- Date published:
10:38 am, June 3rd, 2014 - 169 comments
Categories: blogs, internet party, mana - Tags: bomber, polity, The Daily Blog
Rob Salmond nails it. Bomber is going a bit nuts and demonstrating his grasp of reality in politics.
Last week’s developments around Internet MANA have caused much conversation on the left in New Zealand. Some of that conversation has been constructive, strategic, and forward-thinking. And then there is Bomber:
If the Greens are raiding to the Right by using their clever Carbon Tax to woo urban blue-greens, it would be stupid for Labour to double up on that. Better they focus on the missing million with a strong Labour brand than compete again with where the Greens are moving.
Because, after all, Team LGIM only needs to win another 10% of the population to have a majority, and there must be 10% of the population who are highly-attentive-blank-slate-Blue-Greens, right?
So what Goff, Hipkins, Mallard, Davis and Shearer are really saying is that if the difference is between changing the Government using a supply and confidence arrangement with Internet MANA or allowing John Key to remain as leader, they would let John Key win???
Yep, because what Labour MPs love more than anything else is writing minority reports and achieving none of their goals.
If I recall the Left Blogs vs ABCs score board looks like Left Blogs 2 – ABCs 0. Do you want to make it 3 – 0 lads?
You tell ’em, tigger.
All this, you understand, comes from the excellent starting point of wanting to replace the current government with a united, powerful left-bloc of Labour, the Greens, and Internat MANA. Yet the analysis is designed to split the left, not unify it; and the recommendations would help the left lose, not win. Top work.
Bomber, a legend in his own ego.
Did Phil Goff kill any prospect of working with MANA before the last election? Yup.
Will the ‘right within the left’ be history in the event that Labour work with the Greens and MANA/IP? Yup. Would they rather ride out their days on a not quite so lucrative opposition gravy train? I’d guess.
To my mind, there are two good things about the MANA/IP alliance. The final nail in the coffin for NZ’s authoritarian left that formerly underpinned MANA and the prospect of the ‘right within the left’ finally being put out to pasture.
Have a look at the next post that I put up. This one from Imperator Fish.
I really don’t like divisive dickheads in politics, wherever they come from. The objective is to gain a government of the left. So you mostly argue on policy and against your common enemies (remembering that they too have deeply held beliefs).
It isn’t to demonstrate who is the biggest dickhead
So, doesn’t the question then become one about what to do with those who look to be paddling their own canoe to the detriment of, in this case, forming a left leaning government in parliament?
For me, those paddling their own canoes are those formerly known as the ABC ers and (as ever) the extra parliamentary authoritarian left that, until recently, underpinned MANA.
The latter have dealt to themselves. The former appear to be paddling furiously.
As for NOT demonstrating who the biggest dickhead is, why then post a critique of Bradbury’s anti-Green nonsense?
I didn’t feel that Bombers analysis was worth mentioning.
I did feel that the behaviour of people of the left on the nets was worth mentioning. I was writing one when I saw Polity, Imperator Fish, and Occasionally Erudite had all written on it from various angles.
Totally agree Bill.
Game of Thrones much? So an anarchist critique is animus to you? MMmmmmm
….”right within the left” finally being put out to pasture…..That would be rather nice Bill.
The right within the left is an on-going concern. And given the dominance of the neoliberal discourse in the mainstream, it is always one that needs to be negotiated, and continually on-guard against.
I have in the past expressed my concerns about the Greens moving more to the centre with Norman. But, his Climate Change policy is one that provides a strong challenge to the established right. I doubt it will gain more right supporters than it will upset.
I also continue to have concerns about the prime movers behind the Internet party. I have been somewhat reassured with the rexcurtiment of Laila Harre. it would be great to see her back in government.
I raised issues on open mike yesterday, about an “anti-establishment” vote being as likely to result in replacement with the establishment old guard, with an, updated, more digitally savvy, and resilient form of capitalism.
My comments on that were the result of reading an article, circulated by the IP CEO (CEO?), Vikram Kumar on Twitter, and re-tweeted by Bomber.
The likes of Bryce Edwards, have been talking up the IP as the anti-establishment party. This gives me cause for concern.
Laila Harre talked about ‘the establishment’ in one or both of her TV interviews in the weekend on Q+A and the Nation.
It’s something that will appeal to the youth vote. We all tend to kick against the authority of the older generations when young. It is important that does happen, because it motivates younger people to stand up and develop their way of doing things, bringing a fresh perspective to the issues, adapting to the changing context.
However, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will take us in a strong left wing direction.
In my view, for the left, any anti-establishment momentum needs to include strong left wing principles.
Vikram Kumar worries me as well, Karol. What the hell does technocracy vs populism even mean? A previous generation of “neither left nor right” technocrats gave us Rogernomics. In my mind, we need to be very clear what is left and what is right, rather than trying to replace the concepts with words such as “progressive.” Even Laila Harré, for all her fine credentials, has essentially been part of the establishment lately, with working for the ILO and the CTU. I’ll wait and see what policies they come out with, but remembering that a party not based on rank and file organisation can always change its policies very quickly. In fact, even Mana with its rank and file organisation can make some changes pretty quickly if they are pushed by authoritarian people in and around the leadership.
Labour not making any electoral accommodations and Goff’s Facebook vitriol are another matter altogether. Although there are a lot of things happening, and one seat is unlikely to decide the election, having Davis take a seat off Mana would be a positive for Key. At an even more fundamental level, it would be a positive for the right within Labour and those who favour Nact-type policies. I think Bomber may have got it close to right with his analysis of ABC and Labour this time, although the rest of his article is very confused.
I particularly didn’t like his idiotic squawkings that Sue Bradford, by disagreeing with the IP/Mana plan, was condemning hundreds of thousands of kids to hunger.
He’s an entertainer and you expect a little bluster with entertainers. What he is doing is being energised and drawing young peoples’ attention to politics. Encouraging them to vote. The Standard doesn’t seem to be doing that.
Is Rob Salmond blaming the division in the left on Martyn Bradbury?
[lprent: Read the about. Can you see anything there about wanting to draw anyones attention to politics? Perhaps you should look at what people say about themselves before you make a spectacle of yourself. The primary role of this site is to allow people on the left to express themselves. That means it isn’t a good place for unthinking bigoted political morons like you frequently seem to be.
And in answer to your question. He is saying that incessantly poking at any disagreement, insisting that others should follow his views and blustering like a fool doesn’t help do much for the left except for widening the divisions.
Perhaps you should try reading the post. ]
“Is Rob Salmond blaming the division in the left on Martyn Bradbury?”
The division on the left, since DS was rumbled by DC, has been caused, in my opinion, by the very vocal minority 1 percenters tossing off at the thought of kdc’s money getting their minority party into government.
Which is fine, because that’s people and politics, but just because, like bomber, you shout the loudest, doesn’t mean you deserve to be listened to.
+1 Weepu’s Beard – good points
Pray please, tell me where you get ‘He is saying that incessantly poking at any disagreement, insisting that others should follow his views and blustering like a fool doesn’t help do much for the left except for widening the divisions.’ in the above article. It conveys no such thing to me and comes across as an ad hominem attack, blustering and/ thus divisive in itself.
Rob Salmond simply disagrees with the statements Bomber made 2/3 of which had question-marks completing them. i.e ‘think about this – is this the way it is’ >>?<<
Bigoted? A moron? Bit harsh.
Am just trying to express myself and am not privy to the back story of the different factions inside and outside the larger left bloc so apologies if I seem clumsy.
What I keep hearing though is in order to change the government it’s important that the young and disenfranchised be encouraged to vote.
It helps but in some ways it is more of a long-term objective. Once kids start voting they keep voting. However that isn’t the only group that has a low proportion of voters. Some are obvious, like the Maori. Some are less obvious like the recent immigrants and residents (the latter can vote after a few years here).
There are limited resources and time to do get out the vote style campaigns. A lot of the smarts for the task is figuring out who and what to target. Otherwise you wind up targeting people who were going to vote anyway, or even worse the people who just won’t vote under almost any circumstances.
Concentrating exclusively on just one segment of non-voters is quite counter-productive. Especially when they are a group who tend to start voting when they have kids, try to buy houses, and generally get past being kids. The trick is to target the ones who may not develop a voting habit.
It’d be nice to have a profile of kids who go on to not vote to get a more precise targeting of resources. But no-one has actually sat down and done that as far as I am aware.
One thing you learn after you have been around politics for a while is the importance of the long view. Many years ago when a niece was 15 and all fired up about a number of causes, I told her that to change anything permanently in politics is a 20-30 year project. You have to both pace yourself and ensure that you have the income and life that allows you to do it. You may start seeing progress over 5-10 years. But don’t expect it to happen easily or without the application of continuous pressure.
Bomber is drawing attention to the already existing bind Labour descendants of Rog’ and to some extent the Blue/Green Greens are in.
His grenade launcher style beats bland press releases and passive aggressive mutterings anyday. The other writers tend to clean up after any misfires for those that want everything spelt rite.
They tend to ignore much of what he writes with the exception of Frank Mackasy and Chris Trotter. Frank tends to support everything Mr Bradbury states while Chris takes a more measured approach whilst making essentially the same point.
Strange that you’re the one whose TDB comments are invariably downclicked into negative numbers, while Martyn’s are generally (if not always) in positive territory.
Martyns are frequently in the negative
Whether or not they are positive is irrelevant anyway. It is whether his posts and points are taken up by other contributors there. As stated most of the others tend to avoid taking up his more controversial outpourings.
Not strange at all given it is a hard left blog. Given the numbers of wacky conspiracy theorists on there getting positive upticks I hardly think your argument is a winning one.
Given your inability to know when; your presence is odious and irrelevant to those you are obtruding yourself upon, I agree that you; “hardly think”. Thanks for conceding that my; “argument is a winning one”, though.
“Not strange at all given it is a hard left blog”. Gosman, Gosman, Gosman
Dribbling at the mouth again. Hard left here – a bunch of social democrats. Gosman I want your drug supplier if you believe that shit.
Some anarchists do comment here – myself included. But we are a minority compared with the overwhelming number of social democrats. And I’m sorry Gosman only in la la land can you call a Social democrat hard left – or if your smoking crack – which is it bro?
Ok the odd communist comments, but they a few and far between. I think Gosman your way out there in ungregarious right you forgot most people are more loving and caring of their fellow humans.
Social democracy accepts the necessity of corporate capitalism works to ensure its continuation.
Problem being that corporate capitalism is driving the massive resource extraction and consumption which will destroy our ecosystem and leave us unprepared for a world with fossil fuel depletion.
So…social democracy is generally good for the people until things go pear shaped, which it will ensure happens fairly rapidly.
Whatever Bomber’s intentions, his two posts are more likely to fan the flames of division on the left, than contribute to a useful left election campaign with some solidarity between progressive parties.
The divisive Tweets etc from Hipkins et al, happened a few days ago. Andrea Vance fanned the flames somewhat with an article about the ABCers that was published first thing yesterday. As far as I’m aware, that got little traction. Today, Bomber fanned the flames more/again by referring to that article, and repeating his Greens-climate-policy-is-a-move-to-the-righ argument and linking to his earlier post on it.
so, all parties on the left have to agree with each other and behave as one, but the right can have one party wanting to bash their kids and ban gay marriages, another not, one standing for whatever the highest polling party thinks and one believing whatever the polls say they should believe today, but the left are basket cases.
If bomber thinks hurling grenades into parties on the left will defeat john key, then he is deluded. Hone will be getting sick of his shit soon enough if he thinks it will strengthen john key.
I don’t think we have to agree with each other, especially on matters of policy. There will be differences. But I think we need to be a bit considered about our criticisms at this time.
I wasn’t keen on those divisive comments by Davis, Hipkins, etc. I am hoping Labour has had a rethink and is getting its act together in terms of how it responds to IMP.
General spin like labeling the Greens as blue/green, moving to the right, etc, seem to me to be more divisive than helpful.
oh i agree. Its the right that spread the meme that if the left dont all think the same there is something wrong but attacking and undermining is not the same as disagreeing. The greens get this, but then they are not playing the same game as many of the others
TM: Bomber is drawing attention to the already existing … and to some extent the Blue/Green Greens are in.
This whole Greens blue/green accusation, seems to me to be used more to undermine the Greens as a strongly left party, by diverting from the fact that the Greens are a firmly left wing party. Just look at their raft of policies, values and MO – collaborative, talking for those on lowest incomes, including beneficiaries, state houses, free GP’s for under 18s… etc, etc.
And why single out the climate change policy as a blue-green thing? If anything, I would say it’s the opposite. It’s hardly going to appeal to the majority of right wing voters. In the past the Greens have been accused of pandering to the right by not making climate change a key issue.
Bomber argued this new climate change policy was a strategic targeting of the blue/green vote. I really see no justification for that. It looks more like a smear of the Greens as not being a truly left wing party. Generally, I don’t think that’s helpful coming into the election. It’s a divisive couple of posts by Bradbury.
the greens acknowledge one possible solution has failed so suggest a different one. There is NOTHING blue in that.
I totally agree Karol – actually I wonder if Bradbury really understands what left politics is about sometimes?
If you look at what Bomber posts on, he’s not a policy wonk. He doesn’t have a strong understanding of the issues. He’s just very loud at treating politics as a game. And if you insult the people who other people disagree with, you get a following.
He’s the Cameron Slater of the left.
Like him or loath him
I’ll take option 3 and ignore him, thank you.
Here we go: Bomber says something self-aggrandizingly stupid, he gets called on it, he claims he is ‘attacked’ for promoting ‘unity’ (read: the state of being where people follow Bomber) and he goes napalm on actual Labour and Green supporters.
Hole in one Ace my friend
I’ve noticed he seems to be taking credit (both directly and indirectly) for all of the recent political movements. Considering the amateurish and naive advice he offered up for the (then) proposed Internet Party is at serious odds with what actually happened I don’t think he has much claim to being some sort of Svengali as he thinks.
Poor article from Salmond; No arguments are provided, simply conclusions to what appears to be simply copy-and-pasted from Martyn’s writing[s?].
I am perfectly o.k if someone wishes to present Bradbury’s conclusions as wrong – one of the points that were copy and pasted by Salmond, I certainly found difficult to agree or view as a valid line of reasoning – however I have a real problem with “Yet the analysis is designed to split the left, not unify it”.
What gives Rob the ability to read someone’s intentions? What is the use Rob doing this? Just seems like a smear, (‘professional’ competitiveness/jealousy perhaps ?).
This ‘article is simply copy, paste, and conclude. I am not too interested in someone else’s naked, unreasoned assumptions, where is the writer’s line of reasoning, what led him to such conclusions? Nowhere to be seen. That these don’t exist in this article makes it seem like a divisive piece of writing itself.
0/10 for you Rob – must try harder next time.
I think his point is that the strategy is at odds with a broad church approach that Labour has adopted for a number of years. Essentially Mr Bradbury is stating that the Labour party should ditch the right of the party and leave that constinuency to the Greens. It is very high risk and probably won’t work if the electorate continues to see the Greens as being to the left of Labour.
Fair enough Gosman – had he bothered to write something to that effect, I am unlikely to have objected (or commented) at all.
I chuckle at the ‘I think’ at the start of what you write – too right, it is anyone’s guess what Salmond was attempting to convey by his copy and pasting activity. Not good enough. Hence the zero in 0/10
Yeah, and the more it goes for this centrist “broad church” approach, the more Labour gravitates towards 30%. FFS it appears that National is a broader church than Labour with a half more support again.
In my view, that cool though CV, as long as the other left-wing parties grow, I am perfectly fine with Labour staying at 30% (although it is probably sitting somewhere higher than that).
I think the stance Labour is taking is likely to lead to the other leftwing parties growing – rather than crowding them out by having similar policies. I am more than cool with that prospect.
Might not be excellent approach for Labour – but I think for the left-wing as a whole it is pretty good.
I think your analysis is spot on. Labour has actually left open the space for the IMP initiative to happen.
What the Labour hierarchy have to reconcile themselves with is that they are now being seen as a centrist, middle of the road political party dedicated to continuing market led status quo capitalism, but with a few more curbs here and there to prevent silly off-roading into the right, and ensuring that workers and beneficiaries are not too fucked over too regularly.
hooten even suggested greens 20% labour 20%
Hooton’s theory seems to be that because Bill English decimated National’s vote down to the low 20’s, that can happen to Cunliffe too.
This is not really based on anything that is actually going on in the real world. For instance Labour has hardly released a policy yet and its vote appears to have gone up from 27% to 31% in the last two and a half years.
Cunliffe is smart and will campaign well. His Facebook posts show that he is spreading himself well around the country. Have faith and don’t buy into Hooton’s agenda.
hooton even suggested labour 20% greens 20% but labour does tend to better on election day than polls suggest and greens vice versa…
Yes, voters get all enthusiastic about the Greens during the run up but in the cold harsh light of the polling booth, mainstream Labour suddenly seems the more sensible choice
The only one of the three points that he didn’t offer a coherent argument on was the last one. That the argument was framed as sarcasm shouldn’t prevent you from untangling the argument any more than the bombers blustering does.
Unlikely. Rob’s main political expertise is in the analysis of numbers. Martyn doesn’t really work in that space.
It is his opinion and is expressed as such. What he is saying is that in his opinion…
Something that I agree with Rob on. Elections that the left loses are always those where it is riven with blame casting and the pointless posing. From the internal arguments in Labour in 1975 and 1981 that lost them those two elections, the disaster of 1990, the Labour/Alliance standoffs in 1996 that caused NZF to go to National, and the internal disagreements in Labour in 2011 that expressed as a incoherent and munted policy – it is always the basic problem. Pissing petrol on it with hyperbolic statements isn’t that helpful.
What we need is more actual debate rather than meaningless posturing. As Rob said
And I’d add some of the more stupid statements by some Labour MPs as well.
“Unlikely. Rob’s main political expertise is in the analysis of numbers. Martyn doesn’t really work in that space.”
Perhaps Rob should just stick to what he is good at then.
“It is his opinion and is expressed as such. What he is saying is that in his opinion…”
Where does that article state “in my opinion”??
Your ‘it is expressed as such’ is simply based on your own assumptions – it has not been stated clearly; It is obviously his opinion, he wrote it and it contains very little real analysis or points of debate – however that he didn’t state that leaves ‘his opinion’ out there to be confused with ‘fact’ or decent analysis – which it is not.
Martyn’s writings could just as easily be supported by saying ‘it is his opinion and is expressed as such’.
“What we need is more actual debate rather than meaningless posturing. As Rob said”
What we need is more actual debate rather than the type of meaningless posturing, that Rob just achieved.
There I fixed it for you.
Where exactly did he point to any ‘fact’ any more than bomber did. As you point out both are just straight opinion. That absence of fact in them clearly labels them as opinion.
I suspect that Rob’s political analysis is actually superior to that of Martyn. I know a number of people whose political analysis is a hell of a lot superior to both and many of them are probably discussing their opinions with Rob (often to just disagree with it).
Really I suspect that you are just upset that Rob decided to have a go at Bomber in public. Why? That after all tends to one of bombers favourite techniques as displayed in his post targeting Labour and the Greens. Are you trying to say that he has a special lock on the technique?
It is a technique that is useful when used sparingly and with an eye to the consequences. Neither are particularly evident in the way that Martyn has been using it.
“Where exactly did he point to any ‘fact’ any more than bomber did. As you point out both are just straight opinion. That absence of fact in them clearly labels them as opinion.”
Exactly, so what is the problem? The problem is that Rob is framing Bradbury very badly for doing something that he is doing himself.
“Really I suspect that you are just upset that Rob decided to have a go at Bomber in public. Why? That after all tends to one of bombers favourite techniques as displayed in his post targeting Labour and the Greens. Are you trying to say that he has a special lock on the technique?”
Objecting to is a better word than ‘upset’.
There is actually a big difference in attacking a blogger and attacking a political party. It is altogether too personal, ineffective and very divisive when an individual is attacked – divisive being what Rob accuses Bomber of being, yet is doing himself. I don’t like when Bomber gets vitriolic against individuals – and I don’t like Rob doing it. It is particularly bad that he is doing it by calling the other person ‘divisive’. Because personal attacks, after all, lend themselves to divisiveness.
Yes, I don’t like that he is doing it in public. I didn’t like when Bomber took that approach either. It starts looking petty very quickly.
Like Fambo said further down, I really do think Bomber appeals the most to younger generations, that he makes politics assessable to younger generations. I suspect that a lot of the criticisms I read about Bomber – come from people who are older (sometimes I know this to be true, but not always) and I really believe that a lot of the older generation from me (I am 43) miss the point and of Bomber’s style completely due to some type of generational thing. They miss the culture that Bomber speaks out of and to.
I object strongly to Bomber being put down and seemingly considered more than useless simply because older people fail to grasp a culture that exists and requires representation too.
I’m an older gold card carrying person. I like Bomber’s style. It’s colourful, engaging and invigorating. Mostly I agree with him, but there are times I don’t. I think he can be very good at putting left wing views in an entertaining way. However, I also don’t think he’s always the most perceptive political analyst.
Yes that is why I said a lot of the older generation miss the point (perhaps it would have been better to write ‘some of’).
I knew one person from overseas 20 years older than myself who views him as being the most onto it about politics and what is really going on than anyone else they have heard on NZ Radio and TV – they concluded that is probably why he was banned from Radio. That person watches things like ‘the Keiser Report’ and does a lot of research themselves.
I think Bomber can be extremely insightful – he can also get things very wrong. He certainly also gets carried away in an egotistical vein at times. It is my view that the negatives do not outweigh the positives by any measure – simply show that he is human. I very much appreciate his drive and actions to get a shift happening in the media and with NZ politics.
Oh I agree. I think he still needs a rap over the knuckles.
Especially when he makes statements that are inclusive of me or things that I am responsible for (eg “left blogs” – like TS eh?), or where they result in a nonproductive hardening of positions. I’m unsure which annoyed me more.
I know which one annoyed Rob Salmond – he usually doesn’t have a go at people like that. He is pretty mild in blogging. At least compared to what I’m like when I get irritated.
Hi blue leopard. Just for the record, I speak as a 44 year old, when I criticise Martyn. I think he is what, 41 or so? So for me it’s not a generational/cultural misunderstanding.
I also was very supportive of TDB when it first started. I was excited about a blog that I saw had the potential to reach those that may be ordinary, like me. I’m no political expert and I had expected his audience might not be either, but with the right opportunity may feel that they don’t need a political sciences degree to engage and feel connected and strengthened.
But after so many problems with moderation, getting attacked by sexist jerks and a run in with Martyn’s ego I quit the site. I can see that Martyn has a place in the fraught world of political commentary, but personally I have little respect or time for him
According to wikipedia, Bomber turned/turns 40 this year.
Rosie, its not the relative age of yourself and Bomber, its the relative maturity! You leave him child like in your wake.
Gosh Ennui, a slight blush upon my cheeks. I don’t know about the maturity aspect though. Perhaps one thing that irritates me about him is something that is reflected in the mirror: petulance. A distasteful trait that’s tiresome for others, that I try to work on.
“Just for the record, I speak as a 44 year old, when I criticise Martyn. I think he is what, 41 or so? So for me it’s not a generational/cultural misunderstanding.”
Same, but now 47
“I can see that Martyn has a place in the fraught world of political commentary, but personally I have little respect or time for him”
Same, but -1
I suggest that there are more obvious reasons for Labour losing those elections as well as being riven. From my memory over 40 years, we vote governments out not in. 1975 with Kirk dead and Rowling perceived as weak, they got voted out and yet in 1981 not enough people wanted Muldoon out, the electorate system helped as I recall. If you can find anyone left who will admit to supporting Roger and Prebs in1990 I’ll give you a fucking medal, 1996 was a draw and that nice John Key was always going two win two terms after 9 years of Helen, in my humble opinion.
Sometimes the maths is against you; our fairness is reflected in thinking that we need to give people a decent crack at it. Are there enough reasons to vote the Tories out?
+100 blue leopard
Have to agree with you blue leopard. In my opinion the post by Rob Salmond is just another continuation of a silly conflict that is using up too much oxygen.
What we have is a bunch of Labour MP’s going off half cocked about the Internet/Mana party getting their act together. In fact their outburst rivaled many National MP’s responses. However instead of throwing their toys out of the cot, what they really should have done is had a reasonable response in place that they all used and wasn’t so extreme! I think Cunliffe needs to ensure such media dysfunction doesn’t occur again, especially when more voters start to give a damn closer to the election.
Instead of a cohesive approach to the next election we have the appearance of the left wing being fractured, whereby the public will see potential instability with any left wing coalition government. Even if this is not true, the media now have an excuse. That is definitely not what we need only four months out. Unfortunately because of some Labour MP’s not being able to contain their emotions it will be hard now to change the medias narrative and this will undoubtedly lose some votes.
Therefore I can understand why Bomber has responded in this way. He is obviously associated with the Internet/Mana party and has a vested interest in trying to promote it. He is also well known for promoting left wing values such as socially responsible governance. That promotion is made all the more difficult when potential coalition partners are putting the boot into a new political movement. It appears that the non-productive accusations by Labour MP’s come with a complete disregard for the left wings chance to govern and that reality has to be addressed.
Despite Bomber’s reactionary post, Salmond appears to have no real argument against his conclusions. For instance, being that others have also noticed the Green’s move further to the right of the political spectrum, commenting on this is not out of context. What is out of context is saying that they have moved to the right of Labour, which is just a straw man argument by Salmond. What part of ‘raiding to the right’ is hard to understand? There’s nothing in Bombers writing style there that can be misconstrued!
So lets have a bit more level headed twittering and blogging, because without that National and their awkward bedfellows will have another three years in power and New Zealand will be royally stuffed!
Thanks for the video-frame image on the front page, it reminded me just how much I miss “Bomber’s Blog”. TDB is probably more worthy, but that used to be more fun.
Though this routine from today’s TDB is good for a chuckle:
q+A was limp about the new entry of IP.
Economy, Environment, People. Labour, Greens, Mana/IP respectively.
The left block? Lab+Gre+NZF+Mana+IP
The right block? Nat+ACT+UF+Maori+CC
But after the election??
Mana/IP target the poor and the digital divide,
By talking to the non-voting online IP is targetting missed voters.
Mana is targetting poor non-voters.
Labour, the economy stupid.
Greens, the environment.
What does National stand for? Be all to all?
Dotcom is a internet mogal, and so like any businessman he wants to grow his businesses.
By supporting Mana, and targeting the digital divide he will grow his presence and standing.
Its hard to fathom why Q+A thinks its a strange alliance. I mean Ford, the industrailist decided to pay his workers enough to by his cars. What’s strange about Dotcom wanting to lower the cost to entry to the internet.
I don’t believe Green, who vote Green for the environment will switch vote.
I also don’t believe Pacific voters would want to for Key-NZF and put welfare bashing
and immigration bashing together, just to avoid Labour targetting China and India immigration
that has grown under Key’s ‘financial’ migrant policies.
I also don’t believe that Hooten is serious that tired boomers outside the beltway (like him) would should not attempt to get into parliament because how else did ACT, or UF, or Anderson, or however many boomers do so over time. I meann talk about pulling the ladder up, Hooten smart moron stance is hopelessly confused.
Naff said. Oh, we are into the meet and greet phase of the election, where brands get introduced and get traction or not. i.e. flip women $20 ACT.
The Greens stand for more than the environment. They stand for an inclusive, collaborative society, operating in harmony with the environment and available resources, with an equitable distribution of available resources, social justice, etc. Some try to undermine their left wing politics, by downplaying the totality of the Greens platform. It is one of various interlocking elements approached collaboratively.
The Green Charter
I often read comments on here referring to what the Greens think, and so forth and I wonder if those commentators ACTUALLY KNOW anything about the Greens at all apart from their own opinion and what they hear from others like minded to them? They are so far off ball with their opinions and understanding of Green philosophy and policy it is laughable – if it wasn’t so unfair. Because their echo chamber comments are nothing more that false smears of the most idiotic kind.
Yes. Ecological sustainability is paramount, in my opinion and why we won’t see defectors to IP. The Greens I believe fear losing youth voters. Again, why? Young voters choose Green for its idealism, not cheaper broadband.
Finally, sure there are Greens who are in it for the ethical and morality. I’m not one of those types. Green politics is about the survival of our species.
I’m sure if we play up the ethics and morality we would push young voters away. 😉
Wow. I wasn’t aware that TDB ousted Shearer. That’s amazing.
And, yeah, way to go Martyn, continuing your divisive themes and your “my way or the highway” approach. This is no year to promote angst among the left, but Martyn does. Facepalm.
Reminds me of why I quit reading that blog ages ago.
To be fair to Bomber, he didn’t actually write as such. That seems to be Rob Salmond’s take of the Bomber quote that he provides as a follow up to his interpretation.
You’re right Bill, and yes it is an interpretation. BUT! Knowing Martyn’s style and his attribution of Shearer’s downfall to the “left blogs”, (and it can’t be denied that he’s referring to his own blog among those), such a statement says “EGO!” like nothing else, hence my sarcasm.
It’s not an isolated example of his ego driven views.
Bloody irritating to me that he drags the “left blogs” into it.
In the end we write whatever our opinion is. In the case of this site with the leadership elections in 2012 and 2013, there was (as you’d expect) quite a range of opinions from authors and commenters. There would be on this topic as well. Readers made up their own mind. About the only thing that damn near everyone was agreed on was that it was a good idea to join the party so they could have their own day in the only final way that worked – by voting.
My opinion at present is that Hone should be able to easily win over Kelvin in that electorate. If he doesn’t then you’d have to ask why he can’t build a team that would? Closely contested elections (or a perception of one) are always good for getting votes out.
That electorate has a mere 61% turnout in 2011 of people on the roll. Just 55% of the electoral population were actually on it. Just 34% of the electoral population voted and a mere 13% of the electoral population voted for Hone and slightly less for Kelvin.
It would be useful to have a closely contested contest just to push up the voting activity. There is a hell of a lot of room to get people on the roll and to get them voting.The best way to do that is for the candidates and their teams to work on their electorate. That is particularly the case for Hone because he needs to build a solid electoral base to anchor the IMP with over the longer term. Otherwise it will fade out.
He should be (and my guess is that he probably is) relishing having a strong opposition. Same with Sykes and Flavell.
I think that the electorate deals are actually bad for the beneficiary MP and their party. Just a more subtle way to weaken them over time.
Bloody irritating to me that he drags the “left blogs” into it.
It is a shame it is irritating to you – because I think that blogs are having a strong and positive impact for left-wing politics and I read that is what Bradbury is acknowledging.
Blogs are creating a space where people of left-wing persuasion can share and build ideas. Importantly it stops a feeling of alienation. The mainstream have been consistently alienating left-wing politics – this is a powerful thing to do, leaving people believing they are the only ones who have such views and therefore then ‘had better toe the line and stop speaking out on things that matter to them (because they are the only one person/ small handful of people who believe such matters are important)’.
I have expressed appreciation to you about this in the past – and will do so again – for your providing such a platform.
No he didn’t. He asserted that the left bloggers acted in concert. Basically he is either delusional or is somehow trying to claim my opinions as being the same as his own.
If it is the latter (which is what I suspect he meant) then he can take that opinion and stuff it up sideways. I don’t need self-appointed dipstick trying to talk for me. I will do that myself. You can as well. That kind of hubristic stupidity and moronic self-promotion is intensely irritating
Reminds me of Roger Douglas and other fools claiming the will of the people and the momentum of history..
Thats an interesting and helpful perspective on electorate deals Lynn. I hadn’t thought of it that way at all – increasing voter activity via the opportunity of a contest between candidates. And if the turn out was so low, out of a low pool of enrolled voters, then a contest may just be a healthy thing and gets voters off the couch and down to the hall.
Its a positive view too, given I was all negative and hoha last week Labour’s intention of fully fighting for Te Tai Tokerau.
See, a little rational explanation can go along way towards educating people! (Ahem, noting the differences in style there between yourself and you know who, with an emphasis on ‘rational’)
Some of the material that I’ve been reading on elections tends to ascribe the three biggest factors affecting a growth in turnout as being
That the voting process is perceived to be fair and impartial.
Closely contested elections where there are issues or strong personality differences between the contestants.
NZ is pretty good on the first two (at least compared to most of the alternatives). The electoral commission does a very good job. There is a pretty distinct effect on the latter.
You can also have a significiant effect on both enrollment and turnout using focused and sustained party organisation over many years. That has been only sporadic and localised in NZ for many years. But has been getting wider for some time now. I’m going to be interested in how effective things like the unions get out the vote campaign is going to be this time.
…………and hopefully Rockenrol may inspire and enthuse the young ‘uns to enrol, consider and vote:
Lol, and when one’s eyes are open one can see RockEnrol advertised in the banner at the top of the page.
The very impressive New Zealand political scientist, expert on public opinion and New Zealand Election Study (NZES) head-honcho, Jack Vowles ( see ‘Down, Down, Down: Turnout in New Zealand….’ ) places an emphasis on two key factors:
(1) A general perception that the Election will be closely fought
(2) A general perception that a consistent and clear ideological / policy gap exists between the 2 major parties and hence that the result actually matters / has real practical consequences.
So, basically both facets of your point 3 (closely contested and issues between the major contestants). If, conversely, the Election appears to be a foregone conclusion (even if it isn’t in actual fact – a la 2008 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, 2011 – thanks to Dom Post headlines like ‘Labour is Dog Tucker) and if the main parties’ policies and broad ideological direction seem to converge then you’ll have lower turnout.
Which means high turnout = (a) the MSM honestly and accurately depicting what their poll results mean in an MMP environment (while preferably also highlighting the past over-stating of National/Right Bloc support in opinion polls) and (b) Labour eschewing wishy-washy, slightly vague, slightly contradictory National-lite / Light Blue territory.
Interesting as always swordfish. +1
You provide good reasons for making me think about the stance I have been taking re Labour going more centrist. (I have been seeing that move as good for the further left parties – less competition for similar stances, while Labour can capture some of the voters that aren’t keen on Mana or the Greens).
I am referencing the bit about the two main parties not being clearly different enough. This is certainly a comment I have heard in conversation more than a few times, so it does resonate. What I question, though is this appears to discount MMP. I have to assume Jack Vowles was doing his analysis on NZ after it became MMP, was he?
I just don’t ‘get’ how in an MMP environment, it is only the 2 main parties that are said to be important by Vowles. I suspect there may be some truth to his observations in that he is commenting on how things are rather than how they perhaps should be(!). Do people not realise that if Mana or the Greens have greater support, that swings the government left when Labour requires their support? I suspect this is the case and people are not yet taking into account the effects that MMP can have if they make use of its strengths. i.e. stop viewing the choice as binary; voting as though we still have FPP.
Perhaps Mana only got 1.08% of the vote due to being a new party, however it did tend to make me start viewing the NZ electorate as being far more ‘centrist’ than I would thought they are. I was really shocked that Mana got so low – and then Greens + Mana were only about 12%. People are fully free to support these parties and allow for a pretty strong shift left, yet only 12% voted for them?? This is the type of result that makes me start believing that all the talk re a large chunk of voters being in the ‘middle’ may be quite correct.
The thing is, it would be really great to have some real information on how people are voting; what they vote for and who they are, like male/female trends, young/older. I thought I read Roy Morgan saying that they were going to provide these type of demographics, yet they weren’t apparent in the last poll, which is when they said they were going to start doing them (perhaps I missed them?)
I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this phenomenon re centrist vs left and MMP because the article you cite makes it sound that Labour need to be further Left (which used to be my view), however if a large chunk of voters are ‘centristy’ I don’t think that approach would work – and aren’t there now plenty of left wing parties to vote for – so why up until now, have these parties only received 12% of the vote – if being more defined from National should draw people out, then surely they should be receiving more support than 12%?
Hope this comment makes sense!
You’ve put a lot of thought into this, blue leopard.
Stay tuned – over the next week I’ll be sticking some detailed analysis on Open Mike. I’m gonna answer CV’s questions about what the polls are telling us regarding the Undecideds and about Labour and Green poll support now relative to the 18-month run-ups to the last 2 Elections and I’ll also answer some of your key questions above (I’ve got some data on the demographic breakdown of recent poll results as well – so I’ll post that too).
There’s some interesting stuff that I’ve discovered – for instance, I’m going to demonstrate how an important chunk of Left support is systematically excluded from final poll results (which I think, in turn, partly explains why the Right vote has been so over-stated in polls over recent years – relative to the share they actually receive at the subsequent Election).
Incidently, Jack Vowles’ paper is available on the internet…just google Down, Down, Down: Turnout in New Zealand… PDF Covers both FPP and MMP – 1946-2011. It’s been some weeks since I read it, so basing my earlier comment entirely on memory. Hopefully I did his argument justice.
Cool, thanks, sounds very interesting – sounds like your work would be a good as a guest post.
I will also check the Vowles pdf out too – which also sounds worth a read!
It is. I had some peripheral involvement in the NZES a few years ago helping out a friend that was working on it. Had a good read of it and the previous years back into the past.
Jack Vowles is fortunate that he looks at NZ. As I said, point 3 is the main bit for NZ, and it goes all the way down to even minor local body elections.
If you look at places like Ukraine for point 1, and to places like much of the US states (like Florida or even Michigan) for point 2 you can see those two factors in operation.
You miss a major point.
People think politicians are fuckwits and politics is shit, chock full of negative spiteful people who spend there days on the tax payers dime being complete cocks.
Instead of filling their lives with negativity and annoyance people just tune out of the political process.
The end result being lower and lower voter turnout.
I think I’ll skip the socio-political analysis of a man who thinks the primary demographics of our society are “office workers, tradies, and beneficiaries” thanks BM.
That really made a lasting impression on you.
Well you’ve never said anything to suggest you don’t stand by that world view, so I assume it’s still current.
Everything you write, I hold against that remark so as to understand what sort of complete fucking imbecile I’m reading.
Get fucked, you faggy little man.
Hmm, I guess that must have been meant for someone else.
If there are bands playing in the main voting booth area, would that be ‘treating’? If they didn’t wear rosettes or sing overtly Party political songs, surely that would be all right? If young people are to be drawn to vote, then providing something fun, and even doing a flash mob song and dance and vote routine would also be good. It would be soooo cool. (Though I am sure that saying is out of date.)
This is my favourite at present. King of the Bongo.
What would happen in Te Tai Tokerau if Davis declined a list seat? (Not saying that he would or should, but it’s an interesting hypothetical.
Without knowing the dynamics of that electorate I suspect it would make it more winnable for Davis?
I don’t know.
However he was quite a way down the list last time (quite why I don’t know) and I suspect that he would have pointed that out during the campaign. The list hasn’t been released yet, but from what I have seen about the regionals and the discussion at various levels I don’t think that he will be much higher than last time.
Because of the changes in electorate bounds and the nature of ‘marginal’ electorates, I’m anticipating that Labour are likely to get more electorate seats this time around.
On current polling, Labour is likely to get a similar number of MPs. So fewer Labour MPs are likely to come from the list.
I suspect it makes that all moot.
I doubt that a significant number of voters apart from political junkies ever began reading that blog or even know he exists.
Yes and No.
Yeah I think Bomber might be reaching when he thinks this is a sign of the ABCs ‘flexing their muscles’ because of a party list reshuffle.
But sometimes blog posts aren’t just about analysis. Sometimes the posts are about sending a message to certain people on behalf of others. This might be one of those. (And maybe Salmond’s is a message in response?)
And his bit about the power of the blogs….well I think it is worth mentioning every now and then that the blogs have real power, that they were substantially influential in changing the Labour leadership and that their influence keeps increasing as traditional media loses relevance.
I love it on shows like Q+A where they wheel out political relics and pundits who dress up, pretend they are relevant, and smugly dismiss the blogs. I love it because they are losing their relevance and they know it. They know, even as they dismiss them, that the blogs are the biggest game in town.
One reason I don’t like this particular item of Salmond’s is that it looks and feels like another Labour attack (this time by proxy) on a leftwing blogger. For instance, Salmond seems to put words in Bradbury’s mouth eg. Bomber did not claim that TDB was responsible for taking Shearer down.
Again, as is usual with Polity posts – neither the Greens nor Labour have done a single thing worthy of criticism or requiring re-thinking.
I wasn’t hearing anyone saying what I felt about the present government till I discovered Citizen A on television (was it TV7?). Through Citizen A and then The Daily Blog Martyn Bradbury has almost single handedly galvanised an alternative perspective to the MSM on the Government and called a spade a spade on the Left. New Zealand owes him a vote of thanks.
+100 @ Fambo
….and exactly same here re ‘I wasn’t hearing anyone saying what I felt about the present government till I discovered Citizen A on television’ (it was Stratos and perhaps the local Auckland channel, if that is where you are (Triangle?) – both of which don’t exist anymore – surprise surprise (perhaps Triangle does, not sure))
The other thing to remember about Martyn is that is he isn’t yet old. He’s relatively young compared to most of the other political pundits out there which means he’s one of the few people in politics that younger people can relate to. That’s a real advantage for the left.
“He’s relatively young compared to most of the other political pundits out there which means he’s one of the few people in politics that younger people can relate to. That’s a real advantage for the left.”
+100 fambo…you wee gem…and agree Hamish and the Card
…he is in the soapbox tradition of John A. Lee….that is unvarnished and fast on his feet and not afraid of being wrong sometimes and then admitting it
…wasnt John A. Lee expelled from the Labour Party for not towing the line?….but he was one of Labour’s most popular speakers for the working people of New Zealand,
” not afraid of being wrong sometimes and then admitting it”
Bomber admit to being wrong? What rubbish. I think maybe he has done that once in recent memory and that was just the other day.
I think Bomber has done a great service with his TV programmes and his blogs. I generally like his colourful style, and tend to agree with him more than I disagree. But I do sometimes think he gets carried away with his enthusiasms, and gets off-track sometimes. The posts referred to in Salmond’s post do hit a wrong note for me.
Yes, I agree . Well said….although Salmond’s post here, also hits a wrong note for me!
Bomber is a hero. Show me anyone who does as much genuine work for the left. He’s bound to make the odd mistake, and he has opinions that he broadscasts loud an clear.
All power to him for that.
I wonder if Bomber will now wage one of those one-man wars of butt-hurt that always blow up in his face as he always does when someone dares disagree with him.
Bomber, down the toilet.
He calls a spade a spade, now that’s clever. And what does he do with there spade, dig a grave, a pit, a place for him to go and contemplate his navel as he takes a vow of silence for a week and think perhaps on humility.
Expecting Bomber to get anything close to reality on the Internet-MANA is expecting too much. He’s personally invested into the project. He was a paid consultant for MANA (without disclosing it). He then sought to be a paid consultant for the Internet Party (without disclosing it in his numerous pro Internet-Party articles). He even asked for a new Macbook from Kim Dotcom.
And that’s on top of his default position. Which is egomania: he will single handily unite the left, you can’t crticise him because that’s not being a united left. But he can criticise you. Say, Russell Brown or Danyl Mclauchlan. Thin-skinned: one comment against him will trigger a sea of tears as if he has been personally tortured for fifty years, say with Giovanni Tiso commenting on Bomber’s disgusting Anti-semitism poster. Ignorance of historical facts, for example, with not realising the connotations behind that poster. False sense of perspective: any subtle change is instantly hailed as a game-changer, say Matt McCarten’s appointment as Chief of Staff (or even Matt McCarten’s campaign for the Mana seat which Bomber predicted he would win easily). And a sprinkle of nastiness: if you make me look bad, he’ll get you back, say with releasing ColeyTangerina’s real name.
Bomber, at the best of times, is a poor political pundit. He’s now a poor political pundit who’s probably suffering from priapism because of the Internet-MANA merger and Kim Dotcom.
He’s not going to make a whole lot of sense from now to the election.
I thought this article not only made a whole lot of sense it contains very important information about the nature of our MMP system, which as I said in a comment on that thread, I really don’t think the people en mass are very aware of – educated people and uneducated people included – it is actually pretty important that people do know about this aspect of our system.
If Gallstone and Public Address luvvies don’t appreciate Bomber’s efforts thats fine, but many others do. More attention on the Labour MPs and candidates actual utterings as summarised on todays The Standard Imperator Fish post might be useful.
Well, that’s what the track record looks like. And what are these “goals” they want to achieve exactly?
Yeah, I actually thought Rob was quoting Bomber when I read that! (I thought it was meaning that is what they do like to do, stated sarcastically)
Also, quickly looking through all the things Rob Salmond has written via Polity, I cannot see any statements from him directly criticising a single Labour Party policy or election year tactic or MP this election year. Not a single one. Is Labour performing so sharply this year to warrant not needing a nudge here and there?
In fact I cannot see anything even vaguely reproaching the Greens on anything whatsoever either.
It makes me quite uncomfortable – is this what partisan political consulting companies do?
He is a political consultant who does quite a lot of paid work for Labour. He is quite up-front about this. Apart from anything else he has often had a hand in many of the “…Labour Party policy or election year tactic or MP this election year.” and will have a confidentiality clauses about what he can discuss in them.
Traditionally biting the hand that feeds you is usually not a particularly good way to keep business.
He isn’t in the same position that many of us are – like me for instance. I hold no position in any political party (and the last one I held was branch sec back in the 90s), have never gotten paid by any political party, and chooses to hold a party membership that costs about $20 per year. I’m perfectly happy levelling commentary and criticism almost wherever I choose.
However my contracts with employers always have those clauses about dissing my employers as well. So I don’t….
Oh, definitely. It’s about knowing which side one’s bread is buttered. And that doesn’t encourage me trust the opinion, analysis or motives any more though.
Yeah. But it is like reading The Economist – something that I do every week. If you know where the bias is coming from and how it will express, then it doesn’t stop you from reading someone elses opinion and gleaning information from it.
It is like knowing that I am a programmer, Scott Yorke is a intellectual property lawyer, or the Idiot/Savant is positively obsessed on the power of written legal word.
The problem comes when the motivations and sources of income are concealed that you find you can’t trust as damn word that they say. For instance Cameron Slater and his habit of demanding money for people for posts that he is writing…
I think that is true about being able to read more when one knows the bias. But the analysis in this post appears so poor to me that it makes more sense that it’s a piece of the Labour party PR machine, and my opinion of Salmond has just dropped a notch or two
Compare the post to a recent one by micky savage on what IMP are doing. Micky obviously has a skew towards Labour and IMO struggled in that post, but he at least tried to be even handed. Salmond in this one today looks like he is heading towards the Hooton end of the spectrum. Whether it’s out and out spin or him letting his biases get the better of him I don’t know, but I found it disappointing.
As I said elsewhere, it looks to me like the Labour Party attacking the Left blogosphere again, only this time by proxy.
The authors, even of the pieces that we pick up from other blogs, are seldom trying to please people. They generally express their opinions.
Incidentally, this will be Rob’s actual opinion and no form of PR. It is typical of his reaction pieces as he always mistypes when he is doing those (my tell is that I miss connective words). But I had a brief discussion with him when I was in Wellington last week. The IMP merger was one of the topics that we passed over briefly. Another was (of course) blogs – most of which was me asking if he was happy with what we were doing with his reposts. This rings true with our discussions.
He also seems to be the only person in the country who beleives normal people’s conversations are peppered with bitterness about other cities.
I imagine parties at his gaff are depressing.
Lol. The exact topic that set off our little spat. Ironic when he’s absolutely, positively pathologically hateful towards the city of Wellington and her inhabitants. I imagine he has had a few too many slurps on the “bitters”.
He really does need to get out of his bubble and travel around the country, meet people and realise that folks aren’t interested in putting other towns and cities down, they’re just getting on with their lives.
Na, that wouldn’t work because he’d have to leave his twittery and ego at home and he carries that shit around like luggage.
Yep, Rosie, I do get a bit bored with the crap regularly thrown at Wellington on the blogosphere – especially if they’re talking about Cabinet Ministers, MPs or leading Public Servants, most of whom originate or (in the case of MPs/Ministers) are based elsewhere. Far too often ‘Wellington’ becomes an all-round term of abuse.
I think you can lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of the Black Seeds.
Actually, now that I think about it, you may be right.
The Thorndon Bubble is not simply a geolocation. You can be embedded in the Thorndon Bubble even while far far away from it.
It is an amalgamation of specific attitudes, activities, priorities and perspectives which are a world apart from the lives of 90% of NZers.
It’s what makes a green nobody MP like Shearer think that he could become Leader of NZ’s oldest political party without having even served a full term in Parliament.
It’s what makes Labour MPs who have retirement and Kiwi Saver accounts worth half a million dollars think that they can lecture us about the necessity of raising the retirement age – not for themselves of course, but for everyone else.
Fucking Thorndon Bubble.
Trouble is CV, that tiny little elitist “Thorndon Bubble” power centre phenomena you speak of doesn’t represent the citizens of Wellington City let alone the suburbs and regions, and that’s why as residents we get tired of being lumped in with nothing that has anything to do with us.
Get what you’re saying about the bubble sucking in people not living within the area, and that the bubble has its own energy but the problem is folks like Martyn get that awfully confused with the actual geological and social/cultural setting.
And talk about bubbles, the guy is so out of touch with anything that happens anywhere in the country thats not on his doorstep that awhile ago he was talking about Charles Chauvel making a come back in Ohariu. I mean, wft? Charles Chauvel has got a steady job at the UN, why would he come back to dreary J’ville? (Actually he didn’t even live in the electorate) and even in late March when I was doing a google search for something Ohariu related there was a thing from TDB along the lines of “Chauvel not making a comeback”. FFS, Virginia Anderson had been confirmed as the Labour candidate for Ohariu for over a month when he wrote that.
Wonder if the residents of Washington, Canberra, etc, get so tetchy about the name of their place being overlaid with one of its main businesses?
OK, but let’s just remember that Wellington, like your own Dunedin, CV, is a good Left-leaning town. Certainly well to the Left of the rest of NZ (including Auckland and Christchurch, each of which is largely responsible for the rest of us being stuck for the last 6 years with this charming and scrupulously honest Tory Government).
And even higher-income Wellington suburbs (including Thorndon itself) are relatively evenly-split politically (in total and utter contrast to their Auckland counterparts = as blue as a new tatoo). Usually with a particularly high Green vote (again similar to Dunedin). So we’re an unusually progressive city and, as Rosie suggested, shouldn’t be confused with a small, if very powerful, group of elites who happen to hang around the halls of power on an occassional basis, most of whom seem to emanate from The Big Smoke up North.
Sorry Swordfish, but you and Rosie are coming across as completely missing the difference between the concept of an inbred group of politician-think and the city of Wellington.
Words develop, you can’t stop that process* and this is a case of that. The concept of ‘Thorndon bubble’ has developed because the NZ Government resides in Welly – like the ‘Washington Consensus’ or the ‘Chicago boys’ these concepts only relate to the places, in that these ways of thinking were developed there. And they were developed there whether the people who live there like it or not. I think a certain amount of ‘get over it’ is called for on this matter. Our language is alive – and this is how words and concepts develop.
Bretton Woods is another place which comes to mind
Nah, I got CV’s point, BL. But I think what Rosie and I are arguing is that the blogosphere tends to throw the term Wellington about with wild abandon – rather than The Thorndon Bubble – as the preferred form of abuse. I’ve got no problem with the latter. When you constantly read “fucking Wellington !!!” it does start to pall after a while. Not that I want to sound like I’ve got my knickers in a twist over it. It doesn’t quite keep me awake at night.
And anyway – as Felix points out – our reputation’s been destroyed as much by The Black Seeds as anything else. Rest of the Country continues to hold BBQ Reggae against us.
Though the rest of the country also seems to listen to it, whereas I can’t think of a singel Wellingtonian worth a damn who does.
That’s exactly it swordfish, on all points above. Most folks who are abusive towards Wellington for political reasons can not differentiate between “Thorndon Bubble” and the city herself, and that comes purely from a place of ignorance. The only thing that bugs me is the stupidity, not the abuse, and I don’t tend to think about it unless someone really puts the knife in and keeps going on and on about it.
Ironically this attitude often comes from people who have often never visited the city, or breezed through once about 15 years ago. I observed this a lot when I lived in Auckland, the city I’ve lived in for the longest time at any one stretch.
And lol, the Black Seeds, that is one burnt sausage of a BBQ reggae band. Fred Freddy’s also got completely over done.
Thanks for the explanation Swordfish (& Rosie), I see more where you are coming from now, that there is an inaccurate use of words for the concept occurring – resulting in confusion between the place and the concept.
This post was put up under “Notices and Features”.
Yet a comment was made at the start saying that
which is not by Salmond himself.
So, in order for the Standard not to start pulling the Granny Herald’s trick of anonymous editorialising, can we have an author put against this post please?
bomba is just another kayonedoubleyew one who thinks that because they have a job in the media then his owns truths are facts.
all people like him do and if you dont beleive me then do some digging into media people in politics, is muddy the waters and confuse people.
he aint a sad anything. just another manic depressive.
its democratic but not very useful.
typical kiwi infantilism.
but hey just rise above it, yeah nah or have a onesie or sumfing.
Isn’t this really just about the fact the Bradbury is an IMP dude and Salmond is a Labour one? They each have their own views and biases from their respective seats.
Having said that I usually find Salmond’s posts interesting and often educational. This one is poor analysis IMO, and looks too skewed by his own party politics.
And as mentioned above, don’t forget his commercial/contractual interests.
Thanks CV, I hadn’t made it that far through the backlog.
This talk about whether the Greens policy has more of a blue than a green hue, is just a hue and cry. Like it? It’s yours.
Isn’t everyone getting diverted into the equivalent of ‘operational matters’, when the actual policy, its intention, and value to NZ, remains the important thing. Crikey let’s stop fighting over the bone while the big dog sneaks away with the real prize.
aint that the big lesson. purity means little if the prize is stolen from under our upraised noses.
At least everybody knows what Bomber thinks and who his friends and enemies are. That’s more than can be said for a lot of people.
To reduce his politics to ego, infantilism, or just gaming politics is not serious.
Maybe its signifies and absence of militancy, imagination and courage in others.
Misrepresenting, trivialising and laying on the sarcasm only adds another layer of crap.
It is a fact that the left blogs helped get DC elected by amplifying the grass roots and the unions. Social media are a very powerful force in contemporary politics.
TS being the most important. TDB was barely in existence.
I don’t appreciate posts from Polity. If I want to read stuck up policy I can find it.
This guy Salmond is saying that Labour can get its 10% from the centre is he not.
That’s the ABC brand of Labour.
The ABC is keeping Cunliffe tied up trying to suppress the centre/left split in Labour. The ABC fears the Greens and Mana/IMP and they are panicking. Goffspittal.
Bomber is trying to activate the Labour left by yelling on the ramparts.
OK if the Greens can recruit the blue-greens that does undermine the Labour rights group pull. Maybe I missed it but he could have said it was a brilliant stroke because it could create a majority against near term extinction.
Anyway I read it as a signal to the Labour left to pull finger and take Cunliffe to task about not making pre-election agreements.
The only section on the left of centre to benefit from no pre-election agreements is the ABC. And that is because they live in the centre. They fear Labour being pulled to the left because none of them wants to end up in another shrivelling Rogernome dump.
From the standpoint of exercising maximum democracy in this election, the Labour left needs to force Cunliffe to enter into pre-election agreements on Confidence and Supply. That is all that is needed to signal to voters which parties are prepared to bloc vote to get the Tories out and keep them out. Think of it as a united front of the left.
In every other matter procedural and programmatic, each party in a left coalition should stand on their own program and fight to win a majority for it. In that way voters can see who is saying and doing what and so keep them accountable and answerable!
This provides information which the long suffering majority, the working class, can use to advance to the next step of forming the zero generation socialist party.
Yes, although I would be more subtle than formal agreements and simply give smoke signals to Left voters that active communication and co-operation was occurring behind the scenes between the parties.
Cunliffe doing that would be more than enough to spur activists into top gear to make a solid win happen.
and instead we get fools attacking their allies while proclaiming that they only want to talk about the Nats – cos that worked so well the last two times. Someone muzzle these dolts.
Yes, I don’t really like this trend of ‘wait till the voice of the people have spoken’ – I can see there needs to be some flexibility, yet it ends up being a vicious circle – like how can the people ‘speak’ when they don’t actually know the nature of what they are voting for? Thoughts of ‘why bother’ do flitter across my mind at times, even for me (!) (let alone the people who are already prone to such thoughts).
I think a certain amount of defining is pretty attractive actually, and too much of this ‘we are not going to say’ leaves me feeling that I am being left in the dark. I would be pretty confident that I am not the only one who responds in this way.
As already mentioned I accept and think it is good to allow for flexibility in order to respond to how people end up voting, however too much of this is starting to seem like a massive cop out. It comes across as ‘politiciany’ and raises suspicions of cards being played too close to their chests, leading to thoughts of ‘what are they hiding?’ i.e it cultivates a lack of trust and suspicions – just the type of thing that puts people right off voting completely…
Indeed…plz see below for some examples of potentially useful “smoke signals” which Labour could use to re-ignite its leadership of the Left this year…
I think the right has to be called out on this publicly.
Its more than activists in motion or not, its respecting voters and telling them upfront which is the best way to vote to get rid of the NACTs.
Like Hone saying ‘two for the price of one’ in Te Tai Tokerau.
If its not done publicly then the right will continue to put themselves out there creating confusion and division in the electorate.
It has to be done publicly because Cunliffe needs to stand up and be seen to be saying it. He needs to prove that he is not a rogerclone masquerading as a Sunday school teacher.
He needs to find the Kirk in him.
James T Kirk?
Yes Cunliffe could do that, a good role model for leadership. 😛
Cunliffe should make the right open ended noises when interviewed, but when I think of smoke signals I mean things like:
1- Giving a Green MP a speaking slot at Labour Party Congress this year.
2- Inviting Norman and Turei to one of the lunches which is on during that weekend (and ensuring there are a shit load of journos around).
3- And while everyone is there, have Eugenie Sage (GP) and Megan Woods (LAB) announce some minor joint policy on rebuilding Christchurch.
It’s not brain surgery, eh
“It’s not brain surgery, eh”
No, but unfortunately it’s needed.
Totally agree with you. Reading comments on twitter by Salmond and co about how Bomber and his regulars are stupid and possess less intellect than a fish are not only arrogant but downright disrespectful and churlish. Who the hell do they think they are?
Labour needs to do some naval gazing, an in-depth evaluation of what they are doing right and where they are going wrong. I think up until now it has been more this is what we’re doing right and no
we can’t being doing anything wrong because… oh because we’re Labour. It’s everyone else’s fault because they’re to dumb to understand us. The ABCs need to leave and go to NACT or start their own party. They’re destroying Labour. Or the Labour left need to leave and join up with the Greens. Labour need to do something major to get out of the rut they find themselves in
The carbon tax proposal is not right or left. It is an incentive to switch from carbon use.
Totally disagree with your analysis of Martyn’s analysis Rob.
1. Heard from Mathew Hooton lately and the notable right wing supporters about their take on the Greens Carbon tax policy. Many are in total agreement of it. Doesn’t mean to say they will vote for the Greens of course but there may be some less notable blues who turn blue green. Party vote only of course which is what the Greens are going for. He’s not saying the Greens are going to the right, just that they may take right leaning voters. Big Misunderstanding here I think. Also Labour have said they don’t agree with the carbon tax. Oh dear Labour, Labour, Labour scared off by tractors.
2.Have you seen social media responses by Stuart Nash, Chris Hipkins, Goff to IMP. They think that Labour is going to take out the election on their own and won’t need minor party support. They definitely will not consider working with IMP because of their principles and morals – come again? principles and morals? They do love wiring minority reports by the way they’ve been going on and they’re never going to achieve their goals in opposition. And that’s where they’re going to be. JK doesn’t play by the rules. (Lucky for the Maori Party JK took Shane Jones away. He could have won Tamaki Makaurau). So while they’re so self righteous, moral and principled the ground is being pulled out from under them and their comments and shilly shallying are tearing the left apart.
3.Not sure about the last one. Ok you may be right there. So don’t totally disagree with all your analysis
Gosman – what the hell do you know? Blah, blah, blah.
There appears to be a major block from some Labour supporters/MPs about taking the treasury benches. I think you’ve gotten so used to being in opposition the thought of being in government scares you. You just keep on doing what you’ve been doing to stay where you are. Do you know the definition of insanity? I thought this year would be the first year I would vote Labour after Cunliffe became leader And McCartten appeared. But sadly it is not to be. I sincerely hope the Greens become the major party on the left after this election. They may not agree with IMP but they certainly have shown a more disciplined approach to this merger compared to some Labour MPs. Discipline Labour, discipline.
Why did you bring me in to this? It seemed rather random considering I don’t believe I’m commenting on anything anywhere near where your comment appears.
Sometimes I wish I knew as much about politics as the rest of you. Luckily I have my looks.
I can understand that you are really, really, angry and that this anger is shared by the Centre Left authors at ‘The Standard’ who have decided to put up your post as a Notice And Features editorial.
But I think you may have jumped the shark on this one.
Pretty clear, easy to understand. So what am I to make of your confused and angry re-interpretation of Martyn Bradbury’s views.
I will do my best.
Pretty clear so far;
I presume Rob that you are saying that Labour ‘should’ try and win votes off National, (And give up on the non-vote as a lost cause).
Of course, who really knows?
It is a fact that a large section of the population are politically unengaged, But other than taking a cheap shot at the Greens, I really don’t know what point you are trying to make by framing the problem in this way.
But what are their goals? Can you or anyone tell me? And for the Right of the Labour caucus (who I presume you are speaking for), are these goals really that different to National’s? I can readily accept that the Right leaning Labour MPs of the ABC may not like being required to sit in endless pointless committees. But do they find it preferable to letting National take the heat for implementing conservative policies that they secretly also support, than to be in that hotseat themselves?
I apologise I have tried my best to make some sense of this dogsbreakfast of an editorial, but found it very hard to make any coherent sense of it at all. Rob, I really do not understand your critique, of Bradbury’s critique, of the ABCs statements. But what I do take, is this, that you are very angry at the Daily Blog editor Martyn Bradbury having the effrontery to call on the Labour Leader to ignore his more Right sectarian colleagues rejection of any accommodation with the Greens or Mana-IP, particullarly if this rejection means that the country has to endure another Nact administration.
(I still don’t really know what you are angry about Rob, but is it that Martyn Bradbury has brought this strategic choice into the light?)
I may be wrong but I think that Phil Quin corporate “Strategic Communications Consultant” and long time “advisor to the Labour Party” writing in the Herald today, is pushing the same line as you, but more openly and far less confusedly.
I find Quin’s frank talk, refreshing when set against your painfully mangled output.
Myself, also am a little sceptical, that the Mana Internet grouping and the Greens will magically galvanise the “million-strong army” of politically unengaged, (but who knows, they might).
But this is not where the real danger for the Right Wing of the Labour Party lurks, (eh Rob). Though Mana/Internet and Greens won’t admit it publicly, what is really happening is that just by existing, they are hollowing out Labour’s Left support.
The fact is if Labour was less politically and economically conservative, there would be no electoral room for political parties to the Left of Labour. If Labour adopted even just some of the positions advocated by the Greens and Mana/IP they could retain their leading position on the Left. Because Labour refuse to move more to the Left, Labour are in serious danger of being outflanked on the Left and you know it. If moving more to the Left is not an option for Labour, then the only other logical choice for dealing with this problem of being outflanked is for to wage war on these annoying parties to the Left, so as to be rid of them. This is the strategy Right Wing corporate Labour strategist Phil Quin is promoting. If Labour take Quin’s, (and presumably your advice), instead of trying to work together with the rest of the Left to get rid of National, Labour should be trying to isolate and marginalise the smaller parties of the Left. That this be a priority, above removing National from office.
So if; Phil Quin, the ABCs and you get your wish and Kelvin Davis wins the seat of Te Tai Tokerau.
So if; National remains in power
So if; Dotcom gets deported
So if; The Mana/Internet Alliance falls apart, and both depart the political scene
So if; The Green Party are kept out of government
So if; The surveillance state becomes more entrenched.
So if; National gut the RMA and degrade the natural environment
So if; Social inequality continues to deepen
The question for you Rob and others of similar views, is this; Will the Labour Party really be the winner?
Will those whom Labour purport to champion be well served?
I leave the last word to Phil Quin.
I put it to you Rob and to Phil Quin to ask yourselves, why?
I would also put it to you Rob, that the Left bloc is as big as it ever was, it is just that the Labour Party no longer encompasses that bloc. Nowadays a good part of that bloc is outside the confines of the Labour Party. You can choose to be totally sectarian about this, and reject the rest of the Left bloc, or you can embrace it, the choice is yours. The consequences of making the wrong choice will be measured in increased suffering for those that Labour and wider Left purport to champion.
P.S. To those of you who describe yourselves as “Tribal Labour”: If your party makes the right decision and decides to embrace the wider Left, your party will still be the biggest and the leading party on the Left.
On the other hand, if your party decides to reject working constructively with the rest of the Left, I predict that the condition of your party that Phil Quin described as “The party is too small, too monotonous, too narrowly focused”, will get worse, and that in future years Labour will become just one voice amongst many.
That is very interesting, thank you.
I do believe you have achieved the impossible and made sense of Salmond’s incoherent witterings.
Very well done.
10/10 for you – n.b Salmond, please don’t be bitter that you didn’t rummage up even one point from me – just take a look at what Jenny has written and perhaps take a few notes. I suggest that you pay particular attention to how her writing actually makes sense and conveys something worth reading.
Thank you Blue
I think the editorial team at the Centre Left blogsite ‘The Standard’ have let themselves down by endorsing this attack post which they claim, “Nails it”. This attack by Rob Salmond on the editor of the Left blogsite the Dailyblog is for taking to task various ABC Labour MPs for their sectarian attacks on Labour’s potential Left government allies.
To claim as ‘The Standard’ does that Rob Salmond’s mangled, incomprehensible, personalised attack on Marty Bradbury “Nails it”, moves me to say, “Yeah Right”. Blue if you want to, follow the link to Rob Salmond’s original post, where you find this prominent charmless comment, by anonymous ABC supporter, NOT DAVID CUNLIFFE, who writes “Bomber can suck my cock!”.
Normally such an abusive and obscene ad hominem comment like this would not be allowed through by any rational blog editor.
You might think that Rob Salmond just has a very liberal and light handed editorial approach, and in the spirit free speech allows every comment to stand. But in thinking that you would be very wrong. While Rob Salmond deliberately let through the personally abusive ad hominem and obscene comment attacking Bradbury, he completely censored my defence of Martyn Bradbury’s post which you have favourably commented on, but which I had first posted on his site, where it appeared briefly before being taken down.
It disappoints me that the ‘The Standard’ editorial team have (possibly unwittingly) endorsed this sort of low abuse on one hand coupled with censorship on the other.
All I can say is that the Labour Party Right Wing are really, really, really angry.
Oops! Terribly sorry. My apologies to Rob Salmond. I see my comment is on his site after all. I just checked again. Unfortunately on noticing my error my computer froze and I was not able to alter my above comment. (really annoying). I had to shut down my computer to fix the error and on rebooting had run out of the time to alter my comment. Again my humble apologies to all, particularly you Rob so you are quite a liberal light handed web master after all. I hope despite this shocking error on my part you can accept my views as sincerely held and in the best interests of those on our side.
Bomber rocks. His occasional overstatements are a product of the enthusiasm that makes him such a pleasure to read. He’s paid the price for all this passion – no comfortable insider sinecure despite being three times the journalistic talent of many MSM hacks. And he serves an important function – getting another narrative out. I’m afraid Rob missed the mark a bit this time – and that’s more important in a party mentat than in someone who is professionally outspoken like Bomber.
If he made the Labour right angry so much the better.
I utterly loathe just about everything that Chris Trotter writes precisely because it’s along the same lines as these articles mentioned: whining incessantly and negatively about how divided the left is, how bad the left is in this country.
Chris Trotter professes to be a Left-winger but he is the left’s worst enemy, confirming all the “divided” calls about Labour every time he posts something. Simply awful.
Bradbury’s recent misfires suggest he’s been reading and/or listening to far too much Trotter lately.
He’s not so much in Bomber-land, he’s in Trotter-land as far as I can tell.