Are Todd Barclay And National High-Ups Guilty Of Witness Tampering?

There's an old saying in politics - "It's not the crime that gets you, it's the coverup".

Any number of previous, well-trammelled scandals and imbroglios serve to prove this fundamental truth - with American political happenings such as Watergate and the Lewinski Affair probably being some of the best-known examples.

For various reasons, it's been a maxim often less applied here in New Zealand. There's just something about living in a small, insular 'everybody-knows-everybody' kinda place that makes attempts at pulling off a genuine "cover-up" something of a fool's errand.

Todd Barclay, apparently, is that fool.

Now, there are no doubt any mileage of column-inches about to be penned on the sorry saga by which a young lad managed to throw away a potentially life-long political career handed to him on a platter; but for my money [and it is taxpayer money we're talking about, after all] no explanation better encapsulates what's gone on than that ancient Greek maxim: "Those whom the Gods would destroy ... they first make arrogant".

For it is arrogance in the extreme which appears to have characterized Barclay's conduct right the way through what's gone on. Starting with getting off-side with long-serving electorate office staff over his boyish refusal to turn up for community engagements in his constituency. And continuing apace with his overt antagonism of at least one of these staffers to the point that an employment grievance wound up being filed, and compensation - justly - argued for.

Perhaps it is the brashness of young men [something I'm occasionally somewhat acquainted with]; and certainly, it is not at all out of keeping with the default de-rigeur characterization of the National Party that their incipient scion would have such a low opinion of the rights and protections accorded to the ordinary Kiwi worker [or, for that matter, those whom they are paid princely to represent].

But whilst the stereotypical National voter might not care too much about the well-treatment of employees [and, going off National's previous legislative record in this area, are pretty A-OK with the Government casually listening in on your private conversations] ... if there's one thing they DO care about, it's the outright waste and mis-expenditure of taxpayer money. [At least in concept - once again, National's actual record in this area has many, many millions mis-allocated to things like flag referendums, and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment building redesigns etc.]

And while other commentators are right now asking whether it's an appropriate use of taxpayer coin to provide 'hush-money' to somebody who could potentially embarrass the Government ... I've got a rather different question.

Namely, whether Todd Barclay and co. have actually broken the law with the way they've attempted to keep the woman at the center of this all - one Glenys Dickson - from co-operating with the Police investigation into what's gone on.

So let's recap.

Section 216B of the Crimes Act makes it an offence [albeit a rather mild one, punishable by 'only' up to two years' imprisonment] to illicitly record the private communications of others. Unless, of course, you're Tim Groser having our intelligence services bug rivals for a plum job - in which case, it's absolutely fine, apparently. Gosh, no wonder Barclay thought he was in the right - he was simply aping the example of those further up the National Party greasy-pole than he is. [At the very least, you'd think the Nats would be better acquainted with the ambit of this legislation given its previous use by the Prime Minister of the day to tarr morally blameless cameraman Bradely Ambrose as part o the 'Teapot Tapes' scandal]

It is [rather strongly] alleged that the offence made out in s216B is exactly what Barclay did, using a listening device to record and potentially have a transcript made of Dickson's communications in some sort of bizarre bid to get a 'one-up' of sorts upon her in a brewing employment dispute.

Barclay has always denied that he did this (or at least, that he did so intentionally), and despite assuring his voters that he'd co-operate to the fullest extent with the police investigation into the 'alleged' bugging, he proceeded to dodge and frustrate police inquiries into the matter at every turn.

The ten-month police investigation into the alleged bugging was eventually brought to a fruitless close due to "insufficient evidence"; although it occurs that it is perhaps rather curious that no search-warrant was ever served on Barclay's place of residence [despite a previous Police interest in doing same] to recover the recording device and/or transcripts which would have proven the offence [or, to be fair, to have made out its actus reus element at the very least - errant legal expert Andrew Geddis has suggested that a lack of intent would vitiate the notion of a crime having been committed, even if Barclay later chose to keep the recordings].

All things considered, a sad end to what should have been a proud statement that here in New Zealand, even Government MPs are not above the law [albeit a conclusion one wonders whether the Police might be revisiting, in light of the evident surfeit of people all throughout the upper echelons of the National Party not only of the opinion that a recording WAS made, but apparently acquainted in detail with some of the contents thereof].

But the potential illegalities did not end there; and in light of this week's revelations about what's gone on, I would go so far as to suggest that it's only now that things have gotten 'really interesting'.

Everybody's focused thus far on the aforementioned section 216B of our Crimes Act.

But in fact, there is another - far older - segment of our criminal code that may be more directly relevant to what's gone on here.

In specia, section 117 - "Corrupting Juries And Witnesses" [and, for that matter, perhaps also its immediately above neighbour, s116 - "Conspiring To Defeat Justice"].

Walk with me, if you will, through s117.

Subsection (a) sets out that a person who "dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person, by threats, bribes, or other corrupt means, from giving evidence in any cause or matter (whether civil or criminal[)]" commits an offence punishable by up to seven years imprisonment. Subsection (e) furthers the ambit of this section by adding that a person who "willfully attempts in any other way to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand" is also guilty of the same offence.

Clear so far? Good.

Now take a look at a few of the quotes that have come out from the key National players in this scandal:

Bill English's statement that a "larger than normal settlement [...] part-paid from the Prime Minister's budget in order to avoid potential legal action" takes on a bit of a different light, now, doesn't it.

More to the point, presuming for the moment that the statement Dickson has given to Police about her interactions with various high-up National functionaries is accurate [and I see no reason, at this point to doubt it], what are we to make of her being told that going all the way to Court would make things "difficult" for her and her family? Or, for that matter, the very pointed emphasis that she'd be singlehandedly responsible for "[taking] down the National Party" if she persisted with her police complaint.

Do these incidences appear to look rather like the elements of the offence of witness-tampering as made out in s117 of the Crimes Act? Why, I think they do. At least enough to mount a serious and vigorous prosecution - even if the result is ultimately in the negative.

We have a prima-facie situation of the current Prime Minister stating that a cash payment was considered [which meets the definition of a 'bribe' as set out in the s99 Interpretation of the Crimes Act for 'Crimes Affecting The Administration Of Laws And Justice'] necessary to prevent "legal action" in this matter. Regardless of whether the legal proceedings in question are civil or criminal in nature, the charge laid out in s117 can still apply.

Further, the comments from the as-yet unnamed National Party high-up about how taking Barclay to Court would make things "difficult" for Dickson's family - whilst perhaps presentable as being the mere facts and reality of undergoing legislative proceedings in a high-profile case - certainly appears to have been presented to Dickson with the overt overtones of a "threat". And the attempt to exert 'moral pressure' of a sort upon Dickson to not besmirch the name of the National Party and its ability to pass legislation, is arguably yet another example [if we presume that 'threat' means "if you do X, then Y undesirable consequence for you not directly connected to X will happen"], particularly in light of the implicit statement that Dickson would become something of a pariah in National Party circles [which evidently include quite some of her close associates among them] for being a whistle-blower. At the very least, it would be enough for an exploratory probe under the earlier s116, concerning potential Conspiracy To Defeat The Course Of Justice.

Now will anything come of any of the above? I'm not sure. Certainly, in an ordinary and transparent political-legal system, there would be pretty reasonable grounds to get very, very annoyed indeed if none of this were looked into further by the proper authorities. Particularly in light of the already somewhat curious decision of the Police to drop the Barclay case despite very strong [albeit arguably circumstantial] evidence in their possession that an offence against s216b concerning the illicit recording HAD been committed.

Having said all that, I must concede a possibility that there is yet more material yet to come out which casts the whole thing in a different light. But with what we know so far it is difficult in the extreme to avoid the severe impression of egregious impropriety with what's gone on.

Perhaps my next 'big question' should be why Barclay wasn't de-selected as the local National candidate many, many moons ago. Particularly as a successful conviction for any of the above [even, according to my reading of the law, the relatively more mild s216B recording device charge] would result in the responsible parties - if MPs - being booted out of Parliament with great haste under s55(d) of the Electoral Act.

In order to attempt to 'cauterize' the bleeding - and prevent even 'higher-profile' scalps from finding themselves mounted on some errant litigant's wall - I would fully expect Barclay to be "gone by lunchtime" [in the words of a previous somewhat scandal-mired National Party Leader]. Whether that's enough to prevent a full-scale probe into who's said what to whom is another matter. If National moves to block a proper Inquiry into how much and what sort of involvement senior figures including other MPs had in these events, then it certainly gives the compelling impression that they've something to hide.

In any case, looking at all of this it's pretty hard to feel confident that a party which runs itself in such an avowedly circus-like manner could possibly be fit to govern the rest of the nation.

"The Fish", as they also say in politics, "rots from the head" on down.

A Point To Consider On s59 'Anti-Smacking' Debate

There's a point to be made on this whole 'Anti-Smacking'/s59 debate which New Zealand First has brought back to the limelight, that I don't think I've seen anyone else making.

The reason why it's passed 'below the radar' thus far [with the sole exception of an article penned by a certain errant renegade penman a few months back], is because it's actually a 'liberal' argument which just so happens to bolster a 'conservative' position. Therefore, neither 'side' have really sought to draw upon it.

And it's this: At the moment, the way s59 works is that what constitutes 'reasonable force' under subsection (1) of the law is subjective - and the decision on whether a parent gets prosecuted is pretty much entirely a matter for the discretion of Police [see subsection (4)]. Now, on the face of it, this might appear eminently reasonable. There are perhaps legitimate quibbles to be had with Police operational guidelines determining what's a crime rather than the black-letter law of Parliament - but that is another issue.

As it stands, there's another area of law wherein Police have an incredibly broad power of discretion about whether or not to prosecute somebody - and that's low-level cannabis possession. You might be forgiven for thinking, given my previous background, that this is something I'd be massively in favour of. And to a certain extent, I guess I am. It's in everybody's interests for folk who might happen to be snapped with a tinny or a fifty to not be clogging up our nation's court system after all. But a look at the actual statistics resulting from this low-key 'discretionary-de-facto-decriminalization' approach is illuminating; in that it adduces quite the disparity along racial lines in who gets let off with a pre-charge warning or other lack of serious legal consequence, versus who finds themselves in first The Cells, and then The Dock. Unfortunately, the New Zealand Police have not exactly been forthcoming in response to my own previous attempts to get data off them about how various cannabis offenders may or may not wind up with different outcomes on the basis of their socio-economic background, and other such factors. So it's difficult to truly substantiate how much of a wider problem this might be. Although we already know that it's not just cannabis-law enforcement where Maori often wind up having a rather different experience of the criminal justice system than other New Zealanders; with even the New Zealand Police themselves admitting they're often subject to "unconscious bias" when it comes to Maori. With that in mind, when it comes to the sorts of situations s59 was designed to cover, even a moment's cynical consideration serves to suggest that an articulate upper-class chap in a suit standing at the door of a flash home in a well-heeled suburb is probably going to have a better chance of convincing a policeman who turns up at his door that nothing's amiss, as compared to an ordinary working-class man living through no fault of his own in a glorified garage Out West. My point, then, is that there are very real reasons to be concerned about any law whose application hinges almost entirely upon the discretion of an individual person - and their own best judgement as to what words like "reasonable force" mean. Particularly given that the historic way we test these sorts of things is to err on the side of caution, bring somebody before a judge and jury, and ask the latter to decide on which side of the legal 'grey area' an alleged offender's conduct falls [c.f cases of force used in 'self defence']. And that's presumably the 'chilling effect' which NZ First MP Tracey Martin was talking about in her televised discussion [I hesitate to call it a 'debate'] with former Greens MP Sue Bradford on Q&A on Sunday. The concern some parents have that they'll somehow fall afoul of an overzealous policeman whilst doing something that's theoretically still allowed by law, and find themselves put to all the time, expense, and potential public-shaming of having to defend themselves against a perhaps unnecessary prosecution. It's perhaps easy to write that scenario as fear-mongering on the part of New Zealand First; but the legal analysis provided by flashy law-firm Chen-Palmer on whether parents were being criminalized for utilizing relatively light force for the purposes of correction ... does appear to suggest that some are. Although despite this, I am not entirely sure that I would call New Zealand First entirely vindicated over this issue. Tracey's comments on Q&A appear to suggest that NZ First wishes for greater clarity in the law, whilst still legally prohibiting parents from engaging in the sort of brutal conduct with horse-whips and the like which lead to the law's enactment in the first place. That's fair enough, and I would even go so far as to suggest it's difficult to argue against [unless you want smacking legally prohibited entirely - which is definitely NOT what the s59 bill was sold to us as doing]. But in that case, it would surely make greater sense for New Zealand First to put forward our own amendment bill to deliver this greater clarity - rather than potentially adding to the murkiness by calling for a Referendum which might result in the extant s59's repeal with no clear view as yet as to what may replace it. Either way, it seems curious to me in the extreme that the 'side' of politics which is usually so ardently suspicious [whether rightly or otherwise] of policemen and laws which can be 'flexibly applied' on the basis of race or class ... are instead pretty emphatically adamant that the law we've got is problem-free. Are they right to be enthusiastic about what we have at the moment? Depends what you prioritize. Certainly, the argument has been made from a number of quarters that child-abuse rates in New Zealand remain endemic regardless of s59's passage. [something which I personally view as being fairly directly tied with the ongoing deterioration of economic outcomes for many thousands of New Zealanders thanks to three decades of worsening Neoliberal misrule] Ordinarily, this is where I'd make my level-best attempt at penning a strong conclusion. But with the very real possibility that New Zealand First's increased salience on the political landscape this year will make for an actual re-referendum on the subject ... it's fair to say that any 'conclusion' reached on this issue is very much a tenuous one.

Only Thing "Rancid" About Butter Chicken Comment Is Shane Jones

There are a few things to be said in response to Shane Jones' recent declaration that New Zealand's immigration policy is as "rancid" as "butter chicken".

The first of these, is that this is rather rich criticism coming from Mr Jones. The last time he was in Parliament, he was part of a party that presided over immigration levels so high they've only recently been eclipsed by National.



More to the point, many of the issues with the dodgy provision of education to international students are not new. They've been known about for much of the last two decades; with the previous large-scale flare-up in this area coming from the language-school sector in 2003 - when Labour was entering into its second term in government (and, as it happens, equidistant between that Government's partnering of Trade New Zealand and Education New Zealand in 2000 -  and the Government's decision to start actively subsidizing the overseas promotion of 'export education' here in New Zealand in 2006). Did Jones raise any "culinary criticisms" back then?

Worse, when Jones talks of "rancid" circumstances in the Immigration portfolio, we can only presume that he is speaking from hard-won experience. As the Minister in charge of this area, he went against official advice to pressure for New Zealand citizenship to be granted to international criminal and money-launderer Bill Liu (who just so happened to be a personal friend of Jones). No comments about "as corrupt as chow-mein" then, I take it?

The plain fact of the matter is that Jones' Parliamentary career to date has been characterized by a series of actions at complete odds with the image he will no doubt shortly be seeking to project. Instead of criticizing a government's record on immigration - whether 'export-education' driven or otherwise - he was an active proponent and participant in some of the worst excesses of same.

I can only presume that Jones' sudden complete volte-face has something to do with his impending personal ambitions.

Finally, what really left a bad taste in my mouth was Jones' both scurrilous and utterly spurious full-frontal assault upon the taste and texture of butter chicken. As any who know me can well attest, I am quite fond of North Indian cuisine [butter chicken, contrary to popular speculation, apparently having been developed and popularized by a Hindu refugee who wound up having to flee what would become Pakistan during the dark days of Partition]; and whilst the humble butter chicken is far from my favourite preparation, a word does definitely need to be spoken in its defence.

There is nothing "rancid" about butter chicken. And it is truly tasteless to attempt to demarcate an ethnic group (as Jones has clearly attempted to do, given the attention upon the Indian component of New Zealand's 'export education market of late) via recourse to blithely insulting one of the more commonly consumed elements of their habitually associated cuisine. I wouldn't dream, for instance, of attempting to denigrate Jones in terms usually reserved for bad seafood. Although it does occur that the reasoning behind Biblical prohibitions upon eating same [well, Jones' preferred lobsters and molluscs anyway] had much to do with the fact that many of these creatures were the carrion of the sea, or whose filter-feeding lead to the direct coming into contact with of potentially hazardous waste.

Now I am not, strictly speaking, endeavouring to suggest that the risks of taking one such as Jones into one's own body-politik are akin to that of eating uncooked shellfish.

But it does occur that in politics - as with bad kai moana - that Jones is hardly likely to taste any better upon the second time around, coming up.

"Oh Snap" - Storming Into The New And Excellently Populist World Post-UK General Election

At the time of writing, we are perhaps a mere forty-eight hours after the results of the UK's General Election came in. And already, it seems like an entire Amazonian forest of trees, and a fairly literal Black Sea of ink have already been spilled in attempting to make sense of what has happened.

That's arguably fairly normal of course, in the scheme of things. An Election - even one which doesn't, ultimately *quite* manage to result in what we might term a clear-cult 'transfer of power' [the DUP excepted - the word after "clear" was not a typo] in one of the more populous and potent polities of the planet almost invariably attracts scrutiny, and post-facto analysis.

But what's arguably remarkable about this one, is the tone and tenor of many of the media-pieces and media-appearances on the subject. To wildly misquote Churchill ... never have so many been so wrong about so much, apparently. And this isn't even a "Dewey Beats Truman" style situation wherein the commentariat got the outcome *completely* wrong. Like it or not [and I don't], there is still a Conservative Government in-power in England. Theresa May is still the Prime Minister.

It might all go - as they say - Pete Tong very shortly, with Corbyn pledging to attempt to roll May on the occasion of the Queen's Speech later this year. This is significant, because rather than the empty bluster which a comparable 'Vote of No Confidence' in our own Parliament generally entails [wherein some Opposition Party moves the motion, and then it fails because the Government manages to whip all its MPs into line, partially by threatening to deselect them or have them booted off the List, and cajoles its support partners into doing likewise], given the fairly comprehensive disarray the Conservative Party has descended into since the Election, there's every chance that UK Labour will actually be able to - if not get rid of May, then at least force meaningful policy-concessions from the Government.

But why is this even a thing? Surely the Conservatives, as a broad analogue to our own domestic National Party, love power so much that they'd not easily be induced to do anything which might seemingly jeopardise their holding of it? [other than, of course, selecting an apparent shop's mannequin as their Prime Minister, who calls a Snap Election] Well, yes and no. As applies "yes" - those MPs who are still in Parliament may deign to go against the May Agenda in the hopes of *remaining in Parliament* in the prospectively very near future; whilst other Con MPs - folk with principle, perhaps surprisingly - are presently kicking up a fairly huge fuss about the presumptive inclusion of the Democratic Unionist Party from Northern Ireland as the essential support-partner which makes the Conservative Government still a viable thing.

It's um ... it's probably not a great sign for Government "Stability" if you're facing a back-bench revolt about the only thing still keeping you in Government. But I digress.

During the campaign, we were repeatedly warned by everyone from notional Tories to nominal Labour supporters [and even, ominously, MPs] that the very real risk of this Election would be that it delivered a Government of Extremists and Terrorist-Sympathisers.



Nobody thought to mention, of course, that it would be May leading the aforementioned Government; but a cursory examination of some of their representatives' utterances, as well as an illustrious history that includes close operating ties with everything from criminally accused paramilitaries to international arms smugglers ...  it's not at all hard to see why the Scottish Conservatives who're pretty much the only thing allowing the Conservative Party all up to pretend it's keeping its head above water right now wound up seeking an agreement with the party main that the DUP's influence upon the prospective MayDUP Government would be ring-fenced and limited. And were even reportedly considering breaking away from the Conservative Party itself in order to form their own independent electoral organization.

When May campaigned on a 'Hard Brexit' ... one presumes that this particular 'Dissolution of Union' wasn't exactly what she had in mind.

But then, there are currently quite a LOT of people out there - particularly well-known figures in the 'literati' spheres of politics, popular culture, and the (print) media, who haven't gotten anything like they (so dearly) seem to have expected out of this Election.

As cannot have escaped anybody's notice, things "weren't supposed" to play out this way. Go back and look what's been said over the past two years. Read any of JK Rowling's tweets on the subject. Or Bill Clinton's speech remarks on Labour's leader. Or Obama's. Or any of the bevvy of Labour Party front-benchers and big-men who queued up to pour scorn and vitriol upon their now incipient Messiah-in-tweed. Corbyn was "supposed" to lead Labour to an utter disaster in the low-mid 20% range. Not come within two and a half thousand votes of being able to govern the country!

Forget Rupert Murdoch storming out of a party upon hearing that he apparently no longer singlehandedly decides who lives and who dies in British politics on Election Night. Or our own home-grown pauper's penny-roll equivalent, Mike Hosking's jubilant pre-Election pro-May triumphalism.

What really interests me is all of those nominally [and here, I stress that term] 'left-wing' people who're so adamantly ardent that this whole thing is a fluke, can't be real, was a one-off ... or, somehow, that Labour should have inconceivably done BETTER [than this already almost-inconceivably-except-it-ACTUALLY-HAPPENED result], and that it's Corbyn's fault [you know, the man who somehow took them from polling low-twenties to polling in the forties, just behind the Conservatives] they aren't presently inexplicably in Government.

Please excuse my salt-shaker approach to parentheticals there. I tend to get a bit bracket-happy when I'm exceedingly bewildered.

The reason why people who SHOULD be overjoyed are, in fact, vituperatively annoyed as applies this result, is a glaringly simple one. Because it wasn't done "their" way. And, in point of fact, it makes it plainly apparent - egregiously so, in fact - that "their way" [also known as the "Third Way"] ... is one of those interminable Roads to Hell [and we all know what those are paved with - at least in the beginning], rather than a pathway to prosperity and psephological success.

We have been told now, for quite some time, that Elections are won and lost in the Centre. This is, from my perspective [and also, interestingly, that of the New Zealand Public] pretty inarguably true.

It's just that over the last thirty years or so, the 'Centre' has seriously - although obviously not 'irrevocably' - changed. Policies and positions [and, for that matter, politicians] who once upon a time would have been considered so far right that they'd be the exclusive demesne of the more relatively-sane bits of McWarlordville AnCapistan are now the new 'middle ground'. In fact, they're actually marketed fairly openly as being "centre left" [this is also, incidentally, why our own Muldoon is now 'far left' economically; whilst the NZ Labour Party has managed to move barely an iota since 1987 in terms of economics and has somehow wound up being occasionally described IN THE PRESENT DAY as 'socialistic'.]. It's madness. And we all KNOW it's madness. The only reason why it's been allowed to festeringly continue is because we've been continuously told - ad nauseum, ad infinatum, and at laboriously-ratcheted up fingernails-on-chalkboard volume - that There Is No Alternative.

Bullshit.

The people who turned out for Corbyn, in their millions, are living proof that not only IS there an Alternative [i.e. if you get enough people together, a party running a platform that's *reasonably to the left* - although, as ever, *reasonable* - of what's considered "electable" by our "benevolent" elites ... CAN actually bring together the numbers to make a serious political difference]; but that the broad mass of The People, out there across the Anglosphere and beyond, are waking up to this fact.

And they're pretty pissed at realizing they've been lied to for all this time.

This is, arguably, why all of the incredible fusilade of phantasmagorical firepower directed at Corbyn over the course of the campaign seems to have fizzled and fairly utterly failed to make a mark upon his prospects. Because all of a sudden, when you realize you've been chronically mislead by just about everybody in the media sphere about everything, the same talking heads attempting to fearmonger about Corbyn supposedly being pro-Hezbollah [one of the leading forces fighting ISIS, incidentally, unlike the Saudis whom May just helped out massively by suppressing a report showing they're *helping* dodgy extremist groups, while also selling them arms] become pretty much a non-event.

Maybe it's because people care less about vague claims of anti-semitism and links to Iran than they do about whether a politician looks like they're *actually going to help them* with a home, a job, and the protection of their right to healthcare. Perhaps it's the above-alluded-to "Cry Wolf" effect.

However it's happened, this represents a refreshing and exciting potential change away from the politics of New Labour [wherein 'Style' was most definitely in vogue over 'Substance' [with the possible exception of Pulp's excellent expository anthem, Cocaine Socialism]], through to a prioritization of reality over carefully massaged spin-doctoring. Some might call this "TrueLabour" as an obvious, rhyming contrast.

But the trouble with this, from the perspective of those aforementioned nasty elites, is that it risks 'opening the door' to putting People back in charge of politics - rather than shady, nefarious think-tanks and the occasional veneer of focus-grouping effectively presiding over The People.

How else to explain pieces like this from the LA Times, wherein Corbyn's surge is presented as a dire manifestation of "the perils of too much democracy". [this article is particularly ridiculous, as it attempts to argue that Britons having a say in their own affairs at previous instances such as Brexit drives down turnout for 'actually important' elections - a manifest untruth, given the turnout for last week's General was the highest it's been in a quarter century] Or figures with ties to the 'Blairite' wing of Labour like Lord Sugar attempting to pour scorn upon the people now voting for Labour in their droves as being 'out of touch'. [Gosh, it's a funny sort of world wherein it is parties and their apparatchiks attempting to argue that The People are out of touch with them, rather than parties being out of touch with their constituents. Reminds me of the famous Bertolt Brecht ditty about an Eastern European country's government losing confidence in its people - and asking the question as to whether it would be thusly desirable for the Government to dissolve its people and elect another]

Although the best illustration of the principle I'm trying to explain is probably to be found in the Bill Clinton speech I linked a few paragraphs above. In it, Clinton characterizes Corbyn as a "guy off the street", and therefore patently unsuitable for the leadership of a modern political party.

This is a funny thing, indeed, when we consider what the Labour Party was originally supposed to be: namely, an organization by 'guys off the street' [in specia, often from the union movement], *for* 'guys off the street'. Perhaps not quite an "ordinary person's party", but certainly not a party of the seemingly plenipotent and omnipresent insidious elites who believe it's their influence-given right to come in and rule us like latter-day [quasi-elected but often not really] kings.

In short, they're seriously afraid of 'Common People'. [this is probably an appropriate time for another Pulp song - this time, of the same title, but as covered by William Shatner]. Or, more specifically, 'common people' they can't control. The technical term for this, as I may have noted before, is "Ochlophobia" [although there's another school of thought which

This isn't really a 'new thing' in Western politics nor elite perceptions [consider the representation of 'the mob' in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar for a rather overt indication of what the Nobles of our society have always thought was the logical consequence of allowing people to have a say in their own destiny]. But it is absolutely peculiar - if not outright offensive - that in the view of these craven harpies, there is no place for the "Rule of the People" in their conception of "Democracy". Ironic, no? [although at the very least, I suppose it's better than what was done to Greece not so long ago thanks to a slightly different (yet overlapping) group of transnational malignant elites ...]

In a related sense, the reason so many media commentators and other such associated personalities remain both confused and annoyed about Corbyn's 'shock' not-victory is because they're used to setting up and controlling "the narrative". My learned associate [and fellow TDB columnist] Chris Trotter once told me of the "Three Dicks" who presided over political media here in New Zealand in the 1980s. Richards Harman, Long, and Griffin of TVNZ, The Dominion, and Radio New Zealand respectively. David Lange was reportedly of the opinion that without their co-operation and being 'in' on the strategy, putting forward a coherent message to voters would be strenuously difficult. The UK is a more 'sophisticated' [I hesitate to say 'advanced'] society than ours in many ways; and yet whereas our traditional sources of media [along with their coseted 'gatekeepers'] are of fading importance, theirs still have the temerity to believe themselves to still be seriously in control [a feeling no doubt deliberately fostered thanks to the famously close relationship between Blair's 'New Labour' and the big press barons]. It must certainly be an inordinate feeling of power to be able to not just arrange the news on a page - but to be able to [at least partially] choreograph the actual events and perceptions being reported upon.

But the thing about power - as with any other compulsive, dopaminergic drug ... is that its absence or curtailment begins to trigger some rather nasty withdrawals. Subjective symptoms can include confusion, aggression, erratic behavior, and the compulsive engagement in some rather wild delusions. All of which, I would contend, fairly describe quite an array [but importantly, not all] of those folk opposed to Corbyn in the media.

"The Narrative", as it were, is up in the air. It's been supplanted in many ways, by a different chain of events [which, if you look closely, make *far* more 'narrative sense' than the original 'script' ever seemed to]. So the people who feel it's 'their' prerogative to be penning it are deathly worried that it's events and the story-determined flow of causality - rather than just people - which they thusly can't control.

They're right.

The reason why we're constantly bombarded in the run-up to Polling Day [in whatever country] with maliciously false opinion-pieces and polling data about how certain things are "inevitable" or "can't possibly happen" - is in order to set up the sorts of 'self-fulfilling prophecies' which seriously condition YOUR choice going into the voting-booth. As we've seen time and time again, if people think that there's no point in voting because the result's already been determined ... then they won't. And thus, it happens. This is why pro-National sources push the idea of National riding so high in the polls and being set to govern alone so vigorously for the months before an Election - because it suppresses turnout from non-National voters [who appear to think - why bother voting if it's not going to change anything], thus guaranteeing a higher Nat share of the eventual [lowered] turnout.

A similar thing has evidently been tried in the UK last week, as well as with the previous Brexit referendum which lead to this whole glorious imbroglio. Except on both occasions, ordinary Britons decided to 'buck the narrative' - buck it right up, in fact - and made the effort to actually vote in numbers and in ways that hadn't been anticipated. Like I said above - Friday represented the highest turnout since Labour's historic high-water mark in 1997.

The core message from the 2017 UK General Election, then, is that regardless of what any number of commentators, pop-cultural figures, and has-been politicians might tell you ... if you put in the effort to support something, it actually CAN make a difference. The greatest force in politics - the stuff of which revolutions are truly made - is, in fact, people. People coming together to believe in things. Together.

It was said by all of the above vested-interest talking heads that Labour's policies and presumptive Prime Minister In Waiting made the whole edifice unelectable. That the 'only' "path to victory" would have been to go back Neoliberal in a futile bid to repeat the Blair successes of the late 90s and early 2000s. No less a personage [for could there truly be any lesser] than Tony Blair HIMSELF bleated to any who would listen that this was the inexorable way to go to avoid oblivion. And yet, if we go back and look at the results from the last five General Elections, it's quite abundantly clear that - if anything - the converse is arguably true. In 2001, Labour scored 40.7%. 2005, 35.2%. 2010: 29% [and a loss of Government to the Conservatives]. 2015: 30.4%. And 2017? 40.0%



It is surely no coincidence that the declining limb of the above dataset represent the neoliberal twosome of Blair and Brown; with the rather small bump of the Miliband campaign showing the Labour Party had not seriously moved to distance itself from this disastrous Blairite legacy. It's only under Corbyn - 'plain old' actually-a-socialist Corbyn - that they've cracked back up to the 40s. Scoring, not coincidentally, well above what Blair and Blairism were capable of delivering once the 'shiny' had worn off.

Gosh. It's almot like giving the people what they actually want [as opposed to what elites think they should *ought* to want] is a pretty good recipe for electoral success or something. Who'd have thought?

In any case, it might seem somewhat peculiar to be so avowedly celebrating a "losing" result. And certainly, there are even now Conservative-supporting spinners attempting to construe such conduct as utterly illogical if not outright psychotic-hallucinatory. These latter sorts are apparently unaware of the concept of a 'Pyrrhic Victory' [so named for King Pyrrhus of Epirus - who famously opined following the Battle of Asculum words to the effect of "one more win like that and we're stuffed"].

But what Friday's outcome represents - to me, anyway - is a serious and perhaps even decisive blow struck in the ongoing war for your mind. An overt, and undeniable signifer that we don't just have to do what the TV tells us; and that the supposed "experts" who apparently get to de-legitimate or pooh-pooh well-thought out and well-costed policy on the basis of personal preference [masquerading as highly technically 'competent' and long-won 'expertise'] CAN be proven wrong. Even if only from time to time, by large and impressive events such as these.

It has been said [most popularly in V for Vendetta] that Governments should be afraid of their people.

I don't know that I'd go quite that far.

Although ringing in my ears as I type this are the sage words of Winston Churchill. And not the one that goes "'as the deluge subsides and the waters fall short, we see the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again" - however relevant that might be, given the new saliency of the DUP and Irish issues in British politics as of this week. [My thanks to my former Politics lecturer, Patrick Hine, for drawing my attention to that one]

Instead, it is the rather more famous aphorism from a speech he made in 1937:

"Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers from which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."

Those who oppose us are not, in the conventional sense of the term, "dictators". That would require rather more overt presentation and exercise of control than they are comfortable wielding.

Instead, they are Oligarchs. Oligarchs, Technocrats, and other Elites both Uncountable and Unaccountable.

The 'Tiger' which they ride upon, they had thought an old, geriatric, de-fanged and de-clawed beast more fit for living out its remaining days behind the glass at the local zoo. Less of a threat, even, than the proverbial 'paper tiger' - and infinitely more bendable [to their will].

It must have come as an awe-ful [in the older sense .. as in, inspiring quite some awe - in me, at least] surprise for them to come to forcibly realize that it yet maintains a most considerable vitality!

I suspect that things are only poised to get more *ahem* 'excitingly stripey' from here!