Dear Stuart Nash

Written By: - Date published: 9:20 am, November 2nd, 2015 - 357 comments
Categories: blogs, Media, The Standard - Tags: ,

Stuart Nash has burst into print over at the Daily Blog.

It is an interesting post.

He talks about how the Labour Party is now more united and disciplined.  Fair call.  I am pleased to see that this is happening.

He talks about how winning is everything in politics.  Again this is fair enough.  Seven years of National’s current rule shows how important it is that a Labour Green government is elected.

He then criticises the party because more than one Labour member apparently said that they preferred Maryan Street to Nash as an MP.  He concludes that some in the party think that winning is a sin.  Unfortunately for Stuart he does not understand that his vainglorious success in Napier probably hurt the party’s prospects.

Good on him for winning.  If you look at the 2011 and 2014 election results in Napier you will see that his proportion of the electorate vote barely changed but National’s plunged by 19% points because of an energetic campaign by the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s candidate Garth McVicar.  His success was directly due to McVicar’s presence but hey, in politics winning is all important.

But the share of the party vote in Napier went down by 3.13% compared to the countrywide figure of 2.35%.  It is the ABC of proportional politics that winning electorate campaigns do not actually help, the level of the party vote like winning is the only thing that matters.

Vainglorious campaigns in an MMP environment where electorate seats are won and the party vote goes down are a waste of time.

He then chips at Labour supporters for not being disciplined.  He does not say how but clearly Mr Nash is a proponent of a Blairite third way where policies and beliefs are calibrated to be most likely to sway the infamous swinging voter.  Discipline and blandness are the way to achieve great victories.

It is notable that he does not mention one policy the party should focus on.  Not climate change, child poverty, the flow of resources from the poor to the rich.  It is not clear where he stands on these or other issues.

He then has a chip at this blog and calls it a bastardisation of a once proud Labour broadsheet.

Clearly he does not understand the importance of open debate and discussion.  And he clearly does not understand that the discussions generated by the Standard represent a distillation of the thoughts of activists and progressives throughout the country.

Occasional commentator Matthew Hooton does and has said that he reads this blog to understand what activists in the party are thinking.  Nash saying that the discussion should be closed down and activists should rely on personal communication with their MP is a joke.

The discussions that occurred on the Standard arguably affected the last two leadership campaign results.  David Cunliffe was the overwhelming favourite on this blog in 2013 and this was reflected in the result.  The support for Little was also clear although more muted and is reflected in the closeness of the result.

Mr Nash may prefer that activists do not publicly debate policy and concentrate on delivering pamphlets and parroting the leader’s lines but this will end in tears.  I meet many good political activists who use their time to campaign on discrete issues rather than get involved in party politics.  Nash’s view would only increase the frequency of this occurring.

I can recall seeing the Labour campaign launch in 1990 during the dark days of Rogernomics where a small group of MPs occupied a small room and gave Mike Moore a standing ovation after he had delivered a tepid speech.  That a once proud party was reduced to shutting its members out of the campaign launch because the parliamentarians were afraid of the members spoke volumes.

The Labour Party has a proud history of activism and the promotion of cutting edge radical policies.  Mr Nash’s recipe of muted debate and bland third way triangulation of issues is a sure path to irrelevance.

357 comments on “Dear Stuart Nash ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    2 November 2015 at 9:41 am

    It is the ABC of proportional politics that winning electorate campaigns do not actually help, the level of the party vote like winning is the only thing that matters.

    Is this true? Winning an electorate provides a great deal of opportunities for MPs to develop personal connections with their constituents – the local MP is invited to events both private and civic, for example. In smaller towns they will be invited to contribute columns to the local media.

    Is there really no value in this?

    • mickysavage 1.1
      2 November 2015 at 9:48 am

      Electorate seats do help but list MPs can and do set up in areas and treat the areas as their constituency.

      Last election Labour won from memory five extra electorate seats but the total number of MPs went down by two. Over vigorous campaigning by electorate MPs can therefore distort the overall result. Labour achieved 35% of the total candidate electorate vote last time and 25% of the party vote. I know which way I would prefer these figures to be.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1
        2 November 2015 at 9:57 am

        I’d be surprised if the “local list” MP gets invited to 10% of the things the electorate MP does.

        I agree that the party vote has more weight, not that electorate seats are of no value: the incumbent MPs have far more chance to increase the former than their list colleagues. Mr. Nash doesn’t seem to understand this but…

      • dukeofurl 1.1.2
        2 November 2015 at 11:15 am

        “Labour won from memory five extra electorate seats ?”

        If they have a shuffling of boundaries that happens.

        Does Camel Sepuloni get a slap for ‘over vigourous campaigning’ and winning a (new) seat ?

        And for the 3 Maori seats that were won off nationals footstool, ? ( who doesnt run in Maori seats either to help them along)

        This has to be among the most head slapping, face palming absurd things I have heard of in a long time.

        • mickysavage 1.1.2.1
          2 November 2015 at 11:20 am

          Why? Labour won more electorates but overall won less seats. This is not the way to win power.

          • dukeofurl 1.1.2.1.1
            2 November 2015 at 11:58 am

            Why isnt the national party vote campaign faulted.

            Its clear that the party leader was more directly responsible for the low party vote. back in Helens time that would have been clear as well.

            I realise that there were issues with money, and the National-media onslaught against Cunliffe in the year leading up.

            • mickysavage 1.1.2.1.1.1
              2 November 2015 at 12:03 pm

              National did it well. Their party vote was about the same size as their electorate vote.

              Their billboards for instance with Key on every billboard was perfect and reflected that the party vote was just as important as the electorate vote.

          • billmurray 1.1.2.1.2
            3 November 2015 at 2:36 pm

            The way to win power is to have some-one like Stuart Nash as leader instead of the union installed ‘pretender’ we have now.

    • AmaKiwi 1.2
      3 November 2015 at 2:18 am

      Stuart has just demonstrated why there is no danger he will ever be the party leader. There will never be a need for an “Anybody But Stuart” gang.

    • liberty 1.3
      3 November 2015 at 1:15 pm

      Stuart Nash should be applauded for speaking up.
      Stuart should keep in mind.
      John A Lee was crucified for less.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1
        3 November 2015 at 1:19 pm

        Haven’t you heard? Judith Collins and Matthew Hooton are giving him a standing ovation.

      • AmaKiwi 1.3.2
        3 November 2015 at 3:41 pm

        @ Liberty “Stuart Nash should be applauded for speaking up.”

        I am delighted he spoke up because now I know what he stands for . . . and it isn’t pretty.

  2. Ad 2
    2 November 2015 at 10:11 am

    If Nash could do half the job that Kelvin Davis is doing, I probably wouldn’t mind what he said.

    He’s Regional Economic Development somethingorother. So do that well.

    Hey Nash, take your own advice and do some winning.
    If we complain here about that, go ahead and have a crack.

    Meantime, do your fucking job and stop complaining.

    • dukeofurl 2.1
      2 November 2015 at 12:05 pm

      Kelvin Davis is another of those ‘over vigorous campaigners’ !

      Just goes to show how much you are asleep and thinking your nightmares are reality:

      Stuart Nash
      MP for Napier
      Spokesperson for Forestry
      Spokesperson for Energy
      Spokesperson for Land Information
      Spokesperson for Statistics

      Perhaps THAT would explain why you havent heard anything from him for economic development. Duh

      • Ad 2.1.1
        2 November 2015 at 12:23 pm

        Last I heard him on anything was on the funding of the Overseas Investment Office. Nothing to do with those portfolios.

        Duh.

        Soon as I hear Kelvin Davis criticize The Standard for a celebrity roasting, I’ll pay attention. Because he is winning. Nash understands winning a constituency. He needs to show he understands winning a General Election for Labour.

        Once he does that he can open his mouth about what winning is for the activist base here.

    • David H 2.2
      2 November 2015 at 12:55 pm

      Totally agree. He should stop moaning.

    • Stuart Nash 2.3
      2 November 2015 at 9:41 pm

      I have the energy, land information, forestry and statistics portfolios. I admit, I have done nothing with the statistics portfolio, but have been leading the charge around the ineptitude of the overseas investment office, and I have written three substantial policy discussion docs on forestry, energy and land information. I have also written and driven our provincial engagement strategy. I have also given more speeches in the House than any other Labour MP, and I finished my LLM this year. Believe me, I am not sitting on my arse doing nothing.

      [fyi – Haven’t been able to verify the authenticity of these comments…this commenter may well not be Stuart Nash] – Bill

      Update: [seem to be genuine after all]

      • Colonial Viper 2.3.1
        3 November 2015 at 4:50 am

        oh great doing your post grad studies on a tax payer $160,000 per year scholarship.

        Lucky you. Is Labour thinking of making more of these available for other uni students?

        Anyway, great qual to have for a good private sector position in the future.

        • dukeofurl 2.3.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 8:49 am

          Note he said ‘finished’, so I presume It was started before the election. But Im sure he has a very busy schedule to fit it all in.
          Haters, are of course consumed by it all and have no time for anything else.

          • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 1:19 pm

            So he got paid $160K pa to finish his post grad studies? Nice for the 1 percenters. And people like you who defend them.

            • McFlock 2.3.1.1.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 3:00 pm

              Actually, I suspect that if he got it conferred or even just submitted this year, he probably had it largely done and dusted last year. Proofing and marking/reviewing can take months.

              Either way, lots of people study alongside work. It’s called “time management”.

              • Colonial Viper …
                3 November 2015 at 3:44 pm

                Great set up for a private sector career on the public sector dime is all I’m saying.

                • McFlock …
                  3 November 2015 at 3:59 pm

                  I know that is what you are saying. And you are incorrect, unless you are accusing Nash of not fulfilling his representative role in order to complete his studies, for example ducking out of select comittee duties in order to attend classes. When you say “on the public sector dime”, are you claiming that Nash’s studies are paid for by Parliamentary Services? Or is it like every other NZer, partially taxpayer funded and partially self-funded? Because the latter is on his dime (otherwise you stand with the tories who think the government is misallocating “their” money on social welfare).

                  Of course, if Nash were some sort of monk who committed every waking moment to parliamentary business, you’d be accusing him of either being a beltway goon or just working hard at self promotion at the expense of the party.

                  Hell, outside interests keep me fresh at work when I am at work, so maybe study helps him achieve more as an MP – did you think of that?

        • Stuart Nash 2.3.1.2
          4 November 2015 at 9:42 pm

          I paid for all my study myself, and basically worked until 1.00am 4 nights a week and most weekends in order to finish this degree. I was extremely careful to ensure that my study did not encroach on my parliamentary responsibilities and never ever shirked any duties in order to complete my study.

      • Tracey 2.3.2
        3 November 2015 at 8:45 am

        Sounds like a CV rather than a reocunting of how you have advanced the lives of the vulnerable in NZ.

        When you say “I”, do you mean you ahd no help at all, not from anyone else, not a soul?

        • Stuart Nash 2.3.2.1
          4 November 2015 at 9:46 pm

          That’s right Tracey, I wrote all the aforementioned policy discussion docs, strategy docs and speeches myself. In opposition there are no researchers available to help backbench MPs in their portfolio areas.

  3. Bill 3
    2 November 2015 at 10:16 am

    When I read that piece the other day, the impression I got was a lot of repeated lines from what the self named ‘modernisers’ of UK Labour have been throwing at Corbyn. Same phrases and lines of argument.

    The ‘politics is about winning’ (endorsed in the post) is a particularly pernicious one. It implies the casual jettisoning of values and principles and always tacking to the centre. The centre is, afterall, where most votes tend to lie given whatever choice is on offer.

    But rather than a race to the lowest common denominator and a general further homogenising of political discourse, politics could be about principles and values.

    People will gravitate to that.

    It’s like the new DJ in the nightclub. Do they play a set more or less in line with the last guy (who was admittedly kinda popular), or do they play what they themselves reckon to be good shit? For short term, ephemeral popularity – option one. Really bad decision if you’re looking to be around for the next ‘x’ years though.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1
      2 November 2015 at 10:26 am

      politics is about winning

      A defeatist attitude if ever there was one: a tacit admission that you haven’t the chops to articulate good policy, and if you do, you’ll lose.

    • Olwyn 3.2
      2 November 2015 at 11:27 am

      I think the problem is deeper than that, and affects Labour Parties all over the English-speaking world. The neoliberal establishment is dedicated to the dominance of the corporate-capitalist class, only making concessions that serve to retain or increase its dominance. Socialism is the enemy, and concessions are made only to keep it at bay. If you accept that you cannot do anything in opposition, and that you need the acceptance of the establishment if you are to win, then you cannot wholeheartedly represent a constituency that is traditionally a Labour one – the unions, the working class or those of the middle class who favour broad social justice over individual advancement.

      Since these three forbidden groups are the only ones likely to provide you with a mass movement, you might think the idea is to go the cadre way. Get people to vote for you on how appealing you are, rather than whether or not you will represent them. The National Party, reaching out from its core of wealthy supporters to the middle class, is far better placed than Labour for this move, since it is hard to make a party that is willing to abandon its core supporters look appealing. So perhaps you can fight National for the personal-advancement vote, although there is probably not quite enough of them to go round, and Labour, with its tail of disenchanted exiles, is inevitably less trustworthy on that front.

      It is impossible to see from here which will come first – a mass movement or a Labour Party that is willing to stand up to an establishment that rejects its values. There may even be a middle way that is genuine, but it will be hard won, and unlike what Nash seems to be advocating.

      • Bill 3.2.1
        2 November 2015 at 11:55 am

        Socialist ideas are anathema to established power, yes. But no Labour Party anywhere is, or ever has been socialist; never a threat to established order and power. In many ways the role of Labour Parties has been to act as (one of) the establishment’s pressure valves. Concessions are (or were) made and contained, and the various Labour Parties were simply the vessels that delivered those prescribed concessions.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1
          2 November 2015 at 12:18 pm

          +1

          That was always what socialism was about. Protecting the capitalists and capitalism from the progressive movement which is abandoning capitalism.

          • Bill 3.2.1.1.1
            2 November 2015 at 12:28 pm

            I’m assuming you mean ‘Labour’ where you’ve written ‘socialism’?

            • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1.1.1
              2 November 2015 at 12:35 pm

              No. Socialism* was, and is, just a nicer form of capitalism. It’s not about replacing capitalism but making it fairer.

              That doesn’t work because capitalism itself doesn’t work.

              * I’m aware that many today seem to confuse socialism with communism.

              • Bill …
                2 November 2015 at 12:46 pm

                Socialism is the socialisation of production and distribution…ie, bringing those things into society’s control. Those are the same aims as anarchism, communism and a thousand and one other ‘isms’.

                But then there are the authoritarian variants of socialism, communism and those other ‘isms’ that deny or subvert social control – Leninism and its various off-shoots being the more obvious historical example of that.

                If your comment was referring to various authoritarian ‘socialisms’ then it makes sense, otherwise not.

        • Olwyn 3.2.1.2
          2 November 2015 at 2:36 pm

          Bill: But no Labour Party anywhere is, or ever has been socialist; never a threat to established order and power.

          The Labour Party that built the national health system in Britain was considered something of a threat to power, or at least to business-as-usual, as was the Labour Party here that brought in state housing and full employment. I agree that during the Keynseian years, an agreement was maintained between labour and capital, but that agreement has long gone, and capital now has all the cards. A Labour Party that acquiesces in this state of affairs has lost its point, even if that point did not extend beyond the modification of capitalism. If its point is reduced to being a vehicle for ambitious people to have nice jobs in public life, then its days are surely numbered.

          • Bill 3.2.1.2.1
            2 November 2015 at 4:55 pm

            I think if we were sitting down and talking, I think we’d find that we agreed within, oh….I dunno 1min and 37 secs?

            I agree that the earlier incarnations of the Labour Party were somewhat of a threat…but only somewhat. At that time – in fact from the time of their formation – many socialists were condemning them for accommodating the basic pillars of capitalism and actually damaging, through a huge misdirection of energy, the cause or argument for socialism .

            And I guess that is what flows back to my earlier response to your use of the term socialism in relation to the Labour Party.

            • Olwyn 3.2.1.2.1.1
              2 November 2015 at 6:52 pm

              Socialism is the thing feared by the TINA brigade. To them, real representation for Labour’s traditional constituency is the thin end of the wedge. They have been pushing hard against the labour/capitalist accommodation since the rise of Reagan and Thatcher, have seen no need for maintaining it since the fall of the Berlin wall, and have seen positive advantage in abandoning it altogether since 2008.

              • Bill …
                2 November 2015 at 7:17 pm

                Labour reformism is a fear of the TINA brigade. And yes, Labour representing and furthering the interests of workers and who-ever within a capitalist framework isn’t desirable as far as those with power/privilege are concerned.

                But Labour were never socialist and never represented socialists. Their reformist bent took a big back seat – was more or less kicked into the long grass with Thatcher and the 80s.

                That had nothing to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Russian state. What that did was unveil all the authoritarian (read: faux) socialists for what they were. Christ! Any socialist was out celebrating the end of the Eastern European dungeon – but not the various cultists, many of whom converted overnight to the ‘winning’ side of Fukuyama’s supposed ‘End of History’.

                Hmm. It also eventually gave rise to post-modernism – another bug bear I have, but I’ll leave that be for here 😉

                And yes, it also allowed Labour Parties to finally expunge the last of the last remaining Leninist and fellow traveling entryists from their ranks….all of which has nothing to do with socialism…Leninists et al being authoritarians, not socialists.

                Should we leave this here since we seem to agree on the main thrust of the points made and diverge only on terms used and their meanings?

        • lurgee 3.2.1.3
          3 November 2015 at 6:36 am

          But no Labour Party anywhere is, or ever has been socialist

          They’re all compromisers leaning to the centre you mean?

          Might be a lesson in there for some.

      • weka 3.2.2
        2 November 2015 at 12:50 pm

        that’s a really good comment Olwyn.

      • Saarbo 3.2.3
        2 November 2015 at 4:35 pm

        @Olwyn
        +1

    • Psycho Milt 3.3
      2 November 2015 at 1:21 pm

      The ‘politics is about winning’ (endorsed in the post) is a particularly pernicious one. It implies the casual jettisoning of values and principles and always tacking to the centre.

      There’s nothing pernicious about it. It’s just a matter of accepting that a lot of voters rate competence way higher than policy, so a major party mostly needs to project a better impression of disciplined competence than its main competitor. Values and principles are secondary.

      Unfortunately, “disciplined competence” isn’t the impression given by different factions back-stabbing each other and leaking damaging stuff to the media – no policies can overcome that.

      • lurgee 3.3.1
        3 November 2015 at 6:39 am

        It’s also about accepting that maybe, just maybe, New Zealand isn’t a closet left wing nation and isn’t waiting for the day Lenin leads the Labour Party to reveal its true colours.

        • Tracey 3.3.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 8:46 am

          yes, NZers have shown themselves to be conservative as voters, and you only need to look at election results in our history to conclude that.

          • weka 3.3.1.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 11:52 am

            I disagree Tracey. Many people don’t vote. And the forces that have shifted the centre to the right in the past 3 decades have been very strong. Plus, we won’t know until we have a competent, cohesive political left.

            • tracey 3.3.1.1.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 11:56 am

              Are you saying that throughout our history we have never managed a competent coherent political left? Cos even when we have had such a thing it has still been a middle-ish road with comfort and security maintained, as it were

              Cos from my observations we are an incredibly conservative lot, and that doesn’t necessarily mean right wing. BUT we seem a nation reluctatnt to change, happier in our comfort zone and that is everything that this Government has banked upon (and based its strategy).

              • weka …
                3 November 2015 at 12:56 pm

                I think in the past that our conservative nature has been better balanced with our progressive nature. We’re the country that first gave women the vote, that introduced nuclear-free, that conflicted head on over racist rugby tours and had the progressives prevail, so I don’t believe we are as conservative as you do.

                I think the problem here is that the capture of NZ in the 80s has never been recovered from and the centre was shifted right.

                In order to move it back we have to have a competent political left wing (which we don’t have currently thanks largely to the neoliberals within Labour). The last time we had a Labour party perceived as competent was Clark. It wasn’t particularly left wing in the sense of moving the centre much, but it did at least hold the ground and stop the shift right too far. I don’t think it was possible for that government to do much leftward movement because it was still so full of neoliberals and Labour hadn’t found a way to recover from the 80s.

  4. savenz 4
    2 November 2015 at 10:21 am

    Nash’s post was shockingly arrogant and out of touch. His own self congratulations were nauseating, especially as the party vote went down in Napier and he only got in by accident.

    If Labour want to emulate the Nats they will not win. If you believe in the Nats right wing policy why would you switch to Labour? Instead they are driving away the more left voters disgusted by their NatLite policy.

    Labour do not understand, it is not about money, pamphlets, haircuts, leaders and so forth – it is about having winning policy that the public want and being able to convey it in a way that makes sense and is clear.

    How many years will it take for Labour to understand that?

    I fear never for Nash. No wonder Collins apparently endorses him.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1
      2 November 2015 at 10:28 am

      winning policy that the public want

      As Lprent often points out, you also need as many willing, committed, enthusiastic volunteers as you can get. Telling them to shut up is ill-advised.

    • dukeofurl 4.2
      2 November 2015 at 6:06 pm

      The party vote went down because the electorate boundaries have changed.

      It runs through a lot of farming country right up to the outskirts of Gisborne which is new.

      The moving of the boundary firstly up to just past Wairoa and now to outskirts of Gisborne is all to Nationals advantage.
      National puts a lot of work to make sure each time there is a census they can adjust it to keep labour leaning or marginal seats in their favour.

      You can see it the Waikato as seats on the outskirts Hamilton run all the way down to Inglewood in Taranaki !!
      And similar from Cambridge down SH1 past Tokoroa and Taupo to practically the Mohaka River in Hawkes bay.

      Another runs from beyond Matamata to the outskirts of Waiuku on the shores of the manukau harbour.

      Whats wrong with putting a seat surrounding Hamilton on its own

      Its US style gerrymandering at its best

      • tc 4.2.1
        3 November 2015 at 7:29 am

        Muldoon started that, it’s SOP for national to engineer electoral boundaries.

      • Brutus Iscariot 4.2.2
        3 November 2015 at 1:05 pm

        Please do explain what effect electorate boundaries have on party vote?

        Or do you just not understand MMP?

        • Colonial Viper 4.2.2.1
          3 November 2015 at 1:07 pm

          Labour is failing at understanding MMP in a huge strategic way.

          • Freemark 4.2.2.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 1:51 pm

            “Labour is failing at understanding MMP in a huge strategic way.”
            FIFY

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.2.1.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 1:57 pm

              Hi there Cheap Mark.

              If 31+12+9 = fail,

              what does 48+0+0+0 =

              Take your time.

              • Freemark …
                3 November 2015 at 2:08 pm

                Hi there [Chill it with the abuse = MS]
                Love the way you stalk around trying (& failing) to suppress dissent…

                .. and getting all excited with your Winston fantasies.

                But we know that you have been wrong for most of your miserable, losing existence – why change now?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  3 November 2015 at 2:11 pm

                  😆

                  Cheap Mark in full projection spittle-flecked mode: looks like I touched a nerve.

                  PS: Why would I try to suppress wingnut own goals?

            • tracey 4.2.2.1.1.2
              3 November 2015 at 4:24 pm

              I thought you would be delivering meals on wheels rather than wasting your time posting here?

        • dukeofurl 4.2.2.2
          4 November 2015 at 12:50 pm

          The party votes are counted for each electorate -Duh

          The party vote was down for labour in Napier- duh

          The electorate boundaries moved a larger farming area- close to Gisborne) into the electorate ( as the population quota increased )

          MMP – means mixed member , ie list and ELECTORATE Mps. Its you that doesnt understand electorates which cover whole country-duh

          [Until you apologise for your blatent ageism and ad hominem attacks from the other day, stay away. I flagged you on a number of your comments – something, it seems, that you’ve chosen to ignore. You were in moderation. You are now banned.] – Bill

        • Stuart Nash 4.2.2.3
          4 November 2015 at 9:51 pm

          The Napier electorate expanded further up the East Coast. This bought in around 5 polling booths that in 2011 delivered a 1,500 party vote majority to National. This is how boundary changes affect party vote in provincial electorates.

    • lurgee 4.3
      3 November 2015 at 6:46 am

      Labour do not understand, it is not about money, pamphlets, haircuts, leaders and so forth – it is about having winning policy that the public want and being able to convey it in a way that makes sense and is clear.

      The lesson from the last three elections is that they either don’t want Labour’s policies, or the message is not being conveyed, or the messenger is not liked, or all of the above.

      Unfortunately I think it is all of the above and I don’t pretend to have any solution.

      (P.S. – cheekily, I note that Mickeysavage complains that Nash didn’t offer any policy solutions in his tirade. Neither did Mickeysavage. I suppose the response will be “Not the time or place, beside the point I was making blah blah blah.”

      But Nash could argue the same.

      • Tracey 4.3.1
        3 November 2015 at 8:48 am

        Although Nash is paid to understand and develop policies, Mickey is not.

        • dukeofurl 4.3.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 8:53 am

          “[I] have been leading the charge around the ineptitude of the overseas investment office, and I have written three substantial policy discussion docs on forestry, energy and land information. I have also written and driven our provincial engagement strategy. I have also given more speeches in the House than any other Labour MP…” Stuart Nash.

          Yawn

          • Tracey 4.3.1.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 9:03 am

            More “I”s than a fly our Stuart Nash.

            Can you explain the policy solutions he offered? Cos that is what I was responding to, and he listed what he has been doing (apparentl yon his own, unaided , like amodern day superman) not explaining what his solutions to the problems facing vulnerable and other NZers are?

            • dukeofurl 4.3.1.1.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 10:36 am

              Surely you would know that Mps are expected to only work publicly in their allocated policy areas.

              Im not sure talking about OIO directly relates to ‘vulnerable’ NZers.

              Anyway have you left the Greens and joined Labour to better keep an eye on its Mps’

              • tracey …
                3 November 2015 at 11:59 am

                Those areas were force dupon him aye?

                If you can’t see where foreign ownership might relate to the situation of vlnerable NZers then I can’t help you.

                I can walk and chew gum at the same time duke, it seems you can’t.

                • dukeofurl …
                  3 November 2015 at 12:18 pm

                  So , its in the top 5 list of concerns of everyday NZers, concern about the OIO?
                  Sorry I missed that survey?
                  Making it up isnt a good way to do a rebuttal

                  • tracey …
                    3 November 2015 at 12:35 pm

                    what? You need to relax, take a breath and read people’s posts before you hit submit. That way your next post might make some sense.

            • Stuart Nash 4.3.1.1.1.2
              4 November 2015 at 9:55 pm

              Tracey, in my papers I have offered a number of policy solutions in the electricity sector to help vulnerable new Zealanders. Forestry is a little difficult, but I listed around 28 policy recommendations, and Land information I rewrote the Labour policy in order to deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders. I am hopeful that a number of my recommendations from all papers will appear in our 2017 manifesto, but there is a process that must be gone though before these can be adopted and then announced.

      • mickysavage 4.3.2
        3 November 2015 at 7:47 pm

        (P.S. – cheekily, I note that Mickeysavage complains that Nash didn’t offer any policy solutions in his tirade. Neither did Mickeysavage. I suppose the response will be “Not the time or place, beside the point I was making blah blah blah.”

        But Nash could argue the same.

        Cheekily accepted. Although I did mention climate change, child poverty and the flow of resources from the rich to the poor. I offer the 700 odd posts I have written as some of the issues the left should confront …

    • Daniel Cale 4.4
      3 November 2015 at 4:43 pm

      “and he only got in by accident.”

      No, he got in because he won more votes than any other contender. The “His success was directly due to McVicar’s presence” line being run by MS has been utterly discredited elsewhere. The maths don’t add up.

      • mickysavage 4.4.1
        3 November 2015 at 7:51 pm

        His vote stayed the same and the National vote went down by about the same amount as McVicar’s vote. The statement is utterly discredited in which way?

        • dukeofurl 4.4.1.1
          4 November 2015 at 12:54 pm

          Cunliffes party vote for New Lynn went down too.

          Are you saying he put winning his electorate seat ahead of the most important thing , increasing the party vote.

          Obviously you wouldnt say that, but it just shows that falling tides lower all boats.

          [Until you apologise for your blatent ageism and ad hominem attacks from the other day, stay away. I flagged you on a number of your comments – something, it seems, that you’ve chosen to ignore. You were in moderation. You are now banned.] – Bill

  5. RedBaronCV 5
    2 November 2015 at 11:01 am

    I supose once Stuart would have belonged to NACT – so look how far they have shifted.
    Attacking here, well the blogging here, is better read than we imagine? Yes it is read by the right who may use it to shape their spin, but it is also read by others for the hard questions to ask or the anti spin lines or background information not provided .
    Fascinating to watch some ill presented story in the MSM having its headline changed , vanishing way down the online list , provoking an article the following day with a look at related issues. Nash should be using the ideas here as his attack lines with the local paper. and yes seat MP’s are valuable – STV voting would put in more non NAct MP’s.

  6. Tautoko Mangō Mata 6
    2 November 2015 at 11:11 am

    “coming second but maintaining our principles’ is a ludicrous proposition.”

    Stuart Nash may consider this statement an adage, but I sure as hell do not.
    The people I want to vote for should be fair, honest, trustworthy and sincere- not people who will sell out their principles and lie like many of the encumbent ruling party, in it for their own personal advancement.
    The likes of Russel Norman and Marilyn Waring spring to mind as examples of principled ex/current MPs at the top end of the scale while our current PM would be at the far end representing the least-principled and untrustworthy.

    • savenz 6.1
      2 November 2015 at 11:16 am

      +1 @ TMM

      • greywarshark 6.1.1
        2 November 2015 at 9:47 pm

        I looked up Harold Macmillan British PM and one man he admired was H H Asquith who he described as having “intellectual sincerity and moral nobility”, That is the sort of description needed for the NZ Labour leader today, and it is certainly what we do not have in our present NACT performer.

        Is there an icon with a jester in red and yellow dancing and tossing his belled headgear? I feel a desire to have it as a resource.

    • dukeofurl 6.2
      2 November 2015 at 11:21 am

      Where were you when Helen was ruling the roost ?
      How many principles were pushed aside there?
      Soldiers to Iraq, cough, toll motoways, ,sneeze, FTA, burp.

      • Tracey 6.2.1
        3 November 2015 at 8:50 am

        It was during the last Labour Government i began voting Green. I hope that answers your question.

    • Stuart Munro 6.3
      2 November 2015 at 3:35 pm

      Such absurdities, which neatly encapsulate the Blairite folly, are a damning criticism of the speaker.

      Can Nash not understand that he isn’t actually winning? Not even close in fact.

      If he doesn’t shape up he’ll be lucky to come third – Greens and NZF still have a few principles if he does not.

    • Stuart Nash 6.4
      2 November 2015 at 9:44 pm

      dear me. imagine being in government. you obviously can’t but its why I am here.

      [fyi – Haven’t been able to verify the authenticity of these comments…this commenter may well not be Stuart Nash] – Bill

      [Update:seem to be genuine after all]

    • Tracey 6.5
      3 November 2015 at 8:49 am

      I would add Fitzsimons and Donald to that list.

      • dukeofurl 6.5.1
        3 November 2015 at 9:00 am

        What about others offloaded from Greens MPs list ? Sue Bradford anyone!

        Russell Norman left because he wasnt going to waste any more of his life going nowhere – or not winning as its derisively called here.

        Haig will on his way too in the not to distant future.

        • tracey 6.5.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 12:02 pm

          do you need a new packet of straws to clutch?

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/65583217/green-party-coleader-russel-norman-resigns

          Please post your evidence that he is leaving cos he is sulking cos he didnt win

        • weka 6.5.1.2
          3 November 2015 at 12:12 pm

          You’re a veteran GP hater so I doubt your perspectives on Norman’s motivations are relevant.

          • dukeofurl 6.5.1.2.1
            3 November 2015 at 12:21 pm

            Family concerns are just a smokescreen, of course he is leaving because the party vote is down and he isnt a minister in government.
            Duh.

            What will Haigs ‘official reason’ when he finds a new job and goes ? But of course his primary reason would be he ‘didnt win’

            • tracey 6.5.1.2.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 12:32 pm

              Good God man, relax. As long as you think the Green Party are your enemy you are going to be a long time sad.

              Post proof that Norman has left cos he didnt “win”.

              Is that why Fitzsimon left too?

              I wonder how the party survived all those years under FPP, they must have just died and fallen apart… oh wait.

              https://home.greens.org.nz/history-green-party so you can see what can be achieved without “winning” elections

              • dukeofurl …
                4 November 2015 at 12:57 pm

                You are a great commentator Tracey, but stiffing labour isnt your strong suit.

                [Until you apologise for your blatent ageism and ad hominem attacks from the other day, stay away. I flagged you on a number of your comments – something, it seems, that you’ve chosen to ignore. You were in moderation. You are now banned.] – Bill

            • weka 6.5.1.2.1.2
              3 November 2015 at 12:43 pm

              I’m not talking about family concerns, I’m saying that your hatred of the GP makes everything you say about them spin and thus not credible.

            • tracey 6.5.1.2.1.3
              3 November 2015 at 12:51 pm

              You know that Nash is actually working hard behind the scenes and through the media to make sure he is the next leader of the Labour Party, at any cost?

              • dukeofurl …
                4 November 2015 at 1:00 pm

                Well he would have to win through an open voting contest available to all members- to be honest it would very hard to win the member’s and unions, let alone Mps.

                How was the Green leader chosen again, thats right its a sort of thing where the worthies from the branches cast one or more votes, like they did with rotten boroughs in the House of Commons.

                [Until you apologise for your blatent ageism and ad hominem attacks from the other day, stay away. I flagged you on a number of your comments – something, it seems, that you’ve chosen to ignore. You were in moderation. You are now banned.] – Bill

        • Bill 6.5.1.3
          3 November 2015 at 12:47 pm

          Depends on what you want to win, dunnit? I mean, some might want to win people over – or to win a better world – or even just win meaningful gains.

          Then there’s them useless tossers who only want to win power – an ugly, empty vessel.

  7. BLiP 7
    2 November 2015 at 11:22 am

    ‘

    Stuart Nash probably wants to steer Labour towards being a more “centrist but pragmatic” party.

  8. lprent 8
    2 November 2015 at 11:24 am

    I just finished writing a post about passing a million comments on this site before I read this post. Perhaps Stuart should look at that and realise that we and the people who read us really aren’t that interested in bolstering the careers of the individual MPs inside the parliament. We’re interested in bolstering the labour movement and providing a way to increase the robust debate both within it and with the people who oppose it.

    That comes from both the people to the right of Labour (where I personally so obviously work and operate – see my notes at the bottom of that post) and those of other often quite different persuasions. The point is that we work. Our critics are usually those who do not, and who tend to be more parasitical on those who do – like Stuart Nash?

    But really I suspect that Stuart is severely deficient in his understanding of history. As I said in my post on the Moariland Worker that was the earliest clear ancestor of The Standard 2.0 that we operate:-

    … [the] successor to the NZ Worker was The Standard 1.0. It remained in the hands of the unions until its demise despite what the history deprived bombast thinks. However it became less about the heart and soul of the labour movement and more the publication engine of the parliamentary Labour Party. In my opinion, that eventual increasing proximity and control of the publication by the parliamentary Labour Party was part of the eventual problem of why The Standard 1.0 eventually died in 1960.

    The volunteer effort of the early years fell away with the emphasis of the New Zealand Worker on getting a parliamentary wing for the labour movement. Trying to get and keep the parliamentary wing of the labour movement in parliament eventually shifted the focus in child publications away from the many issues of the labour movement and caused it to focus too much on the politicians.

    The basis of the this version of The Standard is less of the bastardised version that the Labour party effectively operated from 1936 as a propaganda sheet for lauding Labour Party MPs, and far more of the unifying based on common objectives that the Moariland Word and it’s successor the New Zealand Worker did that led to the election of the first Labour government. This is quite carefully pointed out in our about.

    The problem with the various socialist and labour movements in the early part of the last century and that of now was their divisions. It wasn’t until they started work on what they agreed with while knowing what they disagreed with between themselves that they started to make some headway. Trying to divide them as had happened in the late 19th century and early 20th didn’t work. It just made them fractured and ineffective.

    Letting them express where they disagreed and understanding that they disagreed in an open debate meant that the various activists could figure out what they agreed on and what they could work on together while disagreeing on other matters. That is what led to having a government of the left that could act on those areas.

    See this analysis

    The original caption of this photo reads, ‘Unity Conference delegates outside the Maoriland Worker office, Wellington’. The occasion was probably the first Unity Conference of 21 to 27 January 1913, which was held at the Maoriland Worker office, 290 Wakefield Street.

    The Maoriland Worker, edited by Harry Holland at the time of his arrest during the 1913 strike, was the official newspaper of the New Zealand Federation of Labour and its successor the United Federation of Labour. It was also the official paper of the Social Democratic Party. The Worker declared itself to be ‘a journal of industrial unionism, socialism, and politics’, and presented a broad range of socialist opinions.

    You notice that the Maoriland Worker and its successors up until the formation of The Standard fostered the type of wide debate on the left that Stuart Nash is deploring. They achieved unity through wide diversity rather than by a political segregation of the type that Stuart Nash appears to be advocating.

    In my view, having divisive fools in the parliamentary side who saw individual advantage in suppressing the voices of others within the left in the name of short-term electoral advantage was what led directly to the slow but systematic dismantling of the ability of the left to win elections. Becoming a pink tinged clone of their opponents on the right without and effective voice being given to alternate viewpoints was exactly what caused the gradual decline of the electoral success of the left.

    This can be tracked easily, just look at the fall in the number of people of the left being willing to become members of the political parties of the left. And them correlate that against the steady decrease in the ability of the left to win elections. It isn’t exactly rocket science. It is blindingly obvious.

    The biggest issue that the left has and always has been is the idiots in parliament who are more interested in dividing the left for their own personal political advantage. In my opinion, Stuart Nash appears to be one of those.

    But in the end it doesn’t matter. Stuart Nash and other such critics can fuck off. That they simply don’t have the skills to bring together such a wide and disparate group of authors, commenters and collaborators make it operate something like The Standard 2.0 is a seering indictment of their lack of political and technical abilities. Perhaps he should read the final paragraph of our about which reads

    No – you must….
    Have you read this page? We must do nothing. The posters post on the topics they want to (with a few limitations from the sysop). If you really absolutely want your ideas to be heard, then start a blog and start learning to write. You can probably find a more compatible blog on our blogroll. Or you can comment on the posts that our posters write and follow our rather lenient rules.

    I’d paraphrase that to being:- If you want to be a critic and to shift the debate elsewhere, then go and start a site that makes that happen, or learn to live with what we do. We really don’t care. If you succeed, then it’d provide more diversity on the debates of the left and probably more understanding of the differences that we all have to work with.

    When you clearly cannot do this, it shows the limitation of your skills, politics, and ideas. That appears to be the problem that Stuart has.

    In the meantime, we’ll keep doing what we feel like think works with the successful results that we get, and there is absolutely nothing that such inadequate critics can do about it.

    • Anne 8.1
      2 November 2015 at 12:06 pm

      Nash quote from TDB post:

      …the Labour caucus is united behind the leader and I can tell you that the fractious factions that used to exist no longer do. Not even behind closed doors. You will not see the infighting and bitching that had a bad habit of popping up in the headlines and eroded political credibility – and electability – over the past few years…

      And we are delighted to hear it although we know the MSM will continue to infer the opposite. But what incenses me about his post is: having called for a unified party (and with the welcome changes in caucus attitude that has largely been achieved) he then proceeds to resurrect past divisions by making ill informed provocative statements about those he wrongly perceives to be the strirrers and agitators – which I might add includes a significant portion of the party membership. In other words, he calls for one thing and does another?

    • Stuart Nash 8.2
      2 November 2015 at 9:53 pm

      For someone who has been around for so long – and under Helen – I am surprised at your apparent naivety. You just don’t get it do you. The interesting thing is that this is the first time I have actually read the Standard for months. I don’t know of a Labour MP who does (though no doubt there are some) because those I talk to tend to agree that this is a site mired in negativity and bile.

      This site doesn’t represent the moderate left voter – or the aspirational Kiwi who is looking for an alternative to the current government; but rather the embittered left dreaming of a socialist utopia that has never existed anywhere in time or place.

      Its an absolute disgrace to the proud broadsheet that used to be the Standard – and I should know, I have a whole heap of them at home. They trumpeted the Labour virtues, triumphs and achievements; not like this site that promotes a narrow biased view of the world that is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of thinking Kiwis.

      I suspect that after tonight I won’t read this site for another 12 months. After all, why would I – it offers nothing I can’t get looking into a long drop in a DoC campsite.

      [fyi – Haven’t been able to verify the authenticity of these comments…this commenter may well not be Stuart Nash] – Bill

      Update: [seem to be genuine after all]

      • Bill 8.2.1
        2 November 2015 at 10:03 pm

        Shaking my head in mild bemusement. Seriously Stuart!?

        • Mike the Savage One 8.2.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 1:23 pm

          He rubbishes the Standard and commentators and posters here, and then comments he has not had a look at TS for 12 months. Good grief, how can anyone dare make judgments when not even knowing who and what he talks about?!

      • TaupoBob 8.2.2
        2 November 2015 at 10:06 pm

        Wow, talk about poking the bear!

        What’s that saying – Never pick a fight with people who buy bits by the Terabyte!

      • Gavin 8.2.3
        2 November 2015 at 10:09 pm

        Stuart, if you only look at this blog once every 12 months, how could you know the entirety of what is posted? I’m only new here, but I think there’s a big range of opinions. Your point of view seems a bit blinkered. Having helped out a Labour candidate in one of the losing electorates last year, I found that head office aren’t very organised at all. We’re short of cash, OK you weren’t, and you had a helpful situation there too.

        Does that mean that all of us on this blog, don’t have any valid points of view? How about you show us how to be constructive then.

      • just saying 8.2.4
        2 November 2015 at 10:12 pm

        There was a great line on “the Good Wife”.
        The main character’s (morally ambivalent) politician-husband was running for office and approached by an opponent to make a deal between them. Seemed like the best possible deal, but he said something like: “I can’t work with you you’re a hypocrite – so you don’t know when you’re lying.”

      • Saarbo 8.2.5
        2 November 2015 at 10:17 pm

        @Stuart Nash
        Seriously, this isn’t wise for your future, nor is it helpful to Labour.
        Not smart.

        • Stuart Nash 8.2.5.1
          4 November 2015 at 10:00 pm

          Saarbo – my future isn’t in any way tied to the haters on the standard. My entire point is criticism of Labour from those on the standard is not helpful to labour.

          • the pigman 8.2.5.1.1
            5 November 2015 at 12:35 am

            The hubris, passed off as political skills (paraphrasing: “don’t insult my intelligence by saying I didn’t know what I was doing when I wrote my post and made a ton of mean comments directed at activists on TDB and TS, in fact I wrote it to confirm that there was a looney left fringe of haters out there”) is just priceless.

            An amazing caricature of a politician. And just so stoopid, with it.

            Let’s see how far you go in the NZLP, Stoo.

          • Kiwiri 8.2.5.1.2
            5 November 2015 at 8:53 am

            “haters” ? sweet, you certainly brought to mind a phrase from the time (?) from a previous administration, ‘haters and wreckers’ and where did that lead things?

            further up, you talk about negativity and bile. well, if that seems to be on your mind, you will see that around you, surrounding yourself. do you know something called a ‘mirror’? or perhaps something known as ‘self awareness’?

      • the pigman 8.2.6
        2 November 2015 at 11:50 pm

        See you in 12 months, Stu, let us know how those DoC long drops look after hours of contemplation and verbal abuse and – for goodness sake – share the wine/crack pipe around next time! No one likes a Bogart.

      • maui 8.2.7
        3 November 2015 at 12:04 am

        Geezus, I thought you were in a party that wants at least 40% of the vote to control it’s own destiny next election. Your attitude seems to be making more enemies than friends, and Labour needs all the friends it can get right now.

        I’m also assuming you don’t know who the audience of the Standard is, so putting a denigrating label on some of the commentary here may be a foolish mistake. If I was in politics I’d be more worried about the reach of Labour’s own social media, than the so called irrelevance of one of the country’s most popular blog sites.

      • infused 8.2.8
        3 November 2015 at 7:45 am

        Lol

        Stuart summing up what weve been saying for years. This place is negative. Vile? Mmm not quite, but close.

        • Tracey 8.2.8.1
          3 November 2015 at 8:56 am

          who is “we” infused?

          • weka 8.2.8.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 12:48 pm

            Him and Nash 😉

            I assume both of them missed the irony of being vile and negative to people while accusing them of being vile and negative. Or maybe they think it’s ok because we deserve it.

        • Mike the Savage One 8.2.8.2
          3 November 2015 at 1:25 pm

          So your ever so incessant presence means then you love things “negative” and “vile”, do you?

        • the pigman 8.2.8.3
          3 November 2015 at 3:25 pm

          Yet you keep coming here infused… why?

          Oh right, because you’re paid to do so.

      • Lara 8.2.9
        3 November 2015 at 7:50 am

        Wow.

        This is one of the biggest left wing political blogs in New Zealand. It has a great variety of views, from centre to left.

        And you come on here and completely diss the readers and commenters?

        Still not hearing discussion from you Mr Nash on actual problems facing NZ and what Labour / you will do to fix them.

        Just hearing a lot of negativity towards left wing supporters.

        You do realise that these are existing and potential voters, right?

      • marty mars 8.2.10
        3 November 2015 at 8:23 am

        lol stuart very childish – grow up and why you’d be looking into DOC long drops??? – weird.

      • Tracey 8.2.11
        3 November 2015 at 8:55 am

        John Key dumped aspirational after 2010, you might want to follow his lead?

      • Blue 8.2.12
        3 November 2015 at 9:24 am

        It’s actually you who doesn’t get it, Stuart. Moderate voters don’t read political blogs. They read the MSM. Only people who are passionate about politics tend to seek out and regularly read political blogs.

        Political blogs attract activists. Passionate, involved people who don’t want some cute little soundbites and a smile, but some substantial debate about important issues.

        And yes, we know you don’t really care for activists. Few MPs really do. We’re the bastards who have the gall to elect leaders you don’t like, call you and your fellow MPs out on the bullshit you occasionally engage in and debate ideas that go well beyond the centrist spiel you want to rattle off to voters come election time.

        Without us, you’d be campaigning as an independent MP, Stuart. Because a party is made up of the people who join it.

        • Tracey 8.2.12.1
          3 November 2015 at 9:28 am

          bravo!

          • weka 8.2.12.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 1:05 pm

            +1, very good comment Blue. Silver lining, this has brought out some great commentary, and mostly united a whole bunch of people.

        • dukeofurl 8.2.12.2
          3 November 2015 at 12:43 pm

          Whats got your pajamas in a twist ?

          Whats has moderate voters and blogs got to do with it ? Nash says he doesnt bother reading The Standard ( along with most other Mps)
          Exception when the “whining left’ who participate at The Standard get to dance around the fire when the story is about him.

          He NEVER wrote in The Daily Blog- that was the chardonnay socialist Trotter.

          Here he is accused of not ‘raising the party vote’- duh, that was virtually the case for all labour candidates. ( even dropped in New Lynn with Cunliffe)

          Not sticking to his job when talking about the OIO- duh ,which is one of his jobs

          Having an American campaign manager- duh his birth father !

        • sabine 8.2.12.3
          3 November 2015 at 7:46 pm

          well said.

        • Stuart Nash 8.2.12.4
          4 November 2015 at 10:03 pm

          I don’t agree with your contentions at all. Seek me out at the conference – if you are going – and have this conversation there.

      • Anne 8.2.13
        3 November 2015 at 9:40 am

        I think Nash’s real problem is that he feels threatened by strong, very smart people who are not afraid to tell it like it is. So, he falls back on the cold war mantra that anyone who doesn’t agree with him (and his third-way mates) is a raging Commie.

        His final sentence @8.2 is worthy of a mention to his political seniors. I don’t think tantrums and trashy throwaway lines will do the Labour Party any political favours. Who needs enemies…..

        • tracey 8.2.13.1
          3 November 2015 at 9:58 am

          unless we and those you allude to were never his intended audience with his post… and it was aimed at making him look “effective” to others, perhaps in business and othe rplaces to get him to the eventual leadership?

          • Anne 8.2.13.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 10:29 am

            After his latest outbursts I don’t give him credit for being able to pull it off. Instead, I think he’s been taken aback by the response to his TDB post and has reverted to ‘spoiled brat’ behaviour because no-one much has agreed with him and told him what a wonderful guy he is.

        • Stuart Nash 8.2.13.2
          4 November 2015 at 10:05 pm

          Sorry Anne, but I have never ever felt even remotely threatened by anyone from the Standard at all. Why would I?

          • Anne 8.2.13.2.1
            5 November 2015 at 8:42 am

            Except that I never said you felt threatened by anyone from The Standard. That is an incorrect interpretation of what I did say. In fact I was thinking more of the responses to your post on the Daily Blog site.

            • Anne 8.2.13.2.1.1
              5 November 2015 at 9:29 am

              And just in case you get it wrong again Stuart, I wasn’t suggesting you felt threatened by anyone – here or on TDB.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.13.2.2
            5 November 2015 at 9:00 am

            Why would I?

            Beats me.

            Maybe someone who believed that

            ill-disciplined rants typed from an anonymous keyboard will only provide Mr Slater and Mr Farrar with a wealth of information and powerful ammunition to fire back with twice the impact.

            might be able to enlighten us.

      • McFlock 8.2.14
        3 November 2015 at 12:32 pm

        lolz

        Tired and emotional, much? The trick is, apparently, to write out what you really want to say to folks, bin it, then wait a few hours to see if you really need to respond. And if you do, delete anything that looks like what you wrote in the first draft…

      • UpandComer 8.2.15
        4 November 2015 at 3:06 pm

        Stuart you need to do a Shane Jones and leave the termite invested log and go to NZ First or admit that National actually look after the working class and effective government 100 times better then Labour does these days and join them. You ‘won’t’ ever be given a fair go in the PC party of side-issues.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.15.1
          4 November 2015 at 3:08 pm

          National looks after working people (fuck off to Pommieland if you want a class system) so hard, unemployment always goes up when they’re in government.

          No, wait, that means you’re telling lies again. Shame on you.

  9. jester 9
    2 November 2015 at 11:40 am

    Regarding Mickey s comment that: “the discussions that occurred on the Standard arguably affected the last two leadership campaign results.  David Cunliffe was the overwhelming favourite on this blog in 2013 and this was reflected in the result.  The support for Little was also clear although more muted and is reflected in the closeness
    of the result.”

    Is this the reason why Nash wishes to silence the voices from within the Standard?

    Neither choices have excited the voters to be honest.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      2 November 2015 at 11:47 am

      You can’t blame on the individual leaders what are deep cultural and organisational problems within Labour. A caucus full of former Parliamentary staffers and others who hark back to Rogernomics days does not make a Labour Party which will get any traction.

      And no doubt Nash thinks that he can be the one to “excite the voters.”

      • jester 9.1.1
        2 November 2015 at 11:56 am

        Agree totally. But i think Nash sees it from a self interest POV though.

        The question is would a independant caucus selected leader have done or be doing any better?

  10. Colonial Viper 10
    2 November 2015 at 11:46 am

    Just get Hooten to sponsor Nash into the National Party.

    • b waghorn 10.1
      2 November 2015 at 12:03 pm

      I’ve had the recurring thought pop into my head that as a lot of right wingers seem to be touting Nash’s prospects, is it plausible that the whole mcvicer vote splitting shemozzle wasn’t a deep dark ploy to get Nash elected without raising the alarm.?

      • dukeofurl 10.1.1
        2 November 2015 at 12:07 pm

        Name 2 ?

        • b waghorn 10.1.1.1
          2 November 2015 at 12:16 pm

          Collins said he would be the next labour leader just the other day.
          And I’m assuming that CV’s comment above means hooton likes him to.

          • dukeofurl 10.1.1.1.1
            2 November 2015 at 6:10 pm

            Did she ?
            Cant find it.

            Any way this relates to your deep conspiracy how ?

            • b waghorn 10.1.1.1.1.1
              2 November 2015 at 6:17 pm

              Well it just seems odd to me that the very slick natact party would botch an electorate up so badly.
              And if there are big powers at work then the best way to keep things going in the direction you want is to have people sympathetic to you’re wants in both major parties.
              BTW keep in mind I’m a shepherd and these are just the thoughts that come into my head to make the day go by.

              • dukeofurl …
                3 November 2015 at 9:10 am

                Ask them about Northland ?

                An ‘energetic candidate’ who seems in tune with the voters can work miracles.

                Do you learn anything from what feed back you get here ( I learn heaps) or do you just double down on your ‘beliefs’

                • b waghorn …
                  3 November 2015 at 2:29 pm

                  I thought I worded it clear enough that any one should be able to tell it was not a firm belief ,I was just interested to see if anyone had an opinion on how the natact lot let a vote split happen .
                  I never implicated Nash in it at all.
                  I have a bit of sympathy for some of his views and said some similar things here on the standard the other day about people attacking labour not helping the lefts cause.

            • b waghorn 10.1.1.1.1.2
              2 November 2015 at 6:19 pm

              Of course its more likely Collins remarks are just more shit stirring of the Ardern for leader type that the twisted women was up to a few weeks ago.

            • tracey 10.1.1.1.1.3
              3 November 2015 at 4:29 pm

              You asking for evidence duke? Cos we are still waiting for your evidence that Norman left cos he hates losing

      • savenz 10.1.2
        2 November 2015 at 12:52 pm

        After dirty politics revelations anything is possible from them!

    • weka 10.2
      2 November 2015 at 12:49 pm

      Or better yet, the Pagani Party.

    • Tracey 10.3
      3 November 2015 at 8:57 am

      Nash has more “I”s than a fly

  11. Visubversa 11
    2 November 2015 at 1:12 pm

    I remember seeing Stuart Nash get absolutely punked by two retired Quaker school teachers at an Epsom LEC meeting when he thought that his candidacy entitled him to bring in an American campaign manager and run a “Nash” campaign distancing himself from Labour policies. He was told in no uncertain terms that he was there for the Party Vote and that he would run a Labour campaign, and we were working for the Party and our support for him was conditional on that. Fortunately – he backed off and behaved better, but I never trusted him after that.

    • dukeofurl 11.1
      2 November 2015 at 2:51 pm

      Well they sure knew how to to passive aggression.
      Retired Quaker schoolteachers ?. I be they have never stood or won a campaign for anything other than for a kindergarten board

      He obviously took no notice and elbowed his way in ahead of other worthies on the party list.
      Go Nashie

      • mac1 11.1.1
        2 November 2015 at 9:58 pm

        Ah, dukeofurl, such comments as yours show how time defeats politicians who run their mouths off about things, or people, they don’t know. Every time you do this, you alienate all the people who know, underline know, you are wrong in what you say; and therefore will pay you less heed.

        You know little about what passive aggression is, what retired Quaker school teachers are like, how people are chosen for the Labour list or, speaking as a retired English teacher, how to write a coherent sentence in terms of spelling, punctuation and grammar.

        Did I mention that I am a Quaker, by the way, and successful in terms which you have described us retired Quaker school teachers as not being?

        • dukeofurl 11.1.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 9:28 am

          Retired but still correcting trivialities ?

          Your idea of passive aggressive is strange , when it fits these two old twats to a tee regarding Nash. They didnt hide their hostility, resentment and stubbornness.

          [That kind of ad hominem gets bans. Sort your shit out. You’re in moderation until an apology and undertaking to desist are made. btw – the back end is racing like an up-flipped tortoise, so it may be some time (all things being equal) before I can be bothered going through all the slowed down hoops required to get you out] – Bill

          • Tracey 11.1.1.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 9:31 am

            Is there a particular interest you want to disclose dukeofurl to give better context to your slight nastiness that has emerged on this thread?

            • dukeofurl 11.1.1.1.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 10:16 am

              Your a died in the wool greenie, why is Nash your problem?

              I would have thought you would be invested in keeping capable Green Mps, who are leaving because they didnt win!
              Normans gone , Haig cant be too far behind.

              • tracey …
                3 November 2015 at 10:43 am

                Marama Davidson has begun, so some go and some stay. You seem quite fixated on Norman. The green Party was going to die without Donald, and then Fitzsimons and now you suggest Norman. But it won’t.

                “The Green Party today welcomes Auckland-based Marama Davidson as the Party’s newest MP and the fourth member of the party’s Māori caucus.

                Ms Davidson will take on the Māori Development, Social Housing, Human Rights and Pacific Peoples portfolios, following a small reshuffle in the wake of former Co-leader Russel Norman’s departure.

                Metiria Turei will now hold the National Intelligence and Security portfolio, as well as the Electoral portfolio. Kennedy Graham will take the Trade portfolio.

                Of Ngāpuhi, Te Rarawa and Ngāti Porou descent Ms Davidson lives with her family in Manurewa and is a well-known political commentator who has recently finished 10 years with the Human Rights Commission.

                “I’m looking forward to being a modern, progressive voice at Parliament for Māori political aspirations,” Ms Davidson said.

                “After years working with grassroots organisations, I’m excited about the opportunity to help ensure that Government provides the support communities need to find their own solutions.

                “I plan to be a passionate advocate for those who have been left out of the current Government’s plans for New Zealand.

                “I’m particularly excited about the trust that the Green Party has placed in me to lift the party’s profile and work more closely with Pacific peoples,” Ms Davidson said.”

                Not dyed-in-the-wool cos I voted labour for over 4 elections during my voting lifetime.

                You stick with your old time politics, pretty close to FPP mentality, and I will stay with my notion that concensus is the way forward and we need to leave behind the passive aggressive and nasty that both Nash (and you) have displayed on this thread

      • greywarshark 11.1.2
        2 November 2015 at 10:00 pm

        Don’t dismiss Quakers – they have won many things over the years and tried to do so in a way that is not violent. They also have been killed for their beliefs. And that obviously hasn’t happened to you dukeofurl.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.3
        3 November 2015 at 1:13 pm

        Retired Quaker schoolteachers ?. I be they have never stood or won a campaign for anything other than for a kindergarten board

        You’re a Thorndon Bubble Dipshit, just like the rest of the self styled Labour “strategists” in Wellington.

        Labour is going to be a four time loser in 2017.

    • Stuart Nash 11.2
      2 November 2015 at 9:59 pm

      Love it. That ‘American’ campaign manager was actually my birth father, and never ever once did I distance myself from Labour messages. In fact I was the first candidate who was open about the fact that a Labour candidate could not win Epsom.

      Not too sure who you are, but you seem to forget that when I won the nomination for Epsom the LEC was broke, but I raised $15k for my campaign – spent $10k and left $5k in the coffers. The team and I (mainly Graham Lee) door knocked every house and the party vote for Labour in Epsom was the highest it has ever been.

      Come on, be honest for a change and don’t hide behind a pseudonym. If you were on the Epsom LEC or my campaign 2005 campaign team then you know you are lying, and I don’t appreciate that.

      [Nope. You don’t challenge the legitimate use of pseudonyms. Not here. There is nothing dishonest about employing them.] – Bill

      [fyi – Haven’t been able to verify the authenticity of these comments…this commenter may well not be Stuart Nash] – Bill

      Update: [Seems to be genuine after all]

      • Colonial Viper 11.2.1
        3 November 2015 at 1:17 pm

        Stuart Nash, it’s Tat Loo here member from the Andersons Bay Peninsula branch Dunedin South, and I’d like to say fuck off mate, you’re adding zero of value to the discussion here on The Standard and further, you’ve demonstrated beyond all doubt that you are yet another in a long line of Labour Party careerists who appears to view gaining and having power as the number one priority above all others in Kiwi politics.

        • Bill 11.2.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 1:40 pm

          heh – whatever you’d like or not like to say, I think it’s safe to say he’s shuffled off somewhere else and won’t be around these parts – if he means what he says in his comments.

          I’ve been wondering about that ‘looking down the DOC long-drop’ snippet he threw out in reply to Lynn. Anyway, I got to thinking that visions come in many different forms and his interpretation of what he imagined might be a bit off. I could pick he saw his own reflection looking back up at him (unheard of in a long-drop scenario, I know – but hey it’s a vision). Anyway, was he really looking at ‘the standard’ – or was it his political future he got a glimpse of?

          Never before seen an out of control car meet a derailing train beneath a flame spewing air-plane in a tail spin… and to think it all resolves as a steaming pile of shit at the bottom of a DOC long-drop. Oh well.

          • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 3:49 pm

            I think Stuart Nash and his right wing mates have good times together sneering at whiny loser lefty types.

        • srylands 11.2.1.2
          3 November 2015 at 2:08 pm

          This is so hilarious.

        • Stuart Nash 11.2.1.3
          4 November 2015 at 10:09 pm

          I know who you are Tat. I am hardly a careerist – but, yes, I do view gaining power for the party as vitally important in order to implement the change necessary to drive the agenda promoted by the Labour party under Andrew Little.

          • weka 11.2.1.3.1
            4 November 2015 at 10:14 pm

            so how do we know that this is really Stuart Nash writing this? The tone is quite different than the other day, so I’m suspecting it’s a staffer who’s job is to present Nash as reasonable.

            Ghost writing, a step up from pseudonyms I guess 😉

            • miravox 11.2.1.3.1.1
              4 November 2015 at 10:18 pm

              I was thinking exactly that 😀

            • maui 11.2.1.3.1.2
              4 November 2015 at 10:31 pm

              The writer is using a similar amount of hyphens as previously seen. I’ve run that through my grammar and punc analyser machine to check 😉 Also I would guess his username is linked to only one IP address as he hasn’t been commenting for very long on here. So unless a staffer has got hold of his laptop at the beehive… its the real deal I reckon.

              • weka …
                4 November 2015 at 10:33 pm

                I was assuming that the staffer would be using Nash’s computer. Not sure about only one IP address though (work, home, wifi etc).

                Mostly I just wanted to make a point about the ridiculousness of criticising people on the internet for using pseudonyms as if RL names are always real.

            • Stuart Nash 11.2.1.3.1.3
              5 November 2015 at 1:55 pm

              Sorry Weka, but it is Stuart Nash. I would never ever ask my staff to post on my behalf – and certainly not at 10.00pm in the evening.

          • Kiwiri 11.2.1.3.2
            4 November 2015 at 11:53 pm

            “I suspect that after tonight I won’t read this site for another 12 months. After all, why would I – it offers nothing I can’t get looking into a long drop in a DoC campsite.”

            Stuart Nash 8.2
            2 November 2015 at 9:53 pm

            • the pigman 11.2.1.3.2.1
              5 November 2015 at 12:24 am

              Aww too bad, seems like the entertainment value of staring into DoC longdrops that Stoo was boosting for didn’t live up to that provided on The Standard.

      • vto 11.2.2
        3 November 2015 at 1:22 pm

        Stuart Nash “don’t hide behind a pseudonym”

        Piss off fulla.

        You do realise that voting is conducted in secret right? And you do know the reasons for that right?

        • weka 11.2.2.1
          3 November 2015 at 1:56 pm

          +1 . We’re all equal in a democracy but some are more equal than others.

          • vto 11.2.2.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 2:01 pm

            Exactly.

            Is Nash being ignorant in ignoring this basic principle of our democracy? Or is he being a smart-arse?

            I suspect simple ignorance in his flushed rush to bash out his very important pov’s….. a simple ignorance on a large scale – thus rendering himself useless

            • weka 11.2.2.1.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 2:13 pm

              hard to know without knowing the man. It also looks like classic authoritarian perspective – the people with the power are the important ones who get to decide what’s important for everyone else.

              Plus general ignorance of online culture.

        • Freemark 11.2.2.2
          3 November 2015 at 2:32 pm

          That’s why Secret Ballots are so important in Union meetings, right?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.2.2.1
            3 November 2015 at 2:36 pm

            Why does Cheap Mark hate freedom of association? Personally I think he lacks the intellectual chops to form an opinion on his own.

            It’s rote-learned, isn’t it Cheap Mark.

          • tracey 11.2.2.2.2
            3 November 2015 at 4:31 pm

            Wait on, shouldn’t you be helping out at the City Mission or some other voluntary work that you thought people should be doing instea dof posting here?

    • Hami Shearlie 11.3
      3 November 2015 at 12:42 am

      Interesting to hear that – I’m not surprised however!

  12. Matthew Hooton 12
    2 November 2015 at 1:13 pm

    It seems everything is going to plan.

    • arkie 12.1
      2 November 2015 at 1:26 pm

      Haha

    • Mike the Savage One 12.2
      2 November 2015 at 7:23 pm

      Money talks, so raising “support” will have had it’s price, since it will have come from certain donors, who have certain expectations. And about such expectations we can let our phatasy run wild, I suppose.

      But with turning more to business donors, and flirting with them, much political credibility can go, but that is exactly the kind of “plan” you are talking about, Mr Hooton, are you not?

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11410292

      “The returns showed Mr Nash received $36,000 from Caniwi Capital Partners and $31,000 from Andrew Kelly, mostly paid in monthly instalments dating from June 2013.

      Mr Nash also received $5000 from rich lister Sir Robert Jones, $9000 from Parnell accountant Lynch Phibbs and $18,000 from various branches of the Labour Party.

      Mr Nash said the two main backers for his ultimately successful race for the Napier elector seat were long-term friends who “believed in what I was doing”.

      He was unapologetic about his fund-raising prowess and said his pitch to Troy Bowker and Andrew Kelly was simple: “The case I put to them was ‘We’ve got a really good team around me, but it doesn’t matter how good the team is, without money … without money the odds of winning are greatly reduced.'””

      Of course parties and candidates need money. Perhaps Labour need to look at how and where to raise funds, and become less dependent on some business donors, like Bernie Sanders has done in the US for his leadership candidacy within the Democratic Party.

      But to the likes of Mathew Hooton, more sponsorship by business and well resourced “friends” is exactly the kind of neoliberal New Zealand they want. Key and Nats did rather well with getting their donations from vested interest parties, have they not?

      • greywarshark 12.2.1
        2 November 2015 at 10:02 pm

        What’s a phatasy? It sounds as if it should be something. Perhaps if you meant fantasy, you could imagine a meaning for phatasy.

        • Mike the Savage One 12.2.1.1
          2 November 2015 at 10:47 pm

          “Fantasy” of course, sorry for the typing mistake, it happened in the excitement about Mr Hootons “smart” comment, which deserved a qualified answer.

          • greywarshark 12.2.1.1.1
            2 November 2015 at 10:55 pm

            Well I just had to look up phat and this is what urban dictionary says.

            phat
            Phat does mean Pretty Hot And Tempting, like the other definitions say. The problem with “phat” is that it is no longer in really. It has kind of phased out and is mostly used by wannabes, lowerclassmen in high school, or middle schoolers. It is now considered a slang faux pas. I wouldn’t use it if I was you.
            14 year old: “That’s phat man.”
            22 year old: “Um, dude, that word got old in the late ’90s”

            So it’s been and gone before I even caught up with it.

  13. Michael 13
    2 November 2015 at 1:22 pm

    The only thing I agree with him about is mudslinging on the left. There is a difference between criticisms and having a difference of opinion, and mudslinging and harmful rhetoric.

    Criticizing an MP for being too centrist is fine. It’s completely fine for there to be difference of opinion on the left – and of course there should be open debate.

    But screaming “GET OUT OF THE LABOUR PARTY!” or saying “YOU’RE NO BETTER THAN THE NATS!” and other virulent rhetoric isn’t going to win a progressive government. Criticism should *not* be toned down – but rhetoric definitely should be.

    Because when there is extremely harsh infighting on the left, only the left gets hurt. We should be showing that we are a democratic left where difference of opinion is tolerated – and debated. But that we can all come together as progressives and show that we can unite around basic ideas of fairness and equality, for example.

    When honest, fair criticism and open debate on the left turns into mudslinging infighting, this doesn’t help the left win. It just makes the right stronger and puts us on a path to more privatisation, more kids in poverty, and worse pay and conditions.

    • Whateva Next 13.1
      2 November 2015 at 10:00 pm

      Bang on Michael

    • Lara 13.2
      3 November 2015 at 7:56 am

      It’s pretty hard to criticise Labour without pointing out that it was the party which spawned ACT, the most far right party in our political scene in New Zealand.

      Pointing out that Labour has many MPs still wedded to a Milton Friedman style of free market ideology, that they’ve never addressed the betrayal of their electorate in 1984, really isn’t virulent rhetoric.

      It’s a rather simple point which is quite important.

      I strongly suspect that the Rogernomes are still in charge of Labour.

      And now I’m seeing that they have zero clues as to how to use social media and blogs to further their cause.

      Nash’s comments here and on TDB are negative, derisory and verging on abusive towards his potential voters. And still… NOTHING about actual policy and problems facing New Zealand! Quite a faux pas actually from Mr Nash IMO.

      NOT the way to win an election!

      • Tracey 13.2.1
        3 November 2015 at 8:59 am

        Well put.

        It’s about TRUST.

      • dukeofurl 13.2.2
        3 November 2015 at 12:49 pm

        Dry your eyes over the betrayal of the electorate in 1984.
        Its 30 years ago now

        [A message for you] – Bill

        • Lara 13.2.2.1
          3 November 2015 at 1:52 pm

          It’s a betrayal that just keeps on giving though isn’t it.

          They still hold to that same ideology… and yet somehow they want to pretend they don’t and have the working class vote for them.

          The passage of time hasn’t changed Labour from the one it was in 1984. And if you never address big issues like that… then they just won’t go away.

          • Colonial Viper 13.2.2.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 3:52 pm

            dukeofurl is like a certain type in the Labour Party who believes that everyone in the country has forgiven Labour for lurching to the right and supporting neoliberalism throughout the nation.

            Even the continuing tide of disappearing traditional Labour voters can’t shake them out of this misunderstanding.

  14. Tory 14
    2 November 2015 at 1:44 pm

    I am truly amazed, in reading comments on this site, at the ability of Matthew Hooton to influence so much in NZ politics (both sides of the political spectrum) and be responsible for so many conspiracies. Surely Matthew should be nominated for a knighthood as well?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1
      2 November 2015 at 2:14 pm

      I’m not amazed that you’re pretending a couple of comments are somehow representative of general sentiment. Your other ‘contributions’ are usually self-serving and dishonest too.

    • b waghorn 14.2
      2 November 2015 at 6:11 pm

      That’s why dirty politics is so toxic to a functioning society . It makes people distrust those in charge on a whole new level. Hooton should just fuck off and find another living or is he to thick to realize that he is hopelessly compromised.

  15. Raf 15
    2 November 2015 at 2:02 pm

    I’m tired of hearing “winning is everything”; that you can’t change anything unless you win. UK Labour didn’t win, but I venture to suggest that Corbyn and co. are having a massive effect on the political weather there.

    Nash strikes me as one of those young lads who’s looked in the mirror and decided he looks like a future PM – and that all he really has to do from now on is continue ‘looking the part’.

    • McFlock 15.1
      2 November 2015 at 2:24 pm

      Yes, good point about winning vs changing.

      As for your second paragraph – every private has a field marshal’s baton in his knapsack, and all that 🙂

    • Lara 15.2
      3 November 2015 at 7:57 am

      and his piece on TDB clearly stated that holding onto principles (and coming second) isn’t the way to go.

      so the direct implication is he’d abandon his principles in order to win

      “coming second but maintaining our principles’ is a ludicrous proposition”

      he actually said that!

      amazing.

  16. Sacha 16
    2 November 2015 at 2:45 pm

    Which Labour party/caucus channels was Nash’s blurt approved through?

    And if he’s just flapping his gums in a personal capacity, which person in his party/caucus has the job of telling the guy to pull his head in (again), thus setting a clear standard of acceptable behaviour for his peers?

    Disunity is in how you act, not the words you spin.

  18. Tracey 18
    2 November 2015 at 5:19 pm

    Ms Pagan could have written it

  19. Mike the Savage One 19
    2 November 2015 at 7:02 pm

    “Our supporters have the same impact when they squabble, bitch and back-stab on so-called ‘left-friendly’ sites like The Standard (a dreadful 21st century bastardisation of a once proud Labour broadsheet). Criticising your favourite Labour MP is not the route to victory, no matter what you think of their philosophies, hair or politics.

    If you feel so aggrieved by something an MP has said, written or done, then email them personally and you are more likely to get a response and, just perhaps, an explanation. But ill-disciplined rants typed from an anonymous keyboard will only provide Mr Slater and Mr Farrar with a wealth of information and powerful ammunition to fire back with twice the impact.”

    That which I just quoted above is what Stuart wrote (besides of other not that convincing stuff) in his post on TDB.

    I had to take a deep breath upon reading it. It has now made it absolutely clear to me, that the main problems that exist within Labour at present are such self righteous views of some of its MPs. The advice by Stuart is nothing else but patronising and some of his comments reveal arrogance.

    Telling people to basically shut up and simply follow a leader and his caucus MPs in silent obedience, and ignoring all the crap and misinformation that goes on under this government, without actually delivering “opposition”, because opposition is considered a “waste of time”, that is most certainly NO solution to improve the attractiveness and vote-ability of the Labour Party.

    It is time to present real opposition, not to try and only offer a Nat Light kind of government in waiting, based on vague concepts like “fairness” and bla, bla, bla.

    If you consider “opposition” a “waste of time”, perhaps you have forgotten what it means to be a full blooded politician with a spirit and a sense of mission, Mr Nash? Opposition is an opportunity, to show a better, valid, convincing and exciting alternative to what we get from Key and Nats. But those that do not see the opportunity, and fail to act and deliver as is needed, they seem in the wrong place in my view.

    I have been waiting for years now, to see something truly exciting and bold to come from Labour. Phil Goff did a reasonable job as leader, but he was never meant to be a long term solution, and did fail to convince, given his past record. Shearer was a desperate attempt to bring in a new leader to present a “story” like Key had behind him, a different story, but he stuffed up too often. Only David Cunliffe brought in an atmosphere of excitement and anticipation, but for various reasons it was not meant to be, and some in Labour can look in the mirror to find the answer to part of the problems. Andrew Little is a compromise, to bring the party together, but so far, it has not been enough to excite me and others to vote Labour again.

    Hence some real action will be needed, and a conference should offer a forum to show the direction. It better be showing in the proper direction, or we can perhaps forget 2017. I will not say and write more, so as not to spoil things too much. But I am left waiting, for what I hoped for and expected. In the meantime I consider alternatives, which are only very few given the present political parties we have on offer.

    Stuart’s contribution on TDB is not helpful to the situation, that is clear enough to me.

  20. the pigman 20
    2 November 2015 at 8:54 pm

    Oh dear. Stuart all-out opened fire on phil ure… a “nutbag”? Really, Stuart? Speaking of handing ammunition to Slater and Farrar…

    • weka 20.1
      2 November 2015 at 9:55 pm

      He gets fair slammed in most of the comments though. Quite useful overall, the post and the comments really show him for who he is.

    • Bill 20.2
      2 November 2015 at 9:56 pm

      Went on over to read the comment thread off the back of your comment, and well…what an absolute skelping!

  21. Redbaiter 21
    2 November 2015 at 9:10 pm

    Maybe Shearer and Nash could leave Labour and join the Nationals.

    Drag the Nats to the right a bit.

  22. linda 22
    2 November 2015 at 9:44 pm

    i want labor to win i want a better fairer society i also want pay back on national there supports and the organized crime gang called the current government a want to see key booted out of the country or behind bars, gallows is probable out of the question but we can fantasies a swing key ooolala

  23. Stuart Nash 23
    2 November 2015 at 10:11 pm

    Man, gotta love you guys. If think I don’t know what I was doing when I wrote the post on the Daily Blog, then you insult my intelligence.

    The lack of political or strategic nous expressed in a number of the comments (and starting from the author of this post – sorry but take another look at the stats: holding electorate seats improves the party vote. The PV might have dropped in Napier, but I was not the MP, simply a candidate) just confirms my suspicion that this site is populated by the nutty fringe who really are quite divorced from political reality. You believe you influenced the outcome of the past tow leadership races? How did the Cunliffe campaign work out for you? Not too good right. Wow. How deluded is this!

    I am just so relieved that very few actually take this site seriously. If they did, we really would be in trouble.

    Good luck in future endeavours.

    Oh, by the way, take a look at my election billboards: the vast majority simply said
    NASH
    LABOUR

    None of this ridiculous other stuff that was floating about.

    So, move away from the keyboard, go and raise some money, knock on doors, hold 150 street corner meetings, work hard for two years and you never know, you might win as well. But somehow I doubt that. 🙂

    [fyi – Haven’t been able to verify the authenticity of these comments…this commenter may well not be Stuart Nash] – Bill

    Update: [Seems genuine after all]

    • mickysavage 23.1
      2 November 2015 at 10:24 pm

      Presuming you are the one and the same, happy to debate all the other stuff with you publicly or privately including the stats about the party vote. But you attack a number of us publicly and then claim that the party has to be publicly united. So which is it?

      Edit: Just saw your comment “The interesting thing is that this is the first time I have actually read the Standard for months”. Yet if you really are SN why did you make the derogatory comment on TDB about TS?

      • weka 23.1.1
        2 November 2015 at 10:36 pm

        Because it’s all about the winning, even when it’s a win against your own side 😉

        • Sacha 23.1.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 8:25 am

          Beating their puny chests at one another.

        • dukeofurl 23.1.1.2
          3 November 2015 at 9:33 am

          Ask Russell Norman about what happens when you ‘dont win’

          Oh thats right its different when you are Green, and dont increase party vote (%), and dont get into government.

          • Tracey 23.1.1.2.1
            3 November 2015 at 9:37 am

            yeah it is. a difference that is clearly not within your grasp.

            You’re starting to look a little foolish duke.

          • weka 23.1.1.2.2
            3 November 2015 at 11:09 am

            You mean the Green Party that has created many changes in NZ according to the party’s core values and goals without even being in government yet? Thanks, a very good example of why winning is important but not the most important thing, why core values don’t have to be compromised, and why change is more important than power.

            Also a nice juxtaposition against Nash’s apparent view that power is more important than values or pretty much anything else. When you think that a win against someone in your own party is a priority then let’s not pretend that the collective good is going to be a priortity as well. That ethos shines through much of what he says.

            • tracey 23.1.1.2.2.1
              3 November 2015 at 11:13 am

              Thanks weka, I get sick of repeating the same response to the same people.

              • weka …
                3 November 2015 at 1:11 pm

                It’s the last real reply he’s going to get from me in this thread. Pretty sure duke’s now in full out GP hate trole mode. Will be interesting to see if he can pull himself back from that, I suspect not.

            • dukeofurl 23.1.1.2.2.2
              3 November 2015 at 12:55 pm

              About those changes:

              More new highways than ever before, more reductions in carbon costs for green house gas producers, more state houses being sold, more reductions in DoC work…

              What was it again that was the result of the changes from Green values and goals.

              [Paying attention?] – Bill

    • Olwyn 23.2
      2 November 2015 at 10:25 pm

      “Nut job”….”absolute disgrace”…”nutty fringe”…Assuming that this is the actual Stuart Nash, you do seem to follow quite an original method for promoting unity and winning people over.

    • the pigman 23.3
      2 November 2015 at 10:31 pm

      “You believe you influenced the outcome of the past tow [sic.. hic?] leadership races? How did the Cunliffe campaign work out for you? Not too good right. Wow. How deluded is this!

      [emphasis my own]

      Pretty bloody deluded, Stuart. Your comments here and on TDB firing big broadsides at left wing activists represent that very disconnect between the Parliamentary Labour Party and its membership that has underlined all of the democratisation reforms. Displaying an arrogant, out-of-touch, born-to-rule-because-of-pedigree attitude towards us hurts everybody, most of all the NZLP.

      It’s like all the advice you’ve given (don’t provide ammunition to Farrar, don’t self-destruct, step away from the keyboard) would have been best followed by yourself. There is a shocking lack of self-awareness in all of this.

      That you would smart about Cunliffe’s failure (although I note on the TDB you acknowledge Labour caucus undermined his leadership, it’s unclear from your comment whether you accept The Standard assisted Cunliffe’s campaign btw) is really ugly stuff.

      Sorry, but I think we’re done here.

      [lprent: There was much division amongst both authors and commenters here about the candidates in that leadership election. But I’d warn you now that it doesn’t pay to lump everyone together under the name of a dumb machine. Because I haven’t had cause to warn you about this before, I’d suggest that you read the policy which explicitly places such smear comments in the self-inflicted martyrdom category. This is your only warning. ]

      • the pigman 23.3.1
        3 November 2015 at 1:13 am

        Oh hai lprent, you’ll note I was quoting Stoo and seeking a clarification on what he was saying, because he seemed to be saying (self-contradictingly):

        a) The Standard is completely irrelevant, has no reach, nobody cares about it and it is full of poos and “nutbags”; and
        b) That the Standard was responsible for David Cunliffe’s election as leader and – hardy har har – how’d that work out for “you” (presumably referring to the Standard). For him to believe (b) would require some loopy logic if he wanted to continue to run the poos line (a)

        I don’t expect he’ll be keen to clarify in the sober light of morning.

        • miravox 23.3.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 1:30 am

          Jeez, he didn’t take his own advice about discipline and unity did he? It will be more than interesting to see how this plays out in the press (reporters read the standard even if Nash doesn’t).

          So looking forward to another round of opinion pieces about trouble in the ranks… not.

          Thanks for nothing Stuart.

    • weka 23.4
      2 November 2015 at 10:35 pm

      I don’t know which is worse, that it is Nash, or that it’s such a good portrayal of him as he comes across.

      • Tracey 23.4.1
        3 November 2015 at 8:41 am

        Well said. I waited til someone was able to say if it is/was the real Nash because I couldn’t believe an elected (and paid) representative of Parliament would actually write that post… Incredibly revealling about Mr Nash.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 23.5
      2 November 2015 at 10:36 pm

      Speaking as a Green voter, and someone who’s been involved in successful election campaigns, failure to articulate and live up to decent values is what’s holding Labour back.

      For every positive step, there’s a negative one. Your advice that your supporters should shut up is in the latter category. Diversity of opinion isn’t a problem for democracy, nor any leader worthy of the name.

      I’m sure The Standard will benefit from your free publicity 😈

    • Draco T Bastard 23.6
      2 November 2015 at 10:48 pm

      just confirms my suspicion that this site is populated by the nutty fringe who really are quite divorced from political reality.

      And that one sentence proves your disconnect from the people of this country and, in fact, reality.

      • Tracey 23.6.1
        3 November 2015 at 8:42 am

        And the notion that anyone who writes on here does not actively campaign or do stuff is insulting and ignorant.

    • Saarbo 23.7
      2 November 2015 at 10:50 pm

      I suspect its NOT Stuart Nash, could be a pissed Matthew Hooten???

      • Bill 23.7.1
        2 November 2015 at 11:09 pm

        Well… by the info to hand and with the level of authentication that offers, it would appear at this point to be a genuine example of a train wreck in motion. –shrug–

    • The Fan Club 23.8
      3 November 2015 at 12:08 am

      Fucks sake man you are an absolutely clown. Yes the Standard was a pack of idiots for white-anting Shearer, yes Cunliffe was the worst thing to hit Labour since Douglas, yes they couldn’t find their arses with both hands and a GPS, but what the hell are you doing as an MP wasting your time like this?

      [lprent: “The Standard” didn’t do squat. It is a dumb machine. You know this. As I recollect, I have explained to you before why we don’t let lazy people like you smear our audience by using the name of machine rather than dealing with individuals.

      What you are talking about is that some of authors thought that Shearer was an unmitigated disaster and the process that elected him was even worse. Some did not. At the time I thought it was roughly an even split for authors, less so for commenters.

      But since you seem determined to recapitulate this behaviour despite previous warnings and bannings. Banned for 6 weeks for your insolent stupidity. Next time I see you do this lazy and idiotic smear behaviour in defiance of the explicit warning, I will ban you for months rather than weeks. ]

    • Tracey 23.9
      3 November 2015 at 8:37 am

      Wow Stuart, just wow. Re-read your post and ask yourself if it reads like an elected representative of the people who is paid by the people – including those who post and read here) or a petualant school child disagreeing with other petulant school children.

      Have some self respect.

      • dukeofurl 23.9.1
        3 November 2015 at 9:36 am

        Hes elected by the voters of Napier, Im sure he talks to them all the time.

        Every body else who has has their 5c worth, well that might explain a lot.

        • Tracey 23.9.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 9:39 am

          REally? Why didn’t he run as an independent then, if he is also not representing the grater body of people who voted Labour? Did you campaign on his team duke?

          • dukeofurl 23.9.1.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 10:13 am

            I wouldnt know him if we passed in the street.

            he says he supports Labour policies , thats good enough me.

            • tracey 23.9.1.1.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 10:46 am

              okay, thanks. It’s just you seem very heated in this particular discussed, it came across as invested. It is online, so I am obviously “reading” something that isn’t there.

              • dukeofurl …
                3 November 2015 at 12:59 pm

                It might not seem it sometimes , but I do admire your contributions and the stuff you put here (mostly)

                [See here.] – Bill

              • Colonial Viper …
                3 November 2015 at 1:20 pm

                dukeofurl is constantly seeking favour with the Labour hierarchy and the Labour establishment players. Its very easy to see.

      • miravox 23.9.2
        3 November 2015 at 9:50 am

        “Have some self respect”

        Or some self awareness

        Everything Labour does from now until Election Day 2017 must contribute towards a Labour victory. For every strategic and operational initiative, the question needs to be asked “is this contributing towards a win in 2017?” If it doesn’t then drop it, don’t say it and keep clear of it.

        Take your own advice Mr Nash, and drop it, but not before apologising to the party members you’ve so thoroughly bitched at.

    • Wainwright 23.10
      3 November 2015 at 10:12 am

      2014 election results:

      National candidate: 11,493
      Conservative candidate: 7,603
      National + Conservatives: 19,096

      Stuart Nash: 15,343

      You didn’t win shit.

      • Daniel Cale 23.10.1
        3 November 2015 at 9:24 pm

        1. Your figures are incorrect. According to the electoral return the numbers are Nash 14041, Walford 10308, McVicar 7135.
        2. Your figures assume that 100% of the votes for McVicar would go to National, an assumption you cannot support.
        3. Based on the actual votes, Nash would have only had to secure 1701 of the McVicar votes to win. That is only 23.8% of the total McVicar vote.

        Nash won on his own merits, and would have almost certainly won even if there had been no conservative party candidate.

        • mickysavage 23.10.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 9:30 pm

          But it is MMP. The only vote that matters is the party vote. So how did Nash do with this most important of measures? (BTW I know how he did)

          • Daniel Cale 23.10.1.1.1
            4 November 2015 at 11:21 am

            You’re right, of course, and this is something Labour have yet to get right tactically. But the comments have been about the electorate vote, and whether or not Nash won that on his own merits. That is what I was responding to.

          • dukeofurl 23.10.1.1.2
            4 November 2015 at 12:23 pm

            And what was David Cunliffes result for the party vote in New Lynn ?

            Up or down ?

            It was down wasnt it. ( YOU know the numbers which are down from 12,462 to 12,085)

            What was your point about MPs that didnt increase the party vote?

            Then there is the old maxim about rising or falling tides !

            [Until you apologise for your blatent ageism and ad hominem attacks from the other day, stay away. I flagged you on a number of your comments – something, it seems, that you’ve chosen to ignore. You were in moderation. You are now banned.] – Bill

      • DoublePlusGood 23.10.2
        3 November 2015 at 9:56 pm

        That’s the best reason I’ve seen yet for preferential voting for electorate seats.

    • Freemark 23.11
      3 November 2015 at 2:49 pm

      Hi Stuart
      Good on you for your comments & commentary on the state of the Labour Party, and the entirely separate organ that is The Standard and its persistent commentators.
      I bet the page views of this esteemed site will be jumping through the roof, and it’s entirely appropriate that more decent and aspirational Kiwi’s will have a look and see for themselves what the future could hold under the influence of this lovely bunch. We need a good, pragmatic & hard working Opposition, not a bunch of PC crippled & angry troughers & would-be Civil Servants trying to feather their own nests while spouting faux sympathy for “the workers” & downtrodden.
      It’s fairly obvious that you are on the wrong side of the House – but I doubt you’ll be switching sides without switching sides, so to speak.
      Keep up the good work….

      • One Anonymous Bloke 23.11.1
        3 November 2015 at 2:57 pm

        Cheap Mark has learned his lines, seemingly oblivious to the mould growing on the old book of stale talking points.

        The notion of private sector Lefties might just make the poor fellow cry 😀

    • Kiwiri 23.12
      5 November 2015 at 12:02 am

      “then you insult my intelligence”

      huh? who did what?
      what intelligence? where has that been evident please?

  24. Lloyd 24
    2 November 2015 at 10:20 pm

    question: If left wing policies are good enough for a left wing party to almost win an election don’t you think that the winning right wing party would be likely to pick up some of those policies? Is that left wing party then a total failure? Is winning everything?

    • Sacha 24.1
      3 November 2015 at 8:28 am

      Quite. Ask anyone with an insulated home despite the Greens not being part of either government that implemented their policy.

  25. Mike the Savage One 25
    2 November 2015 at 11:07 pm

    As for the political commenting in the mainstream media, I get increasingly confused and despaired, as there seem to be few “left” commentators that appear.

    The shift is continuing to the right, that is in media reporting and commenting, and that seems to be where Stuart Nash and Josie Pagani and some others seem to find their justification to take the positions they present us.

    I was listening to this in the late morning:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201777000/politics-with-matthew-hooton-and-stephen-mills

    We know Mathew Hooton who is a frequent commentator, but I had to do some researching to learn more about Stephen Mills, now head of UMR Research:
    http://umr.co.nz/our-people/stephen-mills

    Josie Pagani is often on Radio Live and television, and if what she spouts off is supposed to be “progressive”, I do not want to know what “right wing” is these days.

    What do people really think? What is the view and opinion of people, on topics and politics? And what about the many that do not even get reached by opinion pollsters, let alone ‘Elections’ and various candidates and parties? What about the over 800 thousand or near to a million that no longer bother voting?

    With the fate of Campbell Live and many others, is it any wonder that the agenda by vested interest parties and by government (Nats) seems to be to further influence media (already very commercially focused), continually shifting the focus to the right.

    So that “plan” by Hooton seems to be working, bring in more influence on politicians by the donors there are, mostly business people and the likes who have cash to spare, and the trend may become irreversible, so people may be forced to settle with the candidates like Stuart Nash, as few will dare speak out anything more critical in future, as there will be no money in it. I dread the future, I must say.

  26. millsy 26
    3 November 2015 at 1:01 am

    SO what do you stand for Stuart?

    National-lite? and privatisation?

  27. millsy 27
    3 November 2015 at 1:10 am

    I would like to know what policies would you like to see Labour drop?

  28. Karen 28
    3 November 2015 at 5:34 am

    Wow, just read the response to comments from Nash at TDB and here.

    His politics have always seemed too right wing for me, and I was suspicious of his connections with Lusk and Slater, so I have never been a fan. He is very much in the Blairite, Pagani, National-lite camp so I wasn’t surprised by his ‘winning is everything’ credo (although a bit surprised that he still doesn’t accept that he won because McVicar stood).

    However, the way he has responded to criticism is actually quite disturbing..

    Somebody in a senior position in the Labour Party really does need to take Stuart aside and give him a good talking to.

    • savenz 28.1
      3 November 2015 at 9:09 am

      +1 – sure is disturbing and also when a question was asked – he ignores those comments, ignores the troll comments and actually just hoes in and starts attacking people calling them EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN a selection of his insults….. Little needs to get him a minder.

      no – that’s far left nutbags like Ure. Living under a rock. Be careful, occasionally the ground that a rock rests on collapses…

      (FAR LEFT NUTBAGS LIVING UNDER A ROCK??)

      As for getting real… you have no idea. About anything.

      (UNBELIEVABLE COMMENT!)

      Hami,
      Goodness me – where to start…
      First of all who the hell are you to comment on Walter? I bet you haven’t even read Sinclair’s great book. And no, vote splitting didn’t deliver me the seat of Napier: I got back into parliament because I raised a shit load of money, worked bloody hard and concentrated on the issues that were important to the good hard working people of Napier. Now that may seem an anathema to you and your lot, but that is how one wins. Not sitting around whining and whinging about everything under the sun.

      We actually DO know what Kiwis want, and we work extremely hard to make sure we deliver.

      (Actually RAISING A SHIT LOAD OF MONEY WORKED FOR NASH (IE TAKING CORPORATE DONATIONS – if you did KNOW WHAT KIWIS WANT Labour would have won the ELECTION!)

      I knew exactly what I was doing when I wrote this post (so don’t insult my intelligence), but I just wanted to once again confirm that there still exists a far-left fringe who are so divorced from political reality that they really don’t want to win the treasury benches. Ever.

      (I just wanted to once again confirm that there still exists a far-left fringe who are so divorced from political reality…. THEY ARE CALLED VOTERS)

      You don’t pay my salary and I am not your servant. I am very proud to serve those Kiwis who are aspirational for the future and who love our country with the passion I do. If you think I represent your brand of whinging negativity, then you are sorely mistaken. Because I don’t and I never ever will.

      (ONLY INTERESTED IN SERVING ASPIRATIONAL KIWIS – I GUESS IF YOU LOSE YOUR JOB, OR HAVE A PROBLEM YOU ARE JUST WHINGING NEGATIVITY – GOOD LUCK GETTING HELP FROM HIM).

    • Tracey 28.2
      3 November 2015 at 9:13 am

      I don’t think he will be commenting today karen, just a hunch.

  29. infused 29
    3 November 2015 at 7:53 am

    Best thread I’ve read in along time.

  30. Jerko 30
    3 November 2015 at 7:56 am

    As an overseas resident left wing observer this whole saga playing out on this blog is pretty disheartening really. I have read most of the comments and the original blog. The only comment worthy of note is MTSO’s last one on the 2nd Nov. You people ought to go back and read all the comments. Pretty much exactly what Nash was on about. I made a donation to TDB based on one article, Andrew Little shows real leadership on detained NZers – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/10/13/andrew-little-shows-real-leadership-on-detained-nzers/#.dpuf .I have yet to see one on here. It’s pretty obvious more MSM disenchanted people are turning to blogs for some serious debate. But some days I dunno why I bother.

    • lprent 30.1
      3 November 2015 at 8:18 am

      The reason why we don’t have a post on that particular topic is because none of our authors wanted to write one. They write about what they want to write about. This is made kind of explicit in our about where it says things like

      No – you must….
      Have you read this page? We must do nothing. The posters post on the topics they want to (with a few limitations from the sysop). If you really absolutely want your ideas to be heard, then start a blog and start learning to write. You can probably find a more compatible blog on our blogroll. Or you can comment on the posts that our posters write and follow our rather lenient rules.

      You don’t have to read this site. Unlike some of the authors at TDB, none of the authors here get paid. We don’t advertise, we don’t plead for money, and we don’t play dirty politics – which in my view is what Stuart Nash is doing. We write because we feel like it. We also make sure that we are not beholden to anyone.

      If you wish to merely be a critic and whine that we don’t do what you wish we would, then just piss off. It isn’t like you add anything more to the debate than Stuart Nash does. If you want to argue then do so. But for pitys sake figure out an argument rather than just whining.

      It is disheartening to just read a stupid critic who can’t even explain what they have a problem with bearing in mind that this site has been running for more than 8 years with the same philosophy and operation, and you obviously haven’ managed to argue the point during that time. I’d say that you are rather late to the party. Or you are just terminally lazy as our about suggests.

  31. Mike the Savage One 31
    3 November 2015 at 1:36 pm

    I take note that this post has enjoyed further discussion and more comments, most annoyed or disturbed by what Stuart Nash wrote in his TDB post, and by comments he appears to have made here.

    Given the evident indifference or clear rejection of concerns and disagreement expressed by commenters – by Stuart, it is my impression, that we may actually witness him leaving the Labour Party, probably supported by the likes of Ms Josie Pagani, to finally go about and form a new party. If he may have one or a few supporters within caucus, he may be joined by one or two others, perhaps. Some in the right wing, pro neoliberal faction, appear to sense that under Andrew Little’s leadership, and with the present front bench line-up, they will not get it their way within Labour in the foreseeable future, so the only alternative may be to move on and leave Labour behind.

    Perhaps prepare for some surprises, I reckon. That is my assessment and view of course.

    • Karen 31.1
      3 November 2015 at 1:53 pm

      My feeling as well. Seems to me this is the only explanation for Nash’s behaviour in the week before the Labour Party Conference. He wants to be castigated by the Labour Party head office in order to justify flouncing off to form what he calls a centre left party and I’d call a centre right party.

      • savenz 31.1.1
        3 November 2015 at 2:19 pm

        I actually think this is his genuine views. The point is, how far spread are these views within the Labour party?

        I think the best thing ever could happen if Nash leaves the Labour party with the centre righties and forms his own party.

        He promotes himself as a winner – get out of the Labour party and prove it!

        The rest of the public ‘losers’ can then resume voting for the labour party without him.

        • Anne 31.1.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 7:08 pm

          The point is, how far spread are these views within the Labour party?

          They’re not widespread savenz. You only have to go back and look at the results of the last two leadership contests to find evidence of that.

          The anti-TS mindset among the Blairites had it’s genesis back in 2012 during the leadership of David Shearer. It reached it’s zenith when the ABC club controlled the caucus which culminated in a membership backlash that saw Cunliffe become leader in the spring of 2013.

          It seems a tiny handful of Labour members from that circle including Stuart Nash haven’t moved on from that period.

    • infused 31.2
      3 November 2015 at 2:05 pm

      I believe a new left wing party should be formed. it would probably do quite well if it had the right mix (center left).

      Current labour, imo, isn’t. Greens are too left. Labour, binding its self with the Greens is never a winner imo,

    • srylands 31.3
      3 November 2015 at 2:15 pm

      “it is my impression, that we may actually witness him leaving the Labour Party, probably supported by the likes of Ms Josie Pagani, to finally go about and form a new party. ”
      ____
      yes it is very likely. It would also be a perfect support Party for National after the 2017 election, virtually guaranteeing National a 4th term. Most likely future for Stuart Nash is a member of John Key’s Cabinet in 2018.

      Why do the commentators here want that?

      • savenz 31.3.1
        3 November 2015 at 2:23 pm

        @Srylands – prehaps the Nats will actually tumble next election like in Northland – and then at least the left and right of Labour voters are covered.

        Did you think of that?

      • McFlock 31.3.2
        3 November 2015 at 2:31 pm

        lol

        thanks for your concern.

        More likely is that Nash will learn to think twice about engaging on social media well into an evening, and potter onwards with his political career. Short of being gifted an electorate, any Labour splitters will die a dismal political death just like them that joined the United party.

        • tracey 31.3.2.1
          3 November 2015 at 5:14 pm

          Learn? From people?

          • McFlock 31.3.2.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 5:32 pm

            Heh.

            Friend of mine had a similar sort of thing in a local paper – was described in a way that he felt was completely overboard and unfair. Was about to storm off and respond with indignant outrage, but fortunately someone stopped him and pointed out that the entire thing was pretty pointless and would wash over, unless he stoked it up by acting like a dick.

            To this day he counts it as an important life lesson. In fact, so do I: occasionally topics here brush against my day job, and I try to remind myself to actually back the fuck away. With marginal success, admittedly 🙂

            I suspect that if Nash hadn’t already thought better of it this morning, someone would have taken him aside and suggested he grin and bear it like almost everyone else does. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, and so on…

      • tracey 31.3.3
        3 November 2015 at 4:37 pm

        He doesn’t come here or read here Slylands, so what anyone here wants wont make a difference to Mr Nash, if he goes somewhere else (other than Labour) it will be because that is where his ideological and amitions fit better.

      • weka 31.3.4
        3 November 2015 at 4:54 pm

        “it is my impression, that we may actually witness him leaving the Labour Party, probably supported by the likes of Ms Josie Pagani, to finally go about and form a new party. ”
        ____
        yes it is very likely. It would also be a perfect support Party for National after the 2017 election, virtually guaranteeing National a 4th term. Most likely future for Stuart Nash is a member of John Key’s Cabinet in 2018.

        Why do the commentators here want that?

        Because it’s more honest to have the neoliberals leave the Labour party and form their own.

        Because then Labour can look at where it truly wants to position itself on the political spectrum, which would enable it to be clear and honest about its values and what it stands for and what it can offer NZ.

        Because even if the Pagani party support National (not a given), then it opens the way for true left wing parties to arise.

        Because even if the Pagani party support National, it puts the left out the interminable misery that is Labour co-opted by the neoliberals/centrists.

        I’m way less bothered by the risk of a 4th term National govt via the Pagani party than I am by a 4th term National govt via Labour not getting its shit together because of the neoliberals within. The longer Labour drags on like it is the more damage is done.

        • tracey 31.3.4.1
          3 November 2015 at 5:12 pm

          Freaking A sister!!!

        • arkie 31.3.4.2
          3 November 2015 at 5:38 pm

          Hear hear

        • Draco T Bastard 31.3.4.3
          3 November 2015 at 6:44 pm

          +1

          Very well said.

          • savenz 31.3.4.3.1
            3 November 2015 at 8:03 pm

            Yep that’s what I think. They need to do the purge now, not before next election to succeed.

            • Colonial Viper 31.3.4.3.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 8:08 pm

              ? the right wing of Labour are a well entrenched part of the organisation now, no one has the power or the will to “purge” them.

              So according to your own analysis that means Labour is already screwed at the next election.

              • savenz …
                3 November 2015 at 9:03 pm

                Labour need to do something. And there have been plenty of purges in their history and splinter groups. If they continue the Nash way and think they are perfect as long as nobody says anything then they will lose a 4th election in a row.

                They just have to look at the UK to find out the Blairite 3rd way is no longer working for voters.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  3 November 2015 at 9:10 pm

                  not going to happen; there are no centres of power or influence within the organisation which can do what you ask.

                • weka …
                  3 November 2015 at 9:11 pm

                  I took CV’s statement to mean there is no way within the party structure to expel multiple members in the way you imply.

                  People have speculated that a strong leader could push the neoliberals to the backbenchers and the party could then give them low list placement and low support in electorate campaigning, but I don’t know if even that is true. Caucus seem to have a lot of power that the leader doesn’t (don’t know if that’s structural or political). I assume that the party has plenty of neoliberals in positions of power nationally and regionally, so I can’t see the list placement and electorate thing happening either.

                  What are the historical purges you refer to?

            • savenz 31.3.4.3.1.2
              3 November 2015 at 8:11 pm

              Russell Norman’s last speech was about freedom of speech, democracy and the point of agitators for change.

              Yep I’m sure Labour hate hearing people going on in the Standard and the Daily Blog about the Labour’s short comings and what they want to change about Labour. But that is democracy and to try to shut down people is why Labour are not getting back into government.

              People complaining, are the agitators and that is what will ultimately forces change in society. Labour’s roots are founded on this!

              And Labour need to change well before next election to win.

              • weka …
                3 November 2015 at 9:03 pm

                that’s a good point referencing Norman’s speech. Agitators should be celebrated not told to STFU. Nash’s position is anti-democratic.

  32. One Anonymous Bloke 32
    3 November 2015 at 3:14 pm

    Memo to Stuart Nash.

    People are sick and tired of establishment politics and they want real change.

    Whether or not you agree with his policy platform, Bernie Sanders provides a great example of how a message can reach and inspire a huge constituency. Both campaigns I’ve been involved in elected candidates I don’t wholly agree with, and that didn’t matter because of the way they conducted themselves.

    Big money talks: so does a big crowd.

    • Bill 32.1
      3 November 2015 at 3:28 pm

      If I could be bothered working out how to cut clips from youtube vids, I’d be tempted to post a sort of montage including the likes of Sturgeon at the televised UK general election debates, Corbyn at one of his leadership challenge meetings, yup, something from Sanders…maybe a clip from the “For God’s sake, believe in something!!” ‘Save the NHS’ vid I posted a while back…there are others.

      Point is. People lend support and encouragement to straight, passionate talkers.

  34. tinfoilhat 34
    3 November 2015 at 4:16 pm

    If this thread is reflective of Labour and its activists all I can say is thank goodness I vote Green.

  35. seeker 35
    3 November 2015 at 5:54 pm

    Woosh… credibility of Stuart Nash MP as a suitable Labour Party representative for the people…… straight out of the window.

    Sounds like a terrible, childish,man to me from this thread. Far more suited to the National variety of homo sapiens, no wonder the likes of infused are for him. Poor Stuart, another lost soul.

    • infused 35.1
      3 November 2015 at 6:09 pm

      I wouldn’t say I’m for him. I just like when people break rank and say what they think. This adds credibility.

      The problem is staring back at you in the mirror.

      • Colonial Viper 35.1.1
        3 November 2015 at 6:11 pm

        I wouldn’t say I’m for him. I just like when people break rank and say what they think. This adds credibility.

        Nash should have learnt: better to be thought of as a fool, rather than open his mouth and prove it.

      • tracey 35.1.2
        3 November 2015 at 6:16 pm

        You must find national dreary and unlikeable then

      • b waghorn 35.1.3
        3 November 2015 at 6:18 pm

        You must have a very low opinion of the sheep in the national party then ,there has been numerous occasions where one or more could of shown some intestinal fortitude and yet the silence has been deafening.

  36. newsense 36
    3 November 2015 at 7:18 pm

    Unfortunately Mr Nash has only rather confirmed my impression of him.

    While Kelvin Davis has got down to the work of opposition politics, with good work on Serco and on Christmas Island, Mr Nash has confirmed himself as an ideologue out of the Pagani/Quinn mould.

    winning an electorate and in the provinces is a great thing. But it isn’t winning a World Cup. And it isn’t a good look when you are as humble as Midas, especially when compared to those who have won world cups by being the genuine article.

    I hope that Kelvin Davis has better mates than these in the caucus and in the party, because he’s recently become a something of hero of mine, through no other reason than doing some effective opposition politics, rather than this harping on about the left.

    I was interested in this analysis from Danyl:

    https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/valence-bitches/

    “Labour’s recent press releases are here. The difference is stark. National attacked the competency of the government to govern. Overflowing hospitals! Gangs running the streets! Power crisis! While Labour constantly attacks the morality and character of the government. Broken promises! Key is blaming his new tax on a fruit-fly! National is kicking hard-working whanau!”

  37. Michael who failed Civics 37
    3 November 2015 at 10:22 pm

    Which Party is Nash from again? Isn’t he the one who got talked up by Stephen Lusk and Whale Oil?

  38. Kiwiri 38
    4 November 2015 at 11:56 pm

    Genuine question, not a trick question:

    Would a careerist ever admit to being a careerist?

    Ok, another question:

    Can a careerist claim or refute being described as a careerist, or is it a privilege accorded to many others to identify a careerist as a careerist?

Links to post