Green horse trading bombed

A leaked Green email suggests an attempt at negotiating with Labour over some minor policies – and Martyn Bradbury is having a fit over it.

Stuff:  Horse trading between Labour and Greens to get NZ First’s ‘Waka Jumping’ bill across the line

Labour, NZ First and National have all decried a Green Party MP’s suggestion that horse trading could be used as a negotiating tactic to get a national “Parihaka Day”.

The Green Party is considering opposing NZ First’s “Waka Jumping” bill – a deal struck in coalition talks – unless Labour gives it a national “Parihaka Day”.

Green Party justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman, in an internal email obtained by Stuff, suggested some horse trading with Labour to acknowledge the fact the party has long opposed waka jumping legislation.

Ghahraman’s suggested her colleague Marama Davidson’s bill, which recognises the anniversary of the invasion of Parihaka by making it a National Day, be put on the table for Government support.

That’s an odd sort of policy trade.

Justice Minister Andrew Little, deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and National deputy leader Paula Bennett have all rallied against the idea of horse trading, saying its use is inappropriate when it comes to getting legislation through.

Little said he supported the idea of a day to commemorate the Māori land wars, but didn’t want to see a national “Parihaka Day” the subject of some “cheap horse trading exercise”.

The “Waka Jumping” bill has been drafted by Justice Minister Andrew Little and the email suggests he’s already agreed to some amendments.

Peters said he wasn’t aware of the conversations between Little and Ghahraman but NZ First didn’t horse trade.

“We don’t sell our principles, we don’t either half-way in or half-way out. If something is sound we’ll back it … but I think horse trading on matters of principle are thoroughly bad.”

Peters wouldn’t say if he supported the idea of a national “Parihaka Day” other than to say “if an idea’s got merit, it’s got merit on its own”.

Bennett said it was “disgraceful” for any political party to think they could horse trade on any matter.

“It should be seen on its merits, for what it is, for what value it adds to democracy and for the people of New Zealand, and not just something you can trade away for something else you see as important.”

Isn’t that what the post-election negotiations were all about? I thought deals and trade offs were a major part of politics.

In the email Ghahraman said Little had “unlawfully” shown her a “ministerial advice paper” about proposed waka jumping legislation but not the full text of the bill.

In response Little said Ghahraman had likely misunderstood his “dry sense of humour” and he was making a joke that he was possibly breaking “Cabinet protocol”.

“I made a flippant remark … it was the advice paper as a precursor to the paper that goes to the Cabinet, which is ultimately the basis of the legislation. No unlawful activity was entered into.”

A spokesperson for the Green Party said this was an “internal document that was sent in error”.

Seems like some inexperience from Ghahraman , and possibly also from Little.  It’s embarrassing that this has been made public.

Martyn Bradbury is seriously unimpressed:  How ill prepared are the Greens for Government? This ill prepared…

They want  to blackmail the Government into supporting an idea that stands on its own two feet? Wouldn’t that in fact dishonour the very values Parihaka Day is supposed to espouse?

Are they listening to what they are saying for Gods sake?

This leak means the idea is utterly dead. There’s no way Labour or NZ First could look like they have been blackmailed into supporting Parihaka Day when they would have likely supported it anyway.

I’ve had my concerns about the Greens for some time, this leak has been a cringeworthy exercise in seeing how right those concerns were.

It gets funny when Bradbury gets into Peters’ fiscal doom territory.

Why does Winston want this waka jumping legislation in place?

He wants it in place because he knows there is one hell of a global economic correction coming and he knows the first thing the right wing do when a crisis of that magnitude threatens their wealth is they buy who they need to protect that wealth.

Winston is inoculating his own Party from having MPs who can be bought by National when the economy hits the skids, that’s why he included it in the negotiations with Labour. With that law in place he knows he can hold his Party together when the worst hits. This is a stability measure that holds the new Government together, what the internal memo shows is that the Greens seems to have no fucking clue as to why Winston wants this law, and they don’t understand that passing it strengthens the stability of the Government they themselves are part of!

Some people have a bit to learn about being in and supporting a Government.

Bradbury seems to have forgotten how National handled an actual global economic correction – everything they do has to be bombed apparently.

The Bradbury story: ‘unlawful’ access of bank records

This would appear to be big Bomber story, from NZH: Hunt for Rawshark sees police rapped again for ‘unlawful’ search of banking records

Police have again been caught unlawfully harvesting private banking information in the search for the hacker behind the Dirty Politics book.

This time it is activist and journalist Martyn Bradbury who has been drawn into the police investigation.

And this time police inquiries are said to have had an awful impact, leading to two suicidal episodes.

Bradbury’s is the latest case of police unlawfully exploiting the Privacy Act to get personal banking information without getting a court order.

The practice has been ruled unlawful after Bradbury – who runs The Daily Blog website – complained to the Privacy Commissioner.

Bradbury told the NZ Herald he uncovered the police probe after being rejected for credit by his bank.

He said he became suspicious because the “extensions of credit weren’t extravagant and the manner in which the declines occurred just seemed odd”.

When Bradbury sought information through the Privacy Act, he discovered that detectives working on the Rawshark case had made a request for his records saying they were investigating “computer fraud”.

Bradbury had publicly indicated some knowledge of the Rawshark hack of Slater so I guess the Police could have seen him as possibly involved, but illegal access of his bank accounts seems excessive.

Detectives did so quoting a section of the Privacy Act allowing those holding data to ignore people’s privacy if there are “reasonable grounds” to believe it would help “maintenance of the law”.

The ruling from Privacy Commissioner John Edwards found police gave Bradbury’s bank no information to make an assessment of whether the request was “reasonable”.

Edwards rejected police submissions that the request only lacked supporting information for the bank to make a proper decision.

Even if police had provided the information, Edwards said detectives “were not justified” in asking for the banking records without a legal order from a judge.

“It is our view the request for your banking records, given their sensitivity, ought to have been placed before a judicial officer for decision on whether it met the grounds for a production order.”

He said the “nature and the scope of the request was unfair and unreasonably intrusive”.

The request for information was “unlawful” because it was constituted a “search” and the Bill of Rights stated “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search”.

He said the “nature and the scope of the request was unfair and unreasonably intrusive”.

The request for information was “unlawful” because it was constituted a “search” and the Bill of Rights stated “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search”.

Bradbury, who insisted he has no connection to or knowledge of the hacking of Slater’s computers, said: “They should have taken it to a judge and got a warrant.”

Instead, they sought “everything they could get their hands on”.

Yes, the police should have got a warrant.

But Bradbury’s claim he had no knowledge of the hacking is interesting. I posted this in October 2014: On Hager and “Dirty Politics and dirty politics

Two days before the launch of Hager’s book left wing activist, blogger and big noter Martyn Bradbury posted:

Here are my 3 guesses on his book.

1 – Right wing spin doctors in Wellington will be crying harder than Matthew Hooton post the Hollow Men.
2 – We won’t hear from the Taxpayer Union for a while.
3 – This won’t be the only time Nicky makes an impact before the election.

When his “guesses” were queried he responded on Twitter:

pfft – Nicky contacted me months ago asking specific questions which helped my guesses – the lesson is read TDB

It is hard to know whether his ‘guesses’ were simply that and he had only vague knowledge, or if they were attempts to disguise any connection to the hack. Bradbury is fairly well known to claim or imply more inside knowledge than anyone trusts him with.

The police may or may not have known of Bradbury’s blowhardness.

Bradbury said the credit requests were to help keep The Daily Blog going and getting knocked back triggered a huge depressive episode.

He said he had lived with depression since suffering a brain injury aged 18 from a car accident.

“Over the last five years that depression has become very difficult to manage and the financial stress of not extending credit all combined in late 2016 in two suicidal episodes.

“When your little black dog morphs and mutates into a huge black bear, you’re looking for anything that will ease the anguish and pain.”

Oh jeez. It’s hard to know what to think or feel about this.

Felix Geiringer, the barrister who acted for Hager overturning the police search warrant, said it was hard to understand any “credible basis” for including Bradbury in the Rawshark inquiry.

He said police appeared to have sought Bradbury’s records to try and establish the hacker was paid to carry out the hack. “There’s no evidence that took place in this case. There’s none.”

Geiringer said Bradbury – like Hager – was a journalist which conveyed specific protections around searches.

Bradbury is a sort of a journalist, similar to Cameron Slater – they investigate and they publish, but they are also political activists and as far as I understand they have both received payment for political work, so journalism and activism get muddy.

It was the same issue which the High Court rapped police in the Hager case, he said.

The NZ Herald has previously shown how police have used the Privacy Act exploit to gain banking details of potentially thousands of people without any court or judicial order – and that at least one bank has used it to red-flag customers.

The practice was widespread when the NZ Herald exposed it in 2013 and saw police headquarters offer assurances that it would not be used to access detailed banking records.

Yet police continued to use the exploit, not only in the Rawshark investigation against Nicky Hager, but in cases identified across the country.

I presume the investigation of Bradbury was some time ago, the Police say “no officers are currently assigned to the investigation” of the Rawshark hack.

I hope Police practices regarding seeking bank records has improved somewhat.

Bradbury took his story to the herald but is still claiming ‘exclusive’ on posts at The Daily Blog.

EXCLUSIVE: The Rawshark Investigation & secret Police mass surveillance program against 100 000 NZers

The NZ Police have lied about the scope of their investigation into who hacked Cameron Slater’s computer. It was originally just Nicky Hager, but it also included myself and possibly several other left wing activists and senior figures within the political left including the Labour Party.

EXCLUSIVE: My case against a secret NZ Police investigation that breached my privacy and my civil rights

It’s not important to like or dislike my work, but I think we can all agree that allowing the Police to conduct secret investigations into activists and political bloggers that then damage their reputation negatively based on spurious grounds isn’t acceptable in a liberal democracy.

Let me start by categorically stating, I never hacked Cameron Slater’s computer and have no idea who hacked Cameron Slater’s computer for the information that appeared in Nicky Hager’s book, ‘Dirty Politics’.


Bradbury’s Green flip flop

Martyn Bradbury is likely to pick the winner of this year’s election – he is picking some many things one of them is likely to turn out to be close to correct.

Last week he was flipped out on a Green depressive: Can you actually trust voting for Greens after they rule out working with Labour/NZ First?

We accept Green voters think they are better than everyone else, but to just rule out working with anyone to change the Government shows their precious values up for what they actually are, selfishness wrapped in middle class snobbery.

What the Greens are saying is that they will send NZ back to the polls post the 2017 election.

The insanity of this is beyond comprehension.

The question now must be asked of everyone who wants this bloody Government gone, can you really risk voting Green if they are ruling themselves out of changing the Government?

If you want a change of Government the only political parties to party vote for this year are Labour and MANA because the Greens are openly stating they won’t support a NZ First-Labour minority Government.

The Greens are now a middle class party with middle class values and their preference for purity rather than pragmatism means they are simply not ready to be part of a Government.

This week he has flopped to mania: Greens smash Winston out of the park:

The enormity off what the Greens are suggesting in terms of combating our neoliberal welfare state takes a moment to sink in.

It is brave, courageous and ultimately problem solving the brutality of the state on beneficiaries by lifting rates and dumping moral obligations. Metiria’s admission that she had to play the system to survive gives her position validity and true leadership. Those attempting to claim she should be prosecuted are wilfully missing the far bigger picture of poverty and inequality.

This Green policy is a real way to combat poverty. The way this Government have punitively treated beneficiaries I believe has led directly to the surge in homelessness, overcrowding, poverty diseases, crime, suicide and mental health crisis. Green policy would make an immediate difference in the lives of the poorest amongst us and make a stand for a compassionate NZ.

It has vision, it has strength and it was bloody smart politics. Labour are too frightened to do this and the Greens are making a real play for the beneficiary vote (who are 14% of the electorate) that no one has bothered to court openly before.

How completely irrelevant to the reality of most NZers right now Winston. Making our democracy less representative is  not the way we build the future you tired old grump, Winston managed in one conference to show how stale and worn out his ideas sound.

Metiria and the Greens were the real winners today. They showed courage, boldness and a true passion to stand up for the weakest amongst us.

This has given me a reason to enrol.

So from slamming the Greens for not wanting to back NZ First in a coalition he has swung to an anti-NZ First Green Party love affair.

The political winds will likely blow in a different direction next week – Bradbury is politically as reliable as Peters.

A shock cock can be right at one point in an election campaign.

Irony on coup claim

I think there’s a real possibility that there is a coup attempt unfolding inside and against National, blue on blue. The gradual drip feeding and attempted entrapment of Bill English looks like someone or some people have a serious political agenda. I suggested this last week.

Someone else is also suggesting a possible coup: Are we witnessing a very Kiwi Coup?

I think we are witnessing a slow motion coup.

Middle NZ rewards convincing political liars & punishes incompetent ones.

Bill English is being destabilised in front of our eyes because someone has reaped a heavy political price from deep personal pain. Todd has been sacrificed and Bill destabilised right when a totally fabricated Labour student slave story suddenly erupts via a right wing political news blog.

Who has fed this information to the NewsRoom?

Watch how nasty this now turns. Blood is in the water.

Someone is drip feeding this.

I think there could be some validity to these suggestions. More specifics with names were already mentioned but I think that may be guesswork perhaps with utu in mind.

But these claims are highly ironic given who wrote it – Martyn Bradbury.

I’ve also already written about how it looks like Bradbury may have had some involvement, at least on the periphery, of a type of coup attempt in Labour.

Matt McCarten was certainly involved, as was Mike Treen, and Bradbury may have revealed more than he should have (as usual). Ex unionist and ex campaign manager for Jacinda Ardern, Paul Chalmers, has also been involved and has now stepped down as Auckland representative on Labour’s NZ Council.

Bradbury posted about ten far left policies designed to Corbynise their campaign that Labour’s head office refused to adopt.

It appears Auckland’s Labour left tried to drive the Labour bus in their own direction, and crashed.

So while Bradbury may have a valid point or two about National’s mess it is very ironic for him to talk about party coups.

Labour policy coup attempt?

The Labour Party has handled the foreign student intern issue very poorly and they have been justifiably been blasted from all sides.

Leader Andrew Little and general secretary Andrew Kirton have been trying to repair the damage and pile the blame on Matt McCarten, but they should have known exactly what was being done and ensured it was properly managed. They stuffed up badly.

However there are suggestions that McCarten and others involved in the debacle may have been attempting some sort of grand plan to push the party left and effectively execute a policy coup.

Martyn Bradbury has been involved, and as usual he has trouble keeping quiet. He has posted Why the Labour Party Student Intern ‘scandal’ is a smear

Watching that meltdown into the shameful scandal it’s being sold as by the media and Politicians desperate to move the attention from Bill English is as ugly as it is typical.

The spluttering shock and hyperventilation of the corporate media at a story that is over a 2 months old right when English was getting screwed seems remarkably good timing for National.

Mostly fortuitous timing I think. National and the media didn’t engineer the Labour intern debacle, and the timing seems to be largely coincidental.

What Labour were doing with these interns happens every election. International Students come here to monitor and experience our elections, what was different about this year was how quickly over subscribed the programme became.

There’s doubt about that claim as documents (see Funding of Labour’s intern scheme) have revealed plans for more interns than have arrived.

The plan to use international students who had worked on campaigns like Jeremy Corbyn’s and Bernie Sander’s were going to be matched by domestic volunteers who were going to target 60 000 Aucklander’s who had enrolled to vote but hadn’t voted and 60 000 Aucklander’s who hadn’t enrolled at all.

They wanted to import the success of Sanders and Corbyn campaigns at getting out young voters (but failed at winning elections).

The campaigns focus was engagement and it had Labour Party sign off and Union buy in.

What happened however was Labour Party HQ Wellington become panicked by how big the Campaign had grown and despite green lighting it started dragging their feet until the thing fell over.

A whispering campaign targeting the funders strangled off money because Labour Party HQ Wellington’s preference is to win over voters who are exisiting voters because the policy platform doesn’t have to be particularly radical for that.

The Newshub documents show “First and Unite unions agreed to contribute $100,000, “white collar unions” committed to $50,000, while Union Trust put up a start-up loan of $25,000″ and the “Council of Trade Unions (CTU) was also to be involved in management of the project” but they have quickly distanced themselves today and claim that they hadn’t committed any funds.

Did the scheme proceed without proper funding in place?


What Labour didn’t want was a huge campaign to the Left of Labour pressuring them for a Corbyn or Sanders platform.

Labour didn’t want this…

Campaign for Change Manifesto 
1: Free public transport for students and beneficiaries
2: 18 month rent freeze 
3: 5% maximum rent rise
4: $20 per hour minimum wage
5: Artists and Volunteers benefit
6: Free condoms, contraceptive pills and sanitary pads available at schools and family planning
7: Universal Student Allowance for Tertiary students
8: Free public internet
9: Lower voting age to 16
10: Free school lunches 

…so the fear of a successful left wing agenda has once again managed to doom Labour. Just like the candidate selection fiasco and just like the Party List fiasco, this has come down to poor internal management by the Wellington arm of the Party.

While it’s not clear it appears that Campaign for Change tried to force these policies on the Labour Party – in effect trying a policy coup.

Policy development usually takes years and includes input from party members. It is not usually foisted on a party by a small group of activists with revolution in mind.

The perception of political hypocrisy is a mainstream media generated one, the real story is Labour’s fear of a courageous left wing platform.

There was a heap of hypocrisy over student workers working for nothing and living in poor cramped conditions. But that’s not a big deal compared to what Bradbury is suggesting.

Blaming Matt McCarten and leaving him to twist in the wind is expected but it certainly isn’t honourable or justified.

If McCarten and Bradbury and whoever else was involved thought that importing a team of campaign slaves that would somehow magically turn out hundreds of thousands of votes for Labour they are naive or nuts.

If they thought that three months out from the election the Labour Party establishment would change all their policy plans and take on a ten step pathway to political oblivion then all the criticism that can be mustered is justified.

It looks like a policy coup attempt by a bunch of clowns absent any clues or leadership.

Back to the actual party leadership – how Little and Kirton allowed this to even get off the ground I have no idea. I am flabbergasted at how this looks.


Bradbury does dirty

This morning Martyn Bradbury posted

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Massive online ACT Party data breach

The Daily Blog has been contacted with information that the ACT Party database has been left open online…

…we’ve had a look, and they are right. There is a huge data base of members and donors on the list, alongside a fascinating document from Franks/Ogilvie to the hard right NZ Initiative outlining their hatred of Maori gaining any power under the new RMA.

As far as I can see the entire database of donors and members are just open on this and I estimate there maybe about a 1000 names there.

To protect their privacy we won’t publish any of their details, but ACT might want to hire someone to make their database secure.

If ACT did have insecure date publicly accessible on a website that’s embarrassing for them and fair enough to point it out and to score a political hit.

But beyond that Bradbury has acted in an inexcusable, despicable way, as did the person he claims alerted him to it. This looks to be as dirty as when Cameron Slater went far to far when someone found insecure data on a Labour Party website.

This is as bad as finding an unlocked building and entering and rummaging through cupboards and drawers, and taking copies of information and publishing it.

Bradbury published information that could reasonably expected to be not intended for the public to see.

The person who enabled Bradbury to breach privacy like this is more culpable.

If the data was still insecure when Bradbury publicised it that put it at great risk of other people finding and copying data and information.

Again, going online publicising an unlocked door is highly unethical.

As per the Slater-Labour breach, fine to publicise lax security, but accessing and searching and publishing information is inexcusable and possibly illegal.

The proper thing to do would be to advise the owner of the data that it was insecure, and after it was secured then fair enough to go public.

What Bradbury has done here is admit himself to the dirty politics hall of infamy occupied by Slater.

Bradbury promotes The Daily Blog as a shiny new alternative to mainstream media (similar to Slater and Whale Oil). Very sadly both operate in the social media gutter.

This makes him more like a sensation and attention seeking scummy dirty blogger. D

It’s hard to believe how irresponsible Bradbury has been here – more so than whoever was responsible for insecure data.

Other contributors to The Daily Blog should be concerned and embarrassed by this.

Blogs respond to ‘Hit & Run’

Blogs have been abuzz on the Hager and Stephenson book “Hit & Run”.

At Kiwiblog David Farrar plays it down saying *if* and comparing 6 civilian deaths to total civilian deaths in Afghanistan (26,000) – TLDR: Hager book summary

So far at The Standard it has been left to comments with no posts other than Nicky Hager’s book launch but that does include some politically aimed tweets including:


The Daily Blog had live stream coverage of the book launch but that was apparently quite unreliable. Martyn Bradbury has since had a major rant in a post targeting John Key – you have to tell NZ if you committed a war crime:

If we as a country are going to cheer when our troops go to war to fight ‘da terrorists’ then we have to demand accountability when they kill civilians! We deserve to know the truth before John Key steps down – did he or did he not order a poorly planned strike that killed 6 civilians?

Jesus wept this disgusts and angers me so deeply – if you send troops to a foreign land you are fucking responsible for what they do!

Brothers & sisters, we fund the NZ SAS – when they pull a trigger, we help pay for that trigger – Key has made us all killers here.

The Prime Minister has blood on his hands and we must demand some answers before he steps down.

In Bombers eyes know inquiry is needed, he has already tried and convicted the whole country. He seems to have missed the fact that Key stepped down from being Prime Minister last year. Key is due to give his valedictory speech in Parliament today and then leave. I’m not sure if he will have time to consider Bradbury’s demands.

Tim Watkin at Pundit – The O’Donnell raid in Afghanistan: The seeds of the new Hager book

The 2010 raid in Afghanistan detailed in Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson’s new book, Hit and Run, was first revealed on a TV interview I produced in 2011. It’s time for some official answers

Andrew Geddis at Pundit: Killing in the name of?

Nicky Hager and John Stephenson’s book, Hit & Run, presents compelling evidence that our SAS was responsible for killing at least six Afghani civilians, wounding at least another fifteen, and handing over a man to be tortured for information. And then we were systematically lied to about what was being done in our name.

He concludes:

I say that again now. If our SAS must dissemble and lie by omission or commission to those for whom they fight, then it should not be fighting. If military leaders and their political masters are complicit in those lies, then we should follow the German example and require their resignations.

For at a time when our defence forces are asking us to give them some $20 billion from the public purse to upgrade their equipment, it is incumbent on them to prove to us that they deserve it. And the first step they must take in doing so is showing that we can trust them to tell us just what it is that they do in our name.

I thought that a law professor might have listened to the other side of the arguments before coming to strong conclusions.

To date Whale Oil has no posts on the book. Perhaps they are disappointed it isn’t about them again. Apparently Slater has been otherwise occupied and no one else has stepped up. There have been some comments on it in Whaleoil Backchat.

Green list selection

Martyn Bradbury is now advising the Greens on how to organise their party list – Green Party Members Special: Ranking the top 20 Green Party candidates. I presume this is on a voluntary basis.

I doubt many Green Party members will take his advice too seriously given his record with promoting party success, but he has some interesting information on how the Greens advise their own members in ranking their list.


Bradbury writes:

This process is more important than ever before for the Greens because in September there is a real chance to change the Government so these candidates won’t just be representing the Party, they will probably be in Caucus, so selection based on merit, talent and diversity are more important than ever.

Of course there is a real chance to change the Government in September, just like there was in 2014 and 2011 where the votes for government change just came up short.

But suggesting “they will probably be in Caucus”is a tad optimistic at this stage of election year.

Then Bradbury does his own Green list – here are abbreviated comments.

1 – Metiria Turei – She just gets better and better.

But her (and Green Party) appeal to voters appears to have plateaued so that doesn’t reflect in polls.

2 – James Shaw – Look, I’ll be blunt, I’m not a James Shaw fan. He’s pretty invisible most of the time and I’ve never warmed to the bloke, but the incredible skill and talent Shaw does bring is that he calms business and industry the fuck down.

Shaw is yet to live up to expectations. I doubt his lack of impact so far, plus continued  concerns about Green policies, are likely to have changed business and industry views.

3 – Marama Davidson – As far as I’m concerned, she’s the Beyonce of the NZ Political world. All hail the Queen.

I’m not sure that New Zealand’s political world wants a Beyonce. Davidson hasn’t been in Parliament a full term yet (she replaced Russel Norman off this list).

4 – Jan Logie – Jan is a political superstar.

Jesus Christ.

5 -Gareth Hughes – The guys is just such a brain. You need a clever policy wonk like Hughes at the Cabinet Table if you want to effect real policy change.

Hughes has never had much impact and his brain seems more interested in family now he’s a father.

6 – Julie Anne Genter – The Greens always do incredibly poorly in Auckland, and they desperately  require an Auckland personality who can champion their cause. Genter could be our smartest Minister for Transport we’ve ever had in NZ history.

But Bradbury has already ranked Beyonce at 3 on the list, Davidson is also from Auckland.

7 -Barry Coates – Thrusting Bazza up this high is a nod to his huge activist support base and the incredible work he has done fighting TPPA.

Coates became an MP in October last year so could do with a tad more parliamentary experience. While large TPPA protests were organised they did nothing to change New Zealand’s stance on the trade deal.

8 – Mojo Mathers – Mojo’s own hearing impairment gives her true insight into disability issues and makes her a leader in Parliament. She and the electorate she represents deserves recognition.

But is she really ministerial material? She is a useful advocate but there is no Minister of Hearing Impairment (yet).

9 – Chloe Swarbrick – Chloe should be in the top 10 folks, the woman is a political event.

She will have to prove herself within the Green Party first and probably has a long way to go on that let alone as a potential MP.

10 – Damon Rusden – He has guest blogged on The Daily Blog many times and his intellect and creative mind are surprisingly refreshing and he shows a worldview well beyond his 22 years of age.

I keep an eye on The Daily Blog and haven’t heard of him. Neither he nor Swarbrick are anywhere near ready to be ministers but even if they got in  at 9 and 10 on the list (they won’t) Greens won’t get that many ministers unless they double their vote.

11 – David Clendon – David is an old hand and has enough experience behind him now to act as one of the Party’s internal guardians when it comes to process.

He is currently ranked 10 in the Green line up.

12 – Eugenie Sage – Very intelligent and smart on the environment, but just hasn’t built enough of a profile to the wider electorate.

Which Green MPs have built enough of a popular profile in the wider electorate? Approximately none.

13 – Golriz Ghahraman – Has there been a more perfect candidate?

According to Bradbury, yes, as he has ranked 12 others higher including two with very little experience at anything apart from growing up.

14 – James Goodie – Interesting guy, has huge networks of influence in Auckland.

Haven’t heard of him.

15 – Robert Stewart – Huge networks in Dunedin where he has serious support.

Will he take over from Turei in Dunedin North where Greens have done very well? He is pushing for it – It wasn’t all a waste of time – having stood for Internet Mana in 2014.

16 – Sam Taylor

17 – Julie Zhu

18 -Dr Elizabeth Kerekere

19 – Stefan Grand-Meyer

20 – Jo Wrigley

I haven’t heard of any of them. Having Zhu ranked 17 isn’t very representative for the Asian demographic.

Current MPs missing from Bradbury’s list:

  • Catherine Delahunty (not standing again)
  • Kennedy Graham (currently ranked 7)
  • Denise Roche (she beat Chlöe Swarbrick to stand for the Greens in Auckland Central)
  • Steffan Browning (not standing again)

Greens currently have 14 MPs and on current polling might struggle to get that again this year.

Bradbury has chosen 12 females which isn’t balanced.


Bitter Bomber bums out

In wonder if Santa might have given the Bradbury house a miss, the turkey was burned, the sherry was drunk before it made it into the trifle and the sauce was made with imitation brandy.

Or the Boxing Day sales were a disappointment.

Whatever, Martyn Bradbury has had a bitter look back to last year in 2016 Daily Blog Media & News Awards.

In a year where the Mainstream Corporate Media screamed about ‘fake news’ while drowning us in clickbait bullshit, we salute, cajole and crap on those we loved, respected and hated in the 2016 NZ media sphere.

‘Crap on’ sums the predominate sentiment. Bradbury hands out some praise, but this is overshadowed by his bitter tirades against a number of journalists and media.

On Heather du Plessis-Allan:

God she’s awful. Everything she touches seems to turn to shit and her weird desire to throw dear old Duncan Garner and TV3 under the bus in her last interview was so unprofessional.

On ‘the media’:

It’s shit like this that makes us despise the corporate mainstream media.

A curse and plague on all their news rooms.

On Mike Hosking:

I fucking hate this sanctimonious prick with all my soul.

A curse on Mike Hosking and all those who follow him.

On Wellington Radio NZ Staff:

Never before has such a tiny clique in Wellington managed to alienate so many other NZers quite like the Wellington PSA comms team, and this award commemorates their counter-productive intellectual wankery.

On Stuff:

No one cares about the comments policy for a junk news site except the junk news site.

In a year when these corporate media screamed ‘fake news’ there can be nothing more ‘fake news’ than the opinions of Stuff readers masquerading as actual news. A curse on their ‘news’.

On NZME and Fairfax:

…I think it was because those members of the Commission are actual news consumers themselves and had seen the brain draining stupidity of the click bait bullshit both media empires were vomiting out daily this year.

On Story:

It should have been Seven Sharp because no one does vacuous bullshit quite like Seven Sharp, but it has to be Story because this abomination stunk so bad TV3 had to kill it off.

They ended up copying our Friday night panel show except ours was actually funny. Waatea 5th Estate managed to out trend Story on Twitter every week we were on air. If a show with the tiny budget we had could out trend TV3’s main flag ship current affairs show, you know they had a problem. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

On Breakfast:

Quite simply the worst pairing of anyone ever. Drinking goes with driving better than Jack and Hillary.

I have no idea who this show is actually supposed to be for. Coma patients? People with severe behavioural issues? The exceptionally stupid? Who the fuck are these people who would actively watch something so stupid? Closing my hand in a car door is preferable to listening to the infantile banter of these people.

Who sounds infantile?

On The Nation:

You would have hoped with Tim Watkin leaving that The Nation would have branched out and included people that Watkin’s had blacklisted, but no,m the same stale faces voicing the same stale opinions. How the Christ does this show manage to get a  million from NZ on Air each year?

By making a better case than Bradbury and Waatea Fifth Estate?

On the Transport Blog:

Transport Blog is the best promotional blog  for Auckland Transport that Auckland Transport could ever wish for. One of the most corrupt agencies in NZ manages to keep conning the good people of Auckland, here’s to their initiative and Machiavellian genius.

On The Spinoff:

Russell Brown called The Spinoff the future of journalism this year. Let’s all put a gun in our collective mouths and pull the fucking trigger if that’s true.

On Michelle Boag and Matthew Hooton:

Anything these two vipers have to say are infected with self interest. They are both as charitable as cancer and as unbiased as Russian State media. I would cross the road to spit on them.

It’s more than a bit ironic that Bradbury accuses them of bias.  Spitting this sort of vitriol is very poor from Bradbury.

Duncan Brown got a comment through moderation:

That is just disgusting and severely reduces any merit your post might otherwise have had. Please consider retracting.

No retraction, just a response from ‘Blake’:

Duncan – freedom of speech is our right and our privilege.
If you feel offended, then go read the MSM and get mostly superficial fluff and more fake news and often lies and little or no ability to comment hence limiting FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

The ‘MSM’ (which comprises a range of companies and organisations) is of very mixed quality, but I haven’t seen anything as bad as this slanted and shitty tirade dressed up as awards on The Daily Blog, in which a bitter Bomber bums out.

And he wonders why NZ on Air turned down his funding application?

Bradbury appears to have alienated himself from just every political party and movement, and here he is demonstrating how offside he is with any media that he doesn’t like, which seems to be most.

Bradbury might have nice relaxing break and comes back refreshed and positive, leaving all this bitterness in 2016 – but he might find it increasingly difficult to be taken seriously. He has burned a lot of collaboration bridges.


Daily Blog and Whale Oil

Some tweets on Whale Oil and The Daily Blog from @JJPalethorpe :

I don’t think WO or TDB are hard-left or hardright. They’re conservative and nasty, but not exactly centres of political thought.

They are closer to extremes of thought and attempted activism.

They both use similar language in order to ‘tell the real story’ but what that consists of appears to be just ‘Don’t trust anything but us’

Using either as a regular, reliable source of information or informed commentary seems bizarre because neither offers anything of the sort.

They are both more vested interest promoters rather than informed commentary, but both do at times provide some useful information and some interesting insights (often inadvertently).

The immense bitterness shown by both towards any other platforms providing what they purport to shows that they’re in it for survival first.

Whale Oil in particular relies on a lot of content from media that they also condemn as out of touch and past their use-by date.

What doesn’t help either is that both have suffered a significant disintegration of relationship with those who offer exclusive information.

In WO’s case, it’s pretty obvious he’s not ‘in’ any more when it matters. With TDB it’s subtler, but it’s there. Both are becoming bunkers.

Yes, both have proven to be less than helpful to parties so have become toxic to sources.

Because neither are ‘in’ any more and aren’t trusted with inside information they are left making speculatory predictions and rants as observers left out of the play.

is right, they’re both low-rent Breitbarts. Although I’d put both of them closer to the Andrew Breitbart’s editorial spell.

That’s a warning. The places where the increasingly hysterical tone is equalled by a disconnect of factual info, is where bad stuff starts.

Slater in particular has tried to model himself in Breitbart, but that has proven far less successful in New Zealand than it did in the US.  New Zealand is probably too small to get away with the same level of blatant misinformation spreading.

The attack when under fire strategy hasn’t worked so well here either – Slater has had a bit of legal success against Colin Craig but that’s a skirmish on the sidelines. Both Slater and Bradbury have been sidelined by their own antics and actions.

But places of political thought? Nah. They’ve got volume and amplitiude. But don’t confuse noisy with important. That’s not how it works.

It seems that neither Slater nor Bradbury get that yet. Slater still seems to think that more of the same will somehow work – see Slater promises more dirty politics.

Bradbury has just lamented losing NZ on Air funding for Waatea Fifth Estate. This was supposed to be a new era in political media. While it was at times interesting Bradbury was so loudly slanted he condemned it to an unbalanced niche.

In summary, if someone tells you not to trust the MSM while asking you to trust them instead, scrutinise them hard out. That’s the lesson.

I think most have learnt that WO/Slater and TDB/Bradbury are more self-sidelined curiosities than serious players in New Zealand politics.

They often look full of their self importance but that’s more a sign of a lack of confidence. I’m not sure if they try to fool themselves or others.

Interestingly they are both reliant on fund raising, far more than any other non-mainstream media. And going into a quiet month they are both busy appealing.

TDB Christmas Contributions drive – please donate if you believe we need a counter media and an update on funding

Comrades, it’s that time of the month when we put out our begging bowl and ask you our dear readers to contribute cash if you believe the NZ media landscape desperately needs a counter voice. This project of a blog takes up an immense amount of time and it costs us to bring it to you.

We have a large drop off in revenue over Summer from adverts and we really want to be in a serious position for the election in 2017 to challenge what will be a vicious propaganda war to see who will lead our Country. If you see how important it is that we have a much broader voice than the mainstream media are providing, we need you our readers and supporters to help us do that.

A ‘broader voice than the mainstream media’? Who is Bradbury trying to kid. He wants to promote his narrow ideology to a large audience, but he’s dreaming.  He closes the post with “In solidarity comrades” and this Christmas party image:


Not very broad for the 21st century.

Over at Whale Oil the victim card is being played:

Want to make Whaleoil bullet-proof and stand up against those that want us shut down?  Click here to subscribe to ad-free Whaleoil for less than 30 cents a day.+

If you go to Why you should subscribe to Whaleoil: Reason five you have to somehow work things out from this:


Good luck with that.

WO and TDB are useful niches for some people but the reality is that online information and discussion is very fragmented and there’s no way of being a dominant presence beyond the likes of Facebook and Twitter.