Labour versus Leggett ctd.

Current Porirua mayor Nick Leggett resigned from the Labour Party earlier this year so he could stand for the Wellington mayoralty against Labour’s anointed candidate Justin Lester.

Leggett’s candidacy seems to be really bugging Labour. Recently Andrew Little attacked him and banned a Labour MP from attending an event Leggett went to. See Little trying to forbid MPs associating.

And the Labour campaign against Leggett seems to be continuing online.

Mike Smith seems to only post at The Standard when there is important business to attend to.

On Tuesday Smith posted Leggett in Parkin’s pocket?

Former Councillor Chris Parkin interviewed in Wellington’s DomPost shared his ambitions – investing in property in central Wellington, and getting Porirua mayor Nick Leggett elected in Wellington, of all places. Word has it that large billboards for Leggett around the town have been funded by Parkin. The last thing Wellington needs is a mayor who’s in a property investor’s pocket.

And yesterday Smith attacked again: Leggett in Gollins’ pocket too!!!

It gets worse – another property developer is rattling the tin for Porirua carpetbagger Nick Leggett for Wellington’s mayoralty. 

It seems Andrew Little might have been right to warn Stuart Nash MP off association with Leggett’s campaign.

Yes, this is worse – for Labour. It’s a sign that they are worried about Lester’s chances and worried that Leggett is taking votes off their candidate.

‘CC’ asks (currently unanswered): “This is getting pretty close to dirty politics isn’t it?”

Labour certainly seem to be filthy about Leggett.

And Smith is twisting what actually happened – the event Nash was warned off was in Auckland and had no connection to the campaign in Wellington.

I wonder if this has something to do with it:

Claire Robinson ‏@Spinprofessor
Little bird told me polling showing Wgtn mayoral rice tight tween Justin, Nick and Jo, but Jo getting more 2nd votes than others

It seems that politics hath no fury like a Labour Party challenged by one of their own.

 

 

Regeneration for Labour?

It’s been fairly well known that the Labour Party has needed some major regeneration since 2008 and post-Helen Clark. It’s also been fairly obvious that this hasn’t worked very well, with a decreasing vote for Labour in each election this century to an embarrassing low in 2014.

The Standard has offered candidates a forum “for the upcoming Labour Party internal elections the chance to guest post about why they’re running”.

Yesterday they had a Guest post: Eva Hartshorn-Sanders for Senior Vice President

This was “fully moderated to prevent excessive trolling” which is fair enough for a post like that.

The post is quite long and quite negative, especially in the opening paragraphs. And quite politically waffly.

Comments are interesting with some fair questions. with Patrick Leland asked: “One thing you didn’t mention is what you would actually do if elected. Can you please elaborate?”

Eva responded:

The Senior Vice President position sits on NZ Council and is part of the governance team. From working with NZ Council over the past four years, there is a lot of policy, legal and strategic decisions that they will be making going forward – and I would be able to bring my skills to help as part of this core work.

Important decisions going forward relate to the selection of candidates and the list selection work as part of the Moderating Committee – I understand this process from helping to run the Ikaroa-Rawhiti bi-election selection process and working on the drafting with Roger Palairet for the recent constitutional amendments.

Some of this has been answered above – networking is important for campaigning, fundraising, and membership growth. I also think the SVP has an important role for staying in touch with members and working with caucus. The links and connections are important.

Also quite waffly – I still have no idea about specifically what she would try to do, but I also have no idea what a senior vice president is expected to do.

Probably prompted by this in her post…

I have worked in law, policy, campaigning and organising.  This includes nine years working in Government in NZ, two years as a senior legal and political adviser for the (Labour) Leader of the Opposition in the UK House of Lords, private practice and now at the PPTA as a public and employment lawyer.  As part of my job, I travel the country speaking to union members about the issues that are important to them, in their schools and communities.  I have strong links with women throughout the country through my pro bono work for the National Council of Women and the New Horizons for Women Trust.  I have governance experience as a Board member of New Horizons, focussed on governance, policy, sponsors and donors, audit and risk, and for the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme, where I helped to ensure that members were able to access their whole pension for the purposes of their first home loan.

…Adam asked a pertinent question: “You seem to be a careerist political type, do you think you have enough experience outside of politics to bring to the role?”

A careerist political type? That’s interesting. Lots of experience. I had my first job at the age of 11 delivering pamphlets – that has to be useful for this role, right? I have worked in all sorts of jobs through my life – if that’s the sort of thing you were asking about? Burger King “maintenance man” in 2000, cafe assistant, retail work, working at a creche, multiple babysitting jobs, Judo coach at Camp America (CCUSA), government, politics, union. And I do NGO work for fun – not really that political – unless you want it to be.

lprent also raised questions about two critical issues for Labour: “So I’m surprised that I don’t see a mention in your post of the two really big issues that I see for both the president and vice-presidential roles. Strategies for raising money and increasing membership.”

Building membership is an important part of our future. I think we need to continue to modernise the Party and its structures, to make sure that we all have a place within in it to be active and to have a voice.

That may help retain some members but I don’t see how it addresses attracting new members. Labour has a reputation for not being particularly welcoming of different voices.

Re the fundraising aspect – I would be one in a team that will be implementing the fundraising strategy from Fraser House, taking expert advice from professional staff. But I have some experience in this area running events for PPTA, NCW and the New Horizons for Women Trust, including working with sponsors and donors portfolio.

The fundraising strategy from Fraser House appears to have been working poorly for some time. For years Labour’s fundraising has been way behind National’s, and the Greens now raise more funds than Labour.

Labour has major problems with a lack of members and money. Perhaps they aren’t part of the senior vice presidents job description but Eva appears to be more of a willing worker within the party as it is than potential for regeneration.

While Eva looks young and may be new generation she sounds ‘same old’, and that hasn’t been working well for Labour. I don’t see much drive for party regeneration.

The biggest left wing blog?

A few days ago The Daily Blog posted a fund raising drive – July Contributions drive – last days

Brothers and Sisters, if you think The Daily Blog is an important voice in the NZ media landscape, then we need your contribution.

The Daily Blog is the largest left wing blog in NZ and you know how dire the mainstream media has become so these few platforms left to fight back at the Government and corporate power are more essential than ever before.

Asking for pocket money from brothers and sisters aside, the largest left wing blog in New Zealand?

Yesterday The Standard made a slightly different claim in Offer to NZLP candidates:

As the most widely read left blog in New Zealand, the Standard is a regular stop for most Labour Party members who spend time online.

Whether the largest or most widely read blog doesn’t really matter, a lot of political discussion happens on other types of forums anyway, especially Facebook.But the two posts highlight the different niches that the blogs are trying to cater for.

The Daily Blog:

Putting together a 5 night a week 7pm current affairs show and co-ordinating 40 of the best left wing progressive voices each month don’t come cheap.

A lot of Bradbury’s and The Daily Blog’s focus is now on Waatea Fifth Estate streamed talk show. It is quite a commitment and a big task rounding up participants for that every week day. It can sometimes be interesting but I doubt whether it makes impact beyond a fairly small audience.

Meanwhile The Standard and Labour have both moved in new directions – more openly campaigning for local body elections.

We think that offers candidates for Labour Party positions a great platform to get their ideas out to members and to debate them. Which is why, with nominations for various significant party positions closing soon, we’re offering candidates the opportunity to provide guest posts ahead of the conference in Auckland this year.

Democracy works best when people know who they’re voting for and the Standard is about democracy. So if you’re planning to stand for a Labour role and you want to speak to thousands of Labour members, contact us via thestandard@gmail.com

We’ll make sure that your post is at the top of the site for at least half a day and will moderate comments.

In the past The Standard has been adamant it represents the ‘labour left’ and not the ‘Labour Party’. Despite this they have dabbled in party politics at times, but is the most hard out Labour campaign approach I have seen there. This looks to be a significant change for both the party and the blog.

Will The Standard offer similar campaign support for Green candidates, especially now that Labour and Greens are promoting themselves as a joint election deal? Or are Greens not labour left enough for them?

There’s an opportunity for attracting more Green blog discussion now that Frog Blog has shut down comments.

More on the Morgan poll

Apparently continued silence by Martyn Bradbury on the latest Roy Morgan poll which came out a week after he posted BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: UMR SECRET POLL – National 41% Labour/Greens 45%

Since the Memorandum of Understanding, the First Past the Post mainstream media have had to start reporting the results as MMP ones. This perception change now allows Opposition voters to see they can win.

National is in trouble…

Once these private internal polls start becoming reflected in the TVNZ and TV3 Polls, National will start to implode with a power struggle.

The Roy Morgan poll has National on 53%, Labour on 25.5% and Greens on 11.5%. No word on what Bombers perception of this is.

One perception at The Daily Blog though, from Cleangreen. On the UMR ‘secret poll’:

Yes joy rings out finally National are on their way out hooray.

But in a comment yesterday on the Open Mic thread Cleengreen said:

Latest Roy Morgan and any other political poster companies we think we should trust! – well don’t – read below.

The Politicians are all under orders from the Bilderberg Group and are simply minion’s that carry out orders for the global elite and that is why you see a clear hard nosed similarity over every issue now, and the media is the same parrot for these cabals also as the pollsters are to!!!!

Does anyone understand how flimsy and vulnerable and easily rigged results of Pollster’s polling data can occur where the companies cannot verify their results or edit them to see if they are changed?

Poll result good, pollster good. Poll result bad, pollsters bad.

There was a lot of talk about the 10% bounce back for National (but interestingly no one seemed to bat an eyelid at Labour dropping 2.5 to 25.5%).

Chris Keall has posted Roy Morgan manager defends *that* poll at NBR:

The chattering class was quick to scoff when at the new Roy Morgan poll which showed a 10% jump for National (864 eligible voters were surveyed by phone).

There was eye-rolling from the left and the right, and I can see why: there were no political bombshells during the survey period (June 17 to early July) to warrant such a shift.

In a press release, executive chairman Gary Morgan pegged the Nats’ bounce on John Key’s announcement of a $1 billion housing infrastructure fund.

I’m not so sure.

Keall “asked Mr Morgan if he was confident of the poll result” and the RM poll manager responded:

We are very confident these results reflect a shift in voting intention in New Zealand towards the incumbent.

That is very likely to be correct. The questions are by how much, and why.

Andrew Little has had nearly two years to cut through and even before this poll, had really made little headway.

The New Zealand economy is booming at present with Kiwis returning to the country after years of outflows across the Tasman.

Also, specifically with this poll we conducted some additional research during this period which indicates that Housing Affordability/ House prices/ Shortage of Houses/ Homeless etc. has increased significantly as an issue in New Zealand this year.

The announcement of the $1 billion housing infrastructure fund is perfectly timed to take advantage of this sentiment. There are a large number of Kiwis out there who believe they will see the benefit of this $1 billion infrastructure fund personally.

It could be that housing has been a significant factor – perhaps a lack of confidence in Labour’s policies, or a desire by many voters to retain the capital value increases.

There was also a discussion at Dim-Post: Roy Morgan wild guessing game

No doubt Labour will start leaking that their secret polls show them getting a major bump after their conference. If you added all the bumps they’ve claimed from their private polls they’d be on about 500% by now.

Danyl has been quite cynical about Labour lately.

My guess about the swing – if there was a swing – is that the news recently has been dominated by horror, fear and uncertainty. Terror attacks, racial violence in the US, Brexit, and so voters are looking for political stability and supporting National. If they are.

Swordfish, a regular poll commenter at The Standard, joins the discussion. Another pseudonym I’m not familiar with, Pollster,  joined in.

It has nothing like the spikes the Roy Morgan does, and when it does it’ll be an occasional 2-3% shift, not a 5-10% (or in this case 16%) swing as the Roy Morgan has. What the UMR has shown since the election has been a pretty static political environment. The Roy Morgan suggests that from month hundreds of thousands of people are swinging wildly from Labour and the Greens to National and back again. It’s why no one in the business takes them seriously.

As the UMR polls aren’t published their claims can’t be verified, although Swordfish says:

Last 4 UMRs had Labour on 28-33%. Over the same period, the Public Polls put the Party in the range of 26-31%. Not an enormous divergence.

That’s a 5% range from UMR, the same as for ‘public polls’.

The last four RM polls for Labour were 25.5, 28, 29,5, 26 which happens to be a smaller range of 4%.

Pollster also said:

As for Labour staffers briefing internal polls, that’s not something I’m aware of, but I wouldn’t assume that’s why the UMR poll occasional finds its way into the public arena.

Frequently it’s Hooton who claims to have had a leak of Labour’s secret internal polling, when actually he just gets the UMR Omni from one of his clients as I do. I can also confirm he often makes up the figures, because he is a shameless liar.

Hooton bit back:

I think I have mentioned specific quantitative numbers from UMR polling data twice in the media. UMR polling is what “Labour’s secret internal polling” is – or, has been historically. It is also sold to corporates as you indicate.

Unless you think UMR does one quantitative study each month for its corporate clients and then another one for Labour. Perhaps it does. I don’t see that point in that though. Whenever I have mentioned polling of any kind the numbers have been correct.

Pull your head in with your lying accusations, whoever you are, anonymous guy on the internet.

Anonymous people on the Internet who appear to have a vested interest, and who promote polls only when their cherries are ripe, but never publicly publish any poll details, and make lying accusations about people with different political leanings, barely deserve to be taken with a grain of salt.

Poll reactions

I think just about everyone will have been surprised by the latest poll -it was a  Roy Morgan shock.

Saying you do or don’t believe in this or that poll is a mugs game. They’re numbers not deities. But. National up 10 to 53% in July RM poll.

Look it’s probably a rogue poll. should relax. And stick with to election.

While the Roy Morgan poll may be exaggerated, its is perhaps timely to recall the numerous stories saying Labour has made real traction.

So under is polling 5% lower than under – makes you wonder

10% shift in any one poll in any direction always a bit O RLY.

latest Roy Morgan is fairly wow.

David Farrar (National’s pollster) at Kiwiblog: Latest poll

After a month of headlines of the Government in crisis and how Labour has them on the ropes and this is a turning point, the poll shows a massive 10% vote shift for National.

A few pundits may be regretting their columns.

Now as I commented on Twitter I don’t think there has been a 10% increase in support for National in one month, which would be 250,000 more New Zealanders suddenly deciding they will vote National. Roy Morgan is known as a yo-yo poll as it does tend to have fairly regular large increases and decreases. So it is probably the case that either their June poll was too low for National or the July poll too high – or both.

But regardless of how large the movement has been, it is beyond doubt that in a month of relentless negativity in the media, National has gone up in the Roy Morgan poll.

Labour at 25.5% is 5.5% lower than they were three years ago in the same poll. And if you compare it to how National were doing in Labour’s third term, well National in July 2007 was at 49%!

Nothing on the poll at The Daily Blog yet but a week ago Martyn Bradbury posted BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: UMR SECRET POLL – National 41% Labour/Greens 45%

Since the Memorandum of Understanding, the First Past the Post mainstream media have had to start reporting the results as MMP ones. This perception change now allows Opposition voters to see they can win.

Combine this with a Housing crisis that is nearing meltdown, a Government caught up in its own  sophistry and a flat footed media who now have to keep up with a 5th estate news media that is countering their narratives far more effectively than they can spin them.

National is in trouble, and watch how Judith Collins will move to eliminate Paula Bennett first and Key second as the reality of National’s policies finally catch up with John Key’s vacant aspiration.

Once these private internal polls start becoming reflected in the TVNZ and TV3 Polls, National will start to implode with a power struggle.

Whale Oil hasn’t posted on it yet but tend to be slow with posts on new developments that aren’t their own ‘breaking news’.

It’s not surprising that there is no post about the latest poll at The Standard yet, but there has been some comments in Daily Review.

Weka:

It’s not about whether the poll is good for a party or parties, it’s about the degree of shift and whether that is meaningful. How big was the one last month?

People who understand polling say to look at the poll of polls for trends rather than relying on any single poll. That’s why I’d like to see the next one, or other company polls.

Paul:

Seems to make no sense at all.

Anne:

Yes it does. When did you last see any of the Opposition party leaders on the 6pm TV news? Weeks ago, and then only for about 10 seconds each time. I actually recall seeing Andrew Little’s response to one question being cut off after 4 or 5 words so it was impossible to know what the answer really was.

And how often do you see John Key on the TV? Every bloody night. Since I can’t bear the sight of his supercilious dial, it means I can’t watch the news any more.

So, when the sheeples only see John Key and rarely see or hear about anyone else then its not surprising they mindlessly answer National.

So she thinks it’s the media’s fault.

mickysavage:

It is a real rogue. Go outside and talk to ordinary people and work out if they think the Government is doing a good job.

Colonial Viper:

Effect of the Labour/Greens MOU now being felt. Also National’s proactive *cough* steps in the housing market.

instrider:

I couldn’t have scripted this better – Labour leaks and overhypes mysterious internal polling. Standardistas climb on board with the fervour of the righteous welcoming the second coming, ignoring all that has gone before. And then like perpetual Millerites they wake up to a new rouge/rogue dawn another 10 points behind. It’s a better show than plagiarism at the republican convention.

adam:

Every month I’ve been saying this.

FORGET THE DAMN POLLS!!!

Outside of an election, they are nothing more than a sad tool of lazy journalists too slack to do any real journalism.

Do I need to mention the scummy PR people trying to set the agenda for there client.

But Roy Morgan isn’t run by journalists, they are a professional polling company.

And on Open Mike, schwen:

OMG! What a disaster! How could this have happened so quickly when the UMR poll showed the Green/Labour MOU was working so well?

swordfish:

Yes, very droll.

Heading on back to reality for a moment …

… UMR Poll has an impressive track record for accuracy …

http://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-21072016/#comment-1206926

UMR do internal party polls for Labour and the poll details are never published. And it’s only favourable results that tend to be ‘leaked’.

Last week on The Standard: The times they are a changing

Dedicated to the latest UMR poll that Bomber reports has Labour on 33%, the Greens on 12% and National on 41% …

The polls they are a changing and it’s over a year until the election.

UMR polls

More has been posted (at The Standard) on the UMR poll that Martyn Bradbury went crazy over – see “BREAKING EXCLUSIVE SECRET POLL” – by Swordfish, who is a fairly reliable source and who analyses polls far more sensibly than Bomber.

Note however that we still don’t have any actual details published of UMR polls, we are only given a few raw numbers.

Swordfish:

The UMRs tend, on average, to be slightly better for Labour and the Greens and slightly worse for National compared to the main Public Polls.

I’d take issue with Bomber’s assertion that: “The latest UMR internal Polling has shown a massive drop in support for Key.” (by “Key”, of course, Bomber means National).

It was typical Bomber bull and bluster.

In reality, the Nats slumped earlier this year (in the UMRs, in National’s Internal (Curia) Poll and, to some extent, in the Roy Morgans) – particularly in the wake of the Flag Referendumand the Panama Papers controversy – and since then it’s simply experienced a slow decline:

UMR
April 2016
Nat 43%
Lab 30%

June 2016
Nat 42%
Lab 28%
Green 16%
NZF 10%

July 2016
Nat 41%
Lab 33%
Green 12%
NZF 10%

So the latest UMR poll shows a the barest of declines for National (that could be a fraction of a percent and well within the presumed margin of errror) and a more significant shift of support from Greens to Labour Greens down 5, Labour up 4).

We’re in a similar situation to mid-2015 when a couple of the Roy Morgans and 3 UMRsplaced combined Lab+Green support a little ahead of the Nats.
(although – unlike the last few UMRs – the recent RMs still record a mild Nat lead over Lab+Green).

Then a swing back to National and the Right in the later months of 2015 / early 2016 – and now a swing back towards the Left (and, of course, NZF).

So these poll swings and round abouts are not unusual. Neither is Bomber’s frantic ranting.

Going by these numbers National should be getting a bit concerned but they shouldn’t need opposition polls to tell them that, it’s been obvious they have been having problems.

The next Roy Morgan poll which may be out next week will give us a better idea of how much weight can be put on the UMR poll results.

Responding to violence with compassion

A very good comment at The Standard on their Nice attack thread in response to this from Psycho Milt:

Compassion isn’t an appropriate feeling for someone who’d deliberately drive a truck into a crowd of random strangers.

McFlock:

Actually, it’s almost certainly a very appropriate response to someone who ends up in that mindspace.

Because the absence of compassion for those who inflict pain simply puts us into the same mindspace that they were in: anger focussed at people who we no longer fully regard as human.

It’s incredibly difficult to respond to violence with compassion, few of us can really do it, but it’s something to aspire to. The alternative is to just continue the cycle of violence and injustice.

 

Democracy compared

Anthony Robins posted on Democracy vs efficiency  at The Standard:

Events in England really highlight the different processes of the two main parties. The Conservatives have completed their leadership transition, Labour’s contest has barely begun. Which model is best?

Nor surprisingly Robins thinks Labour is best.

I believe in the Labour model – both here and in the UK – as I think anyone who believes in democracy should.

It depends on what sort of democracy you believe in. Most democracies have some degree of representative democracy – where you elect people to represent you and make decisions for the people – and relatively limited options for direct democracy (where the majority of people make the decisions via votes) beyond occasional elections.

Two little say annoys the hell out of people, but too much say too often can bog down and even paralyse the functioning of a government.

Labour have barely started the challenge process in their (largely) democratic but cumbersome manner – an open selection, with real input from the members.

But there is no doubt that it is cumbersome, it paralysed (and will continue to paralyse) UK Labour at a time when it should have been moving decisively.

Robins understands the problems with a cumbersome democratic process (he doesn’t mention the game playing and manipulation of the processes going on with UK Labour).

There needs to be a counter-narrative. As the UK accepts the “democratic” Brexit vote, it should also accept and celebrate the democratic Labour process. Yes it’s cumbersome, but it involves we the people in politics, when it is obvious that the Tory “closed doors” model has been undermining democratic participation for decades.

This is naive inaccurate partisan bollocks.

Missy commented on Robins’ post yesterday:


I braved the swamp, and dipped my toe (figuratively, not literally) into The Standard. Anthony Robbins has done a post on the differences between the UK Labour leadership and the Conservative Leadership change.

His post however shows exactly how little he has either followed – or understood – the differences. He (naturally) extols the virtues of Labour’s way as being more democratic in that the members can vote, whilst the Conservatives did it behind closed doors quickly in an undemocratic manner (by inference, he didn’t actually state it was undemocratic). Anthony also seems to have overlooked the fact that of the final two candidates Leadsom dropped out, leaving only one candidate, which made it more efficient in terms of getting a new leader in place this time around.

Whilst he acknowledges the Labour party system is cumbersome, he doesn’t seem to think of what may happen if they have to run one of these leadership elections if they are ever in Government.

So lets look at the two ways (as I understand it) that these parties vote for their leaders. (disclaimer: I haven’t read the party rules on either of these parties, and therefore am getting my knowledge from how the media have reported it, so could be wrong on some facts).

Nominations:

Labour: Leaders are nominated to the NEC, requiring a certain percentage of support from the Parliamentary Labour Party, (in this case it worked out to be 50 MPs), so essentially they need to have some support to be nominated.

Conservatives: I am not sure how this happens, but from the way it was done this time it doesn’t look like they actually need to be nominated by anyone, they can just nominate themselves – or rather they declare an interest in standing.

Voting:

Labour: I am not sure exactly, but I believe that Labour run a one member one vote system, so there is no weighting like in NZ.

Conservatives: The Conservatives have a two part vote, the MPs get to vote on the candidates, and after their vote the two that are left go to the membership. This means that the MPs get a say in who their leader will be. I am not sure how many times the MPs vote, this time it was twice, but I am not sure if they would have more if there were more candidates, or less if there were less.

Keeping in mind the leader of the party is leading the MPs it seems eminently sensible that the MPs get a reasonable say in who may end up being the leader, the members after all do not have to spend all week with the leader, nor do they have to work for or with them. Based on this I think the Conservatives have a better system for the election of a leader in that the MPs get a say in who may be the leader, but the membership gets the final say.


 

There are different ways of doing democracy, some better than others, and which is the best may vary in different circumstances.

If a country is in chaos or crisis decisive leadership on behalf of the people can be a far better bet than trying to get thousands or millions of people to understand complex situations and make complex decisions.

 

Borrows reaction at Kiwiblog

It’s not surprising to see quite contrasting reactions to the charging of Chester Borrows at The Standard versus Kiwiblog.

Some of the Standard reaction is in Chester Borrows charged, more at Borrows charged for injuring protestors.

David Farrar posted Borrows charged at Kiwiblog:

My sympathy is with Borrows. He was driving as slowly as you can, and the protesters chose not to move. They were blocking a legal road. Sure if he had been driving at speed, that would be different. But he was just nudging them out of the way.

We’ll see what evidence comes out in court. Will the protesters be charged for blocking the road? You have the legal right to protest in NZ, but not to do so in a way that impedes people going about their legal business, or blocking public areas.

Manolo led with a typical comment for him:

It should be remembered that scum like that pair also have rights. 🙂

There’s actually some reasonable discussion, and this account from from Keeping Stock:

I was present at the function Borrows and Bennett were attending that morning, and although I did not see the incident in question, the protesters were spoiling for a fight. They kept up a cacophany of noise outside for the duration of the function, and abused a number of the people attending when they were arriving and departing. Bear in mind this is the function prior to which one Phillip Rewiti Bear from the Meatworkers Union had made an overt threat towards Paula Bennett, hence the Police being in attendance.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/03/phillip_reweti_bear.html

One of the protesters filmed the “incident”, and the decision to prosecute will have been taken in part from that video. However the video is notable for the behaviour of protest organiser Denise Lockett (the woman with orange hair in the centre of labrator’s photo), supposedly injured. As soon as Borrows drives through, she shouts out to the person filming the incident “Did you get that on video”. That was her very first reaction, having been supposedly run over, and injured to the extent of Borrows being charged with carless driving causing injury.

I doubt that I am the only person who smells a set-up here, and I hope that when the charges do finally go to court they are thrown out and Chester Borrows is completely exonerated.

It’s not unknown for protesters to manufacture controversy to get media attention and to score some sort of hit on their targets. Whether it occurred with the Borrows incident will presumably come out in court (if it gets to court).

Pyscho Milt comments there (as well as at The Standard):

The ferals blocking his path were obstructing him from moving freely.

Fortunately the cops were there to make them get out of the way. Pro tip: if people are blocking your car, the law doesn’t entitle you to run the annoying pricks over. You’d think an ex-cop would have been able to figure that one out.

Also a pro tip for protestors: putting your foot under the wheel of a moving vehicle can result in injury.

Srylands (who used to comment at The Standard but is probably banned now):

mikenmild says: “I can’t believe anyone would suggest that driving a car at someone is an acceptable response to having the road blocked.”
_______________________

I think it is totally acceptable.

I don’t think it’s acceptable, and quite unwise for an MP, especially one who is an ex policeman.

There were some who suggested more extreme (and stupid) actions. igm:

Pity he did not do a decent job. Suppose they were either unemployable or public servants.

mara:

If I were Borrows, I’d have gone from nought to 200mph in 20 seconds, or less, given the car’s capacity of course. Give the man a medal for exercising restraint.

DifferentPerspective:

These are dirty little whining dole bludgers. This is so typical of the fascists on the left bullying and threatening people when they lose the contest of ideas.

They’re no better than the animals in the BLM movement. Sneering at the universal truth that ALL LIVES MATTER doesn’t make it any less of a universal truth.

In the 1930s national socialism brought us exactly the same issues with the Aryan concept with it’s Orwellian overtones that the white, blond haired racial stereotype was more equal than others (preaching that they were oppressed by the dirty jew). 80 years later we have exactly the same concepts just with different labels. And again the statistics don’t support the hysteria (blacks kill a disporportionately far higher number of blacks that cops do).

The progressive movement is turning into a filthy caricature of itself with a slide to neo-nazi like behaviour. Jack booted thugs shouting down everyone in the 30s – dreadlocked thugs doing exactly the same in 2016. Seig heil to progressives everywhere.

Sponge:

I find it hard to sympathise with this rabble of protesters.

The ugly one in gumboots shouting abuse? Vile.
The one that looks and sounds like a demented parrot? Vile
The retarded one that is so spastic that it gets its big toe run over? An absolute moron. What is more, I suspect it was no accident that this creature put its toe under the wheel. That parrot beast certainly wasn’t worried about its friends wellbeing but wanted to make sure it was on film.

As an aside why is it that the anti TPPA protesters always appear to be unemployed and ignorant ne’er–do–wells

But comments like that were a small minority. Which makes this comment by Psycho Milt at The Standard curious:

The concept that you have a right to obstruct a public way if you want to is as bizarre, if not quite so scarily insane, as the Kiwiblog commenters’ view that you have a right to run people over if they’re in your way.

And:

You really, really don’t want to go over to the Kiwiblog thread on this subject then, as it features a surprising number of commenters who apparently need to have it explained to them that no you’re not actually allowed to run someone over if they’re in your vehicle’s path.

That’s hardly a representative view of the Kiwiblog comments overall.

It’s well summed up at Kiwiblog by eszett:

That the car didn’t stop and didn’t give people time to move or officers opportunity to move them is what makes it dangerous behaviour.Unless context is missing from the video I think he is quite properly charged.

Foolish, perhaps, especially politically, but dangerous?

Yes, he should have waited until the cops had cleared the way. Would have cost him 10 seconds and saved him a lot of unnecessary drama.

It does seem to have been careless of Borrows. Whether careless enough legally to result in a conviction will be no doubt discussed in depth on the blogs once it goes to court.

“Practical things that you can do post Brexit vote”

An interesting post at The Standard from Weka on Remembering our personal political power.

The vast majority of people aren’t interested in politics and believe they are impotent, but Weka details Ten practical things that you can do post Brexit vote from Chris Gilson (Brit/Kiwi/Canadian. Managing editor of @LSEUSAblog, founder @BooksforLondon, committee member of yesterday):


We need practical steps that people can take to keep themselves sane and hopefully make a difference.

So with this in mind, here are ten practical things that you can do – starting Monday – to make things better in the face of the economic and social travails that likely lay ahead:

  1. Join a political party. Like it or not, political parties are still the dominant force for creating change in this country. Think they don’t matter? Remember that without the influence of UKIP – a relatively small political party, which has never got more than 20 percent of the vote in a general election – we would never of had this referendum in the first place. So join a party. Any party. Work with local campaigners and groups so that you do have a say.
  2. Join a big national group campaigning for social justice as a volunteer. In straitened times, civil society is hugely important. Find a topic you care about – homelessness, poverty, food insecurity, whatever, and see what the national charity which is trying to tackle it needs. It might be a donation, it might be volunteering time.
  3. Donate time join a local group in your neighbourhood. There’s a saying – all politics are local. So make a difference locally. Volunteer for your local neighborhood association, church, or schools. Apply to join the local school PTA or Board of Governors. It’s as easy as plugging the name of your local area and “volunteer” into Google.
  4. Donate stuff. If you don’t have time to give time, find out how to give away things that local groups need. Find your local foodbank and give them some extra tins and nappies once a week after you do your shop. Contact your nearest women’s refuge and see if they need anything. Declutter (it’s the in thing now) and give away old clothes and kitchen items to your local charity shop.
  5. Don’t move away. Toronto, Berlin, Melbourne and even Edinburgh are looking pretty good right now, aren’t they? It’s an irony that a lot of people who argued that we needed to stay in Europe – even though it was hard – to try and make it better, are now looking to get out of the UK themselves. Remember, a huge number of people can’t leave. They may not be able to afford it. They have family responsibilities. They may not be able to move for health reasons. So I say, stay. Stay and make things better. Use the power that you do have.
  6. Buy British. The economy is taking a huge hit. Do what you can to blunt the effects of Brexit by buying stuff that’s made here. That includes holidaying here. Bradford has great curry, Bristol is brilliant, and Wales can be beautiful.
  7. Get the hell out of this echo chamber. I have spoken to so many people in the last few weeks who have said “I don’t know anyone who is voting Leave”. Whoops. Social media has captured us all in echo chambers of our own making. We’re stuck talking to people who share our opinion and we collectively pat ourselves on the back for being part of the group that “must be right”. Over 16 million people voted to Leave. Why? Get out and talk to people. Chat in the pub. Chat on the bus. Talk on the tube. Speak to someone who you might not agree with. And listen.
  8. Talk to those that you love about what’s going to happen in your future. The country is going to change, and that affects you and those that are closest to you. Now’s the time to talk to them about what you want, and where you want to be. Maybe you want to go somewhere else? (In that case, see 5). Is your job secure? Do you need to retrain? Is there anyone in the circle of people that you love that you should now try and be closer to because they’re going to be affected by all this more than you? Is there anyone you need to help?
  9. Speak up. See racism, sexism, homophobia or anti immigrant sentiment? Confront it if you can and if it’s safe to do so. The police may even be on your side. Most people aren’t prejudiced, and this is something we can tackle through sheer numbers. If you see someone being abused for being an immigrant, ask others nearby to confront it with you. Don’t underestimate the power of the phrase, “This isn’t on, is it?”
  10. Keep holding those in power to account. Write to your MP about what pisses you off about the government. They read those letters, I can tell you. Use the Freedom of Information Act to find out stuff from government and public authorities when you think they’re being dodgy. Keep an eye on what your council is up to, and don’t be afraid to object to things when you’re not happy with what they propose.
  11. Don’t give up hope. Turn the clock back to 1936, 1940, 1979, and the rest. Things looked pretty bad. Things looked pretty hopeless. But things got better. We did come together to make a better future for us and our kids. We have one hell of a hangover right now, but if our history tells us anything, we’re resilient as hell, and given enough time, we can fix things.

And yes, I know that these are 11 things. In times like this, why not give a little more?


Most people won’t be interested in any of these suggestions, but if a few more people get politically active it may make a difference.

 Comments on this at The Standard in Remembering our personal political.

There’s a few in New Zealand who are already politically active who would do well to “Get the hell out of this echo chamber“.

Social media has captured us all in echo chambers of our own making. We’re stuck talking to people who share our opinion and we collectively pat ourselves on the back for being part of the group that “must be right”.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,568 other followers