Is anyone terrified by MANA?

Anger. Fury. Fear. Bomber talks up a terror campaign at The Daily Blog:

It’s MANA that the elites fear turning populist anger against them

Bryce Edwards covers off the anger that is simmering in the electorate and the fear by elites of where that anger will erupt, but I think he misses a very important part of the spectrum which is open to radicalism.

And that is MANA.

To date the fear is that angry hordes of the disaffected and under educated will elect some type of Trump-esk figure who will take the nation to hell in a hand basket.

Maybe.

But if you look at who is bleeding here, it is young, poor and brown. The middle classes are getting nervous about the inequality and the pundits are scrambling to understand a poverty that is beyond their suburbs.

The furious response at Hone announcing his re-entry into politics suggests the elites fear those who are being hurt most by the housing crisis and growing inequality will rejoin the debate and demand a welfare state that isn’t as cruel and draconian as the current one has become.

I don’t recall seeing any fury. Bemusement was more apparent.

Radically demanding a reorganisation of the neoliberal state is what makes the elites nervous, not some old warhorse like Winston making ‘two wongs don’t make a right’ styled 1970s retro-racist jokes.

Given their lack of anything close to success to date radicals demanding a revolution will not be threatening many nerves.

If the poor and those on benefits re-engaged under a radical MANA brand demanding dignity, that would scare the bejesus out of the elites.

In the last election MANA attempted to gain representation using Kim Dotcom’s cash. The electorate punished Hone for trying to be too clever and screamed sell out, the grim reality of poverty however now howels at the door and those being hurt most by Key’s elitist economy are scrambling for a radical solution to their ever decreasing living standards. If MANA provides that, the elites will be terrified.

I doubt that many people will be terrified by Bradbury or by MANA.

Combined with the Internet Party and Dotcom’s millions they got 1.42% of the vote last election, they have no MPs, they barely register in polls, and Labour and the Greens have moved on without them. Labour never wanted to be seen with them.

Voters are likely to see another Bradbury promoted campaign not with terror but as terrible.

Bomber promotes war, fear and terror in NZ

Fear, terror, hate, evil, war.

Don’t worry, what this Bomber promotes is unlikely to be felt by anyone. He is as lethal as a water bomb using a hundred year old balloon.

From a Martyn Bradbury post at The Daily Blog: Andrew Little + John Key declare war on Hone Harawira and MANA movement

There has been no official declarations, just more wishful thinking. But the language used is trying hard to promote conflict.

John Key and Andrew Little have immediately opened up a war of words…

No they haven’t, they responded to news that Harawira was standing in next year’s election with more like ‘yeah, so what’.

Both Little & Key have very specific reasons for attacking MANA…

…it highlights how both political parties fear a populist peoples movement…

For Little, his attack on Hone is part of Labour’s terror

…Labour who illegally sent the terror squad…

Labour hate being reminded…

For Key. his attack on Hone is fuelled…

The fear Hone has caused by just announcing he is back…

…a reminder of how terrified the establishment are that the poor could gain genuine political representation.

…to overthrow this evil Government

Bomber against the world. The same old revolution repackaged with rusty old rhetoric.

Someone recently referred to him as Cadbury, but his chocolate mind has been in the sun too long.

Morphing the Mana Party into the MANA Movement may make some headway, but with friends like Martyn there won’t be many parties quaking in their political boots.

Not much to fear here.

Internal polling shock

A surprise result from an internal political poll: “Do Bomber’s attempts at talking up a Green-Labour bloc perception have any credibility?”

  • No 100%
  • Yes 0%

Margin of error: 0.00
Sample size: 1

As predicted here Martyn Bradbury has followed up claims that ‘internal poll rumours’ would support his rants with Latest Internal Polling – National in trouble.

The impact of the Memorandum of Understanding has triggered something deep in the electorate if the latest internal polling is anything to go by.

Obliging the mainstream media to change the way they report politics from a first by the post perspective to an MMP one changes the way voters see the Opposition.

That change seems to be happening at an alarming pace.

The mainstream media aren’t obliged to report things the way Bradbury insists and they haven’t changed how they report polls, which is poorly.

Bradbury claims to have “the latest internal polling” without disclosing:

  • Who has done the polling?
  • What was the question asked?
  • What was the sample size?
  • When was the polling done?
  • What was the margin of error?
  • Is Bradbury making things up?

So what result is Bradbury claiming?

The latest internal polling has National free falling to 44%, Labour at 31% and Greens at 12%.

That means the Labour-Green bloc is at 43% and National is on 44% – that’s a mere 1 percent lead and the speed of the turn around suggests something has snapped in terms of voter apathy.

Even if those are actual results from a credible poll they aren’t particularly surprising or much out of the ordinary. All three party results are within the ranges they have been getting over the past year.

Bradbury has been making unsubstantiated claims and has been trying to talk up a political revolution for several days, ignoring more realistic assessments of polling by the likes of Phil Goff and Michael Cullen.

Bradbury actually had both Goff and Cullen talking about polls on Thursday night on Waatea 5th Estate.

Bradbury:

Sir Michael isn’t the biggest change here the perception, we report polls like sports results, National 48, Labour 30, that’s an FPP view, and we are in an MMP environment. The combined bloc of Labour Green shows voters the election is a lot closer doesn’t it?

Cullen:

Well yes but not significantly different. I mean the poll out today, there was another poll from Roy Morgan which showed Labour up just one, Greens two, and they seem to be taking the votes off New Zealand First if you believe, ignoring the fact that it never works like that and polls bounce around.

Basically we’ve still got this gap between Labour Greens on one side and National on the other of about five to eight percent. 

And it still comes down to they key issue which I think the Greens privately recognise…but it’s Labour’s got to win votes off National for there to be a secure change of government, and so far we’re not seeing that.

I mean for Labour to go up and the Greens and new Zealand First to go down it just means that the sort of the same not large enough plate of beans is being passed around between three eaters.

And it’s a fact that National keeps sticking around  forty seven forty eight which is the thing that’s still got to be concerning for Labour and the Greens in particular because you can’t say that Winston’s locked into a change of government.

Anybody who thinks that doesn’t understand how Winston operates in any particular situation.

National has dropped into the low forties occasionally but also sometimes goes up into the fifties but as shown by the RNZ poll of polls “National’s average through this year has been between 44% and 48%, remarkably high for the midyear of a third term in government”.

Bradbury:

Phil there are lots of rumours about the new internal party polling…

Substantive polling usually takes longer than two days to do (this was two days after the MoU announcement). And Labour or the Greens woukld hand their internal poll results over to blabbermouth Bradbury? (Possibly if they thought he would do a job for them)

…that would suggest the blocs are even closer. If you gain momentum could we see level pegging before the end of the year?

Roy Morgan:

During September (2015) support for National fell 6% to 44.5% now just behind a potential Labour/Greens alliance 46% (up 8%).

During April (2016) support for National fell 3.5% to 42.5% – the lowest for two years since April – May 2014, now only 2% ahead of a potential Labour/Greens alliance 40.5% (down 1.5%).

Labour+Greens have fluctuated in and out of level pegging so it’s already an unsurprising poll outcome.

Goff:

Well I think that’s certainly what Labour wants to see. At the moment, ah,  you know National has been reasonably consistent in the public polls, around forty seven, forty eight.

On public poll of poll averages, yes they have been consistently in the high forties but not in individual polls as shown by the above Roy Morgan results.

Ah in our own polling they have from time to time dropped as low as forty three percent and Labour on thirty six. Ah then you can see that a Labour Green coalition could easily become government at the next election.

If Greens poll high when Labour do, but as Labour goes up Greens tend to go down (they have been as low as 8% in public polls).

And ah in the midst of all of that of course you’ve got Winston Peters who has that balance of power. I doubt that he’d want to come in with, ah, let the left if the left was still polling well behind National.

What Labour has to do as Mike Cullen has said, it’s gotta win some of those light blue votes off National. That’s what changes an election.

And ah I think there are a lot of things in that environment out there, I’m thinking of housing, and I’m thinking of transport problems in Auckland. There are a lot of things out there that people are really unhappy about in a way that they haven’t been over the last two terms of the National Government.

So the environment is there.

If Labour and the Greens look like a stable coalition force, and not like the, you know the Kim Dotcom Mana Internet mix that was at the last election, then I think there’s a prospect that Labour and the Greens can win the next election.

That’s probably an unintentional dig at Bradbury who promoted the Kim Dotcom Mana Internet mix as the supposed game changer last election.

Neither Cullen nor Goff mentioned the Memorandum of Understanding.

Some interesting and probably widely shared measured views on polls and election chances by Cullen and Goff, but since then Bradbury has ignored most of that (what would they know?) and continued on his perception building exercise that ignores basic facts about past polls.

The only shock would be if Bradbury’s claims and promotions were taken seriously.

MoU, National panic and the missing million

After a critical start Martyn Bradbury is going hard out on Memorandum of Understanding revolutionary fervour.

And he’s making a number of unsubstantiated and at times unbelievable claims. One could almost think he is making things up to try and create a perception.

Yesterday: Panic in the National Party at sudden jump in support of Labour

Rumour has it that there is panic inside the National Party. The significant jump in support for Labour has highlighted the deepening resentment at this Government and that starts creating tensions within National’s unity.

Half of one poll taken just as the MoU was being announced provides scant evidence of ‘a significant jump in support’ for Labour.

And 29% (or 31% for the second half of the poll) is hardly a significant jump when looking at the Colmar Brunton poll results over the last 12 months:

– 32%, 32%, 31%, 32%, 28%, 29% (31% for half the last poll).

Labour jumped 5.2%, a statistically significant jump. The blocks now are 47 to 42.

The 5.2% movement was within one polling period.

They are called blocs, not blocks.

He has compared results two different results – the lower pre-MoU result for National and the higher post MoU result for Labour+Greens, rounded up.

Using the second half results for all three parties:

  • National 49.0%
  • Labour (31.3) + Greens (10.4) = 41.7%

That’s a difference of 7.3%, almost the same as the 7.2% difference pre-MoU.

What needs to happen to continue this momentum is the next round of Polls show that number get tighter and there are rumours circulating around about internal polling that has shown this really hurting National.

There is no momentum at all, especially on the key bloc difference.

‘Rumours circulating’ and ‘internal polls’ are bullshit without any substantiating evidence, and their is none.

Expect those internal Polls to start leaking on blogs in the next couple of days.

How about the next day, today. Bradbury has posted: Internal Party Polling

The most powerful impact of the Memorandum of Understanding will come from the next set of Polls. Now the media are obliged to refer to the Green-Labour Bloc, voters get to see how close the two sides are in reality and that perception generates momentum.

The next public poll is due in a week or so from Roy Morgan, but they tend to fluctuate quite a bit. It will take 3 months of Roy Morgan polls to get a reasonable idea if there has been a sustained shift in support.

What will be concerning National is the speed of the change of allegiance Labour managed in the latest Colmar Brunton Poll.

Anyone who actually knows anything about polling shouldn’t have any concerns at this stage, especially when Bradbury’s all important Labour+Greens hasn’t moved.

It’s brought NZ First and Greens down to where their support base really is and it’s reset the political debate.

That claim is based on nothing. Greens and NZ First poll results have varied more in the last 12 months with Colmar Brunton:

  • Greens 13%, 12%, 12%, 8%, 10%, 12% (pre MoU 13.8%, post MoU 10.4%)
  • NZ First  7%, 7%, 9%, 10%, 9%, 9% (pre MoU 10.9%, post MoU 6.9%)

Bradbury then launches into some aimless waffle until:

What the momentum to Labour and presenting the Polls differently will do is draw those missing million back to the ballot box.

  1. There is no momentum
  2. Polls won’t be presented differently (bloc support has been presented for yonks)
  3. The ‘missing million’ was a theory that failed last election.
  4. They won’t be drawn back, most non-voters have always been non-voters.

There is some suggestion that has already begun.

Bradbury can suggest all he likes, but will he be taken seriously? No one at all has commented on his post.

The latest internal polling could be keeping David Farrar working double shifts to explain the free fall.

Hilarious.

The building frustration of the Opposition has finally found somewhere to rally to.

Like the last fourteen rallying cries Bradbury has plaintively hollered (followed by cries of frustration after another ‘prediction’ failed).

National’s sky scraping highs are created in part by people not participating, I think voters coming off the fence are swelling Labour’s numbers and hurting National’s.

People not participating have given National high levels of support? They have increased their vote in each of the last 3 elections:

  • 2008: 1,053,398
  • 2011: 1,058,638
  • 2014: 1,131,501

A poll does not measure whether people are deciding to vote or not.

As shown above Labour’s numbers haven’t swelled. National’s numbers haven’t been hurt.

Tomorrow’s post from Bradbury could be interesting if he keeps up the momentum of the last few days – if you enjoy farce and humour.

 

Bradbury bombs on basic facts

Martyn Bradbury has been all over the place on the Labour-Green Memorandum of Understanding, initially criticising it but eventually claiming that it changes everything.

His claim that the “new perception changes everything” fails basic fact tests, and “the way the media must now report the Polls and the way voters see the Polls that is the most immediate impact of this MoU” is bollocks – media already report on polls in the way he says they must.

When the MoU was announced, and since, Bradbury has slammed the announcement:

June 3:

“The launch was a clumsy flop…”

June 4:

“The inhumane haste at which the Labour Party and Greens announced their Memorandum of Understanding last week has been stripped bare by a power struggle that has quietly been occurring behind the scenes within the Greens.”

But by June 5:

The launch of the MoU may have been rushed, clumsy and with little detail so as to avert a strategic change of position for the Greens, but Andrew’s performance helped prove that a union together was better than cross bench neutrality.

What few political pundits or commentators could understand last week, was the unseemly haste with which the Greens and Labour rushed out their Memorandum of Understanding. While many progressive voters have wanted this announcement for 8 years, the timing seemed odd and the actual details very light, the Green Party AGM in Christchurch this weekend helped answer some of those questions.

All this talk about haste probably means that Bradbury wasn’t told in advance so it caught him by surprise. But after attending the Green AGM in the weekend it seems like Labour or the Greens might have promised him a new laptop or something.

Today: Why the MoU changes everything and why the NZ mainstream media are the worst enemies of democracy

The haste of stitching together the MoU to stall the Identitarians and blue-green factions inside the Greens from moving to a neutrality stance at the last AGM aside, the Labour-Green Memorandum of Understanding changes everything in one simple move.

New Zealanders aren’t too bright, partly from the lack of quality information they get (Jane Bowron makes this point today – yet manages to miss the impact Waatea 5th Estate has had at 7pm)…

Bowron missed the impact of quite a few things, like the of landing of a golden autumn leaf in the mildest of June zephyrs.

The mainstream media, apart from colluding with hate speech merchants like Cameron Slater (until they were caught) and pimping for the interests of bankers, corporations, farmers and property speculators are the worst enemies of democracy in NZ because they never take the time to point out how close the MMP environment makes the election for National.

That sounds like nothing apart from a general bellyache at enemies.

When TVNZ and TV3 do their latest Polls, they sell it as ‘Labour 30% and National at 47%. This constant advertising for National gives the impression that Key’s 4th term is assured. What the MoU does is force Paddy Gower and other mainstream media pimps to reflect the real Parliamentary equation, that combined, Labour-Greens are 42% and National 47%.

That new perception changes everything.

It forces the media to acknowledge the election is closer and it suddenly dawns on sleepy hobbits that actually Key isn’t untouchable.

It is this perception change in the way the media must now report the Polls and the way voters see the Polls that is the most immediate impact of this MoU.

Except for one thing – this is bollocks.

The media can report things however they like, their is no compulsion to report polls in a way that Bradbury or Labour/Greens want them to.

It suggests that Bradbury and possible Greens and/or Labour are trying have their cake and eat it – they say the MoU is entirely about changing the Government and ends at the election, but won’t say how a coalition may look until the voters have ‘spoken’ at the election so has nothing to do with coalition convolutions.

They don’t want to be connected in coalition configurations, except when it suits it seems that they are.

And TVNZ (One News) and TV3 (Newshub) already report on combined poll results anyway, so Bradbury fails on facts on that.

One News in April 2016:  Flag flop fails to dent Government’s popularity

When converted into seats in Parliament, it’s a clear cut win for National who get 61 seats and the ability to govern alone in a Parliament of 121.

Labour would have 34, and even with the Greens 12 seats could only muster 46 as a left wing block.

NZ First would have 11 seats while Act, United Future and the Maori Party all would have one.

Newshub in May 2016: Key’s popularity plummets to lowest level

2_seats_in_the_house1
Roy Morgan does similar: National and Labour vote up in May but NZ First still holds the balance of power position despite vote falling

During May support for National rose 3% to 45.5%, now ahead of a potential Labour/Greens alliance 41.5% (up 1%).

If a New Zealand Election were held now the latest NZ Roy Morgan Poll shows NZ First 9.5% (even though down 3% still NZ First’s second highest level of support in twenty years) would be in a position to determine who would form the next New Zealand Government.

So all polls highlight the fact that Labour+Greens can’t do it alone and would need NZ First.

Back to Bradbury:

When TVNZ and TV3 do their latest Polls, they sell it as ‘Labour 30% and National at 47%. This constant advertising for National gives the impression that Key’s 4th term is assured. What the MoU does is force Paddy Gower and other mainstream media pimps to reflect the real Parliamentary equation, that combined, Labour-Greens are 42% and National 47%.

They already do that.

That new perception changes everything.

It isn’t a new perception so it changes nothing.

It forces the media to acknowledge the election is closer and it suddenly dawns on sleepy hobbits that actually Key isn’t untouchable.

The media have made it clear that the reality that seems to escape Bradbury – or he wants to hide it or hide from it – is that NZ First can on current polling decide who to side with.

It is this perception change in the way the media must now report the Polls and the way voters see the Polls that is the most immediate impact of this MoU.

So going by this it will have no impact.

Bradbury fails the fact test. That is probably no change either.

5th Estate revisited

I had another look at Waatea 5th Estate again last night. It was worse than last week.

When run by Martyn Bradbury it seems to be little more than a shrill rant at John key and the Government, supplemented by guests on the panel that appear to have been chosen to bolster Bradbury’s attacks.

Last night:

…to discuss Key’s advice to the homeless, $3billion in tax cuts and grotesque over fishing…

David Cunliffe
Bryce Edwards
Nandor Tanzcos

Cunliffe sounded like he was still fighting the 2014 election campaign from the top of the Mana bus.

Tanzcos leans towards Bradbury’s far left rhetoric, not surprisingly.

Edwards tried to moderate and balance the discussions with a more centre-left view, mildly arguing against some of Bradbury’s more extreme claims.

I don’t think Bradbury will start any revolutions with this.

I also looked at the previous night’s effort, which was absent any of Bradbury’s charmlessness.

Willie Jackson does a far better job. While he obviously leans left he was prepared to prod and challenge the panel and explore views other than his own.

Joining us to discuss the budget on Maori

Hone Harawira Mana Movement
Marama Davidson
Winston Peters
Marama Fox
Rino Tirikatene

– See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/05/19/waatea-5th-estate-2016-budget-for-maori/#sthash.recEKqH6.dpuf

Note the promotion of the Mana Movement only. There were some interesting exchanges with Harawira, Davidson and Tirikatene, but the highlights were Jackson’s prodding of Peters and in particular Marama Fox, the star of the show for me.

Fox strongly defended the role of the Maori party in Government and strongly advocated for their constituents. She is fiesty and proud, and complements Te Ururoa Flavell well.

And Fox was prepared to take Peters on and stand her ground.

Peters was disappointing. Too much ‘I know best’ and too little substance.

He really showed himself up when he criticised Fox’s lack of knowledge on the size of the budget, but all he could respond with was ‘tens of billions’ and claiming he didn’t have the precise amount on hand. A former Treasure and current party leader should have a fair idea that it is around $80 billion.

This was the left versus Fox but Jackson gave her a fair go and it was interesting and worthwhile.

I’d go back for more when Jackson is running things but the Me Me Martyn Show is a waste of time.

Bombing MMP 101

Labour have another problem looking towards next year’s election – Martyn Bradbury is starting to give them strategic advice, albeit seemingly on a voluntary basis.

Bradbury’s political picks have a record of bombing, notably the Mana and Internet parties last election. He was shocked his promotions and predictions failed.

With no sign of either a Mana or Internet party revival Bradbury has turned his hopes and advice to Labour Why Labour need to radically adapt or face electoral annihilation in 2017

Many people are saying Labour needs to change to be seen as a credible lead party, but Bradbury gives them some specific advice.

Currently the plan is to work closely with the Greens and together try and convince Winston to join by offering him a year as PM.

I think that is hopeful rather than strategic.

Does Bradbury know that Labour are offering Peters a stint as Prime Minister? I’d be very surprised if they are, especially this far out from the election. Are the offering Greens the same? Or six months each for their co-leaders?

Going in to an election with a mish mash of leadership on offer may not be very helpful for Labour’s chances.

I think Labour need to acknowledge how likely a NZ First/National Government is in 2017 and how they need to radically adapt plans for the next election.

Labour need to make a choice or face electoral annihilation.

If we look at NZ First right now, they are soaring at unseen levels of support at this stage of the electoral cycle. This is provincial NZ, sick of Key and National promising infrastructure that never comes walking away from National, and towards NZ First.

There is a strong possibility that NZ First could wrench away another 5 points from National by 2017 placing NZ First in the high teens.

NZ First are doing unusually well in polls at the moment but high teens is a long way off.  In the past few elections:

  • 2002: 10.38%
  • 2005: 5.72%
  • 2008: 4.07%
  • 2011: 6.6%
  • 2014: 8.66%

Double last election is not impossible but it’s a big jump. And just imagine that NZ First got 18%. And Greens maintained 11%. To get around 50% Labour would have little more support than NZ First – would they offer Winston 50/50 power sharing? Would the voters back that?

The provinces and rural NZ are ready for turning – but Labour won’t benefit from that.

I think Labour need to abandon a national strategy and instead focus on a two tick urban campaign. Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin need to become the sole focus and energy of Labour.

This requires innovative HQs in each of those cities with a real drive to engage.

Spending resource on provincial electorates where NZ First will benefit most is counter productive at best.

Bradbury suggests that Labour should leave the provinces to NZ First. They are struggling for resources, but surely a major party must be seen to be actively contesting all electorates.

Refocusing on the 4 main cities and swamping them with promises of the social infrastructure Labour need to promote to win the urban vote will do more for the Party election result than pretending it is still a national political force.

Labour need to fight smarter.

This doesn’t sound like a very smart strategy to me.

Labour need 35% to have a chance of changing the Government in 2017, a two tick urban campaign is the only viable way towards 35%.

Apart from Bradbury’s suggestion obviously not being the only ‘viable way’ it ignores MMP 101 – party vote. Concentrating on some electorates and handing others over to NZ First is not how Labour can maximise party vote. Nor how they can sell themselves as a leader of the country.

Even if Bradbury’s brilliance shines through this time and by ignoring parts of the country Labour still manage to grow their vote to 35%.

And NZ First get around 18%, or even 15%. The two parties could form a Government without the Greens.

Bradbury virtually ignores the Greens in this, even though they are the party  promoting the most ‘social infrastructure’.

Abandoning the Greens and abandoning the provinces seems an odd way to run a major party election strategy.

And even if Bradbury’s numbers succeed National are still likely to get 40% or, so Winston going with Labour is still only a 50/50 bet.

Waatea 5th Estate

I got around to watching Waatea 5th Estate for the first time since their first week tonight.

Joining us tonight to discuss…

The Veitch apology
Faulty Housing data
Media Merger kills 4th estate
Cameron Slater
Key’s tantrum

Tax expert, feminist and Labour Party Candidate – Deborah Russell

one of this country’s best newspaper columnists – Rachel Stewart

Former Green Party MP and human rights activist – Keith Locke

And blogger, political commentator and author – Chris Trotter

Some of it was interesting enough.

Russell and Trotter made some good points – not leaning to port so hard they nearly capsize helps.

But Bradbury is terrible, his presentation and voice, and also his fairly extreme bias. His first programmes were tolerable but he is more opinionated and more overbearing and more high pitched. I don’t see him taking over from the 4th estate any time soon.

And the name screetched by Bradbury isn’t great, Waatea is pronounced something like Waah teah.

Dotcom not John Doe

I didn’t think the John Doe who claims to have hacked the Panama papers would be Kim Dotcom, but it seems that some do. It’s certainly being talked about.

Both & are speculating this morning that “John Doe” may be . Interesting theory. would know.

Theories have been circulating suggesting the mysterious figure behind the Panama Papers leaks may in fact be the NZ-based internet entrepreneur. The Spiniff begins its fearless mission to unmask John Doe by asking, is it you, Kim Dotcom?

Rare is the day when the two most voluble and entertaining thought leaders of the New Zealand blogosphere agree, but so it is on the matter of the identity of the Panama Papers’ “John Doe”, the name adopted by the person behind the massive information leak.

Both Cameron ‘Whaleoil’ Slater and Martyn ‘Daily Blog’ Bradbury – along with various other novice online sleuths – have been speculating that John Doe is Kim Dotcom, the Mega-founder being sought for extradition from New Zealand by the US Justice Department.

But Bradbury responded that “I’m not speculating it is Kim” but ” oh I certainly believe it’s political”. The last two sentences Hooton referred to :

I wonder who had the skills to hack and desire for vengeance against Key?

I’ve always believed that vengeance is a dish best served 18months into the election cycle.

That’s quite vague. Incidentally Bradbury does seem to think that this could, at last, be what what triggers the revolution (John Doe had saiD that the next revolution would be digital):

This week is looking very difficult for John Key and his right wing rich mates. Mass surveillance lies didn’t wake sleepy hobbits up. Dirty Politics didn’t wake sleepy hobbits up. Looks like Key building Tax Havens and getting caught might just wake them up.

He might be right one day, but his accuracy average won’t be flash.

Meanwhile Slater didn’t actually come out and say it was Dotcom but he did all but. He posted a ‘comment of the day’ and bolded these words.

illegally hacked

paymaster
German

It’s a whole lot easier for the hacker, the paymaster and the intermediaries to be close so what is discovered can be discussed and assimilated.

“John Doe” appears to have a better knowledge of NZ politics than a lot of kiwis

Am I joining the dots or do I just need to loosen the tinfoil ?

Slater accusing Dotcom is nothing new. He might be right once too and might actually front up with evidence to prove it. But then he posted:

I suspect Key will have second thoughts about cutting me adrift and feeding me to the wolves at the same time as doing absolutely nothing to try and identify the criminal hackers, the complicit media working with criminals, and the people in the Labour Party that are funding, facilitating and abusing the fruits of crime.

Sorry to say, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Key over this.  He threw me under the bus.  He threw Ede under the bus.  He’s thrown Whitney under the bus.  None of us broke the law.

Key threw Slater and Ede under a bus? Or did he just distance himself from a train wreck?

Nevertheless it sounds like Slater has more on his mind than who John Doe is. His comment is full of irony, self-sorriness, and some trepidation.

Oh, and Manhire asked Dotcom if he was the Panamanian John Doe and Dotcom denied it, saying “I’m not John Doe, Satoshi Nakamoto or Rawshark.” Of course he doesn’t have to be them.

Conclusion: I’m suspicious of Manhire trying to deflect attention onto everyone but him. I don’t think he is John Doe either but which journalist writes about Slater and Bradbury these days. And in the same post!

‘Town hall meetings would fix Labour

Alex Coleman ‏@ShakingStick

Lord but Bomber talks some nonsense. ‘Town hall meetings would fix Labour’. Most people couldn’t tell you where their townhall even is

Bradbury is a century after his time, politically.

Labour desperately needs to modernise and adapt to vastly changed demographics. Going back to how things were when the party formed in 1916 is not a sensible solution.

Bradbury has also suggested a social media campaign to work around the mean mainstream media but his efforts to date there haven’t been a raging success.

The Daily Blog was launched as a great new political activist alternative and now it chugs away in a corner without making much impression beyond a few faithfuls.

The Daily Blog certainly didn’t help the Mana Party nor the Internet party succeed, despite Bradbury’s at times paid for promotions.

The Fifth Estate streamed daily forum was another attempt to be a great new alternative. It’s still going but I never get around to checking it out any more (I watched two in the first week).

It may be a valiant attempt but it’s unlikely to make a big difference in New Zealand’s media landscape unless they score a controversial news making interview subject. No sign of that so far.

Most people with big social media ambitions are likely to be disappointed with the results.

Mainstream media, with all their resources, still struggle to make a significant mark amongst an ocean of forums waving for attention.

Ambitious new media has failed to find a magic formula yet.

Cameron Slater and Whale Oil were innovative and expanded rapidly, but become overburdened with bully boy attacks and inevitably someone attacked back. Dirty Politics was a return of mud that has swamped Slater’s ambitions.

Slater also promised a new enterprise, Freed. That was initially announced as a goer prior to the 2014 election but soon after switched to the back burner. It occasionally gets a forlorn mention but appears to have fizzled out.

While Whale Oil keeps up the clicks it has diminished substantially as a political activist arm.

It looks like Kiwiblog will only ever be a blog for David Farrar who is sustaining his input but only as a sideline – which is inevitable for people who have to earn a living elsewhere.

The Standard continues to promote ‘the labour movement’, which means mainly Labour interests, but is another activist bubble that is blighted by it’s regular overblown political attacks via posts and it’s persistent politically motivated attacks on visitors deemed enemies regardless of their intent.

Every blog is little more than a bubble bouncing on a small part of the ocean.

Forums like Facebook and Twitter have become dominant in social media, and no one is likely to be able to use them to dominate political discourse due to their fragmented nature – they are effectively vast numbers of bubbles frothing independently, with the occasional Nek Minit flurry that is more trivial than substantial.

There is still a place for town hall type meetings. I have been to a few in Dunedin, including a recent TPPA gathering which was little more than a Jane Kelsey rant to a mix of faithful and bemused onlookers.

The biggest two hall meeting in recent years was Kim Dotcom’s big reveal leading into the 2014 election. Bradbury was a big promoter of that and predicted it would lead to  Internet-Mana holding the balance of power this term. It was a disaster.

Town hall meetings and social media enterprises require credible people with winnable causes.A touch of charisma helps.

Bradbury is just too much seen as from the frothing far left to appeal widely, no matter whether he uses last century meetings or modern media methods.

Rather than trying to be the next big thing in politics I think the future is in finding a way of working with a growing fragmentation of ideas and forums.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,578 other followers