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.

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.


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

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.


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.]


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.


“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.


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.


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).

The Left: abusing and losing

People who are active in politics on the left continually seem baffled as to why their politics and their favoured parties aren’t much more popular – as they abuse, shout down and exclude anyone who they think doesn’t measure up to their ideals.

This was highlighted in a thread at The Standard in reaction to another poor poll result for Labour – Roy Morgan: NAT 48.5% (up 1.5%), LAB/GR 41.5% (unch):

B Waghorn:

I’m sorry but 48% of kiwis can get fucked , any country that accepts a pm that is as dirty as key and a party that re promotes a crook like Collins is not worthy of respect .

Labour desperately need a good chunk of that 48% to switch their support to them, but abuse like this is unlikely to help them achieve that. More likely the opposite.

Some on the left recognise their continuing abuse and lose problem – Colonial Viper responded:

The more the Political Left tell 48% of Kiwis that they can go get fucked, and particularly the majority of Kiwis in provincial/regional NZ (where National support tends to be very strong) to go get fucked, the more the Left is lost at sea.

Weka followed up with a play on voting numbers.

Hey people, it’s not 48% of Kiwis. It’s not even 48% of registered voters. Remember that National’s vote last time was 30% of eligible voters.

Today it’s 48% of people that were motivated to take part in the poll and who knew what they wanted to say. Did RM report the people who were undecided or told them to fuck off or were too busy/stressed to take part or couldn’t be bothered?

I don’t think we should give up on NZ just yet, and we need to be very careful to not buy into the narrative that nearly 50% of this country support Key, because it’s simply not true.

What the people who don’t vote (or respond to polls) think is unknown , and irrelevant in a democracy.

What Weka doesn’t do is apply the same reductions to other parties. If she wants to claim National only have 30% support to other parties then Labour would have 17% support and her favoured Greens 8%.

Colonial Viper:

Blaming the opposing team for your own series of losing performances is not going to get you any where.

Labour and the Greens continue to struggle to get anywhere.

And those active on the left of New Zealand politics, I guess in frustration at their lack of traction, lash out at anyone deemed to be not on their side. Which when you take into account the infighting on the left is the majority of potential voters.

Marty Mars shows that the problem is unlikely to go away:

nah cv – some may have given up but the rest of us haven’t and we will keep saying get fucked to the supporters of the disgusting and shameful key and we will do that until they pull the megaphone from our cold hands. That is commitment and integrity – not trying to play all sides, kowtowing in fear or pretend caring. The ONLY answer is commitment to our ideals, ethos and beliefs.

When your ideals and ethos means attacking and abusing anyone deemed to be an enemy (that is, most people).

While people like Marty Mars try to drag Labour to the far left and abuse anyone who they disagree with they will continue to lose their argument with the majority of New Zealanders.

Ngatimozart (typos edited):

You telling 48% of the electorate to Foxtrot Oscar just has alienated them and they will not forget it.

The big problem with the left is it believes that it knows better than the average voter and I saw that arrogance after the last election. Comments like “… the voters are idiots after we showed them all the reasons why …..”. “It’s the voters fault why we didn’t win especially after we showed them the proof from Snowden etc”.

I saw all that and similar as comments on blogs and social media. The message should be that it is your fault, not the voters, that you failed. Blaming the voters for your losing an election because they, the voter, was too dumb to get your message is the height of arrogance.

It is that and the fact that the Labour Party had forgotten its roots and the reason d’etre for its existence that has driven people away from it.

Now it is perceived as being run by special interest groups and has lost touch with reality.I for one would have to agree with that.

It and the left are no longer the political groupings that are for the common working bod. Now they are populated by yuppies and activists with their pet interests that do not necessarily reflect or represent the real world. That is what has driven myself and others away.

We are absolutely sick of the hate politics and negatively that has been emanating from the left for the last five or so years. All it does is belittle you individually and collectively driving away those swing voters in the centre who can make or break an election victory.

That’s my 1c worth.

I’ve seen many ex-Labour voters expressing similar views. More often than not they get criticised and abused and driven away.

Abusing is losing.

Standard of sick parrots

I posted yesterday about a sensible and thoughtful post at The Standard in which Incognito suggested…

…try a different viewpoint, look at things from a different angle, literally and figuratively. It doesn’t mean you must or will give up your perspective or your opinions even but I reckon you just might do that occasionally – would that be such a bad thing?

I don’t know if it was deliberate attempt at derailment but One Anonymous Bloke obliged with some typical irony.

My point is that if we do choose a point of view and get it out there the resulting discussion is a good way to inform our own opinions, given confirmation bias’ tendency to obscure.

So I’m not talking about science, you wanker. Nor do I live or work in an “ivory tower”, shit for brains. Now fuck off.

Weka said it was a “very good post” but she seems very confused. She claims to value diversity.

I wonder if the whole unity thing is part of an outdated dichotomy. Calls for unity seem to go hand in hand with accusations of betrayal or not behaving well enough for the cause (and thus creating disunity).

I tend to think that more than unity we need diversity, and that being able to have tolerance for diversity enables us to work together whether we all agree or are united or not. That’s one of the things you post speaks to for me, because that degree of tolerance, and respect, is dependent on us being willing and able to see other people’s point of views and value them even if we disagree.

But with Weka diversity and being willing and able to see other people’s points of views only goes so far (as far as people whose points of views she finds acceptable).

It bothers me because a big chunk of NZ people are conservatives and how can we have a progressive society if we perceive them as being evil? It also bothers me because it frames the problem as a progressive/conservative conflict and that’s not NZ’s problem (it probably is the US’s). NZ’s problem is that the conservatives have been hijacked by the neoliberals and National has been turned into a proto-fascist party.

So she wants diversity as long as it doesn’t include anyone deemed to be a neoliberal or associated with a proto-fascist National party.

I think we should be building relationships with conservatives, not the likes of Hooton or BM…

…or anyone else judged to be a neofascist or neoliberal (a label applied very liberally).

Alongside this at the Standard yesterday was another post that had a very different approach to incognito and was more along Weka’s lines – it was a guest post by McFlock, about identifying, labelling and repelling anyone judged to be promoting Dead Cats and Sick Parrots.

Tory spinners have a tactic called “the dead cat (h/t for the link to RedLogix). It’s a monumental derail of the nation-wide conversation as soon as your opponent shows signs of gaining momentum, especially if that momentum is largely on the back of a single issue.

The dead cat is, in its essence, a bullshit argument: the user doesn’t care whether the argument is true, false, or even relevant to the argument. The objective is to get people arguing about the cat, and if someone accuses the cat-thrower of being disingenuous then the next move is to complain about personal abuse.

A problem is that Standard regulars apply ‘Tory spinner’ labels very liberally and often inaccurately. People simply with different points of view or who challenge ‘acceptable’ opinions are often ostracised and accused. For example I’ve been accused of being a Crosby Textor agent.

Sick parrots are more subtle than dead cats. Passers-by might not know that this is the fiftieth variation on the same bullshit this week, so can’t understand why the recipient is getting shirty.

“More subtle” means that the Tory/RWNJ/Crosby Textor/Natzi labels can be applied to just about anyone deemed to be some sort of enemy to the cause.

So does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with dead cats and sick parrots? Otherwise I fear we’ll be stuck with each bullshitter until they jump the shark and pick up a ban.

How about start by not accusing every new commenter deemed to be suspicious of not being hard left of being a dead cat or a sick parrot?

In Standard language ‘bullshitter’ could mean anyone to be targeted to harass and drive away. And this is not uncommon there.

In comments McFlock expands:

But how sick is a parrot? Is it a type of parrot, or is it another type of bird? At face value, the parrot is reasonable, plausible and maybe even relevant. It’s only after you examine it that you realise that it is none of those things, that all someone did was cut and paste some bullshit.

So even people who may appear reasonable, plausible and relevant are put under the Standard microscope (or telescopic sights). And all it takes is for one regular to yell ‘Fire!” and that’s when the bullshit actually begins.

I just wanted to know people’s thoughts on how to deal with people who “debate” in bad faith. Going to guillotines seems just a bit… much.

At The Standard I’ve seen many accusations of debating in ‘bad faith’ that seem nothing more than an excuse to drive people away who are deemed to be some sort of enemy.

These are not weapons anyone should be using. It’s a perversion of democracy.

What we need are defences against those weapons, not expertise in using them.

What they need is expertise in identifying real enemies without labelling anyone with a different opinion or idea on a topic. And less paranoia about any new or different input being that of an armed enemy.

So, basically, the relevance of your comment is thinly based solely on a subjective assertion (Labour “kowtowing”) that would require an extensive off-topic argument to resolve. That’s the “sick” bit.

Of course, the “if Labour was authentic in expressing its original values” (as you see them) it would get elected routine is a constant hypothetical assertion by yourself. That’s the “parrot” bit.

So, take your sick parrot and fuck off. You’re obviously incapable of addressing the topic of the post. Go away.

That was directed at Colonial Viper, who stood as a candidate for Labour in 2011 but is seen as an enemy within – if there are no newbies to drive away they often resort to infighting.

‘Solutions’ include dumping suspect comments into a naughty corner or labelling unwelcome commenters – they tried that with me for a while. And Weka was amongst those leading that.

And Weka continues her confusion.

My experience from here and other online spaces that have debate culture is that mostly people just like the arguing. So the energy and momentum is going to be in the conversations that have that charge to them. Plus the entertainment factor. So the problem isn’t just the trolls, it’s the troll warriors as well.

Weka has been a prominent ‘troll warrior’ (aka resident troll) at The Standard.

However I have hung out in places with better debate culture than here, and that’s largely down to different moderation policy.


In terms of online behaviour, esp here in ts, I think one useful tactic is name the behaviour (without abuse or putting in your own hooks) and then move on. Don’t engage on their terms. Learning how to name the behaviour takes time. The not engaging is the harder thing to do, because sometimes you have to keep naming the behaviour. Not engaging on its own doesn’t work, not least because other people just keep engaging.

In naming the behaviour I think it’s important to be specific, and to resist the temptation to lump all annoying behaviour under the same banner (eg calling all derailments trolling).

Except that is exactly what happens at The Standard, often to new commenters. They are either accepted, or they are lumped under the enemy banner.

Having the term Sick Parrot is going to be a boon, and we’ll need time to establish what it means esp here on ts.

Why bother establishing ‘what it means here on ts’? It’s likely to be nothing more than a general pejorative applied liberally alongside troll, Tory, RWNJ, neoliberal. Or off topic.


Not a cat. Just completely off topic.
Make your comments relevant or fuck off, fizberto.

Well down the comment thread McFlock tries to explain.

OK, just for a couple of people yet to geta handle of these things:

A “dead cat” is not necessarily irrelevant, it’s outrageous. It’s not coming to a post about debating tactics and talking about how bad Labour is – that’s just irrelevant. A dead cat is where you don’t like the way the discussion is going, so you say something like “you sucked off a horse“.

A sick parrot looks like a plausible comment that strikes a blow for the person who presented it, but upon closer inspection and unpacking its relevance is at best tangential and its truth is unimportant. The key is that any refutation or discussion of the parrot necessarily diverts the discussion from the topic at hand. It’s also generally rewalking the same tired ground from previous discussions, and is generally unimaginative or unoriginal – but it requires legwork to disprove and debate.


Good explanation.

The sad thing is that it’s not uncommon to see dead cats and sick parrots from Standard regulars, but they seem to be acceptable as a way of attacking ‘enemies’. Uneven standards are the norm there.

That The Standard has a discussion like this that promotes labelling and ostracising without it being challenged to any degree is a said reflection on debate on the flag-bearer of labour-left discussion.

It suggests a Standard of sick parrots.

Weka and naming bullshit

One of the most irrelevant and stupidest references I’ve seen to me, seeming to imply I have ‘set up’ an abrasive thread on Open Mike at The Standard (I haven’t commented there for nine months).


FFS you lot, is it going to be like this all day? Really?


I called out abusive language directed at another member.

Public service innit?


Looks like you want to fight RWNJ and/or trolls rather than discuss politics. I think there are better ways to do that if you want it to also be a public service.

Perhaps Weka has changed her approach, she has been involved in a quite a bit of fighting over the years. Good on her if she has decided to try and promote less vitriolic discussions.

But her references to Right Wing Nut Jobs and trolls (typical tactic at The Standard to try and shut unwelcome visitors out of discussions) suggests she hasn’t changed much.

b waghorn:

I seem to remember it getting like this last year at about the same time, its caused by the lack of fresh meat to feed them.


It did seem like a bit of a feeding frenzy this morning.

Plus I suspect the sexual offending one is a set up. Cue post from Pete George saying that the standard supports child pornography watchers.

Having just frowned on the quality of discussion Weka suggests it was caused by a set up and implies it could have been me , and then makes a stupid suggestion, even by her standards.

I note that anyone deemed a RWNJ or troll by Standard vigilantes who  posted ‘the standard supports’ there risks being attacked, abused and threatened with a ban, but Weka seems exempt from moderation.

Later Weka said:

I don’t have a problem with calling out bullshit. It was more just that I came onto OM this morning and it was full of bickering. Naming bullshit is one thing, arguing about it endlessly is another. I know how easy it is to get sucked into that, do it myself, but it was just a bit much and I thought it might be good to name it and see if it changed.

At least she acknowledges “I know how easy it is to get sucked into that, do it myself”.

But things haven’t changed much when she tries to blame it on RWNJs and trolls and then dumps on me.

So I’m calling out her bullshit.

If she really wants a better way of doing things she could try apologising for making a shitty insinuation about me knowing that I have no right of reply at The Standard – I’m banned from naming their bullshit there.

Bradbury claims disputed – dirty politics?

The sun rose this morning and Martyn Bradbury made some claims about Labour and the Greens, and Greens and National, that have been disputed – some say he is wrong.

Bradbury has been promoting Labour and their conference over the weekend. Like co-Daily Blog stalwart Chris Trotter he seems to be manic depressive on politics.This was one of Bomber’s very enthusiastic phases, so much so that  Shayne McLean @NZGTMedia tweeted:

@BowalleyRoad meanwhile Martyn Bradbury looks like Labour has given him an Apple laptop to match the one Dot Com bought him

That refers to his of colluding with party operatives for money – is he being used by Labour in some sort of attempted ‘dirty politics’ two track strategy as described by Nicky Hager in his ‘Dirty Politics’ book? Chapter 1 The Rise of the Bloggers, Page 16:

The idea that Key, as party leader, would be presented as friendly and positive, while other people did the attacking.

Slater and Ansell understood this tactic because they had been working together closely on precisely this sort of arm’s length attack campaigning in the previous months.

Slater wrote back saying “If the Nats won’t attacj [Labour] then let us, but we need some cash to do so…I can put together a consortium of bloggers to attack…

Bradbury was posting conference reports on over the weekend. On Saturday he said:

Beyond all the nice words in public about the Greens and NZ First there are private mutterings. At this Conference, Labour were going to tell New Zealand who their preferred political partners would be so that there is no confusion about what form of coalition government could be formed post the election, but those plans of transparency were put on hold when the Greens and NZ First refused to agree to that announcement.

Inside NZ First, the Ron Mark faction who are closer to National than Labour don’t want to commit and within the Greens, James Shaw doesn’t want to lose the strategic edge he’s created by working with National.

In Notes on the Labour AGM Danyl at Dim-Post disputes this:

I don’t know about New Zealand First but I checked with the Greens and no such approach or proposal was made to them. I guess Labour are still seething about the Red Peak thing and prevailed upon Bomber to write this. It’s not true.

Danyl helped James Shaw in his campaign to become Green leader so I presume he has contacts high up in the Green Party.

Green supporter Weka also commented on Bradbury’s claims at The Standard:

There’s a few probems with that. One is that we only have Bradbury’s word that Labour had intended to make an announcement re coalition partners and that NZF and the GP refused. I’d like to see that corroborated somewhere else (Bradbury’s stance on the whole GP/National thing doesn’t make any sense, he also hasn’t backed up his claim and I think this makes him a biased and unreliable source on this issue).

If it is true, we’d also need to see the reasons that the GP refused, they might have been quite valid.

The other problem is that Bradbury is expressing opinion that Shaw can make the GP form a coalition with National, but it goes against all the evidence. Please have a look at my link above for an explanation of why it’s not Shaw’s choice, and how it would be extremely difficult for that to happen even if Shaw wanted it (which he doesn’t). It would require a nationwide change of stance amongst the membership including going through a remit process at least one AGM. Have a go at explaining how you think that might happen, because I can’t see it.

When you make factually incorrect assertions as you did with your first comment, you damage the left. What you said is almost word for word a right wing dirty politics meme aimed at undermining the GP and thus preventing a left wing govt. Is that what you want? If you can back up your statements, please do so, but I’m afraid ‘Bradbury said it’s true’ doesn’t count in this case.

And Joseph commented on The Daily Blog:

Highly unlikely, because the Greens public position is still to govern with Labour. This position was confirmed during the recent leadership contest where both Shaw and Hague said they did not support forming a govt with National. Someone spinning you, Martyn?


As I said on Martyn’s blog, I think it is flat out false that the Greens rebuffed Labour and he is being spun by someone. The Greens position is firmly to work with Labour to form a govt and James Shaw stated in the recent leadership campaign that he did not support forming a govt with National. He would not be leader now if he’d said otherwise. It is the Party that makes the decision on coalition choices and they are clear on this.

I can’t find any response from Bradbury on this. He has in his conference review Labour Party conference 2015 – winners and losers he has reiterated his claim of Greens working with National:

Identity Politics – the inability for identity politic activists to debate the issues in a way that doesn’t cause allies to become enemies and alienate the broader electorate has seen identity politics put on the naughty step for some time out.

It gives the Greens some room to move on those issues but that could also erode the strategic edge the Greens have by pretending to work with National.

He seems to be trying to shame the Greens into shunning any contact with National and devoting themselves to becoming an obedient add-on to Labour’s election ambitions.

Is Matt McCarten using Bradbury here?

After Bradbury’s over-enthusiastic (paid for) promotion of the Mana Party and then the Internet Party last term perhaps Labour should be very worried about his association with them.

Especially if he makes things up, or is a ‘dirty politics’ repeater of misinformation fed to him from within Labour.

Bradbury is a political mercenary (similar but different to Cameron Slater) but apparently is not yet recognised as potentially toxic to Labour.

Ironically one of his first conference tweets:

Which journalist will be the first to now misrepresent what Annette King said as a ‘sugar tax’

Has Bradbury misrepresented the Green’s relationship with Labour? If so did he dream up his claims or was he fed them? If he was fed them, by whom?

Political bias even in flag choices?

Surely only the politically paranoid could think of things like this.

This came up in a discussion about claimed political bias in media.

If any more proof is required of the slant to the right in nzs media just look how predominant the national blue is , hoskings radio adds are one example Is it driven by national or is it being done by a bunch of sycophantic creeps.?
Edit I just noticed the colour of seven sharp page at top of the post !!

The Seven Sharp colour scheme is blue but it looks nothing like National’s blue.

Have you seen the flag short list and how many have 2/3 National blue and 1/3 red?

Good grief. Apart from wondering why someone would think up political paranoia like that Weka is wrong. Look at the final forty flag choices.

FlagsFinal40The reason why blue is a common colour amongst them is because it’s the predominant colour of the current flag.

If anything the flag colours are biased against ACT and UF, I do’t see any of their yellow or magenta at all in the flags.

b waghorn

I hadn’t noticed a bias but it wouldn’t surprise me, I have thought that party colours should be avoided on the new flag if it happens (although it doesn’t leave much) and TV stations should definitely avoid them around news shows.

So the flag and media organisations should avoid any blue, red, green, black, yellow or magenta in case some tragics perceive some bias?

Can we please consider flag alternatives withoput having to appease every perception of colour/ethnicity/political/gender imbalance.

“Another coward fuckhead having a crack at Labour”

This illustrates a major problem that Labour and The Standard still have – anyone who criticises or disagrees gets abused.

Shane Le Brun has posted here on medical cannabis and has been a spolid and sensible promoter of something he believes in doing something about.

This is the opening thread on The Standard’s Open Mike today:

Shane Le Brun 

Looks like progress, smells like progress….
Perhaps Labour should develop a stronger stance (spine) on the issue?

  • Skinny 

    Get off the grass cobbah, why don’t you target your criticism at the current Government?

    I got a clear reminder the other night when I met a guy at a friend’s birthday party, he was nice enough, however I noticed he spoke in delayed mode, and kept forgetting what he was saying. Anyway an hour later he asked who wants a joint. I laughed as I thought that explains ‘everything.’

    • weka

      Skinny, Shane is talking about medicine not recreational drug use. Put your prejudices aside for a moment, eh?

      • Skinny

        OK far enough, however there are more pressing issues at this point in time for Labour than medical pot. Getting involved in a side issue when they have bigger fish to fry, like the effects of National sgning into the TPPA which will cost us more for some medicines. If Shane wants to draft a remit to go forward through the LP policy process I’m sure someone will table it.

        • weka

          Sorry, but you don’t get to decide the priorities of ill and disabled people.

          If Labour stand up re the TPP, that will be great too. But I’m sure that Labour can do more than one thing at a time.

          • Skinny

            Your not listening my feathered friend. Labour can ill afford to be bush whacked by a right-wing media who will turn things around on them. Like I say follow the policy process. All any MP can say is of their personal opinion till it goes through the policy process.

            • weka

              Listening, I heard you saying that this wasn’t a priority and that Labour had more important things to work on.

              I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people who are lobbying on important issues to expect parties in parliament to take them seriously, provided they can make a good case.

              • Skinny

                OK well Shane can excise his democratic rights and call on his local LP MP or the spokesperson for Health and canvas/lobby them, rather than taking pot shots by calling them spineless on the issue here. Kettle calling the pot black is hardly inspirational for his call. Quick to post then spineless silence.

                Just another coward fuckhead having a crack at Labour in my opinion.

Skinny is known to big note himself as being involved in Labour Party politics. This reaction isn’t very helpful to Labour.

(Weka is responding and challenging well although her Green Party also distance themselves from promoting medical cannabis).

Labour’s priority is to rebuild itself and present as a credible Government in waiting.

They have dumped a number of policies that they seem to think will hinder their progress, like Capital Gains Tax and Euthanasia. And they have distanced themselves from medical cannabis debate.

But, as they did with their Chinese surname strategy, they risk burning off pockets of potential support. They need to add support, not narrow it down. Or so I thought.

UPDATE: And now Te Reo Putake has warned Shane:

[This isn’t a Labour Party blog, Shane. Read the ‘about’ and don’t troll in the future. TRP]

That’s bollocks TRP, it’s little more than a threat from another Labour activist that criticism of Labour won’t be tolerated.

Shane didn’t associate Labour with The Standard at all, he commented about Labour at The Standard, something that TRP often does himself without warning himself.

What now for waitresses and waiters?

Now that John Key seems to have adequately dealt with his hair pulling embarrassment what now for the focus of the issue, the way waiting staff are treated by customers and by employers?

One waitress has spoken out, but in doing so she created a political shit fight. And she became the target of an offensive defense that tried to paint her as the problem, not the victim.

Sometimes amongst the noise and sheep herding there can be interesting discussions at The Standard.

Mandy Hager’s post Pull the other one… ponytails, minimisation and male privilege is worth reading as a fairly feminine perspective. Perhaps a bit too feminine good/masculine bad but she makes some points worth debating.

On this post is a good comment thread, started by Colonial Rawshark (who’s name is still promoting the hacking of political opponents but that’s another story).

So, after several days of ongoing disgust, outrage, screaming and shouting, what courageous and concrete steps has the Political Left proposed to empower vulnerable and poorly paid service employees and contractors who find themselves in bad work situations?

What gutsy legislation, regulation, unionisation and other changes with real teeth has the Left proposed to enable vulnerable workers to fight back hard against bad treatment by customers, employers and media organisations?

Indeed has there been anything more substantial and concrete than ‘that’s disgusting, disappointing and an indictment of entrenched male power and privilege in our society’? No?

The Left couldn’t even get its shit together in the first day or two after the original story broke to protect the young cafe worker in question. Pitiful.

And IMO it’s exactly why, despite all the quite legitimate anger and indignation expressed, the self proclaimed Left is increasingly irrelevant to voters.

Initially this was attacked in the usual way, albeit moderately to a long time Standard leftie.

Stephanie Rodgers tried to dictate what should be talked about, as she often does.

Speaking of “both obvious and unavoided”, congratulations on completely erasing the key aspect of gender from the issue. On a post about how this issue is explicitly gendered, even!

Why not get outraged about the Left failing to take concrete steps to overthrow male entitlement? What about empowering vulnerable women, wherever they work? (The Roger Sutton case rather aptly showed how sexual harassment in the workplace isn’t limited to cafes.)

But I guess that would be terrible, no-one-cares-about-your-side-issues identity politics, wouldn’t it?

And then there was a branch that attacked Colonial Rawshark for not doing enough about what he was talking about himself. A common ‘attack the messenger’ practice.

But then there was some actual addressing of the issues raised. Redlogix:

Well expressed CV. By allowing the debate to be solely framed in misogynist terms, the Right easily fences the issue off into the feminist ghetto of NZ politics.

Which is sad. It’s way more important than this.

I’ve read Mandy’s excellent OP several times now with care. It’s a powerful piece, it emphasises, not just the idiocy of the PM’s behaviour, but the sickening response of so many to not only minimise it, but to attack the victim as well.

And then like you I’m left wondering ‘what next’? Why is the Left so powerless to act? Why when even something as tiny as Cunliffe expressing shame as a man for the violence perpetrated on women – why was that so readily ridiculed and belittled?

When Mandy writes:

There are also the online comments, proof (as if we needed it) that there is a deep seething underbelly of misogyny out there – and that issues of appropriateness, sexual intimidation, abuse of power and minimization of women’s complaints are not only misunderstood but carry no weight at all to a significant proportion of our population.

I am quite certain this is a subjective truth and reality for Mandy, yet when you are effectively telling half the population that they ‘hate women’ – something has gone badly wrong. This is not a vote winner if nothing else.

After 40 or more years of feminism, why is there so much misunderstanding, suspicion, and downright loathing in some quarters, between the genders? As this incident and it’s attendant blowback has demonstrated – it doesn’t seem to have taken us anywhere constructive.

There’s a good discussion on that, but it includes more attacks and diversions:


“effectively telling half the population that they ‘hate women’ ”
Quite the contrary. I find the article to be one of the more empowering messages on this blog for sometime. Reminding all of us, regardless of gender, politics or circumstance, we are all responsible and necessary as part of the solution, every day

Marty mars:

sadly what tends to happen now imo is that the discussion will be moved, in oh so reasonable and soft tones, into the other areas – this is, imo, cv and reds way of showing they care about the issues raised in the post itself /sarc and of course they get to talk about themselves and their experience which is just so riveting and important /double sarc


Your attempt at silencing and shaming is disgusting.

You’re tactics are no different, and lower than those being used by the Henry’s and Hosking’s of this world.

It’s not often that the common attempts to shut up and shame get called, but as an author Redlogix can get away with it. But not without being challenged:

One Anonymous Bloke:

It’s the violence inherent in the system. You’re being oppressed!


No – marty was doing the derailing thing. Oppression is something altogether different.

But make a joke of it – have a bit of a ‘horse around’ if you like.

Marty mars:

untrue red – I posted a comment to another comment not to you or cv – I did that because I didn’t really want to engage and encourage you to begin the calm dissemination of what you think – I’m not interested, I’d rather hear and learn from women.


Marty was spot on in naming a dynamic that occurs here. Thanks btw for confirming it, by misusing Bailey’s experience of sexual harrassment by the PM as if that in any way has anything to do with marty commenting to you here. It’s inconceivable to me that you cannot see the power differences, so that just leaves your politics.

The shame is already on you for how you’ve brought yourself into this conversation in the way you often do. Marty just pointed it out.

One Anonymous Bloke, marty mars and weka are frequent members of the shut up and shame brigade.

Back to Colonial Rawshark’s first paragraph.

So, after several days of ongoing disgust, outrage, screaming and shouting, what courageous and concrete steps has the Political Left proposed to empower vulnerable and poorly paid service employees and contractors who find themselves in bad work situations?

The diversions, messenger attacking and shutting up has again prevailed (so far) as that remains unanswered.

It seems that waiters are frequently the target of poor customer behaviour.

Some on the right (it’s been rife at Kiwiblog) have tried to play this down by attacking and trying to discredit the waitress.

And some on the left have failed to address an important issue the hair puling raised.

Political activists are too active trying to wreck their opponents and too often fail to do anything practical to address the problems ordinary people, like waitresses, have to deal with day after day.

What now for waitresses and waiters?

UPDATE: another word from Colonial Rawshark:

My contention is that the Political Left has come forward with plenty of outrage and disgust, but it has not come forward with concrete proposals for change for empowering vulnerable workers victimised by customers or employers (regardless of whether that change is based on gender or on class).

And weka, one of the chief derailers of threads she doesn’t approve of, responded:

I’m sure it is CV. Pity you chose to bring it up in a way guaranteed to derail the thread and track it along the class politics vs gender politics path then.

I have no idea what you mean by the Political Left, but can only assume you are referring in part to authors and commenters here on ts. I’m seeing lots of activism and response to what has happened. Besides, I’m pretty sure that some legislation already exists to protect Bailey (and was ignored by the PM), and that the left wing parties already have policy that would give even more protection.


So take it to OM. This post and thread is about gender.

If the gender police speak then one mustn’t stray from their narrow path of discussion. How not to achieve anything outside one’s bubble.

Another promising discussion squashed. That has happened during the time I put this post together.

The Standard promotes proofless conspiracy

Joe Trinder claimed a bizarre conspiracy on Mana News, where he is editor. The site promotes John Minto and Hone Harawira, and it is also closely aligned to the Mana Party (Trinder was a Mana candidate last election).

ManaNewsHeadThe conspiracy is detail;ed in Trinder’s Key/Campbell conspiracy, which also shows Trinder’s response:

Mana News doesn’t have to substantiate our reveal it’s sources we don’t write balanced articles. We expose the national governments corruption the onus is on the media to do its job and prove us wrong.

This has been widely criticised, especially on the left. But some have chosen to support and promote this, like The Standard:

That has been posted under ‘Notices and Features’ – the author who put that up chose not to do it under their own pseudonym. While there is plenty of criticism there is no sign of concern from any authors so it must bee seen as acceptable – or perhaps Lynn Prentice is the one who posted it and no one is game to challenge him for doing it.

Promoting a conspiracy like this is bad enough, but it also breaks Standard rules.


We encourage robust debate and we’re tolerant of dissenting views. But this site run for reasonably rational debate between dissenting viewpoints and we intend to keep it operating that way.

Promoting bizarre conspiracies is not reasonably rational debate.

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. This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so.

The Standard has a post that promotes assertions that the claimant has refused to substantiate. They flaunt their own rules.

Such comments may be deleted without warning or one of the alternatives below may be employed. The action taken is completely up to the moderator who takes it.

But that explains why – hypocrisy is completely up to the moderators, and authors, and The Standard.

Most of the comments are dubious or outright critical of Trinder, but criticism of the willing Standard complicity in promoting a conspiracy lacking any evidence is understandably muted.

Even the criticisms of Trinder are turned into more bizarre – this from Sacha.

Trinder claims John Key appointed Weldon as CEO of (private company) Mediaworks. That’s stupid enough on its own for me to not accept any of his other reckons without evidence.

That’s a sensible assessment.

We don’t need some weird conspiracy to explain what’s going on here – it’s a logical outcome of legislating our media to run as a market. The cure is a law change, not tinfoil.

But he wants law change? Laws for what, dictating what private media companies can and can’t do?

And a few are defending Trinder. Weka (a Green supporter and one of the Standard’s most prolific commenters):

I find it entirely credible as a theory. Allowing for differences in use of language (change ‘appointed’ to ‘manipulated the appointment), how is it impossible that Key used his influence to get the CEO he wanted?


Some posts on the article that have been deleted,

A point from Trinder about all these people suddenly concerned about Mana News’ reputation and credibility who’ve never read the site before.

No concern shown about controlling the message type censorship, just making unsubstantiated claims about those who have been censored.

Mana Support Marty Mars replied:

So true that – I wonder about some of the motivations of some who hardly ever read Mana News and now have come out of the woodwork with their righteous proofing – if I was paranoid I’d say some are going into payback – or maybe just putting the boot in because the opportunity is there – oh look how arrrwful that Mana Movement is – such ungrateful poos after all the ‘respect’ we gave them, look they are nothing but losers haw haw haw – and that’s just the so called lefties.

He (like some others) also tries to divert criticism to John Key:

yep key lies, lies and lies again and even when it is on the news and everyone is jumping and pumping – nothing, key slides out. This particular story is pure key – it smells for sure but the focus of some goes onto Mana – same as it ever was.

He had previously posted:

PROOF, show. me. the. proof, now!!! show me the proof now!!! show it to me!!! meanwhile all the proof for a million lies and distortions are in BliPs list and what has happened – nowt and why??? – get that and the left might get somewhere in the next election.

Might be true, sounds trueish, hope it’s true, but proof – nah that’s not how the game works anymore.

That was challenged by Bill but Mars

“where no verification or thought is required and where such ‘niceties’ sink below the fetid surface of a world comprising of nowt but a churning of senseless bullshit.”

good description of the current truths put to us by MSM and politicians.

the truth and proof are slippery tuna wiggling in water

I saw the article and decided early on not to link to it in OM because I felt it had holes and would raise more questions than it answered – and it has – but I support Joe and what he has done.

More diversion, an admission the claims ‘had holes’, but support of “Joe and what he has done” anyway.

Without any evidence the conspiracy claims look like nonsense, The Standard willingly promotes the stupidity and it’s supporters – like Weka and Marty Mars – defend and divert and support this lame attempt at dirty politics.

They are usually a lot more robust in their criticism of this sort of dirty and baseless blogging if it’s on Whale Oil. They strongly criticised Colin Craig for much more vague connections with conspiracies.

But it’s different if someone on the left does it – the Standard bearer of the Labour left even promotes it.