Herald on Bradford
September 26th, 2009 at 7:46 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald editorial:
Green MP Sue Bradford’s sudden retirement from Parliament yesterday reflects little credit on her party. With typical candour she declares her decision was prompted by the party’s co-leadership election a few months ago, which she lost to a young Maori, Metiria Turei.
Normally this would sound like sour grapes but whatever one thinks of Ms Bradford’s politics, she does not seem to suffer from wounded pride or excessive self-importance. She is remembered for the indignities she was willing to suffer in the years before entering Parliament when she was pictured in every small protest sit-in, usually being carried away by the police.
This is true, but I still regard it as a bad look for an MP to bail out of Parliament just a few months after they got elected.
Being elected to Parliament is a huge privilege, and MPs are elected for a three year term. It is one of the downsides of MMP that List MPs especially are being shuffled into and out of Parliament outside the electoral cycle.
I think no MP should bail out of Parliament early, unless it is for ill health, or to take up an appointment.
When Jeanette Fitzsimons relinquished the female co-leadership this year Ms Bradford was clearly the strongest candidate to replace her, and she knew it. Ms Turei was barely known outside the party and Sue Kedgley, another previous campaigner who has found her feet in Parliament, seemed not to be interested.
I’m not sure I agree. First of all Turei was deemed the favourite to win at a very early stage. Secondly the skills at being a good legislator (which Bradford was) are not necessarily the skills of leadership. Leadership is about taking people with you – and I think Bradford has never shown much in the way of skills there.
So why did Ms Bradford miss out? It is reasonable to conclude the Greens wanted a different face. They are a party sensitive to demographic character, as evidenced by co-leadership from different genders. Ms Turei offered youth and ethnic diversity. In the four months since her election she has not shown much else.
A party that puts appearances before substance is making difficulties for itself.
The Herald overlooks another issue – maybe the biggest issue. Bradford has rarely been involved with environmental issues. Her causes are social justice. In fact some in the Greens had grumbled her fights for so called social justice diminished the Greens branding as an environmental party.
Russel Norman (who like Bradford used to be a communist – Marxist not Maoist though) also has a background more on the social justice side, than the environmental side. Since becoming co-leader his focus has changed – but nevertheless I think a combination of Norman and Bradford would have weakened the Greens brand as an environmental party – and I suspect this was a factor in Turei’s victory.
Related posts:
- Turei wins co-leader election
- Bradford threatened to quit if Greens are not left-wing enough
- Bradford hurting
- Bradford quits
September 26th, 2009 at 7:55 am
That’s how I have seen her (or not seen her). But at this stage of the electoral cycle it doesn’t really matter, it’s probably more important for her to settle in and get herself established. All she really has to do is raise her (and the Green) profile by election year, and that will have been made easier with Bradford’s exit.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Brian summed it up last night at the Treefellers Arms when he said he was gutted when she lost out in replacing Genetically Modified and again now she has resigned. He saw her as the best option for the Greens in his eyes.The last thing we want is sensible policy and action.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 8:03 am
totally disagree with you dpf..
the green membership was ‘played’..using those ‘socialist’ chimera you cite…
and are unutterably stupid to have allowed themselves to be tricked like that..
(of course..the irony here..is that norman only won over tanczos…’cos of the campaigning/organising skills of bradford..
..with the ‘deal’ being..that bradford would ease into the leadership..(with normans’ support..as a quid pro quo…)
..in the end..norman didn’t make good on that deal..)
and the overwhelming feeling from watching the vid of the press conference..(where bradford/norman/turei all spoke…)
is that all he gravitas in the room..came from bradford..
and she has now left the ‘green room’..
and good luck to turei/norman..
but as the article from armstrong acerbically notes..
since her election..turei has shown little more than her youth..and ethnic diversity..
so i do worry…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 8:11 am
“so i do worry…”
What, that you won’t be able to hide behind a 14 year old forever and that you might one day get dragged kicking and screaming into the workforce?
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 8:13 am
I’m sorry did Sue Bradford (I received 2,000 votes at the last election) say her favourite past time was fishing?
From today’s Herald…
Any spare time could be dedicated to her hobby, fishing. “I was the only fisherman in the Green caucus.”
So let’s get this right. A parent can no longer lightly smack a child – but Ms Bradford can on a regular basis, skewer large amounts of marine life with sharp metal hooks, wrenching them from their natural environment, bludgeon them with a heavy object to silence their flapping, and slice them open, removing their intestines, to satisfy her own personal pleasures???
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 8:30 am
“Russel Norman (who like Bradford used to be a communist……..)”
Used to be?
The green party has always been a communist party, end of story. It will never be anything else. They are all communists. All the eco-nonsense is nothing more than a front to conceal their real agenda, which is, as always, the attainment of unbridled political power.
Bill.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Turia being a self-proclaimed “anarcho-feminist” adds steel & genuine credibility to the “Green Party” brand. *rolls eyes*
..bunch of control-freak enviro-statists.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 8:34 am
yup BR is right “used to be a communist”???
The Greens were stolen from the environmentalists when Bradford and her fellow travellers saw a weak party and that they could subvert it – standard communist operating procedure.
There is a beautiful irony in having stolen the party, done a secret deal with Norman to roll Tanczos, to then get stabbed in the back.
Tis ever the way with communists however, the Leninists hate the Maoists more than they hate capitalists.
Been fun, looking forward to round two.
oh, and credit where its due, Phool (of the awful punctuation) has had the best analysis of whats going on here.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 9:06 am
She was on tv last night priding herself with her anti-smacking bill passing. In reality, she should thank Taito Phillip Fields because if it wasn’t for him bowing out of the labour party fending off charges of fraud (typical of labour ministers then) helen clark wouldn’t have been so desperate to make a deal with the greens and keep the majority. She also wouldn’t budge when John Key approached her with the changes that Helen Clark and John Key made to the law before it was passed. This is why I think she didn’t become co-leader. She won’t compromise. Anyway you look at it, it is a great day for New Zealand. One of the biggest hypocrites in Parliament. If she was so concerned about child abuse, why didn’t she put all that energy into the real causes of child abuse. I know the answer, she is a communist and the way to control society is break down the family. She is a good argument against mmp because she never won an election.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 9:40 am
So really it was a battle btw the Maoists and the Marxists…. sheesh. Wars between different levels of the communists is remarkably boring. Now that Bradford is gone the Greens should start bringing in a proper Greenie and not another stupid watermelon. One day the Greens may actually turn into a credible party… not that I am giving free advice!
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 10:10 am
What on earth is the difference between a ‘Maoist’ and a ‘Marxist’?!?!
Communists come in different shades? gosh, what a lot of rot!
As if there is any difference between one set of enslaving murderers and another; as if there is a difference between Black Power and the Mongrel Mob.
Shame on the Herald for giving column inches to this rubbish.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Again, good on the lady, she did her thing, stood up for what she believed and tried to make a difference, more than can be said for most kiwis.
Perhaps it is true that the green’s will be left with an opportunity to create a better face and raise more support for the next election’s. Good stuff.
I fail to see the huge difference between socialist and none socialist. As i understand things our health, law enforcement and justice systems are very much socialist style systems, and I like that. Or should we have to pay for calling 111 or going to get a broken leg seen too.? Or should it all be user pay’s??
Ask not what you can do for the work force but what the workforce can do for you, and if that’s stuff all then……. the box is oh so transparent.
menace: fixing the problems of a nation with a keyboard since a few posts a go.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I appreciate your point DPF about the public getting what they voted for. But if your heart’s not in it anymore it is better for you, better for your party and better for the public if you go.
On balance, I think the ability for an MP to bail out early (without putting their party and the country to the wrack, expense and distraction of a byelection) is a good thing.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 10:44 am
democracymum wrote:
Hang on. Sue might be a catch-and-release type. The Green party have belatedly come to the same conclusion about her.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 11:00 am
NZ Herald wrote:
Young Maori? Odd language to use. Sue Bradford, an old Pakeha women.
If the Greens ditched the economically illiterate Marxists types they would garner significantly more support. Youth and naive political ideas go hand-in-hand. And now throw in environmental awareness. Fortunately people get older and wiser and most move away from the absurdness of their earlier political ideas. But many such older NZers are interested in environmental issues and are no doubt put off by the other side of the Green party.
So.. come on Greens. Have a Stalinist purge and become a real party for environmental issues, not a rag bag of washed up Marxists who never left university or had a real(TM) job.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Well Malcolm, if in fact the Boogers (Greens) are catch – & – release, they should have tagger Sue Bradford and released her many years ago……
All one needs to do is look at the key points that are the back bone of the Boogers and if you buy into that, I really would need to question if in fact there were any neurons in ones head….
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 11:07 am
“Now that Bradford is gone the Greens should start bringing in a proper Greenie and not another stupid watermelon. One day the Greens may actually turn into a credible party…”
But this is the problem, the world wide green movement seems stitched at the hip with socialism at best, and Marxism at worst.
Vote:Who in the Greens current line up carries the environment as their primary passion? Where is the common sense sustainability drive that would gain them more support?.
It is not hard to preach a message of not crapping in your own nest, the problem is most of these guys spend most of their time trying to fundamentally change the nest and do nothing about the reasons for the crap!!
September 26th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Philu’s analysis rings true to me. When I saw the press conference I felt I could almost see the daggers just below table level in the hands of Norman and Turei. As for the bollocks printed in the Herald:
“Normally this would sound like sour grapes but whatever one thinks of Ms Bradford’s politics, she does not seem to suffer from wounded pride or excessive self-importance.”
What utter shite. Bradford admitted in the press conference that she had been upset at the lack of support in her bid for the co-leadership. The Herald really is a useless piece of garbage. Audrey Young’s piece was also nauseating.
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/audrey-young/2009/9/25/fearless-sue-bradford-will-leave-big-gap/?c_id=1501219
If her replacement focuses on environmental issues instead of social ones, the Greens could move up the rankings. I’m sure the analysts in Wellington will be working hard out on their projections of any possible shifts in power.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Well Lineberry, if you don’t think that communists come in different factions, perhaps you could go and interview a few Mensheviks? Oh sorry they all seem to be dead.
Maybe you could call up Leon Trotsky? Oh, thats right, a bit of a nasty accident.
You socialists are notorious for scheming, factionalising and generally backbiting and hating each other.
THats why its so funny to see Bradford offed by her own tactics.
At least Norman didnt use an icepick!
But anyone who thinks a Leninist (Norman) and a “anarcho-feminist” (whatever that is, except it goes down well as a lesbian pick-up line) represent a “greening” of the Party, is in for a nasty shock
but as I said before, pull up a comfy chair, I have popcorn and beer, its going to be fun watching Sue claim her Utu.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I tend to agree with those who suggest that this is the first stage of a Green re branding, I suspect that Locke and Mad Delahunty are next in line for the chop.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Well, as far as standing up for what you believed, the same could be said about Hitler couldn’t it? or any other dictator wanting to get their way, wishes of the elctorate be damned.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Who is this person “Turei” –
am I supposed to have heard of her?
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“Russel Norman (who like Bradford used to be a communist – Marxist not Maoist though) also has a background more on the social justice side, than the environmental side. Since becoming co-leader his focus has changed”
Must have changed very recently.
When I talked to him (i.e. when he chose to use fossil burning transport to travel across Christchurch (indeed NZ) to go to a party) he happily stated he knew nothing of green issues, he simply led the Green party.
As for Bradford She is remembered for the indignities she was willing to suffer in the years before entering Parliament when she was pictured in every small protest sit-in, usually being carried away by the police. sums it up.
Rent-a-mob member with delusions of grandeur.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Has anyone made the comparison with that Quitter, Sarah Palin, or the fact that The Greens are turning more and more into a Communist party than a environmental one.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I agree Malcolm. “young maori”? Was that supposed to be patronising or condescending or both? Saw Metiria on 7Days last night. Can’t say I’m impressed and I wonder if she has any leadership potential at all. After seeing her call Auckland “dorkland” on twitter, I’m not exactly sure of her mental age either. Hopefully the greens become an environmental party now but I won’t hold my breath. I would’ve thought an intelligent Green party could monopolise on the mining of small areas of national parks to progress much more important environmental policies and benefit society at the same time. However Metiria seems to enjoy cheap popular shots for the benefit of her small entourage instead.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
labrator wrote:
I agree. I’ve only seen her a couple of times on the telly and in pictures in the web. She always has some enormous wearable sculpture around her neck*. All hat and no cattle, me thinks.
*admittedly not the most rigorous way to assess the Greens, but you can’t look at their policies; many are clearly jokes put in there to see if anyone reads them.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
DPF said: Bradford has rarely been involved with environmental issues. Her causes are social justice. In fact some in the Greens had grumbled her fights for so called social justice diminished the Greens branding as an environmental party.
DPF, her allocated portfolios responsibilities were in social issues, so she was publicly perceived as not being involved (and possibly perceived as not being concerned) with environmental issues. But that perception is erroneous.
I think I can safely say now that she has announced her resignation as a Green MP that Sue Bradford advocated within the Green Party to oppose the Labour Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme last year because she considered it was too weak to be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I was in the same camp within the Greens – as an anonymous blogger I was able to state my position publicly. As an MP, Sue wasn’t. I don’t think her deep concerns for environmental issues has ever really been seen publicly.
Oh, and as for the Green branding you refer to DPF, research commissioned by the Green Party would indicate that have that sewn up – way ahead of any other party in public perception of concern about the environment. That same research also indicates that the Greens are largely perceived as a single issue party, and that many electors don’t see them as having the credibility across the wide range of policy areas necessary to be considered as a party that can lead a government.
So I’d argue the converse to your assertion – that if the Greens aspire to be a major party, it is their branding and public credibility in areas other than environmental concerns that needs to be improved.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
philu notes:
So the Greens now succumb to same manipulation by professional politicians has has destroyed every other party, especially the fledglings. It’s not just the communists who, as the diety etc etc notes “[see] a weak party and [think] that they could subvert it” but unprincipled, ambitious troughers of all ilks who rely on the need of all parties for members who’ll play an active role, then gerrymander themselves to the top.
The only solution I can see is for people to wake up and start electing independents, who’re directly answerable only to their electorate and who will cut legislative deals on a case-by-case basis, always mindful of how it will play back home with the voters. But that’s too hard for the NZ electorate — better to look for the right logo and tick the box… if you can be bothered voting at all.
Meanwhile DPF notes:
I’d say the exact opposite, but I guess it depends on your definition of a “good” legislator. I guess getting a measure which is almost universally opposed by the electorate to not only pass but to be adopted as de facto policy by a governing party which ought, by tradition if not common sense, be utterly opposed to it — and to have them do so in the face of an overwhelming reminder of the public’s disapproval via referendum — is quite an achievement. But not one I admire.
OTOH I’ve seen Sue on the barricades, and thought she had excellent leadership ability, at least of a protest crowd.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
That credibility is not helped by being hard left on that wide range of policy issues. When people tell the greens they should stick to enviromentalism they really mean ditch the quasi-communist non-enviromental policies, shift to centre so you can work with both sides of the political divide and suggest more practical steps toward conservation and policy than a poorly costed wish list (“green new deal”).
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
what makes me laugh, is that SOME labour MP’s are saying how sorry they are to see Sue go BUT Andrew Little is saying that her leaving will bring bring Green Voters to labour, SO, are the MP’s really sorry or has Little go it wrong?
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
paradigm said: When people tell the greens they should stick to enviromentalism they really mean ditch the quasi-communist non-enviromental policies, shift to centre so you can work with both sides of the political divide and suggest more practical steps toward conservation and policy than a poorly costed wish list (”green new deal”).
I disagee with you there- the Green New Deal is actually well costed, at least as far as a partyin Opposition that does not have access to Treasury advice can manage.
And the “shift to centre” that you advocate just won’t work. To be effective in implementing pro-environment measures, a Government has two choices – tax or regulate. Both of these are spun by the right as “communist”. But do you really think business is going to clean its act up environmentally if it doesn’t wither face a cost of doing so or be prohibited by law from continuing to undertake its environmentally destructive activities?
Nick Smith spun the shower flow and light bulb issues as “nanny state” for all they were worth before the last election. But they were really just setting sensible environmental standards that many on the right seem to perceive as unnecessary. If those on the right want to promote energy conservation, tell me how you would do it.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
jabba said: …BUT Andrew Little is saying that her leaving will bring bring Green Voters to labour…
I hope he’s wrong, because Labour’s record on improving the lot of the poorest members of our society is piss poor.
But I fear he may be right, in which case the poorest members of our society will get Rogered yet again.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
As he should of, because they were. If someone can afford something, they can afford it. We haven’t run out of water and we haven’t run out of power.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
labrator said: We haven’t run out of water and we haven’t run out of power.
WTF? So you want to wait till we do before we do anything about it? Might be a bit late then, don’t you think?
Whose side will you be on when the water wars start labrator?
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Ok, so I always thought you were a reasonable commentor, but now you’re saying there are going to be water wars? Sounds a little like a Hollywood plot gone wrong and a lot like one of those fundamentalists who want to know if I’m going to be fighting for or against god on judgement day.
The world has plenty of water. We’ve also got the intelligence and ability to get as much of it as we need, desalination isn’t hard.
Just out of interest, if there were water wars, what weapons should I bring? I’m assuming not negative karma.
Vote:September 26th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I think we’ve just seen a toad handed his (its?) arse.
I guess this is the best spin the greens can come up with, after all it is the weekend, and all the “activists” don’t clock on till 9:00 am monday.
Vote:September 27th, 2009 at 7:51 am
“…Labour’s record on improving the lot of the poorest members of our society is piss poor.”
What do you and the Luddites want: more welfarism, more benefits, higher taxes, confiscation/redistribution of wealth, income capping, mandatory dress-code?
Remember, socialism has been defeated, although there are people who still long for it. You and your Green comrades are some of them.
Vote:September 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am
@Manolo “What do you and the Luddites want: more welfarism, more benefits, higher taxes, confiscation/redistribution of wealth, income capping, mandatory dress-code?”
Yes, that and more. Dribbling showers, and mandatory eco-friendly light bulbs. Mandatory union membership. Banning all forms of smoking (except, of course, the whacky baccy). Banning anything that does not accord with their messed-up view of the world. Population control (e.g. “one child policy”) as a way to control “climate change”. Oh, and a statue of Marx and Mao holding hands and skipping through a meadow in the main square of each town and city would be nice, too.
Vote:September 27th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
You are all crazy, the Green Party is not full of communists, I’m sure the right wing in this country doesn’t even know the meaning of the word communist. You just get your propaganda from outlets like FOX News in the States and use it to try and tarnish the integrity of the left. The Green Party does not operate by coups and alligences within the caucas like you profess. Every single member of the Party can vote for all the main roles within the Party. Sure, they do believe in regulation but theres no other way of confronting the issue of climate change, its scientific fact that climate change is happening and fast. Just because the right doesn’t have the balls or the moral desency to do anything about it doesn’t make the Green Party communists. We believe in equality, ecological wisdom and social justice.
Vote:September 27th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“integrity of the left”
bwuhahaha!
We don’t need help from US television, we just need the eyes in our faces and our own ability to think, to know exactly how communists behave.
Are you trying to say that Sue, Locke, Norman, Delahunty and Terei ARENT communists?
Some of us have read the playbook and learned from it.
Communists don’t reluctantly turn to regulation, its their preferred solution to everything – mass compulsion is your MO (when you aren’t infiltrating, undermining and otherwise trying to tear down society).
Sorry sonny, why don’t you go back to saving the planet with your own set of carefully selected “scientific facts”, the rest of us have the heaters on because that damn global warming seems a bit delayed.
Vote:September 27th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
tautokai.baxter – Welcome. I think you’ll find your rosy opinion of the Greens soundly rebutted around here.
For my part, I believe the NZ green party is on a par with its international cousins: a weird, fetid swamp of Marxists and far-left authoritarian ideologies all clambering to control our lives.
If you want political relevance then I recommend the environmental elements open their eyes to the Stockholm syndrome that has them in fawning adoration of their far-left captors
Vote:September 27th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
alister..!
you forgot the compulsory red under every bed…
it’s in the manifesto..!
(do you ever listen to yourself..?..and then just burst out laughing..?
we do..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 27th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Well getstaffed thats why I have come, to give you people some truth, as you so obviously lack it. Yes I am saying their not communists, I don’t belive any of them would support the kind of government that Lenin, Mao, or Stalin had. They are trying to let all New Zealanders have eqaulity and a future on this planet, aswell as ensuring they are given the basic human rights I’m sure you would like to take away.
And no, they may not turn reluctantly to regulation but if we had it your way, the free market capitalist system would decide everything and the majority of New Zealanders would be left with no protection from employers who care about profit. Very few buisnesses are going to decide to use green, carbon low, ideas because they don’t see the profit in it. Sometimes you have to think about more than just personal wealth.
Global warming delayed? Are you joking? What rock have you been living under? If we do not stabilize global tempratures by 2020 then theres no turning back; we wont be able to control sea level rises, messed up weather patterns, enchroacing deserts and droughts.
Watch ‘The Age of Stupid’, it may enlighten you.
Vote:September 28th, 2009 at 12:59 am
I was going to have a rant about the BS that tautokai.baxter posted and 9.49 pm, but I can’t be bothered. I’ll just say this:
I’ll see your Age of Stupid and raise you a Great Global Warming Swindle. One is a documentary about the greatest con job ever pulled, and the other is a fairy tale about a mythical future.
And if you don’t think Keith Locke is a communist, you’ve been round at Fill-Ewe’s place toking on his bong.
Phil, I said the other day I don’t think you’re a complete idiot and I stand by that. I just think you are misguided, and severely affected by dope and an indolent lifestyle. I didn’t mean manifesto in the manner of Mao’s little red book you fucking moron, I meant manifesto in the form of the policies and pronouncements that combine together to form the party’s values and beliefs system.
And by the way, you really think there is a “we” on kiwiblog (or anywhere else, for that matter) that involves you? And that this “we” that exists only in your head is laughing at me? My comments are reasoned and reasonable. They are generally grammatically correct sentences, which makes them both legible and comprehensible. Some others, to juxtapose, suffer from a severe overdose of punctuation coupled with a lack of form and capitalisation, making them not only incomprehensible, but painful to look at. Do you wonder why so few people engage in discourse with you any more? It’s because you post such utter shit that nobody has any idea what you’re saying. Most people see your moniker at the top of a comment, flick a negative karma your way on the way down, and move on. The sad thing about that is, you’ve excelled yourself with your analysis of the Greens’ situation on this thread, before reverting to type with the comment about me.
Lay off the dope and get a job. We (the “real” we of the blogosphere) are sick of paying for you.
Vote: