CHRIS LOVES KIM
Why can't Sue Bradford just be unprincipled like me? Chris Trotter cosies up to Kim Dotcom.
CHRIS TROTTER'S latest newspaper column is both arrogant and patronising. The unsuspecting victim of Trotter's clunky and self serving criticisms is well known activist Sue Bradford. Why has Trotter targeted her? Because she had the effrontery to actually stand by her political principles and resign from the Mana Party. What is the world coming to when people just won't fly the white flag and surrender to political opportunism and convenience? Why can't Sue just be like Chris and cosy up to the German mega-capitalist with right wing libertarian beliefs? It's so much easier than trying to build a proper left wing political alternative.
Trotter claims that Sue Bradford wasn't entitled to exercise her democratic rights and resign from Mana. According to the man who well know socialist Paul Henry once described as 'New Zealand's best left wing commentator', she should have simply hung around and meekly abided by 'Mana's democratic decision-making process.' That was the process where Hone decided what the outcome was going to be and they proceeded to that outcome.
But why on earth should Sue have stayed? So she can pop down to the Dotcom mansion for champagne and canapes with Hone, Laila and all the other champagne charlies like Mike Treen and Joe Carolan from the Unite Union? Perhaps she could go for a spin in Dotcom's private jet? She'd have lots to tell the folk down at Auckland Action Against Poverty! Solidarity forever!
Of course I seem to recall a certain Chris Trotter resigning from the Labour Party and joining Jim Anderton's NewLabour. Trotter didn't much feel like abiding by Labour's 'democratic decision making process' back then. Obviously its a case of 'do as I say , not what I do'. There's a bad smell of hypocrisy coming from Bowalley Road right now.
But wait! There's more! Trotter, whose own politics embody paternalism, accuses Sue Bradford of paternalism!
He snidely comments: 'an unkind commentator might draw his readers’ attention to the extraordinary condescension involved in a middle-aged Pakeha and former Green MP setting forth the correct moral path for a party dominated overwhelmingly by young, marginalised Maori.
Is that right, Chris? Well, an unkind commentator might draw his readers' attention to the extraordinary condescension involved in a middle aged Pakeha blogger and Labour Party supporter setting forth the correct moral path for one of New Zealand's most prominent left wing activists.
But, once again, Trotter is just making things up as he goes along. All Sue actually did was state her case. I think she treated the Mana membership with respect by being honest and upfront. I think that's a million miles better than suddenly, out of nowhere, becoming Mana's new best friend.
THE FLEXIBLE POLITICS OF LAILA HARRE
In 2009 the new 'left wing' leader of the Internet Party went to work for the bosses...and oversaw the sacking of hundreds of Auckland council workers.
Like, for instance, her appointment in 2009 as the Human Resources and Change Manager for the Auckland Transitional Authority (ATA). The job of the ATA was to oversee the establishment of the new Auckland 'super city' - including hundreds of redundancies.
At the time of her appointment Harre was the national secretary of the National Distribution Union.
Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright said at the time: "No way can someone who's helping the corporate takeover of Auckland consider themselves 'Left'. ... She's crossed the line."
Fellow Internet Mana member John Minto was highly critical of her appointment, commenting that she would provide political cover for the business-driven 'reform' process. Wrote Minto:
Laila Harre's appointment provides ideal political cover - just as the Maori Party does for National on issues such as private prisons (Labour's appointment of Jim Bolger to head Kiwibank is another good example).
It's more difficult to attack a reform process when well-respected figures from "the other side" are involved. Harre's decision to join the process of corporatising and de-democratising Auckland governance will help ease Aucklanders' fears.
It was an inspired move to approach her and those involved will be overjoyed she accepted. Not because she will do a good job for them, which she will, but because she will provide the type of broad political cover for the agency which money can't buy. The agency gets the added bonus that she will be the public face of the mass redundancies which will follow.
It's a win-win-win for Act/National/business.
And now, apparently, Laila Harre is a win-win-win for Kim Dotcom / the Internet Party / Mana.
DIRTY DANCING WITH KIM DOTCOM
Internet Mana can never be more than a bridesmaid in a right wing Labour-led government.
THE MAINSTREAM media have been quick to characterise the deal between the Mana Party and the Internet Party as a 'marriage of convenience'.Of course it's a 'marriage of convenience'. That's obvious. How could it be anything else? There's nothing honourable about this marriage.
The Mana Party gets access to funds it could never raise itself and, in return, the Internet Party gets a toehold in Parliament. No one knows what the price of the admission ticket is - and neither Mana or the Internet Party are saying - but we can safely assume it's nothing less than a six figure sum. After all, Kim Dotcom was apparently prepared to back John Banks failed Auckland mayoralty bid to the tune of $200,000. Dotcom understands that political influence and furthering his own concerns doesn't come cheap.
But here's some old news. 'Marriages of conveniences' are all the range in a representative democracy that is based on proportional representation. There is no such thing as political monogamy these days. Unless you're Brendan Horan.
National has a 'marriage of convenience' with Peter Dunne, with John Banks, with the Maori Party. It more than likely will be looking to establish a 'marriage of convenience' with Colin Craig and the Conservative Party.
The Labour Party also has a smorgasbord of parties it proposes to hitch up with - the Greens's, Mana, New Zealand First, the Internet Party. I just hope they're all practising safe sex.
Oh and the guy who is adding up the wedding numbers is stupid Martyn Bradbury of The Daily Dotcom. You know the guy - he's the one who wanted a job with the Internet Party at $8000 a month.
The point largely being missed is that the Mana Party once proclaimed itself to be a grassroots working class party. It was to be a hub around which a working class movement would grow. That's what is supporters claimed, including Socialist Aotearoa, the Workers Party (now Fightback) and the International Socialist Organisation as well as the Unite Union.
Indeed Socialist Aotearoa, not so long ago, was firmly opposed to any 'marriage of convenience' with Labour or the Greens. 'Single and proud!', was its cry. 'Mana is an anti-capitalist party!'
How times have changed, as have political principles. Joe Carolan of Socialist Aotearoa (and a organiser with the Unite Union) has ludicrously tried to compare Dotcom to no less than Vladimir Lenin and thinks people should refrain from criticising Internet Mana. Which is a 'unique' view of democratic debate, to say the least.
Carolan is a colleague and friend of Unite's national secretary Mike Treen. He recently issued a statement on behalf of Unite that it would support the election of a Labour led government. He made that statement without consulting the membership first. Not a whole lot of democracy going on here either.
It seems that in the pursuit of parliamentary seats the people who are driving the Internet Mana project consider the working class to be merely voting fodder. We'll make all the decisions and you can just vote for us. That doesn't sound much of a deal to me and its pretty disgraceful coming from people who regularly berate the Government for its undemocratic behaviour.
I think Sue Bradford saw all this and it was one of the reasons why she immediately resigned. Good on her.
The Mana Party has turned into just another bourgeois party in the pursuit of parliamentary seats. It's only future is to be a bridesmaid in a right wing Labour - led government. When what is needed is a radical left party that will campaign to destroy the neoliberal consensus, Internet Mana will only assist in enforcing it.
Nice day for a white wedding? I don't think so.
THE SPECTRE OF 'LESSER EVIL' POLITICS
Is the Labour Party really the 'lesser evil' or is it just a smokescreen to conceal that, yet again, this election will present us with no alternative to neoliberalism?
In the case of the Labour Party it has become increasingly more difficult for its supporters to justify their continued loyalty for a party that has abandoned its own social democratic traditions. Former leader Phil Goff was just being honest in 2009 when he dismissed Labour's founding objective, "the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange" as 'nineteenth century' thinking.
Of course that phrase was dropped by the Labour Party back in 1951 but, even so, we can still read in the Labour Party constitution this objective: "To educate the public in the principles and objectives of democratic socialism and economic and social co-operation."
But this is an objective the Labour Party can never even partially fulfil since its new stated objective is to 'not interfere in the market'. And leader David Cunliffe would have real problems talking about 'democratic socialism' since he has already said that 'socialism is not a word I use'. He has no problems in using the word 'market' though.
Indeed Cunliffe would more than likely agree with Goff's 2009 comments that Labour’s mission is work out "how you make a modern capitalist system work more effectively, and work in favour of all of the citizens of a country – and not just the chosen few, the elite at the top."
I could well imagine this is what John Key claims he is doing as well. It's pure nonsense.
Yes, Eduard's Bernstein's so-called 'evolutionary road to socialism' has crashed and burned. Rosa Luxemburg was right all along.
But it is 2014 and another election looms and the drumbeat for a Labour vote is growing louder on the Labour-aligned blogs and in the offices of the trade union bosses. Having comprehensively failed to defend the interests of workers for yet another three years, these very same union officials want workers to do them a favour and vote for Labour.
It's around about this time that the spectre of 'lesser evil' politics floats into view. If you look closely you can see the strings being pulled by the CTU's Helen Kelly and Robert Reid.
You can expect to be warned - frequently - that not voting for Labour will mean another three years of National. You are invited not to remember what Labour did when it was in government because, apparently, it's going to be so much better this time round. Really.
Even one of the more progressive unions, the Unite Union, is peddling the politics of 'lesser evilism'. National secretary Mike Treen, who describes himself as a socialist, says there are 'substantial differences' between the 'current parties of government' and the 'current opposition parties '. When you cut through the obfuscation what he is really saying is that there are substantial differences between Labour and National.
Treen, and other Labour apologists like him, have tried to emphasise the few issues where there are disagreements between the parties, in an attempt to deceive people into believing that they are being offered a real choice by representative democracy.
And, already, so-called lefties are beginning to avoid criticising Labour about anything - because that's what 'lesser evil' politics requires.
What Treen doesn't tell us is what Labour's core beliefs actually are because, if he was being honest, he'd have to front up and admit that he's asking people to vote for another three years of neoliberal and anti-worker policies. As the head of a union that represents low wage workers I think his position is questionable, to say the least - especially since the Unite membership don't appear to have been consulted before Treen issued his pro-Labour statement on behalf of the union.
But what is healthy is that an increasing number of people don't believe the bullshit about Labour being 'better' than National. This was amply demonstrated by the historic low turnout at the last election. Why vote for any of the bastards?
And as political scientist lecturer Bryce Edwards suggested on TVNZ's Q+A a week or so ago, we could well be heading for another low turnout again this year.
Instead of being seduced by 'lesser evilism' it is worth remembering the wise words of the American socialist Hal Draper who described the 1964 Presidential election this way: 'In setups where the choice is between one capitalist politician and another, the defeat comes in accepting the limitation to this choice."
SILENCE BY OMISSION
Columnist Chris Trotter gives up on 'Green Capitalism' but remains silent about the alternative.
LESS THAN A MONTH ago columnist and commentator Chris Trotter was wholeheartedly praising the Green Party and its policies of market environmentalism. He wrote:Only the Greens have grasped the need to turn the mechanisms of the market to new, environmentally sustainable and socially integrative purposes. In the spirit of Isaiah, their mission is to beat the market’s swords into ploughshares and its spears into pruning hooks.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Green Capitalism!
A month later though Trotter has had a dramatic change of heart. Prompted by Bryce Edwards' criticism of 'Green Capitalism' on TVNZ's Q+A, Trotter has now decided that trying 'to turn the mechanisms of the market to new, environmentally sustain and socially integrative purposes' is, well, delusional. He writes:
Can you really prefix “Green” to the global phenomenon that’s pouring more and more Carbon Dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere?....Green Capitalism? You might as well speak of Green Cancer. But, if you’re looking for alternatives – why not ‘Man Crusher’? Or, ‘Earth Eater’?
He even speculates that Green co-leader Russel Norman knows that 'Green Capitalism' is a load of nonsense.
It is a remarkable turnaround by Trotter but not an altogether unfamiliar one. Last year, you may recall, he was championing David Shearer as the future of the Labour Party. Less than two months later he was calling for his replacement by David Cunliffe.
Of course we might get a laugh out of Trotter's ever changing politics but we should also remember that he resolutely refuses to acknowledge that we socialists might actually be right about a few things.
Although he rightly dismisses 'Green Capitalism' he remains about silent about the alternative - ecosocialism. It is the ecosocialist movement that provides a radical and ecologically friendly alternative to capitalism.
But refusing to take that final step to ecosocialism, Trotter's conclusion is a pessimistic one - 'From the road we’ve chosen there is no turning'.
Trotter is right when he concludes that within capitalism an ecologically balanced world is indeed impossible. But we, the people of the world, don't have to continue on this road. Socialism doesn’t make an ecologically balanced world certain, but it will make it possible.
It is disappointing that Trotter fails to use his position in the media to promote this liberating message. Instead his message is one of despair. If, as Rosa Luxemburg wrote, the choice is either socialism or barbarism it seems that Trotter has chosen barbarism.
HOW MUCH OF A TOSSER IS MIKE HOSKING?
Mike Hosking thinks protesting about poverty and inequality is a waste of time, especially when it makes the National Government look bad....
THERE WAS A PR0TEST outside the Sky City conference venue in Auckland yesterday. This was the venue for a lunchtime speech by the Prime Minister to the Transtasman Business Circle 
The protest, organised by Auckland Action Against Poverty, was in response to the Government' s Budget. Demonstrators shouted "stop the war on the poor" as they tried to enter the convention centre.
In a press statement Alastair Russell said: “The disconnect between English’s talked-up ‘rock star’ economy and the reality experienced by low-income New Zealanders is startling. We work with people every day who face the choice between feeding the kids or paying the power bill. This Budget provides very little meaningful relief for those at the very bottom.
The protest was 'covered' by TVNZ's Seven Sharp last night by reporter Tim Wilson. Rather than talk about the issues that AAAP were addressing Wilson thought it would be a really great idea to satirise the protest by comparing it with protests overseas. Protest scenes were spliced with comments made by judge Simon Cowell on American Idol.
It amounted to a hatchet job on the protest, an attempt to delegitimise the issues that the AAAP wanted to raise.What can we expect next from Wilson? A 'fun' piece about domestic violence perhaps?
If this wasn't enough, National Party cheerleader Mike Hosking had to make his opinions known. He clearly regards Seven Sharp as an extension of his NewstalkZB radio show because he never misses an opportunity to peddle his dismal politics. Having talked up the Government's budget on his radio show, he was predictably dismissive of the protest.
Turning to his co-host Toni Street (whose main job is to try and make Hosking seem vaguely human) he said 'Don't you think those protesters energy would of been better spent on their own lives instead of protesting?'.
In a better world Toni Street would of retorted; 'Listen you right wing prick, they were protesting about poverty and inequality and welfare cuts.You got a problem with that?'
But, of course, she didn't. In the world that we do live, Street now refers to John Key's biggest fan as 'Hosko'.
HOPELESS
The 2014 Budget has only served to highlight just how hopeless David Cunliffe and the Labour Party are.
THE GENERAL consensus out there in medialand and the blogosphere is that National's 2014 Budget, mixed together with the election in mind, has effectively outflanked the Labour Party. By throwing a few choice lollies the way of 'middle' New Zealand, Labour has been left looking like an also ran in the 'pick and mix' stakes. John Key grabbed all the nice soft-centred chocolates leaving David Cunliffe with a few hard boiled sweets and a stick of liquorice. 
A few calculated entitlements like free doctors' visits for children under the age of 13 won't do National's re-election chances any harm but it will leave Labour, already struggling in the polls, in danger of falling further behind. It's grim news indeed for David Cunliffe and co when National turn into what political commentator Bryce Edwards has described as 'Labour Lite'.
But much of this is Labour's own fault. It had three years to learn the lessons of the 2010 defeat but hasn't. Intent of fighting for what it perceives to be the political 'centre', its message that it can run the economy better than National is entirely unconvincing. Cunliffe's comments that Labour has no intention of interfering in 'the market' is hardly a vision of a different future for the country. Yes, lets all rush to the polling booths because Labour is a friend of big business!
In the absence of any meaningful alternative manifesto, getting Labour reelected has turned into a numbers racket. The equation is this: Labour + Green Party + Mana Party + NZ First + Internet Party = David Cunliffe, Prime Minister. That's if the numbers add up, of course. This is a big 'if' indeed.
The fact that Cunliffe is an empty shirt who stands, like the party he leads, for nothing more than the same neoliberal crap we've had for the past three decades is apparently of no great consequence to Labour's supporters. Racist nationalists and wealthy capitalists with libertarian beliefs are now all welcome in Labour's tent these days. This is described, in terms that George Orwell would recognise, as an expression of 'unity'. Stupid blogger Martyn Bradbury thinks this is an expression of 'left unity'. I'm sure he would welcome the Church of Scientology into Labour's camp if he thought it would boost the polling numbers.
What National's Budget has highlighted (again) is that Labour is bereft of any plan for the future that isn't tied to the demands of capital. Labour are, in the end, hopeless.
Of course if Labour do lose again, it won't be the peddlers of Labour's snakeoil who'll be the victims. They'll all toddle off back to their comfortable union offices and media outposts. It'll be the people they've betrayed who will be left to face the consequences of a third term National-led government.
THE CARNAGE OF WARWICK
The Beatles played the Majestic Theatre in 1964. Last week, despite local community protests and objections from the Christchurch City Council, they began to demolish the Majestic. The demolition was ordered by Warwick Isaacs of the Christchurch Central Development Unit in order to do some road widening. It joins a very long list of heritage buildings that have been destroyed and there are still more demolitions planned.
I'VE ALWAYS LIKED 'Christchurch (In Cashel Street I Wait)' by The Exponents. In fact in a cardboard box somewhere, I have a 12" dance mix vinyl copy of the 1985 song. In those days the band were known, of course, as the Dance Exponents. 
One of the strengths of lead singer Jordan Luck's songwriting in those days was his uncanny knack of evoking a sense of place in just a few words. 'Caroline Skies' is a song that speaks of summer days down on Caroline Bay in Timaru while Sex and Agriculture tells a story of getting up to no good in and around Ashburton.
And in Christchurch (In Cashel Street I Wait) Luck sings:
Churches, Townships with Churches
I’m Counting Bibles, Counting Pews
Cathedrals, Cities with Cathedrals
Stained Glass Windows are my View
Christchurch, In Cashel Street I Wait
Together We Will Be, One Day
Unfortunately this song now only evokes memories of a Christchurch that has all but vanished. The big quake may of devastated the city but the bulldozers and wrecking balls of Gerry Brownlee and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) are in the process of finishing off the job. What is often described as Christchurch's Gothic Revival identity has all but been obliterated by CERA'S 'scorched earth' policy.
It has made a mockery of comforting statements made by Christopher Finlayson, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. In 2011 he said:
"The heritage buildings throughout Canterbury are an important part of the region's character and its history. The earthquake caused significant damage to many heritage and character buildings. The cost of their repair and restoration will be considerable, and it is appropriate that Government assists with local rebuilding and strengthening efforts to preserve this history.
But as of February this year 43 percent of central Christchurch's heritage buildings listed with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust had been pulled down. In total over 240 buildings have been demolished.
The Christchurch City Council have been powerless to stop CERA's carnage. In 2011 former Councillor Peter Beck told The Press that the way heritage buildings were being pulled down left him feeling impotent.
''It's another example of the way in which the local community, through the council, is being ignored. The view of the people in this city is not being listened to.''
Last year a 5000-signature petition was presented to Parliament calling for a halt to the demolition of quake-hit heritage buildings.
Green MP Eugenie Sage, who presented the petition to Parliament, said:
"This is an unprecedented loss of our history and heritage. CERA and the Government appear to have blocked their ears to public concerns about retaining Christchurch's heritage buildings and how they contribute to the city's character and its attractiveness to tourists."
Last week the demolition of another heritage building, the Majestic Theatre, began. Opened in 1930, the Art Deco building suffered only moderate earthquake damage and was repairable.
Heritage groups appealed to the city council last month to intervene. Although the city council have objected to the demolition, Mayor Lianne Dalziel said that the council had no grounds to seek a judicial review.
Dalziel is right. CERA's dictatorial powers mean it can knock down any building it wants with legal impunity.
The Majestic Theatre is, for CERA, another round peg that won't fit into the square hole that is the Government's dismal central city blueprint. The Majestic is in the way of widening Lichfield Street a few metres.
The obliteration of Christchurch's identity is the price the good people of the city are being forced to pay for the characterless glass and concrete edifices that dominate the Government's blueprint. This plan, which was supposed to attract billions of dollars (mostly overseas money) into the city has completely failed. The cost of that failure is the extinguishing of the Christchurch we once knew and loved, the city that 'Christchurch (In Cashel Street I Wait) speaks of. The good people of Christchurch have good reason to think they are now strangers in their own city.
Gerry Brownlee and his chums have not only not only ripped down the central city they have also ripped out its heart and soul.
