- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, June 26, 2006

GUEST BLOG: John Armstrong needs to eat his greens.

-------Gonzo Remote: observations with id - bomber blog-------

In the Weakend Herald, Political commentator, John Armstrong, completely misses the point of the Greens internal revolt against Jeanette Fitzsimons, Wussel Norman and the recently hijacked Green party machine by liberal middle class pretensions that would soften the 'brand' of the party for Remuera soccer mum votes rather than appeal to grassroots anger.

Armstrong reads the micro-chipping dog vote as a loss of credibility through mismanagement - how very wrong he is. The more radical members of the Greens - Tanczos, Kedgley, Locke and Bradford have rebelled against Fitzsimons, Wussel Norman and the liberal middle class hijackers of the party by playing hardball against the governments ridiculous dog micro-chipping law while delivering a clear message to voters that the Greens are not the door mat for Labour that Rod Donald had created.

His legacy, continued by Fitzsimons and the ridiculously incompetent Wussel Norman is a sure-fire way for the Greens to fall below the 5% threshold - something Wussel Norman almost achieved as campaign manager to the most redundant, unimaginative and misdirected election campaign the Greens have ever attempted.

By 'softening' their image to appeal to Remuera soccer mums, the Greens ignore their strongest voting block, the urban under 30s and without a radical voice they can't catch that voting blocks attention. This micro-chipping dog vote shows a split and a counter-move by those Green MPs who see any 'brand' softening as a death knell for the Greens. To write it off as loosing credibility through mismanagement as John Armstrong does suggests wishful thinking by Armstrong rather than understanding the radical reassertion that's occurring within the Greens.

Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury


Post a Comment

<< Home