Election and Labour reckons...

Around the 2012 US Presidential Elections (while I was working in the Labour Leader’s Office), I took a holiday to the United States. Somehow I found myself at a debate watch party for the first debate between Romney and Obama in Denver (where the first debate was being held, which Obama bombed) with a bunch of youngish Republicans. One guy asked me, “So you work for the Labour Party in New Zealand – that’s the equivalent of being a Democrat right?” My response was, “Well actually, the ‘right wing’ party in our country is arguably more left wing than the Democrats here, and I work for our ‘left wing’ party, which is too right wing for me.” He was confused and I think he definitely thought I was more dangerous than a communist.

What this story shows is “the left” and “the right” is pretty arbitrary. It makes a difference which country you are in, what the political climate is, what the economic climate is, and at what point and time you are speaking. There’s been much discussion about National’s lurch to the right to increase support after their 2002 showing and the need for Labour to do the same. People have all sorts of ideas about “what Labour should do”. A friend of mine told me that Labour needed to focus more on “the economy”. When I pressed him harder as to what he means by “the economy”, he didn’t seem to have an answer. So let’s make one thing clear:

• Poverty and income inequality IS a product of the so-called “economy”.
• Housing crisis IS a product of the “economy”.
• Inability to access adequate healthcare IS a product of the “economy”.
• Inability to access higher education of choice IS a product of the “economy”.
• Employment opportunities limited to part-time or low-wage IS a product of the “economy”.
• Climate change effects are a direct result of actions taken in the name of the “economy”.
• The privatization of law enforcement and access to the justice is an “economic” decision.
• Even mass surveillance is presented as necessary to protection our “economic” interests.

There are many more but in essence, the difference between public good and the protection of private interests is ALWAYS about the economy. The question is, whether a government should engage in the former or the latter? I see no evidence that National won because of “the economy”. I do however, believe that they have successfully presented themselves as good managers of “the economy” and that’s what won them the election. They didn’t need to have a policy; not having a policy WAS their policy. Perhaps we as a nation no longer believe that Government should intervene in “the economy” because all of the things I have mentioned above are not associated with “the economy”.

Let’s go back to the story I told you at the beginning of this post. You might be wondering, if Labour doesn’t reflect your political views, then why would you work for them? I not only worked for them but I’ve also voted for them – party and electorate. I have also voted for other parties and candidates from other parties. I’m not a member of the Labour Party and I don’t feel I have to always vote for them. BUT, and this is a big but (not butt), I am generally a pragmatic person. After I left Labour, I worked in the public service of NZ under a National government – it wasn’t the end of the world for me. If I were to talk one of those compass tests, I would bet that it would tell me to vote Greens or Maori Party. Because I put a lot of emphasis on environmental and indigenous issues. I also care a lot about civil rights and social justice so Labour would be up there too. But truthfully as much as I love Greens policy, I don’t see them mastering enough support of the nation to be running this country so when I do/did vote for them it is usually tactical.

The way that Labour MPs behaved last week was absolutely despicable. They essentially told all Labour voters that they were lying this whole time. That they didn’t support their leader and that they didn’t support the policies they campaigned on. That the entire campaign was a self-interested endeavor to get Ministerial positions. It was wholly unprofessional. (This obviously doesn’t apply to the MPs who managed to keep their mouth shut.)

The fact that:

1. They obviously knew that Labour would lose the election and did not have a post-election messaging strategy is a failure of the leadership.
2. David Cunliffe didn’t manage to unite the caucus and garner their support is also a failure of his leadership.
3. Labour and Greens weren’t presented as an alternative government is a failure of both parties. (Note: I said parties not leadership)
4. Labour isn’t united internally is not going to change just by changing leadership.
5. The failure is being attributed to identity politics or far left policy is insulting to those who have supported Labour for addressing those very issues.

As it stands, I have no one to vote for in 2017. Greens election results is troubling to me. It is also interesting to me that their ‘failures’ haven’t been translated to a leadership failure whereas Labour’s ‘failure’ has. The Labour caucus is deeply divided and the actions of some of the MPs on Sunday morning also left me troubled. That they couldn’t stand behind their leader after his pretty impressive debate showing and a campaign that was extremely volatile was disappointing to me. Labour MPs should take responsibility for their policy position collectively. It isn’t like David Cunliffe held a gun to their head. I know for a fact that this so called “lurch to the left” is not just a DC position.  I say “so-called” because it really isn’t a lurch to the left. Labour’s policy positions are a reflection of where the government has been – ie largely a response to this Government’s policies. National have cherry picked when they go left and when they go right and on issues they have gone slightly to the left has inevitably forced Labour to mimic that movement.

I am not going to presume to know the answer. I don’t know the answer. Those who presume to know the answer are kidding themselves. But any answer, I believe, should be based on reflection and evidence. Show me the data and not just your frustrated outbursts. The next three years will be interesting. Some believe we have already handed National their fourth term. Those people ought to be proven wrong. I myself am going to think some more. There will be posts here and elsewhere but for the sake of my degree I will be off Twitter for a tiny little bit. 

My final thought is that the Labour Caucus should consider having open dialogue with each other and coming to some kind of understanding of support and compassion for each other’s position. There are a lot of personalities and points of views, which is good. But their anger and denigration of each other not only hurts the party but is costing the country. 

A sexy three-step guide to voting

1. Ignore policy: Yes, everyone wants to assert their superiority complex by talking about policy and the economy but really what’s the point? You know what Labour stands for broadly and you know what National stands for broadly. That hasn’t changed and it aint gonna change anytime soon. If a party all of a sudden has a big idea, then maybe we could focus on that. Asset sales – that was National’s big idea. Except they did it in the 90s, so whatever. Capital Gains Tax – that’s Labour’s big idea – pretty much a no-brainer given our housing market. National would implement it if it hadn’t backed itself into a stupid corner by virtue of John Key. Whether you are a single issue voter or a multi policy stud, I say you go with your gut but don’t vote on an empty stomach. Hangry voting is like hangry grocery shopping. But let’s be honest here, you are not going to look at party manifestos, you aren’t going to go watch interviews and Parlmentary speeches, you aren’t going to make a pro-con list. You are going to go with what you have heard and seen while browsing Stuff.co.nz at work. And that is ok. It’s ok to vote National because you think John Key is a swell guy. It’s ok to vote Labour because David Cunliffe’s Harvard education appeals to your sapiosexuality (might be a real word). It’s ok to vote Greens because you think Metiria is really cool. It’s ok to vote Internet-Mana because they are a flash new toy and you are curious. It’s ok to vote ACT because you pride yourself on being a heartless libertarian. It’s ok to vote CrayCons (Colin Craig's Conservative Party) because you like hitting children. Wait… that’s not ok. Nope. Not ok at all. I don’t know why anyone would vote for them. Seriously.

2. Strategery: That’s not a real word. That’s a G W Bush word. But I like that word a lot. Anyway, moving on. We live in a MMP world. We have to break ourselves free from the prudish FPP outlook on our electoral life and embrace the free-spirit world of MMP. You no longer have to subscribe to the monoga-vote (also not a real word) but you have the freedom to biga-vote (not a real word, but should be). Two votes! At the same time! Sexy! Think about what you are trying to get out of your vote. In some electorates, it will be a straightforward two ticks. But in some places, you could get adventurous. Consider it. Think about the boring voters in Cluth-Southland and their lack of choices. Election after election, it's the same two ticks. Boooooring. If you are on the social conservative or ‘libertarian’ side you have to think about whether or not you should give your party vote to the CrayCons (Colin Craig’s Conservative Party) or ACT. Will Epsom get David Seymour in? Will the CrayCons get to the 5% threshold? It’s anyone’s guess really. Trust the polls? It almost feels like Game Theory here. What will the other prisoners do? If you are on the left, you may have to consider voting for a National candidate in a place like Epsom. Scary. But strategery. What is the end game here for you?

3. Have fun: Whether you go to the polls on election day or you choose advance voting – have fun. Take your kids. Take your friends. Get a coffee. You are exercising your democratic right that many people in this world still don’t have. There are people who literally risk being beat up as they go to the polls.  Even if you subscribe to that school of thought that says “your vote doesn’t count” – who cares? It might count, it might not but you have a teeny tiny role to play in choosing who governs this country. Make it fun. You don’t have to vote National or Labour – there are all these other parties unlike the United States where people have to choose between 'really horrible' and 'kind of bad' candidates. The government makes laws that govern every aspect of your life. You might as well try to put in some constraints. Tick those circles! We may end up with 9 political parties in the 51st Parliament - SUCH FUN! 

Something is rotten in the state of New Zealand

So while I was sleeping Nicky Hager’s book was launched in Wellington today. While you were sleeping I had to write down my thoughts. I did not expect it to be a sequel to the Hollow Men but so it was. I guess the proverbial “Fool me once…” is in order. I won’t get to read this book for a long time and I expect most of the book will be traversed in detail in the next few weeks by those who do. Once thing that was very evident to me from the preface and the information that is out there is that now we know why Judith Collins was never sacked.  If "the machine" was engaging in this level of unethical behavior just to win elections can you imagine the kind of dirt they have on each other? It is well known that WO and Judith Collins are close, I hate to think what they have over John Key that makes him so powerless when it comes to her. Some of the excerpts are truly frightening to me.

"the prime minister’s office used its knowledge of secret SIS documents to tip off Slater" from website.

I was working for the Labour Leader’s Office during and leading up to the 2011 election. This is extraordinary! Surely this needs independent investigation because it is a major breach. I'm not even sure that we will ever know the extent of the abuse. It is well known that political operatives in the Beehive go out of their way to make sure their actions are not OIA-able. But I don’t see how the investigation could happen while John Key is still PM. I would not have confidence in any such investigation! This alone means that he can no longer stay. 

“They include persistent attacks on Labour Party politicians, attacks that consciously set out to distract, wear down or demoralise them rather than trying to debate issues or win a political argument…”

Well that tactic certainly worked during the 2011 election. I remember that very well because I worked through those days for Labour. 

"how our defences as a society (news media, electoral laws and so on) are inadequate to protect the public."

This right here terrifies me the most. We misplaced our faith in the idea that New Zealand is the least corrupted country. We were fooled by the beauty and the simplicity of our small nation in the thinking that nothing bad ever happens here. Time and time again we are proven wrong but our faith in our own goodness means that people who do want to take advantage can and do take that advantage. Some practical solutions: OIA needs urgent reform, political donations need to be far more transparent, our law enforcement agencies needs to reigned in, and we need to restore civil service neutrality. Everything to me right now reeks of undue influence and abuse of power. 

I’ve been referred to as a hack (because I worked for Labour). It is well established that I sit on the left of the political spectrum. Despite never been a member of any political party and despite having multiple combinations of the two ticks in the last three elections I will always be seen as Labour. An yet this book gives me no joy. No solace. I feel no glee. Hager says:

"This is a technique originally from US republican politics...."

How can anything borrowed from US Republicans be good for New Zealand? Have we as a nation not been watching the destruction of political goodwill in America precisely because of these kind of tactics? The apathy, the anger, the misinformed choices? Do we want that as a country? It is clear to me that our politicians don’t really care about good governance. They are motivated by power and wielding that power for personal gain. Finally this –

“Journalists have suspected these activities but the evidence has been hard to find.”

Well I guess it didn’t come up when John Roughan was writing that biography. It didn’t come up when they were actively spreading rumours about Labour Party donations. It didn’t come up when they had to actively denyusing Government agencies to find out how they knew how many times Winston visited Kim Dotcom. I guess none of that really required thorough investigation because if you were a journalist – would you really think a political party would go this far? In this day and age? This many years after Watergate? Spying on the opposition? Why would you risk your professional reputation wondering if such a scale of underhanded activities was occurring?

If there is anything I take away from this – it is “constant vigilance”. More to come I'm sure... 

Epsom - Not a dirty deal - a tactical opportunity for the left.

“Dirty deal!” exclaims Patrick Gower or as he is known in the political circles “Paddy”. Paddy doesn’t like the Epsom deal or the Ohariu deal. He calls them dirty and assumes we all hold them to the same contempt as he does. We don’t. “Coat-tailing” or an attempt to work the electoral system to leverage otherwise wasted votes is not dirty. In fact it is quite legal. As legal as the Cabinet Club. What is dirty is not the deal nor the club, it is the lack of transparency associated with both. In an ideal world the corporate money in politics would be restricted and we would all vote on policy (and there would be unicorns delivering ice cream every Monday).  That is not how the real world works. I don’t have a problem with electoral deals because I think votes get wasted even more without them because of the threshold. But, even if the threshold were lowered,  there would be some votes that would be wasted, although not nearly as much as they were under FPP. The only time it makes sense to waste the electoral vote are under these circumstances:

1. There is a clear winner and that clear winner (National or Labour candidate) will most definitely win so you vote for someone you like.
2. There is a clear winner and you really really despise them so you make a statement and vote for anyone but them.

Other than those circumstances, I don’t see why anyone would waste their vote by voting for someone who clearly is not going to win. Electorate votes do not determine the number of MPs in Parliament so unless one has a huge vested interest in their local MP representation, why would anyone care about the electorate MP? In my experience those who do, still do not understand MMP properly. (That's a whole different post)

So let’s take a look at what’s happening in Epsom. If you are on the ‘broad New Zealand right’, you might vote for David Seymour because John Key said so. You might be a National supporter and if National needs David Seymour, you give them David Seymour.  Or you think National is too left wing and you like ACT policies, so you will vote for him and hope other likeminded people elsewhere in the country will give their Party vote to ACT so maybe another ACT MP will get in to wield some real legislative influence. Although, even lone John Banks has managed to change the landscape of our education policy so maybe even one is enough. Maybe next term David Seymour focuses on the flat tax? Or maybe Maori seats gets abolished. If you are on the right and you vote for David Seymour, you have absolutely no reason to feel dirty. You are helping the party you like implement the policies you want to see. Paddy does not get to vote-shame you. 

But what happens if you are on the ‘broad New Zealand left’. Who do you vote for? Unless one of the above two applies to you, tactically it makes sense for you to vote for National candidate Paul Goldsmith. Your party vote goes to the party you want to see in government or at least a "left government".  You don’t like National’s policies but ACT policies are even worse and you know that National presents itself as the sane alternative by positioning ACT as “extreme”. In the end ACT is out, National would be in anyway and everyone is happy. 

So what’s the problem? Here’s the problem with the current situation: 

1. John Key never actually says “Vote for David Seymour”. In fact apparently he will be voting for Paul Goldsmith.  One the other hand Paul Goldsmith is in the awkward position to tell people to vote for David Seymour for no explicit reason. What? Why?
2. Labour and Greens never say “give your electoral vote to Paul Goldsmith if you want to keep ACT out”. What? Why?

We are not stupid. We are the ones that vote. We should get to vote for whoever we bloody well please for whatever bloody reason. Political parties aren’t pulling the wool over our eyes unless they are doing the two things that I just mentioned. That is the problem. Lay out reasons. Make a case. We’ll do the voting thank you. And Paddy – seriously if this is the biggest political grind you have, you’re doing the profession of journalism a huge disservice. Your focus should be on transparency and access to information. Denial of that right is what’s contrary to democratic principle. Electorate deals actually help some votes be better counted (or counted at all).

Epsom is a hot mess but there is one truth - if ACT comes back into Parliament because of Epsom, the blame lies squarely on Labour and Greens voters in that electorate.

On 2011 numbers, if the Labour and Greens voters had given their electorate votes to the National candidate (and a lot of people did) instead of their own candidates than we wouldn't have to deal with ACT right now.  

On these 2011 numbers, I'm blaming Lab/Greens voters if ACT are back in Parliament. BANKS 15,835 GOLDSMITH 13,574 HAY 2,160 PARKER 3,751
— Lamia (@LI_politico) August 9, 2014

As pointed out by this extremely succinct and perfect tweet - the left needs to see it as a vote against National and ACT rather than a vote for Goldsmith. Unless those two points I mentioned in the very beginning applies to you, there is absolutely zero reason you should be voting for the Labour or Greens candidate.

@CateOwen ...esp if you think of it not as voting *for* Goldsmith but *against* ACT, ACT-Nat machinations, and a 3rd Key term. #trickyfecta
— Jolisa Gracewood (@nzdodo) August 10, 2014

There is no reason for ACT to be in the 51st Parliament and if they are, John Key is the last person who should be blamed. In fact what John Key is doing is giving the left one last opportunity to kill off ACT. That is the *hint hint* *nudge nudge* message the left should be getting should there be another cup of tea.

Top 10 #nzpol tweets this week - July 31, 2014

This week was the last sitting week of Parliament before the election. 50th Parliament is now officially done. Jamie Whyte, leader of ACT made some pretty outrageous comments. If you were as horrified as I was go read this by Carrie Stoddart-Smith (@ellipsister). Also I myself went through his stupid little book and got out some choice quotes which you can read on twitter under the #JamieWhyteThoughts. Moving on. Top tweets this week:

Election is coming up close. It's already August in New Zealand today! I feel this way too :(

Was really looking forward to the Election Year. Now disillusioned.
— Andrew Robertson (@Unimatrix_0) July 31, 2014

Outrageous!

"Stop measuring stuff." Mike Sabin's witty interjection to @metiria's questions about growing extreme child poverty #nzqt
— Holly Walker (@hollyrwalker) July 31, 2014

No but seriously though... has National announced any policy at all?

Labour announces employment policy, is overshadowed on Twitter by Nats wearing silly ties. #nzpol
— Mathew Grocott (@mathewgrocott) July 30, 2014

Ha!

Jamie Whyte. Dislikes: corporate welfare. Likes: a free ride into Parliament from the National Party.
— Philip Matthews (@secondzeit) July 29, 2014

THIS. But then again, what promises has he kept?

Anyone remember John Key’s promise to close the wage gap with Australia ? Well, the gap has risen by $70 to over $190 a week #nzpol #nzvotes
— Robert Johnson (@deltablues_king) July 31, 2014

Hmmm... interesting thought..not sure where I stand on that. But superannuation policy is an area ripe for public debate!

Why do we still have a “married rate” of superannuation? Pple should be treated as individuals. Why penalise love? #basicincome #NZQT
— Deirdre Kent (@deirdrekent) July 31, 2014

There's been some talk of "electoral deals" because of Colin Craig but not nearly as there was last time with the Epsom Cup of Tea incident. I think there should be a concerted campaign by the left to elect Paul Goldsmith for no other reason than - it would be funny. Also it would give ACT to get itself together and see if they can be a proper libertarian party in the future sometime.

For every Epsom voter you persuade to vote for Goldsmith I will give you 1 free back rub *conditions apply. #hipstersforgoldsmith #nzpol
— Philip Nannestad (@philipsophy) July 31, 2014

I think this has been the new normal pretty much since before the 2011 election. Remember that Labour did not make it to 30% in 2011 under Phil Goff. I wasn't really that vested in the Labour leadership contest (I definitely did not want Shane Jones though) but I was hoping that DC or Grant Robertson would do a better job this year. Maybe Labour supporters think that this is a trend towards a more favourable poll showing. I don't know. There are a lot more parties on the left and so I don't see Labour really going back to 2002 and 2005 numbers in the near future. Nor do I see them being able to run a stable government on current numbers. Something has got to give!

That Labour supporters are excited about a poll that has Labour still in opposition shows what the new normal is under Cunliffe. #nzpol
— Patrick Leyland (@ProgressReport) July 31, 2014

Yes well...

Rich white man calls for Race Relations Commissioner to resign. Quelle surprise. #equality #racism @JamieWhyteACT #nzpol
— juliegunn (@radioARW) July 31, 2014

Look at this tweet. Look at it! "Removing racial discrimination" against who? White people? When people don't educate themselves on history and how policies are developed and why they are developed we get ignorant comments like this. This kind of attitude is what's worrying.

Amazing that someone proposing to remove racial discrimination in law is attacked as "divisive". Whaaa? #nzpol
— Mister Spinner (@kiwibrotha) July 30, 2014

Top 10 #nzpol tweets - July 25, 2014

Last week was a pretty active week in #nzpol. Te Wiki O Te Reo Maori kicked off, Green's launched their "Love NZ" campaign, Gerry Brownlee offered his resignation, Labour picked a fight with TVNZ, John Key photo shopped himself with the All Blacks and yet another National MP chose not to stand in this year's election. (Internationally the tragic events continued so once again I chose to stay away from highlighting #nzpol tweets. The lifeless faces of children in Gaza was just too traumatizing). But here are my picks from last week:

This tweet highlights how GST disproportionately affects those on low income. If you make 6 figures, these make up a small percentage of your income. Not if you make minimum wage though. When ACT goes on and one about flat tax what I hear is that they do not get arithmetic. It makes them sound fiscally and socially irresponsible.

really it would be cool if there was no GST on tampons, pads, nappies, infant formula and toilet paper but that's just me i guess.
— Aunty Shub (@_surlymermaid_) July 21, 2014

Ha!

"This government does not deal in gossip. This government deals in facts." - Anne Tolley today. John Key, June 2014: pic.twitter.com/pH0LKJ0iex
— Toby Manhire (@toby_etc) July 22, 2014

To be honest, initially I was going to devote this weeks tweets to all of the Te Reo ones, however, there were hardly any that specifically talked about politics. Next year I'd like to see politicians talking about politics and policy in Te Reo on social media. I think it would be cool and interesting.

I call #MaoriLanguageWeek "normal language week" and every other week "English language week"... it's very confusing but totally worth it.
— Guy Williams (@guywilliamsguy) July 22, 2014

I love this tweet simply because I love Kim Hill. I'd love to see her interview John Key. That incredulous tone she takes when people say ridiculous things is my favorite!

Why don't we dispense with the charade (and the lightweights) and have Kim Hill and Mary Wilson grill DC and Key instead...
— Morgan Godfery (@MorganGodfery) July 23, 2014

Ha ha! To true!

#nzpol swordplay falling on sword symbolic lean against sword posing with sword sorry i have a sword there is no sword i don't recall sword
— patagonian toothfush (@ptoothfish) July 24, 2014

I found that photoshopping into All Blacks kind of tacking. Maybe it would be more acceptable if it had been an actual photo he actually took with the team. I don't know. Also Captain Key? What was that? The whole thing was weird and the magazines explanation was also weird. But this right here is funny!

@hamish_keith pic.twitter.com/QzmVPaRzgo
— Arch Rival (@ArchieDaRival) July 24, 2014

I don't know if I want to see that.

please put John Key on the field in the next All Black's match, coach. Id really like to see that.
— nømmøp¡|ø+ (@nommopilot) July 23, 2014

I agree with No Right Turn here. I don't like the phrase as much as I like the photos. Granted they are "negative" compared to previous Greens campaigns. But actually "Not our future" is kinda cool though it would be feeding into National's "Brighter Future" narrative, which seems to be gone. How come? Answers we will never know...

I'm not sure the dissonance in @NZGreens campaign works. Wouldn't "Not our future" be a better match for those images?
— Idiot/Savant (@norightturnnz) July 25, 2014

Ha ha ha ha ha... oh dear.

Wait, since when does the All Blacks captain have democratic authority to turn down ministerial resignations?
— Colvin (@Covlin) July 24, 2014

Yeah his pronunciation leaves much to be desired. He needs lessons with Lockwood Smiths but good for him to show leadership. There needs to be more Te Reo in the political sphere.  

Props for doin a karakia instead of the usual prayer David Carter, but you probably should've given that a bit more practice #nzqt #nzpol
— LukeTipoki (@LukeTipoki) July 23, 2014

Top 10 #nzpol tweets - July 18, 2014

The events in the last 3 weeks have left me pretty distraught and sad about the state of the world. I figured the silliness that can sometimes be New Zealand Pols can maybe take a break. But that doesn't mean I haven't been watching and collecting. Here are the tweets from about 3 weeks ago that I thought were great. News has changed a lot in those weeks, so maybe treat these as a look back. These are posted without comment.

When you think about it “Working for NZ” kinda like a bored FB status update. #TeamKey Alternative suggestion: “Just doing our job”
— Callum Valentine (@callumvalentine) July 12, 2014

Collins is upset a politician did something political. The rest of us are upset the minister isn't doing the ministerial job she's paid for.
— Oliver (@eey0re) July 13, 2014

It's been said before but it really is worth noting how huge the Maori electorates are. A lot of ground to cover. pic.twitter.com/LC1rDwQ2KN
— Michael Fox (@michaelfoxnz) July 13, 2014

The new concept of Ministerial Responsibility is simple - "I didn't do it I didn't know it was done and if I did it wasn't done by me"
— Hamish Keith (@hamish_keith) July 14, 2014

This is what the #teamkey ‘rockstar economy’ looks like on the streets of Henderson currently #timeforchange pic.twitter.com/8tsgiDQI5L
— Chris Yong (@chrisyong) July 15, 2014

Wow. Really wow. Guy who got new #GCSB law passed now wants to remove two thirds of its functions http://t.co/VJ4zKUz1Vy
— Vikram Kumar (@vikram_nz) July 15, 2014

@dpfdpf The idea that looking after our environment is a partisan issue is pretty indicative of the problems we’re trying to solve.
— Internet Party (@InternetPartyNZ) July 16, 2014

In unsurprising lack of self-awareness, MP gloats about the low polling of parties who are polling 30-50 times what his own party is polling
— Lew (@LewSOS) July 16, 2014

Alongside literally trampling all over tikanga, the police continue to treat the Bill of Rights Act as mere suggestions. #MaraeInvasion
— Joshua Hitchcock (@jcphitchcock) July 16, 2014

Road to nowhere? Path of darkness? pic.twitter.com/npCtCEjgWp
— Matt (@mfairh) July 18, 2014