Solidarity and resistance?

This is an odd call for support for the Greens resetting and restarting their campaign after a disastrous couple of weeks.

Odd solidarity with no James Shaw in that photo – I wonder if that is deliberate. He is supposed to now be the sole leader, heading efforts to rebuild a tattered party.

The post is by ‘weka’: The Greens: solidarity and resistance

Solidarity and resistance sounds like it comes from a century ago, when poverty was far more widespread and worse, and social welfare barely existed.

The Greens are an enigma for some, and this is understandable because they don’t fit into the neat political boxes that the establishment deem real. They also are an inherent challenge to the establishment just because of who they are, so we can’t expect those part of the MSM invested in retaining the status quo to tell the story straight.

In my opinion it’s always better initially to listen to what the Greens have to say themselves. Here are the words of Green Party people speaking in the past few days,

Green MP Marama Davidson,

We will not forget the thousands of you who came to us with your stories of hardship.

This is just the start. All of your voices, the voices who came to us in trust and faith – are our priority. Ending poverty is a priority. We have the plan, and the political will, and most of all we have every single one of your stories driving us on.

We are 100% behind our sole co-leader James Shaw who will take us through the rest of this election. We are 100% behind Metiria who will continue what she started in her ongoing campaign for the party vote. We are 100% behind our strive to ensure that everyone can live dignified lives.

Green MP Jan Logie speaking on Back Benches,

I tell you something. We are going to NOT let (Metiria’s) sacrifice go for nothing. We are going to double down and do everything we can to make that worthwhile. To end poverty.

Double down on a disastrous own goal that has severely weakened the Greens?

James Shaw, co-leader of the Green Party (video at 4 mins)

I am committed to ending poverty in this country.

We are the party that aims to end poverty. Frankly everybody else is interested in tinkering around the edges. We’re the only party that’s drawn a line in the sand and said we know what it takes to lift 212,000 children above the poverty line.

That was to be really clear that the Greens are still strong on the kaupapa of ending poverty.

For the people on the look out for the environmental side, there’s a plethora of solid Green Policy already in place and based around NZ becoming world leaders on climate action, cleaning up our rivers, and ending poverty.

Metiria Turei started the Green Party campaign last month with a speech that started the temporary rise and then dramatic fall of the Greens (and precipitated a dramatic turnaround for the better for Labour).

Green MPs and Green supporters were blind to the risks and to the damage being done to their party. They attacked anyone who pointed out their problems or who criticised Turei or the party. They happily criticised and rejected two of their own MPs who were troubled by integrity issues.

If they want to ignore all of the problems the brought upon themselves, or just blame others – in particular the media which is seen as just a part of the establishment to be resisted – then I don’t like their chances of repairing the substantial damage they have caused themselves.

No matter how Shaw tries to repackage the Green campaign today, if the Green supporters who remain active continue the Metiria mission it may take an election disaster to get the message through.

If Greens generally follow the gist of what weka has posted through the campaign then I think there’s a real chance of them dropping through the threshold and crashing out of Parliament altogether.

That would be a real shame, but the Greens seem intent on doubling down – and down, and down.

Calling for solidarity and resistance may turn the Greens around, but it could also make a disaster permanent for the socialist sisterhood.

More on Maori and Labour

A generally good post at The Standard by ‘weka’ on Marama Fox on working with a Labour/Green government

This refers to comments made by Maori party list MP Fox:

You know what, they’re all trying to get to the power seat too, and if Labour and Greens are successful then we’ll be looking to do a deal with them, because it’s obvious to me that under Labour Māori are tossed aside all the time and you can have a look at the Point England development to see that.”

“I think it is better to be at the table making decisions or at last being the social conscience of a government who may be disconnected from its community or don’t know how to address those things. And Labour want the same thing, that’s why they’re trying to win the seats of government. So if they are successful, then we’ll happily work with them. And yes, It is better to be at the table at the decision-making end, and have as much influence as we’re able to ensure that we can correct the disparities that currently exist.

Weka comments:

What will happen if Labour needs the Māori Party to form government? Some on the left see the Māori Party’s relationship with National as a betrayal that can never be forgiven, and speak in the most scathing terms despite National being able to govern irrespective of where the Māori Party stands.

Myself, I think Māori are entitled to their own politics, and it behooves the rest of us to pay more attention to what those mean on Māori terms.

I certainly don’t like everything the Māori Party has done, but I think we need to look more deeply here, especially as the left may end up needing this alliance to form government. But more than that, the Māori Party have many policies that align well with both Labour and the Greens, including in critical areas like climate change and water.

We should be building relationships here for that alone not just because of the vagaries of MMP.

It does seem odd that Labour seems intent on trashing any relationship with the Maori and Mana parties.

The Maori Party have always made it clear they are prepared to work with any government to further their aims. This is a sensible approach to MMP politics.

So this is a good post from Weka, until  this plonked on the bottom:

Moderator Note – Considered and respectful commentary and critique are welcome here. If you want to make claims of fact about any NZ political party here please back them up as you comment. If you want to gratuitously bash any party other than National, go somewhere else to do it.

This is an illustration of the Standard moderation that damages their credibility.

Weka is inviting “considered and respectful commentary and critique” and warns not to “gratuitously bash any party” – fair enough – but then makes a mockery of her imposed standards by adding “other than National”.

Strict moderation might be fine if it was evenly applied, but Weka warns off any bashing of her views or preferred parties while effectively encourages gratuitous bashing of National.

In practice this is often how Standard moderation works, coming down hard on any perceived attack or criticism of their views or parties but encouraging open slather against parties they dislike and commenters they deem to be right wing or right wing party supporters.

The left is sadly lacking a blog that allows fair debate and discussion.

Arguing against climate change banned

Arguing against climate change has been banned by ‘weka’ at The Standard. She has moderated out dissenting views to her posts before, but has taken it to a new level of intolerance of differences to her opinion.

She posted Climate change – beyond the politics and the maths and the fear

In the winter of 2014 Russel Norman, as co-leader of the NZ Green Party, said that climate change was the not just the most important issue of our time, it was the most important issue of all time.

It seemed radical then, and appeared to go largely un-commented on. James Shaw said a similar thing last year, and then again, twice, in a speech this year. I remember feeling a surge of excitement and relief to hear this expressed by Norman, not only because we definitely need the suits to be thinking in this way (so all power to Norman and Shaw for taking that message to those communities), but also because hearing the deep truth from people in power brings hope and change.

In the past year I have noticed that the idea of climate change being the most important issue we face is popping up all the time. Many people are now saying it, and this my friends is change happening. People weren’t doing this even a few years ago.

We need to be ready for what happens next, and we need to make sure that as more and more people wake up, that we (collectively) follow the path of change, not the path of denial or rearranging the deck chairs or going down in a ball of flames.

She seems to be referring to just one path of denial, any questioning of her ‘path of change’.

So I don’t mean that everyone has to quit their job and join the front lines. Although that would certainly change things very fast, I don’t think it’s a realistic expectation and I do think more of us than currently are could start to make such radical changes.

But what I really mean is that we all now need to be on a war footing, all of us. Not because CC is a war, but because the recognition within communities during the Great Wars was of the need to put normal life in the context the greater cause. People understood the need to work together for the common good and this was largely a shared cultural value.

No-one is coming to save us. It’s up to us. All of us. While we certainly need high level change, we don’t have to wait for government or everyone else in order to act. We can change now, not because we are sure of what to do or what will happen, but because it’s the right thing to do any way you look at it other than neoliberally.

That’s an odd ideological approach. She is not sure what to do about it, or what may happen, but is sure that anything other than a ‘neoliberal’ approach is good.

We don’t all have to live radical lives, but we do need a radical change in how we are thinking. We need to find the way that best uses each of our skills and situations and resources to put all hands to the pump. We all need to be climate changers.

Her post gets support and congratulations. But not from everyone.

Kelly-Ned 8

Are you all really sure?
Have you actually seen the temp graphs going up? (They aren’t)
Are you actually sure that CO2 which is such a small and very necessary gas is causing the issue (if there really is an issue)?
Are you really sure? Actually read the data yourselves?
Not being manipulated by vested interests? (on either side)
I have yet to see convincing argument that gets beyond ‘we all believe it’ or ‘They all said so’
But please do send me a link as I’ve seen lots of stuff that says it is all natural causes, but I am open to persuasion.

That’s fairly general (and lame) dissent. But any alternative to the collective ideology is not allowed.

[I usually don’t let climate change deniers comment under my posts. The only reason I’m not moderating you out of here is because of the usefulness of replies below. But if you try and run any kind of further denialist lines in this thread not only will I move your comments, but I will ban you from commenting site wide for wasting my time and creating diversion from the post. – weka]

Wasting a moderator’s time is a ban-able offence at The Standard, meaning that if a moderator chooses to spend time shutting down views that don’t fit with their narrative the can self justify banning. It is used as a cute excuse.

Kelly-Ned 8.4

So you edit out all genuine debate? Justifying it by labelling a questioner as a denialist?
Well that is sure to get an unbalanced debate going.

[yes, that’s right. The internet is big place, go somewhere else if you want to debate the reality of CC. You are now banned from this thread – weka]

The reality is that weka has an aversion to anyone debating her posts (and often her comments). She doesn’t want debate, she wants people to agree with her and to congratulate her insight.

Kelly-Ned ran some typical generalised anti-climate change lines, but they are common and they are not going to go away.

Banning any alternate views is going to please the converted at The Standard, but it is a poor way of dealing with the many questions that still should be asked about the complex issues involved with climate change.

Those like weka who try to shut down debate are not helping address the issues.

(There are various ways people on both extremes of climate change views try to shut down debate).

Changing Standard

 

There has been noticeable changes at The Standard over the last few months. More rigid moderation has resulted in long time regulars being banned, and there has been a marked change in volume and nature of comments.

One of The Standard’s most prolific commenters, Colonial Viper, caused some controversy and last year was banned for several months. He returned to commenting yesterday, but didn’t survive for long.

Colonial Viper3.5.1.1.1

Hey always happy to argue my points hard out over a beer, but last time I was banned for a month for referring to what official exit polls said about demographics voting Trump.

So why bother.

[That’s not why you were banned. You were banned for making assertions as fact and not backing them up, and that specifically being a pattern of behaviour considered trolling. Here you are misleading about why you were banned. I can’t see any point waiting for yet another series of demonstrations of the patterns of behaviour that have led to multiple bans in the past, so I will just do it now. Banned until a month after the election. – weka]

That’s removed another dissenting voice for the election campaign. CV is wacky agt times, but he is prepared to challenge group think, something the new Standard seems to want to avoid. Ironically this happened on the 1984 post.

There were mixed reactions:

adam

I’m liking the new hard nosed weka.

To many people have spun shit about her point of view, they deserve what they get for misrepresenting her.

As we all should cop, if we tell porkies about the authors.

The authors offer enough reminders not to do it. Yet, people still do it.

Galeandra

Well you can carry on liking her on your own. I’m off again.

Weka banned me when she didn’t like her arguments challenged recently.

She was busy yesterday – also:

Peter Swift

Of course you are my bro, I’m inclusive. We’re all in this together, man, and like it or not, we are the BROtherhood of man.

Best stick that faux race outrage, I’ve lost the argument so will play a race card, back in it’s very naughty box where it truly belongs. :tut tut: 🙄

[ok, you’re out until Monday. Pattern of behaviour that is flaming, and you’ve been warned 10 mins ago and you still do it, so wasting mod time too – weka]

[just seen your response in the backend. You still don’t understand why you were moderated, so here it is again. You were banned for flaming, ignoring moderation, and wasting moderator time. If you don’t understand what flaming is, ask. That ban is now extended out to 1 month for ignoring moderation, wasting moderator time, and attacking an author. Expect moderations from now on to at least double but some will just go to past the election if you do something really stupid – weka]

Tim

The most reasonable commentator gets suspended because someone said the word ‘bigotry’… Your position is truly weak, weka.

[Peter got a short ban for blatantly ignoring moderation, and for flaming. Flaming is about behaviour. In moderation we are looking at patterns of behaviour that cause trouble for the site and increase work for the moderators. It rarely has anything to do with the content. Peter already has a history of this, which you are probably unaware of but the moderators are. Marty and adam were both warned as well and chose to tone down the flaming. I would have banned either of them similarly if they hadn’t.

Speaking of patterns of behaviour, and looking at your comments in general, I’ll let you know a couple of things. One is that I personally have a low tolerance for having my views misrepresented. People can disagree with me and they can go hard against my arguments, but when they start misusing my beliefs either against me or to further their own argument, then I will moderate. One of the reasons is that it’s hard enough being an author here without being attacked. The other is that I write to generate discussion, and if people choose to abuse or attack rather than debate then they need to go somewhere else.

You can count this as a warning. We obviously disagree politically, which is fine. But in addition to that you are stepping over a line that will result in a ban if you keep it up. Don’t make shit up about moderation (wasting moderator time is one of the quicker ways to get a ban), don’t attack authors, don’t misrepresent the views of authors. Pretty simple. – weka]

Weka does write to generate discussion, her Kaupapa Pākehā was good, but she also often puts strict boundaries on what can be discussed, and tends to ban when losing an argument (claiming things like ‘misrepresentation’, something she has done herself).

She is easier on some regulars, like:

bwaghorn14

”It looks like Labour are willing to bash those they see as being in their way politically”
it would appear you as a card carrying greeny are willing to bash labour when it suits weka

[ok, I’m torn between giving you a warning over stupid shit that’s against the rules (having a go at an author over perceived party politics), and asking you wtf you are on about. I’ll go with the latter. Please do explain what me being a GP member has to do with the post or what I said in it. I’m really curious what possible motivation I could have as GP member for apparently bashing Labour. – weka]

She uses her role as moderator to wield a stick in discussions:

Nope14.3.1.2

You can’t pretend your Green Party allegiance doesn’t influence your frequent attacks on Labour and Little.

Everyone has a political bias, and party membership and allegiance is a huge contributor.

I had hoped the MOU would give greenies a sense that there was one way to change the govt, and that was backing Labour and the Greens. Support for any other party that won’t commit to changing the govt just makes it less likely this will happen.

[“You can’t pretend your Green Party allegiance doesn’t influence your frequent attacks on Labour and Little.”

So much on one little sentence. I don’t have an allegiance to the GP. I vote for them and I am a member and I support many but not all of their policies, but if they had done what Little did I would be criticising them too. I don’t have to pretend anything. I like Little (that’s on record), I want Labour to do well, I want the Greens to do better, I want the govt to change. You and I disagree on how that might happen and what the best strategy is, that’s fine, make those arguments, but stop making shit up about me.

You will now provide 5 examples of my writing posts that attack Labour and Little in the past 3 months, or some other reasonable example of ‘frequent’ and ‘attack’. If you can’t/won’t do that, you have two choices. You can withdraw that comment and apologise, or you can have a ban. I’m putting you into premod until you answer. If I don’t see anything I will eventually ban just to tidy this up. I suggest you read the Policy and About and that you start paying attention to what is being said in moderation bold across threads so that you learn where the boundaries are.

You seem new here and look like you are bringing good commentary, so I’m cutting you some slack, but you need to understand that commenters are expendable and authors aren’t. Stop attacking authors, and debate the politics and points instead. If you don’t understand anything I’ve just said, ask for clarification. – weka]

These changes in moderation have generated quite a bit of comment. Violet:

Violet 2.1.1.1.1

We all know, that in little NZ, blogs like TS are often referred to. We also know that one of the biggest arguments against the left in NZ is that they fight amongst themselves constantly, and therefore are not capable of governing the country. The constant criticism of Labour here over the last few months, feeds directly into that view. And yes, I know this not a Labour blog, that is really not the point.

And as a reader for many years, I am sure this has been a relatively recent change. In the past, I have come to this blog to read a practical opposition to the government from a practical left wing perspective. Of late, it seems to be more often a fanciful view of what politics could be if everyone behaved in a way that is so far from practical reality.

I am so disappointed that this blog has turned this way over the last few months. What we need now, is strong support for a change in government at the next elections. And no, that doesn’t mean no criticism of Labour. But the reality is, like it or not, Labour doing well in the upcoming election is crucial for a change in government.

There is discussion on that, mainly from Weka, who continues here:

.weka 10

Violet, from here https://thestandard.org.nz/kaupapa-pakeha/#comment-1302361

A couple of points. One is that the Labour-bashing was going on for most of last year. I spoke against it quite a few times. I’ve even written a post about that that I haven’t published yet. It’s been delayed because of the US election mess here last year, and then more recently because of all the hooha over WJ (I had it loaded and just about ready to go). So whatever changes have happened in the past few months that you are seeing, Labour-bashing is not new here.

A large part of that was the fact that an author and prolific commenter had a lot of leeway here last year to Labour-bash. He’s not here now as an author and hasn’t been here as a commenter for much of the past few months either.

I”ve just had a look through the posts tagged Labour, and apart from the Kaupapa Pākehā one and the Poto Williams one, there aren’t really any ones that are that critical of Labour. Back in early Dec there were some but they weren’t critical of Labour so much as responding to criticism.

I”m not saying your perceptions are wrong, but that unless you can be specific they’re not that helpful in understanding what you mean or looking at what needs to change. I really like it when people talk about what works here and what doesn’t, so have it. I’d just ask that you give examples so we can know what you are referring to.

Long time commenter Anne:

Anne11

I am so disappointed that this blog has turned this way over the last few months. What we need now, is strong support for a change in government at the next elections. And no, that doesn’t mean no criticism of Labour. But the reality is, like it or not, Labour doing well in the upcoming election is crucial for a change in government.

My sentiments too Violet. Thank-you for expressing them so well. I have yet to figure out what exactly has happened to TS over the past few months, but there is a sense of intolerance and a lack of respect towards points of view that don’t always fit nicely with what the majority are saying on this site. I say that with some reservation because it only applies to a relatively few number of commenters who happen to be more prolific contributors, and by no means are all of them are at fault. However if it continues, it will start to turn people off coming here.

[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

Weka herself posted several comments that were “off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in”. This double standard is effectively a warning to be careful what ones says, and where they say it.

Moderating is a difficult and thankless task. Every site has a right to do things as they want to. There’s no doubt that Weka’s interventions are having a marked effect at The Standard, for better and worse.

I’ve always had differences with the Standard on their moderation, but the bans and the need to tip toe knowing a moderator is hovering changes the nature and the value of discussions. It looks like this will become more of a thing as election year progresses.

Colonial Viper has been a Labour candidate (Clutha-Southland, 2011) and has since clashed in the party (in particular with Claire Curran in Dunedin South). He added a lot to The Standard (not to everyone’s liking) so his absence makes a difference.

The biggest difference is that even Labour supporters and members are now not necessarily safe to comment as they please there. Or at all. Earlier this week:

trpthestandard

So TRP can author posts but not comment on them?

That continued with CV joining in, click on this to see the thread:

 

On promoting and excusing political violence

Kevin posted this comment: “Usually I’m just taking the mickey with these things but in this case there’s serious underling themes of what is violence, is it ever justified and when, etc, so could make a good thread. And to be honest I find the thread a little bit on the scary side.”

Referring to this post be ‘weka’ at The Standard: Punching Nazis, and practicing resistance

I’ve been sitting for a few days trying to figure out what I think about punching Nazis and applauding punching Nazis, as a form of resistance. The act spoke for itself in obvious ways, and yet the glee with which the anti-fascists danced around the internet putting the video to song left me discomforted, as did the inevitable stand-off between liberals and radicals about what’s ok.

In comments Marty Mars:

If you don’t punch them they think they are allowed to do what they want including punching others.

because of all that I say punch a nazi every time

Weka:

I agree with much of that, and I can’t say I have too much of a problem with the original punch.

That some people accept, excuse  and promote physical violence against people with different political views is a concern in the New Zealand context.

McFlock:

I tend to follow the rule of thumb that sometimes, some people need to be punched – but it is never a good thing.

This is why I try to avoid socialising with tories: they might be all amiable and good company, then they tend to say or do something that makes my fists itch.

Nazis are easy to justify punching, like paedophiles. I won’t be overly sad if Rolf Harris gets thumped in prison, for example.

The trouble is that if you don’t have a pretty firm line about where and when and on whom thumping is justifiable, you end up on a slippery slope.

The interesting argument is the dividing line between “someone who disagrees with you politically” and “oh hell, no, thump that guy”. In the case of nazis it’s important to not normalise their existence. So yeah, disrupt their interviews. If that doesn’t work, hit them. And the more political power they gain despite those actions, escalate it again. Because as they’ve shown, as soon as they get a legitimate toehold they’ll expand their campaign of hate.

Yes, that’s me advocating intolerance to the point of violence. The difference is that I’m intolerant to nazi-style organisations, because they’re intolerant of every other group in society. Not one or two groups that are particularly vile, everyone. That’s pretty much what makes them nazis. They glory in violence against inferiors, and see themselves as superior to everyone else (well, overcompensate much, anyway).

Weka:

Spot on McFlock. I love it when someone else does all the thinking and then encapsulates it so I don’t have to. Thanks for that 😎

I would probably separate out paedophiles from Nazis, although that’s a different conversation I think.

But as McFlock pointed out, if you start trying to decide which political views or social behaviour esxcuses violence or not it becomes a slippery slope.

Phil makes an important point:

My concern with this matter is a little more practical: what is the measurement standard for determining if one is or is not a Nazi?

Someone like Richard Spencer, with his truly vile and hateful views of race and ethnicity, would seem to exceed any reasonable metric of judging Nazi-ness and my initial gut reaction is that he deserves to be punched, repeatedly.

But, each of us is going to have a different standard for measuring Nazi-ness. Your own post hints at it by linking John Key and proto-facist. I’ve seen plenty of people on here, and other blogs, suggest everyone from John Key and Helen Clark, to George Bush and Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and Tony Blair and Nigel Farage are Nazi’s.

I have serious concerns that some deluded individual is going to think “I think Politician X is a Nazi, therefore it’s acceptable for me to punch, or shoot, or kill them” and that’s not a political opposition/resistance we should be encouraging in any way at all.

And then in comes Sanctuary:

Waaaaaaayyyy to much over-analysis going on here. The neo-fascist got clocked on camera. Good job.

And:

Jesus, what a bunch of namby pambies! You all sound like the giddy heights of resistance for you is pointedly refusing a second biscuit from a conservative vicar.

Now look here. Right wing violence in the form of cruel infliction of poverty or the humiliation of having to grovel for a dime happens all the time. These right wing neo-fascist types are not playing at politics, unlike the completely useless bunch of pearl clutching pacifists here. Those assholes wouldn’t think twice about stomach punching your granny, or slashing her pension to nothing. I would happily scone any one of them on the noggin with a baseball bat. Assholes deserve it.

Weka responded:

What are you on about? There’s 2 people in this thread who I would consider leftish, that have said it’s wrong to punch people, and 3 RWers. Everyone else is saying there’s a context and are talking about that. Hardly a bunch of namby pamby pacifists. I wonder if you are bothering to even read what people write, or the pos, let alone think about it.

Her response is a bit bizarre, and notably doesn’t oppose the violent suggestions.

I guess it’s ok to raise discussions about whether political violence is acceptable or ever justifiable, but I would have liked to see condemnation of it from a blog moderator who warns and bans people for very trivial things.

I find  labeling people left or right or Nazi or fascist in the context of making reasons and excuses for violence, especially in a politically benign New Zealand context, more than a bit disturbing.

Violence on political or religious or ethnic or just about any grounds, especially initiating it, should simply be condemned.

Civil war at The Standard

There has been a civil war amongst authors at The Standard today, escalating to the extent that one moderator has banned another – which is kind of funny to me because both of them were happy to have me banned a week ago for doing nothing but participating civilly.

Censorship on ideological grounds and on personal grounds has been common as long as I have been a Standard watcher but I’ve never seen then turn on each other like this before.

Colonial Viper has been ruffling a few feathers there for a while, especially with his pro-Trump, anti-Clinton stances, and that seems to have got a bit too much for some on top of Trump’s win.

I’m not quite sure how it all came about today but weka’s feathers have waggled more draconially than usual, slapping a ban on fellow author and moderator Te Reo Putake after he clashed with her over a post of his that weka deleted.

It seems to have blown up from about here and went on to:

Te reo putake:

Thanks for destroying the post forever, chief censor weka. TS readers should not have filth like that put in front of them. And on a political blog, too!

What’s the world coming to when sensible right wing posts about why President Pussy is Really a Good Thing can’t be published on a left wing blog without being attacked satirically? I feeling faint just contemplating the horror of it all.

Better to burn a billion books than let people make up their own mind. Better to shoot a few cartoonists than let people smirk at the pompous and the precious having their vanities pricked in print.

Yes, there are some posts that are too tricky for the likes of TS readers. Sadly, there are a few of us who are sufficiently sophisticated to make the big calls. You’re doing wonderful work, weka. Pip pip!

[you are welcome TRP. But seeing as how you have brought this to the front end, let’s just be clear about what has happened today. There are now 6 authors in the back end who are in general agreement that both yourself and CV have been causing serious problems for the site over a long period of time and that something needed to be done about that. At this stage I will leave it to Lynn to explain what action has been taken if he wants to.

I didn’t censor your post, and I didn’t destroy the post forever. I removed the post off the front page until such time as the authors could decide if it was going to cause further problems. A copy of the post was and still is available. No-one thought that post should be published, that’s why it hasn’t been.

Please don’t tell lies about me again, it’s against the site rules to do so. Given that I started the day wanting to write a post about the quake and one about the deep sea oil exploration off the East Coast that is happening as we speak, and instead spent the afternoon running round putting out fires you and CV had set, I’m in no mood to have my time further wasted. We can do better than this. Thanks – weka]

Stephanie Rodgers:

I deleted the most recent version you attempted to post, not weka.

CV’s behaviour has been dealt with through the appropriate channels, which you refuse to engage with. It did not need to have gasoline poured on it, which was the only thing your “satire” was going to achieve.

Te reo putake:

You removed the post. That’s censorship. I have never lied about you. Nobody asked you to censor the post. That was all your own work.

You’ve removed the only extant copy of the post, so for all practical purposes, you have destroyed it.

However, you say a copy exists. I’d like a copy of the post. Can you please email it to me? Thanks.

[I deleted the post after you reinstated it to the front page from its Private status, and I offered a copy of the post in the back end. Banned 2 months for telling further lies about me and wasting moderators time at a time when we have all got more than enough to deal with. I’m not going to hash this out in the front end any further, you still have access to the back end and the authors forum, so you can use that if you want to. – weka]

Lanthanide (who posted a link to an archive copy of the deleted post:

[deleted]

[Two month ban for such flagrant stupidity] – Bill

Te reo putake:

To avoid the wrath of Bill, readers might like to pop over to https://tereoputake.wordpress.com/ where the matter can be discussed without ban hammery consequences.

Cheers, y’all. The Standard is broken. But it can be fixed.

It looks like it could take a lot of fixing given how intent on message control and commenter banning some of those involved are.

Related post and comments: I’m a Muslim, an Immigrant and I voted Trump

Another related post: I’m a Racist, a Hater of Women and a Bigoted Troll. But I didn’t vote Trump. Here’s Why.

This is all quite a sad look for The Standard, but not really surprising considering how they have long established history of moderator supported censorship and personal attack against anyone deemed a risk to their comfy bubble.

If ‘NZ’s leading left blog’ can’t handle some discussion amongst themselves, let alone allowing the free flow of a wide variety of views and inputs, then the left in NZ will continue to find a way to lead.

It appears that Colonial Viper has been “demoted from being an author on this site now” – by the collective he used to be a part of.

Standard abuse, same old

Only at The Standard – yesterday I engaged in a bit of discussion (with a Standard moderator) there about the Roy Morgan poll, and OAB jumped in with a typical and deliberately disruptive attack, a game they play often.

One Anonymous Bloke 

🙄

Not fucking your pet goat would be a start.

I quoted site rules “What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate.”

That intolerance is very selective.

One Anonymous Bloke

Step away from the goat and pull your pants up.

It’s a metaphor for your relentless weasel negativity and rank nauseating hypocrisy.

Typical irony, given OAB’s record of weasel negativity and hypocrisy.

Then Weka stepped in as moderator and gave OAB some advice on being attacking better.

[I know you see yourself as the frontline rapid attack dog against the RW trolls, but when you start scaring away the cats who are here for the debate (or to play with the mouse), or when you are leaving your dogshit lying around, then there is a problem. You are quite capable of ripping apart RW arguments, so how about you put some effort in.]

And I was told off for responding…

[did you see the moderator warning to you yesterday? By all means engage in escalating a fight with OAB (or anyone) and see how I feel about wasting moderator time – weka]

..and got blamed for ‘escalating a fight’. So I replied:

Weka – I saw your ‘moderator warning’ and responded. So you are blaming me for “escalating a fight” because I pointed out the site rules you asked me to check out yesterday?

Are you suggesting that if attacked here people should do nothing about it?

“in escalating a fight with OAB”, warned about wasting moderator time “don’t escalate esp in ways that require moderators to spend their time sorting it out” and banned for a day. OAB was also banned for a day but had achieved their objective with weka’s support they have both openly discussed baiting and banning people they don’t like.

Te Reo Putake also tacitly endorsed OAB’s attacks and put the blame on me:

[Give it a rest, Pete. You’ve been around long enough to know you’re heading rapidly toward self martyrdom. No more, please. TRP]

And weka went further, banning me.

[no Pete, I’m saying don’t escalate esp in ways that require moderators to spend their time sorting it out. If you don’t know what that means then err on the side of caution. You can now take the rest of the day off – weka]

I thought The Standard may have improved a bit but this shows their selective moderation is as bad as ever – some of their moderators are a part of the game. They’re enforcing a ‘don’t complain about being harassed or we’ll ban you’ rule.

TRP is a Labour supporter, weka is a Green supporter. They seem to have a Memorandum of Understanding with OAB that personal attacks are moderator supported behaviour at The Standard, and if you react you will be blamed and may be banned.

This had followed me commenting the previous day on Labour’s conference and their use of social media. Again I had engaged in a discussion with a Standard moderator when weka stepped in.

[There seems to be an implication there that The Standard is connected to the Labour Party organisation. As you well know it’s not, and I don’t care what you now assert about your comment, the implication is still there. Given your substantial history of asserting that there is a connection, and your history of walking the edge of the commenting rules here, I’m going to err on the side of caution and make this a warning. Have a think about the site rules, including the bit about wasting moderator time. – weka]

I responded:

Weka – you are reading something into my comments that wasn’t there. There are usually posts here about Labour conferences so I thought there might be something here about it – as there later was.

There are often posts here about specific Labour Party matters, like conferences. Some of the authors and some of the regular commenters have obvious and open links to Labour. That doesn’t make this a Labour Party website, it’s not, but it’s well known as one with some Labour content. And Green content, and Mana content, and other content.

If a moderator chooses to waste their time they can pretty much pick on anything they like to warn or ban. That’s your call of course. To clarify, are you warning me to not mention Labour here in case someone interprets it as something more than it is?

After yesterday’s exchange weka came back to this:

[no, I’m suggesting you grow some social intelligence and understand that your long history here affects how people interpret your comments, including your history of implying and/or telling lies about the connections between the authors, the site and political parties. IME, you are an expert in riding the edge of the rules to avoid bans but still manage to substantially disrupt the community. But thanks for pointing me back to this from the other thread, more than happy to moderate on the basis of self-martydom so I don’t have to deal with this shit for another week (and a day on top of the other ban) – weka].

Social intelligence – funny.

She accuses me of telling lies but makes things up. I don’t intend to ‘disrupt the community’. There is a history of ‘the community’ – of which weka has been a prominent player – creating disruptions as an excuse to give moderators an excuse to ‘waste their time’ so they can justify a ban. She’s a bit vague but that looks like an extended ban.

Petty and pathetic but that’s how some of them keep playing  it. And the credibility of The Standard as a serious political forum suffers, as does the credibility of the parties associated with those nasty and exclusionary practices.

Standard practice at The Standard.

I think that the bans are, in part at least, preventing any defence of their attacks. Weka is  making things up, and doesn’t have to courage to allow any challenges.

Standard gang bans CV 2/2

Yesterday Colonial Viper was singled out by  Standard moderator TRP to comply with ‘;site rules’ despite them often being ignored by regulars – see Colonial Viper’s “extreme right wing views” 1/2.

Tensions must have risen there later in the day. Apparently a pro-Trump post by CV has been deleted, and there is a claim on Clinton vs Trump: Debate 3 that “much of the thread has been removed”. And on that thread CV has been banned.

Leading up to it:

Colonial Viper 27.3

Hey Sabine, the US kept selling arms and Treasuries to Saudi Arabia during the Obama/Hillary Clinton years, and is providing military support in their war against Yemen. What’s the Saudi record on abortions and the treatment of women?

Sabine 27.3.1

Go away Colonial Viper.

go the fuck away. Go have your Donald Fucking Trump make America Great again just like Hitler made Germany great for a while.

In the name of all those that perished during the great fucking time of the third reich Fuck off.

In my books you are useless, you serve no purpose, you have no champion and that is why you want to see the world burn.

And just for what its fucking worth, the US American Women and girl have as much value as any other Women and Girl on this planet.

Fuck off.

Only a select few get away with that sort of attacking at The Standard. It is somehow seen as acceptable but expressing a different opinion is ‘bad behaviour’.

marty mars 27.3.1.1

+ 1 well said – Kia kaha

rhinocrates 27.3.1.1.1

Exactly. Don’t play his game. Call him out on his trolling and derailing.

weka 27.3.1.1.1.2

+1, 2, 3

Great response Sabine.

Some of the usual mob joins in.

Colonial Viper 27.3.1.2

Do you think Clinton will return the tens of millions of dollars that horribly misogynistic women stoning Gulf States like Saudi Arabia have donated to the Clintons (like Trump suggested), or will she keep all that money?

weka 27.3.1.2.1

Go the fuck away, man who supports and promotes a sexual predator and rapist into a place of power and then tries to make out he cares about women being abused in other places so that he can score political points.

Your constant derails are really, really obvious, CV. You have no answer for the fact that your preferred candidate is a vicious bully, a sexual predator, a liar, and an unrepentant misogynist.

Literally no one is saying, “Hillary is the best person in the whole wide world and has no flaws.”

But on the issue of protecting the rights of women, there is absolutely no fucking contest between Clinton and Trump.

Stop exploiting other women as meat shields to deflect attention away from that fact. You’re just making it more and more clear that fundamentally, your problem with Hillary Clinton stems from her gender.

Someone dared defend:

fender27.3.1.4

That’s just nasty abuse. CV may have been a loud Trumpet lately but he doesn’t deserve that.

But

weka 27.3.1.4.1

He’s trolling, repeatedly. And his politics are vile. I’m not talking about him thinking Trump should be president, I’m talking about the weeks of rape apology, support for fascism and oppression and then misusing women’s pain to score political points as he has just done in this subthread. If any RWer was doing this people would be all over them with far worse.

At some time during that CV copped his ban (that isn’t time stamped):

Colonial Viper 23.2.1.2.1

The Clintons and their big money donors use exactly the same tax write offs available in law as Trump’s companies do. They’re such hypocrites.

[No they don’t. Different parts of the US tax code as has previously been pointed out.

CV, you were asked to substantiate some other bit of bullshit earlier today and you ignored the request. The policy around responding to requests for cites was pointed out to you as was the section covering trolling. However, you seem relentlessly intent on posting provocative bullshit as often as possible, presumably to troll and start flame wars.

You posted earlier today that Hitler made Germany great again, which is either a sad admission of how far you’ve fallen or the most epic bit of trolling seen here at TS for yonks. Either way, it’s offensive, deliberately provocative and not conducive to civilised discourse.

Trolling, ignoring moderation, starting flame wars, wasting mod time. Lets call it a week. Come back next Friday. TRP]

That’s what can happen if you challenge Standard group think and dare to raise controversial issues.

Some discussion followed, which included some defence of CV.

In Vino23.2.1.2.1.4

TRP – he said Hitler BRIEFLY made Germany great again. I suggest you go look at a map of who held what in Europe in 1942, and see if CV was right.

There is nothing offensive about this, except in your eyes for some obscure reason. CV did not directly praise Hitler – yet you leap eagerly to the conclusion that he did so.

An impartial moderator should be impartial. You appear to have lost the ability to be dispassionate.

[CV didn’t get banned for a single instance. It was multiple issues, and he had already been warned about them. That is clear in the moderator’s note, please reread it – weka]

In Vino

Sorry Weka, but much of the thread has been removed, and in the note you refer me to, which, conveniently, is the only one left on the thread, TRP still makes this unjustified assertion:

“You posted earlier today that Hitler made Germany great again, which is either a sad admission of how far you’ve fallen or the most epic bit of trolling seen here at TS for yonks. Either way, it’s offensive, deliberately provocative and not conducive to civilised discourse.”

CV’s word ‘briefly’ is omitted. I hold that entire assertion in contempt, regardless of whether it has been uttered by a moderator.

Of course TRP won’t be required to retract and apologise.

weka

I’m not sure if anything has been removed. Most of the moderation before the ban happened in the Daily US discussion thread.

https://thestandard.org.nz/the-us-election-daily-discussion-post-2/

If you can be more specific about deletions please do so.

Irrespective of what one might think about TRP’s moderation style (and I have my own reservations), CV has been causing a problem, and IMO it was only a matter of time until he got a ban. He’s had one before for similar behaviour (in the winter?). I agree the omission of the word ‘briefly’ misrepresents what CV said and was a mistake for the moderator to say that. However even if a moderator got that one paragraph wrong, there are still enough other reasons to issue a ban.

Commenters pointing out mistakes is useful IMO, thanks for that. I disagree with your assessment of the overall issue with CV. As bad as his politics are to many, it’s his behaviour that has copped him the ban (IMO).

I have seen some fairly bad behaviour given a free pass over the years at The Standard, including from Weka and TRP. Especially when getting into mob attacks and trying to exclude views they want to gag. They and others have blatantly broken their own rules.

Bizarrely I was brought into the conversation.

rhinocrates

Nope, I’m not playing. Your trouble is that like your idol saying “Nobody respects women more than me”, you don’t make a very convincing feminist. The insincerity sticks out enough to be a hazard to aviation.

People see what you’re saying as trolling and deliberate distraction from the actual point that anyone’s trying to make.

You’re not actually trying to have an honest discussion, you just want to continue your narcissistic and spiteful little martyr’s game. Pete George lives in Dunedin. Call him and the two of you can have a pity party together. Take lots of chocolate.

weka

I was just thinking about PG and what happened when it got to this point with him as a troll and someone who was damaging the community. Methinks it’s time to adopt the same response.

They still obsess about me and I rarely bother commenting there now.

It’s sadly ironic for Weka to say “a troll and someone who was damaging the community” given how much she has been involved in shutting out opinions she disagrees with. She has been a prominent part of the mob censorship that the Standard is well known for.

I only have to comment once there for “the community” to pile in and disrupt the thread, and then blame me for it. Much like CV has been blamed, shamed and banned for annoying the perpetually annoyed.

I see The Standard as a symptom of the intolerance of the left, Labour and the Greens to anyone deemed an enemy of their group think and therefore labelled extreme right. One of the few things I have in common with CV politically, condemned and labelled because we express views beyond their narrow and bitter alleyway.

While the mob rules at The Standard they will fly a flag of discontent, intolerance and abusiveness.

A late comment:

weka

“When CV makes comment on social policy, I see them as left wing, not extreme right.”

His views on identity politics, and rape and rape culture suggest is he alt-right. His views on Trump suggest he is in some weird no-mans land, but I definitely wouldn’t call it left wing. His views on the political spectrum in NZ suggest he is centrist (hence his praise of Peters). And yes, some of his views are left wing. I actually think it’s not possible to know what he thinks now, because his naked hatred of the left clouds most of the things he says. It’s not him challenging the centre-left, it’s him burning bridges with every natural ally he has who doesn’t see the world in the way he does.

The recent accusations of him being right wing are a lot to do with his promotion of Trump. As I’ve said, it’s possible to have a left wing analysis of the groups of people in the US who’ve been disenfranchised and thus vote Trump, but CV insists on throwing others under the bus as he tries to do that and he actively supports the right at times.

In case that’s not clear, there is the problem with his political shift in the past year, and then there is his behaviour. I think we’ve reached the point of intolerance for both because of how they intersect.

“We’ve reached the point of intolerance” may be telling.

Colonial Viper’s “extreme right wing views” 1/2

Colonial Viper has been one of the most frequent and prolific commenters at The Standard for as long as I have been observing there. He has been quite provocative at times and has ruffled feathers often. Alternative views are often dumped on there.

Yesterday he was accused of having “extreme right wing views” and ended up copping a ban. He has been an author at The Standard but either may not have had moderation rights, or never exercised them. Regardless, he has been dumped on then dumped.

I have met CV once, during the 2011 election when he stood for Labour in Clutha. He seemed nice enough and was easy to talk to. Our political views are quite different but he has seemed willing to debate on a wide range of issues – and that is something that ‘The Standard’ has often been uncomfortable with from what I have seen.

CV has been annoying a few of the Standardistas lately due to his support of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. He has been more of a Sanders fan, but Bernie is now out of the running.

CV has strongly condemned Clinton on a range of issues – there is quite a lot that Clinton can be justifiably criticised for. But this and CV’s preference for Trump as the least worst candidate blew up at The Standard yesterday, with moderators Te Reo Putake (TRP) and Weka dumping on CV and ending up banning him.

Apparently a post by CV has been deleted, as have a number of comments. As far as i can see this is where it started.

Colonial Viper 6

Scott Adams: People who believe Trump is the new Hitler, have fallen for a Mass Delusion

Here’s a little thought experiment for you:

If a friend said he could see a pink elephant in the room, standing right in front of you, but you don’t see it, which one of you is hallucinating?

Answer: The one who sees the pink elephant is hallucinating.

Let’s try another one.

If a friend tells you that you were both abducted by aliens last night but for some reason only he remembers it, which one of you hallucinated?

Answer: The one who saw the aliens is hallucinating.

Now let’s add some participants and try another one.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152024526021/i-wake-you-up-for-the-presidential-debate

TheExtremist 6.3

Your other buddy in the Philippines is the one who likes to compare himself to Hitler

Colonial Viper 6.3.1

You still pushing for regime change in the Philippines? You should look up how many people the US sponsored Marcos got rid of during his term in power. And stop being so gullible to the corporate/imperial MSM.

TheExtremist 6.3.1.1

Yesterday I told you “no” when you asked if I supported regime change in the Philippines yet today here you are lying through your fucking teeth about what I said.

As to me “being so gullible to the corporate/imperial MSM” it was fucking Duterte himself, in his own words, that compared himself to Hitler.

So in one comment you flat out lied followed by smearing me as gullible for reporting on what someone actually said.

Can a mod please reign CV’s lies in? Isn’t flat out lying about someones POV, when they know they are lying, against policy somehow?

[It’s reasonable for a commenter to be asked to substantiate a claim. In this case, CV should do so or withdraw and apologise. TRP]

It’s not common for Standard commenters, especially regulars, to be asked to ‘withdraw and apologise’.

Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1.1

Oh, so now you now finally accept that Duterte is the legitimate and democratically elected head of the Philippines Government?

Good to hear. Last thing we need is the US starting destabilising regime change/colour revolution operations in the Asia Pacific.

TheExtremist 6.3.1.1.1.1

Please point to any comment where I a) supported regime change in the Philippines and B) refused to accept Duterte is the legitimate and democratically elected head of the Philippines Government.

It was only yesterday in a single place where I discussed Duterte so it should be easy for you. If you can’t you should withdraw. Otherwise you are just a liar.

(EDIT: Thanks TRP for the above)

Colonial Viper

I apologise and withdraw my comment – but believe that TheExtremist should also withdraw his BS about Duterte being my “buddy” unless he can substantiate some kind of friendship between Duterte and myself.

[Cheers, CV. Appreciated. I think it’s obvious that the friendship line is hyperbole rather than a claim of fact. Given that you’ve just stated your belief that Hitler made Germany great again, there’s probably no way you can be slandered now anyway 😉 TRP.]

TheExtremist

Now you’re just being silly.

Colonial Viper

Just as long as you are seen to be applying your rules equally to everyone TRP…

[Quite. But then, they aren’t my rules, they are the site rules. And your regular ad homs and unsubstantiated claims need to be seen in the light of some the first words in the Policy:

But TRP and others at The Standard have a long record of not applying ‘the site rules’ evenly. A few regulars there get away with break the rules frequently without repercussion.

The rules tend to be applied to remove opinions that challenge or oppose their group speak. And the rules are ignored when resident trolls try to abuse, discredit and drive away opinions and people that are deemed to be unwelcome.

“What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate.”

You are generously tolerated here, despite your extreme right wing views, but that doesn’t mean you have carte blanche to abuse the rules or, indeed, other commenters. TRP]

Labour people like Andrew Little and TRP seem to have something in common – if they disagree with people, especially ex-Labour party members and supporters, they label them things like “extreme right wing“. From what I have seen in general CV is far from extreme right wing, in fact he is closer to the opposite.

 

Learning to work together is important

Learning to work together is as important as changing the Government according to Weka, a long time prominent commenter at The Standard, who has become an author there and has posted “Our Plan to Change the Government”.

Weka’s comments on her own post give some insight into the perceptions of at least one Green supporter on what the Labour-Green Memorandum of Understanding is about.

  • “We do have to learn how to work together even where we disagree. To my mind that’s as important as the overt purpose of changing the govt.”
  • “…presenting Labour and the Greens as competent enough to manage the country”
  • “It’s not a coalition agreement. “
  • It’s about working together in a new way (this hasn’t happened in NZ for decades) to
    (a) keep the focus on how badly things have gone for NZ with this particular govt, and
    (b) present an alternative
  • “The MOU/co-operation is to change the government.”
  • “The Greens have always been about getting us to do politics differently. This is what the relationship with Labour is about.”

Getting Labour to do things differently may be more ambitious and more difficult than changing the Government.

Greens will be hoping Labour does things differently in coalition negotiations and don’t spurn Greens and turn to NZ First like they did in 2005. In three terms in Government Labour have never included Greens in a coalition agreement.

Weka 1.1.2

“Will for instance Andrew Little announce that the Labour Party will drop their support for deep sea oil drilling and other unconventional extreme fossil fuel technologies like fracking?
Which are a major stumbling block preventing a strategic alliance between the Labour Party and the Green Party.”

This isn’t a coalition deal. It’s an agreement to work together to over the next 18 months to change the govt. Election campaigning, and coalition deals will happen at the election time. I agree the issues you raise are very important, but I would ask you to consider this. How could the Labour party as a whole adopt Green policy across the board? I just can’t see how it could happen, given the party is made up of members, activists, staff, MPs etc, who are overall environmentally more conservative than you and I. Do you suggest that Little impose policy on the party?

I don’t see any single policy as being a stumbling block preventing an alliance. What I expect from the Greens and hope from Labour is that they will develop a new way of working together and then forming a coalition govt, that isn’t centred on ideas around conflict and difference, but is instead focusses on co-operation and diversity.

Think party political intersectionality. We don’t have to agree on everything (or even everything major). We do have to learn how to work together even where we disagree. To my mind that’s as important as the overt purpose of changing the govt.

Weka 1.1.2.2.2

“The problem with that approach Weka is the Nats and the media will focus on those differences. Highlight them and say that is the reason why they will not be a stable government.”

Enough, I reckon National and the media will focus on whatever negative shit they can dream up no matter what L/G do, sot it’s kind of a moot point. Time to stop being afraid of Dirty Politics and media bias and do the right thing because it’s the right thing. L/G can still be canny, and I agree a strong counter is needed.

Truth and being real has its own power. I noticed Shaw made no bones of the fact that they are up against a formidable enemy in the NACT trashing machine.

Weka 5.1

tbh, I don’t think this is about getting votes (that will happen in the election campaign). I think it’s about spending the next 18 months changing the narrative and presenting alternatives to National.

One is presenting Labour and the Greens as competent enough to manage the country. Another is saying so many of us are angry about what has happened to NZ, here are some alternatives, we don’t just have to keep doing the same thing.

Weka 5.2.2.1

I think there is quite a bit of misunderstanding about what the MoU is. It’s not a coalition agreement. They’re saying that voters will decide and any coalition formation will happen after the election.The MoU is pretty clear what they will do between now and then.

I don’t read it as starting from scratch at the election because the whole point is relationship building and that will long outlive the piece of paper.

Weka 5.2.2.1.1.1

Peters might hold the balance of power, but Labour and the Greens still have choices in how they respond to that. Time to stop being beholden to the idea that Peters is in charge. It’s unhealthy.

Weka 6

Watching The Nation with Little and Turei. This is an important point. The MOU/co-operation is to change the government. Lisa Owen wants to know what the govt will look like, but it’s not possible to know that at this stage. What Labour and the GP can do right now, is campaign together to change the govt. That’s a vital act in and of itself. The voters will decide, and then the parties can get together and look at what the govt should be.

Trying to pin down Labour and the Greens to all the coalition detail now is old school, macho politics that doesn’t serve NZ. Yes, ask the questions, but be prepared for answers that don’t fit neatly into the box you have prepared. L/G don’t control NZF, nor each other, but are open to all of them being part of the change the govt strategy.

As a GP voter, I’m actually ok with Labour and the Greens working together now even if that doesn’t mean that the Greens end up in govt. I want the govt changed and I want the Greens to be a core part how that happens. And it would be a huge lost opportunity if the Greens weren’t in govt.

But we have to remember that we need change more than we need power. The Greens have always been about getting us to do politics differently. This is what the relationship with Labour is about.

Weka 8.2

“In my world (which admittedly isn’t a social democratic centred one) I thought opposition was always about changing the government.”

It’s not about changing the govt because they’re the opposition and that’s what they do. It’s about working together in a new way (this hasn’t happened in NZ for decades) to (a) keep the focus on how badly things have gone for NZ with this particular govt, and (b) present an alternative, not just any old opposition alternative, but one that will actively turn around all those things that people are so concerned about now.

For a country that has had no effective opposition/govt in waiting for 8 years, that is a significant thing.

Besides, campaigning on ‘we’re doing what we should be doing anyway’ doesn’t really engage the imagination does it 😉

(Note: Authoring is quite different to commenting on blogs, it involves quite different skills and a different approach. Typically authoring is more thoughtful and can be more balanced as a result. Commenters who become authors often also change their commenting style due to more thought and a higher level of exposure).