc, he will inject a toxin into the public discourse that will be as addictive as it is destructive.

But suggests it could be successful, albeit in a typical over the top vernacular:

Will it work?

It’ll be more popular than Mary Poppins musical tickets for single women in their 30s. What many of the detractors on the Standard fail to appreciate is that Slater is one of the best propagandists in NZ today. His ability to twist issues and appeal to people’s worst natures while pretending to be their best nature is an art that he is the undisputed king of.

He will make the Truth relevant again, he’ll slice through the MSM with a laser. He’ll make them look tired and irrelevant, Slater will weaponize that newspaper and start a very unique movement.

There is certainly the opportunity to start a very unique mixed media movement.

The Standard write Slater off as a joke, I think that is a terrible under-appraisal of the rampage he can now cause. Fascinating times ahead.

Bradbury fears (or talks fearfully) of rampage because he sees Whale as an opponent who if given the chance would do what Bradbury himself would like to do to political opponents.

I think he’s wrong. The best chance of success with Truth is to connect to as many ordinary people as possible, but that won’t be seen from the Bradbury bombast bubble.

And Jane Clifton (Listener) tweeted: Dare I say it, Bomber has resigned from the Truth = Slater has improved the MSM already #stillafraid

The Standard

On The Standard lprent continues his feud, and many comments continue the tone –  Whaleoil and his toilet paper.

I haven’t seen a copy of The New Zealand Truth for many years. But I guess that it has been going down the toilet under the impact of modern media channels. But now it has really started heading for the sewer – Whaleoil has been made editor.

I have to say that I think that it is an inspired choice. I always felt that the criteria for a story to be present in The Truth wasn’t about the facts or even being in the public interest. It was mostly if they were likely to be sued by someone who could actually push through a defamation suit.

Since I was a kid, the so-called “People’s paper” has been a minor irritant in the journalism sphere attacking people and institutions who wouldn’t fight back because it was somewhat pointless to do so and because doing something about the crap that they wrote actually validated it. Everyone learned to simply ignore the stories from the Truth as being a shit pit for the stupid to gloat over.

Cameron Slater is perfect as editor as he has those essential bullyboy characteristics required in abundance. He has a eye for exactly the type of crap that the Truth specialises in. High sounding but completely inaccurate bullshit where the logic of the author largely consists of making 1+1 to equal 111. And when challenged, for instance by the courts on suppression orders, he can rapidly shift from bombastic to craven.

And of course it helps to keep a high profile deadbeat off of the taxpayers tab.  I wish him well in the role.

So lprent started his attack based on an uninformed assumption. Ironic that he accuses Whale of being “high sounding but completely inaccurate bullshit” – which is something some of The Standard authors excel at. ‘Eddie’ comments:


Truth is half owned by Mathew “Hoots” HootonMatthew Horton and half owned by some dodgy businessman called David Crow. http://www.spcs.org.nz/2010/steve-crow-and-david-crow-435-devon-limited/

[lprent: wrong – fixed ]

A rare case of lprent correcting an ‘Eddie’ inaccuracy, but I presume this one was more of a mistake as opposed to ‘Eddie’s’ deliberate attack lying that typically gets protected rather than corrected.

But lprent makes what may be a valid point:

Whale hasn’t exactly had a good track record of working with others either in on his blog (ask Cactus), or in his previous business experiences). I suspect he will have the same ego problems with this venture as well. You never know, he may wind up with some people who can work with him. But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Whale will have two major challenges – to make the new Truth work he will have to be able to work effectively with the Truth journalists and contributors. This will be much different for Whale to the freedom and individualism of his blogging.

But Whale’s blogging experience could also be a strength – he blogs solo but he has established an extensive network of contacts both as sources of information and through the blogosphere and other media. He already works successfully with many people, albeit in a different environment.

He’ll have to extend this to working within an established commercial media operation.

I won’t hold my breath, but I’ll be watching with interest. There is much potential in establishing a new media hybrid. A lot of trial and error will be required, but it’s a bold branch out in Truth’s history.

David Shearer – bombs and bombed

David Shearer failed to impress in an interview yesterday on The Nation. It’s not just his opponents who are critical – there’s also a barrage of criticism from his own side of the spectrum.

Martin (‘Bomber”) Bradbury, a very vocal leftie posts on the Tumeke blog:

One thing you can say about Shearer’s interview on The Nation in the weekend, is that he is getting much better and manages only a few cringe worthy moments per interview. His previous media appearances, let’s be frank, have been woeful, but this weekend he didn’t hemorrhage all over the screen.

I was left wondering ‘if only John Hartevelt was this brave when asking questions of Joyce’ during this weeks show, but the moment of joy has to go to Alex Tarrant who fed Shearer Cunliffe’s words and Shearer walked into it by denying those words. It’s worth watching the entire thing just to see the look on Tarrent’s face while Shearer’s answer goes deeper and deeper.

Hey I said Shearer’s performance had gotten better, but from the point he was starting, staying clothed during the interview is a win.

Who needs political enemies when supposed friends are so scathing. And this isn’t isolated, as these comments at The Standard show:

29 September 2012 at 10:23 pm

the pink postman: Maybe it is more a case of utter desperation, trying to find any positive signs of competent, convincing leadership in David Shearer, that most here have. The criticism does not come easily, as most will be well aware that any alternative government will need a strong, capable Labour Party as being at least part of it. Traditionally one would have expected Labour to “lead” the opposition.

People are screaming out for a stronger leadership and clearer policies from within Labour, but to our greatest dismay, it is not coming forth sufficiently. To be “patient” and wait another year or so for Labour to sort itself out is just too much of an ask to put up with.

Sorry, I used to vote Labour, and I did vote for the local Labour candidate (who actually lost to a Nat one). But my vote was cast for the “lesser evil”. My party vote has gone to the Greens, but I expect them to deliver too, or else I may consider yet another alternative.

So do not blame people for “bagging” Shearer, they may have good reasons to ask questions and be critical.

29 September 2012 at 5:55 pm

Shearer, Wake the f*ck up!

30 September 2012 at 7:52 am

I hope the Labour Party members and caucus manages to come up with a better leader in the next few months. The left needs a more dynamic Labour leader right now. I’d prefer Cunliffe, but Robertson would also be better than Shearer, even though he leans too far to the right for my liking.

Unfortunately these are common sentiments, and they don’t seem to be improving.

David Shearer needs to find a way of sounding knowledgable and authoritative, and he needs to speak his own mind. His speaking has improved but his content sounds like hesitant parroting fed to him by his coaches.

Will Labour try to wobble on and just hope the wheels fall off National? Or will they try and win the next election with a leader that looks like a leader?