Labour announces leadership election details

154 comments on “Labour announces leadership election details ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dv 1

   2 October 2014 at 7:57 am

   I first read this as

   key announces labour decisions about leadership election

   [Changed title from “Labour announces key decisions about leadership election” to current title as we do not want anyone to get that impression – MS]
   • dv 1.1

     2 October 2014 at 8:43 am

     I must admit I did a double take.
   • greywarbler 1.2

     2 October 2014 at 8:46 am

     And leave the word yek out of it.
     edited
2. Skinny 2

   2 October 2014 at 8:11 am

   Looking at the possible Labour Leadership contenders I can see the possibility of 4 challengers;

   Cunliffe & Mahuta
   Robertson & King
   Ardern & Tyford 
   Nash & Davis

   I am pretty sure Nash’s high rating of himself will see him challenge unless Robertson & his caucus plotters talks him into the deputy role. Davis will be getting spurred along by his LEC, however I doubt he has many if any supporters from the now (should be) powerful Maori caucus, who will most certainly back DC if he runs with a Maori deputy. I think his chances of success is greatly enhanced if he politely talks Mahuta into stepping  aside for one of the South Auckland MP’s. 

   Ardern would be foolish to run on the Robertson ticket and would be wiser to break ranks and go for it with the ambitious Phil Tyford. 

   If the ABC bloc talk the others into consolidating their numbers behind Robertson they simply won’t have the membership numbers or the Affiliate Unions support. There is one thing that is certain. Robertson will continue to carry the elephant in the room, the self centered career politicians like Cosgrove, Mallard, King, Goff, Shearer, Dyson, where as DC will rightfully purge heavily. What will appeal to the Unions is a shoring up of the ranks with the likely introduction of Helen Kelly and similar new blood of her elk that will really keep Labour to it’s core principles and values.

     The ABC will try counter with their own clean out of the Left faction Moroney, Mahuta, Little, Beaumont. Expect all their talk surrounding staying 
   moderate and absolute silence on the same old faces.
   • karol 2.1

     2 October 2014 at 8:17 am

     Understood that the caucus chose the deputy.
     • Skinny 2.1.1

       2 October 2014 at 8:37 am

       Yes that’s true, which is a flaw in my opinion especially given the new empowerment given to the rank & file members and the affiliates. I feel voting on a known ticket prior is much more democratic. It’s obvious some of the elected MP’s within Labour simply can not be trusted to do right by the party.
       • bearded git 2.1.1.1

         2 October 2014 at 8:41 am

         u forgot Little
         • Skinny 2.1.1.1.1

           2 October 2014 at 9:20 am

           I doubt he would stand as he has to wait on special votes to see if he comes back in. Though I guess he could be like Jamie Whyte leader outside of parliament till Cosgrove is order to go and he gets back on the Party List 🙂
   • Apples 2.2

     2 October 2014 at 9:26 am

     I think the membership will give a mandate to Robertson. Because the membership want to win the bloody Election. And they want to do it with a left-wing leader like Grant.

     Robertson wouldn’t clean out the “left” faction because he is part of the left faction. Note that none of the moderate/right group (Shearer, Goff, Cosgrove, Rino etc) voted for Grant at the last leadership election – they voted for Jones. Grant is supported by the left MPs, both the fresh faces and those that supported Helen against Goff/Cullen.

     So this election is between two “left” candidates. One that can win the Election in 2017 and one that has just demonstrated he can’t.
     • Te Reo Putake 2.2.1

       2 October 2014 at 9:40 am

       Nicely constructed case for GR, apples. If you are correct that the centrists don’t particularly want him either, then that makes a third candidate a real possibility. Shearer + Davis, maybe? If so, I think that probably scuppers Grant. Cunliffe will still get the most support from members, though almost certainly less than last time. The affiliates are pragmatists, so I believe support for DC will drop there too. It could be that the caucus is split pretty evenly if there are 3 candidates.

       However, if it’s just DC vs GR, then I think David will get over the line. Just.
       • Apples 2.2.1.1

         2 October 2014 at 10:04 am

         I don’t think that is too far off. There could be a third candidate or the centrists could decide to hold their breath and vote for Grant anyway. They seem pretty keen to ensure DC isn’t the leader – they blame him for undermining both Goff and Shearer (probably the last two leaders that group will ever get). And it is preferential voting, so the splitting of the vote won’t matter.

         In the end, I think enough members will swing to Grant. I’ve talked to enough who are doing that to give me that impression. But obviously that is mostly speculation.
       • Saarbo 2.2.1.2

         2 October 2014 at 12:33 pm

         @skinny @TRP

         Do you think David Parker will put his hat in the ring, I certainly got that impression from his RNZ interview with Espiner yesterday morning?
3. Apples 3

   2 October 2014 at 9:08 am

   Vote Grant! Personally I hope he picks Jacinda to recommend as his deputy. Fresh faces, good political instincts. Brilliant team.
   • AmaKiwi 3.1

     2 October 2014 at 9:41 am

     @ Apples

     Here’s why I should vote for Grant: He has never been a minister of anything, yet he thinks he could convince the country he can be PRIME minister. Jacinda the same. Zero cabinet experience. Both have been MPs for 6 years.

     Or I could vote for the person who was Minister of Health, Minister for Communications and Information Technology (and broke up the Telecom monopoly), Minister of Immigration, and Associate Minister of Revenue. He worked in the NZ Foreign Service overseas and has a degree from Harvard in Public Administration. An MP for 15 years.

     NZ center voters will have the same reaction to Grant’s candidacy that I have: laughably unqualified. A bad joke.
     • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1

       2 October 2014 at 9:55 am

       Dead right, amakiwi. There is no way anyone from Labour will ever be PM without ministerial experience. Except Michael Joseph Savage, obviously. And, er, Norman Kirk. And, um, David Lange.
     • Apples 3.1.2

       2 October 2014 at 10:16 am

       See also: our current Prime Minister.

       The public have had a chance to vote for Cunliffe, who had that same CV about a week and a bit ago. And they have rejected him.

       The CV isn’t hugely important. Authenticity, along with sustained competence and unity are. Grant offers that. I’m confident we can win in 2017 with him as leader.
       • The Al1en 3.1.2.1

         2 October 2014 at 10:19 am

         “Authenticity, along with sustained competence and unity are.”

         That’s GR ruled out then. He’s as useless as a chocolate tea pot in all three.
         • lurgee 3.1.2.1.1

           2 October 2014 at 10:29 am

           In fact, we might as well write off 90% of the Labour caucus based on those wildly idealistic criteria. Far too much to ask of those poltroons.
         • Apples 3.1.2.1.2

           2 October 2014 at 10:36 am

           Then we have a difference of opinion. I think Grant has proven himself to be extremely competent and effective. Everyone I know that meets him thinks he is genuine and likeable. The same cannot be said about the other candidate, unfortunately.
       • Mark 3.1.2.2

         2 October 2014 at 11:48 am

         You have got to get out in the real world a bit more. Grant has all the charisma of a dead rat. If thats the best Labour has to offer, don’t bother.
         • Apples 3.1.2.2.1

           2 October 2014 at 11:57 am

           I’m fairly sure I live in the *real world*.

           If you perceive charisma as being good at “vainglorious theatrics” then you will think David is more charismatic for sure. However, Grant is actually more charismatic, in the sense of being compelling and likable.
           • Mark 3.1.2.2.1.1

             2 October 2014 at 1:03 pm

             Is that why the wider membership voted for him in such huge numbers last year when he ran against Cunliffe. The fantastic personality that won them all over.Best of luck with that strategy.
             As for likable, I think he an absolute turn off for voters.
             But hey I hate the Labour Party so carry on promoting Grant.
             Anything that helps Labour wither and die is to be encouraged
         • MustangSally 3.1.2.2.2

           2 October 2014 at 1:28 pm

           I reckon dead rats have more charisma Mark. At least I have strong feelings about rats, a bit like Marmite.

           Grant has all the charisma of laundry soap – bland and unmemorable, but he promises to be ‘fresh and squeaky clean’.

           Likeable? Nah, I’m not keen on bitchy politicians with an inflated sense of their own abilities who pretend to be Mr Nice Guy.
     • Treetop 3.1.3

       2 October 2014 at 10:33 am

       Beltway (raised within) says it all. The current environment in caucus is not healthy and this would have rubbed off on Robertson, to an extent all others contending for the Labour leadership. Having some real experience (being in government) of the job and success else where is needed. Spot on why Cunliffe is at the top of my list.
     • Roztoz 3.1.4

       2 October 2014 at 11:31 am

       Let’s not forget as a minister Cunliffe also pushed public-private-partnerships and was seen very much on the right of cabinet.

       He was promoted because he kissed Helen’s ass, and Helen liked sycophants. Legend is he was so scared of Michael Cullen he used to avoid going in to see him for weeks on end.

       Cunliffe is people-pleasing. He cares far too much about what someone thinks of him in the moment. Grant had to advise Helen, not feed her delusions.
       • Treetop 3.1.4.1

         2 October 2014 at 1:30 pm

         Helen knew talent when she saw it.
     • Hami Shearlie 3.1.5

       2 October 2014 at 2:23 pm

       Agree 100 percent with that assessment Amakiwi! Grrant Robertson’s achievements and talents haven’t caught up with his personal ambition and I doubt they ever will!
4. Scottie 4

   2 October 2014 at 9:33 am

   Agreed. Grant and Jacinta would be a great team to re build the party.
   • AmaKiwi 4.1

     2 October 2014 at 9:43 am

     What medication are you people on? See 3.1 above.
     • MustangSally 4.1.1

       2 October 2014 at 1:35 pm

       +100 AmaKiwi

       Grant supporters live in this fantasy land where no-one in the public has any unfair prejudices, and you get two hours to explain your main points to the media.

       He doesn’t even perform very well during Question Time when he’s under pressure.

       He’d probably make an ok deputy (for someone other than Cunliffe), but definitely not a leader.
   • The Al1en 4.2

     2 October 2014 at 9:47 am

     No they wouldn’t, even if you spelled her name correctly.

     One’s an underachieving beltway trougher, the other an underachieving beltway trougher with a nice smile and long legs.
     • Te Reo Putake 4.2.1

       2 October 2014 at 10:01 am

       Grant has long legs?
     • Bill Drees 4.2.2

       2 October 2014 at 10:06 am

       Leave Grant’s legs out of this.
       • The Al1en 4.2.2.1

         2 October 2014 at 10:08 am

         “Grant has long legs?”

         “Leave Grant’s legs out of this.”

         lol
     • Apples 4.2.3

       2 October 2014 at 10:57 am

       Kind of sexist comment Al1en. Typical smear from the DC crowd.
       • The Al1en 4.2.3.1

         2 October 2014 at 11:10 am

         Nothing sexist there, even kind of. Get a grip and stop looking to jump on a slogan to beat me with.

         The main point being both are underachieving beltway career politicians.
         At least their nothingness appeals to you, and that’s lovely.
       • Te Reo Putake 4.2.3.2

         2 October 2014 at 11:37 am

         It wasn’t a smear, it was an observation. On the other hand, saying that the “DC crowd” are sexist actually is a smear.
         • Apples 4.2.3.2.1

           2 October 2014 at 12:13 pm

           I don’t think the “DC crowd” are all sexist, so apologies for that coming across. I do think the comment on Jacinda’s appearance is borderline sexist though. It’s something women MPs get much much than male MPs. The implication (at least the one I took) is that her defining features are a nice smile and long legs.

           “Underachieving beltway career politician” is what I was referring to as the typical smear. Both Grant and Jacinda are exceptionally talented people. The Labour Party needs to recognise and encourage talent – not chuck smears at each other.
           • The Al1en 4.2.3.2.1.1

             2 October 2014 at 12:22 pm

             “I don’t think the “DC crowd” are all sexist, so apologies for that coming across. I do think the comment on Jacinda’s appearance is borderline sexist though. It’s something women MPs get much much than male MPs. The implication (at least the one I took) is that her defining features are a nice smile and long legs.”

             I could have written ‘One’s an underachieving beltway trougher, the other an underachieving beltway trougher with a pot belly who wears spectacles.’ but then, in the absence of any defense of your selections, I’d be accused of being borderline four eyesist and a tubby basher.

             “The main point being both are underachieving beltway career politicians.”

             “Both Grant and Jacinda are exceptionally talented people. The Labour Party needs to recognise and encourage talent – not chuck smears at each other.”

             Jacinda is good on the tele one morning a week, even if just a balance to the ugliness that is jlr, but apart from that there’s not a lot to either of them.
             Plenty of years to make names for themselves, even in opposition, but outside of the ‘young guns’ bit, precious little from both.
             • Apples …

               2 October 2014 at 12:34 pm

               But you didn’t choose to comment on Grant’s appearance. You commented on Jacinda’s. Which I think risks being just a bit sexist. I really doubt anyone would have accused you of being four eyeist or tubby basher if you’d said that.

               And this discussion will go nowhere…. so meh
             • Apples …

               2 October 2014 at 12:34 pm

               But you didn’t choose to comment on Grant’s appearance. You commented on Jacinda’s. Which I think risks being just a bit sexist. I really doubt anyone would have accused you of being four eyeist or tubby basher if you’d said that.

               And this discussion will go nowhere…. so meh
               • The Al1en …

                 2 October 2014 at 12:42 pm

                 It was used as a differentiator, and an obvious one at that, so you know which was Laurel and which was Hardy.
           • MustangSally 4.2.3.2.1.2

             2 October 2014 at 1:32 pm

             Oddly, it seems to me that a lot of the support for Jacinda coming from men – particularly men who voted for National – actually IS sexist, based on her good looks and very little else. She didn’t win her electorate, so it’s far too soon to be talking about promoting her.

             But I do think she shows good potential in the future.
         • lurgee 4.2.3.2.2

           2 October 2014 at 12:23 pm

           On the other hand, saying that the “DC crowd” are sexist actually is a smear.

           He didn’t though. He said the act of smearing was typical. He didn’t suggest the “DC Crowd” (think of a better name, guys, you’ll never beat the ABCs with a rubbish label like that. It has to be short, memorable and vaguely sinister sounding) were sexist. Just despicable, vile smearers.

           If you’re going to get on a high horse, make sure it is the right one.
           • Apples 4.2.3.2.2.1

             2 October 2014 at 12:30 pm

             Ha. Yeah, “DC crowd” was fairly weak. Will try harder. But then again, I am not trying to concoct a vast sinister conspiracy like some of those that use the “ABC” term.
             • lurgee …

               2 October 2014 at 12:48 pm

               After ABC you have DEF: David’s Exclusive Faction. ‘Exclusive’ because I think it consists of David Cunliffe and no-one else.
               • MustangSally …

                 2 October 2014 at 1:37 pm

                 The members predominantly want Cunliffe.
                 We think the caucus needs cleaning out anyway.
                 • Chooky …

                   2 October 2014 at 2:32 pm

                   +100% to that …”We think the caucus needs cleaning out anyway”.
           • Te Reo Putake 4.2.3.2.2.2

             2 October 2014 at 1:49 pm

             Um, lurgee, apples wrote that it was sexist and typical of the DC crowd’s smears. Clearly comprehension isn’t your strong suit. 😉
5. paddy 5

   2 October 2014 at 10:01 am

   Beware Robertson. For the last two elections he has merely paid lip service to the Party Vote in order to maintain plausible deniability. He ran an electorate campaign which saw his majority rise. Boundary changes have been minimal affecting no more than 300 votes net in Wadestown. Labour Party Vote Wellington Central 2008 14,244, 2011 10459 and 2014 currently 7351 projected after specials to be ~ just 9731. Robertson works for Robertson.
   • Apples 5.1

     2 October 2014 at 10:31 am

     That is a *fictional* smear Paddy. Grant campaigned hard for the party vote. As did electorate candidates around the country, but a candidate can do very little to hold up the party vote against a swing like this. That swing wasn’t about candidates, it was a rejection of David Cunliffe.

     And actually, the swing in Wellington Central was less than the national average. In Wellington Central the “left” (Labour+Greens) vote has held up against the nationwide trend since 2005. But as the Greens have established themselves they have taken votes off Labour. That is inevitable in a seat like Wellington Central, which is very green. Very positive to see Grant hold up the party vote this time against the national swing though. Impressive.

     Oh, and the Party Vote has been steadily declining in New Lynn as well! Is that because Cunliffe hasn’t campaigned for the PV? Doubt it.
     • paddy 5.1.1

       2 October 2014 at 10:43 am

       Grant Robertson did NOT hold up the Party Vote this time. Stop making things up. The Swing against Labour was HIGHER than the national average, Grant Robertson is not applying for the Labour/Green job ,he is challenging for the Labour job.
       Why did Labour lose so many votes to the Greens and to National in Wellington Central.? Why were there no hoardings in Well Central with the picture of David Cunliffe?
       Robertson only cares about Robertson. the numbers speak for themself.
       • Apples 5.1.1.1

         2 October 2014 at 11:13 am

         The swing in the PV in Wellington Central was smaller than the nationwide -2.7% swing in Labour’s PV. With so many special votes to count, it’s probably worth waiting to see though.

         If the “numbers speak for themself” then they also speak for David Cunliffe. Labour has also lost thousands of party votes in New Lynn. We used to win the party vote in that seat by a huge margin. Not anymore. If you are holding Grant responsible for Wellington Central, why not David for NL? Because you are reasoning back from your conclusion.

         The numbers can’t be interpreted in that way. The party vote follows national patterns, and the candidate isn’t the most significant factor.

         Finally, you are the one that is making things up. There were a number of hoardings with Cunliffe’s picture on them up in Wgtn Central. Although each of them probably helped us lose a few votes. I know if the electorate I was in, most people didn’t want them on their fences!
         • cricklewood 5.1.1.1.1

           2 October 2014 at 4:53 pm

           I’d venture that if the swing away from Labour was lower in Grant’s electorate it was because he was starting from such a low base having already tanked the party vote over previous campaigns…
       • Roztoz 5.1.1.2

         2 October 2014 at 11:16 am

         Would you have Grant’s campaign to attack the Greens and drive down the Green PV in WC?

         Labour lost votes to the Greens because we were not a credible alternative. Cunliffe completely fucked the oil exploration (deep sea) policy, twice. And never corrected his misstatement on being in favour of it. There was also a ballot box on campus which would have lifted the Green (and Labour) PV. But mostly Green. 4000 mostly young people voted there.

         Grant ran a PV campaign the whole time. There were hoardings of Cunliffe in WC. However, this probably *cost* us Party Votes, he was that unpopular. Stop deluding yourself about Grant’s campaign. If the PV drop is a measurable for the local candidate, then half of caucus should be sacked.

         You can’t blame Grant for a toxic brand, or having a more progressive electorate (70% did not vote National) than the munters in New Lynn who gave the Nats a win despite the Leader being their local candidate.
     • MustangSally 5.1.2

       2 October 2014 at 1:41 pm

       The swing against Labour started in 2011 Apples, not in 2014 – it’s an overall downward trend that reflects that the Labour Party as a WHOLE is out of touch with voters.

       All of the caucus agreed on the policies did they not? It’s the policies that lost the election, plus the constant changing of leaders, and the team’s failure to visibly support Cunliffe through social media etc.

       When I looked on the Facebook pages of various MPs, it was obvious which faction they were a member of, as the ABCs did not have ANY pictures of DC on their page, only themselves!

       They should have been proud to pose for pix for their leader and shout it to the world.
       • Apples 5.1.2.1

         2 October 2014 at 2:03 pm

         Actually we went up significantly in the polls after the 2011 Election. In April 2013 the polls had Labour/Greens able to form a Government. In August 2013 we were close and Labour was polling in the 30s. And then… goodness what happened then?

         It’s not just about the leader. Obviously there are a range of factors. But things went all wrong once DC became leader. All wrong. And my God did the electorate really not like DC.

         We need a leader who can bring things together and win. But it needs to be a candidate who can win on Labour’s values. Grant can.
         • lprent 5.1.2.1.1

           2 October 2014 at 2:27 pm

           Your time line is inaccurate and your myth is just silly and doesn’t take any notice of reality. I’ve been here over the last 3 elections and you can see the damn trend and the methods being used. Your hero-worship just sounds like dumb dribble.

           The polls didn’t really drop below Shearer’s level (low 30s) until the National clobbering machine got going in feb/march this year. If you look back to 2011, you see exactly the same trend happening that year. If you look back to 2008 you will see the same trend albeit less accentuated.

           In my view Robertson if elected will have exactly the same issue in 2017 and will probably bend further because he is even less prepared for it than Clark, Goff, and Cunliffe. I don’t think that Robertson will be as capable as Cunliffe is. I suspect that he still hasn’t go the foggiest about how to approach the issue. Ask him.. You will get nice sounding waffle.

           The problem isn’t that the electorate doesn’t like a particular leader of the Labour party. The issue is how does Labour get a way on how to handle the PR onslaught. In the meantime we need our most experienced hands in place and we damn well need to strengthen the party and Robertson is bloody hopeless with the party.
           • Apples 5.1.2.1.1.1

             2 October 2014 at 4:12 pm

             I have asked Grant. And I got much better than “nice sounding waffle” – he was able to articulate a compelling message to me about how Labour can reconnect with voters and build its support base. How we can show we are modern party, connected with NZers and what they want. I truly believe he can do that. I accept we have a difference of opinion on that.

             I’m not sure if you were on the campaign trail this Election – on the phones, knocking-doors etc. I was. The resounding message from 1000s voters was that they really really didn’t like Cunliffe. Sure, there were other issues, but that one was deafening above the others. Deafening.

             You can put different narratives on the same data I guess. I appreciate that. My take is that the polls turned on us when the public saw more of Cunliffe. He is damaged goods. He can’t unite caucus, and the public know it.

             I don’t think Cunliffe can win with the narrative that has built up around him. Some of that is really unfair on him, but the LP is not a vehicle for his personal ambition. We’ve got to be realistic.

             If the left in this party want a left leader who can win, they should vote for Grant. That’s my opinion.
         • kenny 5.1.2.1.2

           2 October 2014 at 4:30 pm

           What happened was the ABCer’s surfaced and have been undermining David ever since.

           The voters rejected a party in disarray with the ABCer’s openly abusing potential allies verbally.

           Changing leaders at this stage will not improve the Labour party’s standing until the caucus is sorted out and the neo-libs are removed. Labour needs to go back to it’s founding principles – like David has said, the neo-lib experiment has failed world-wide and needs to be rejected. If any MP does not agree with this then they should go.
       • Chooky 5.1.2.2

         2 October 2014 at 2:35 pm

         MustangSally +100%…” It’s the policies that lost the election, plus the constant changing of leaders, and the team’s failure to visibly support Cunliffe through social media etc.”.
   • lurgee 5.2

     2 October 2014 at 12:57 pm

     Robertson probably wants the pay rise that goes with being a minister, and wants to be more important than ‘Shadow Minister of Something or Other.’ He won’t achieve that by running down the party vote.

     I really find it odd how readily some accept the idea that Robertson, Mallard, whoever, would deliberately damage their own career prospects, remuneration and place in history out of spite. It makes utterly no sense.
   • lurgee 5.3

     2 October 2014 at 12:58 pm

     Beware Robertson. For the last two elections he has merely paid lip service to the Party Vote in order to maintain plausible deniability … Robertson works for Robertson.

     Robertson probably wants the pay rise that goes with being a minister, and wants to be more important than ‘Shadow Minister of Something or Other.’ He won’t achieve that by running down the party vote.

     I really find it odd how readily some accept the idea that Robertson, Mallard, whoever, would deliberately damage their own career prospects, remuneration and place in history out of spite. It makes utterly no sense.
     • Apples 5.3.1

       2 October 2014 at 1:24 pm

       “I really find it odd how readily some accept the idea that Robertson, Mallard, whoever, would deliberately damage their own career prospects, remuneration and place in history out of spite. It makes utterly no sense.”

       It’s bizarre. They are very far down the rabbit-hole by the time they get to that point.
       • anker 5.3.1.1

         2 October 2014 at 1:57 pm

         Apples at 5.3.1. Yes and I have never understood match fixing. Now noone is suggesting there was any financial incentive for opposition members not to promote Labour PV, but sometimes for their own motives, people choose to play against the team
   • word 5.4

     2 October 2014 at 1:15 pm

     @Paddy, thats how I see it too.
6. AmaKiwi 6

   2 October 2014 at 10:10 am

   There have been some very worthwhile suggestions for how to improve the party. I recommend Chris Trotter on how National overhauled the party after the 2002 debacle. He talks about repairing fundamental flaws in Labour’s organization which I have seen for years. Bob Harvey recommends re-branding the party. Give it a new name, new color, and do a major overhaul of its identity. I think these are the ways forward.

   Character assassination will destroy it. It is not as if Labour can set up a recruitment committee and advertise for a new CEO. The leader has to be an MP, so the pool is very small. We have no choice except to work with what we’ve got. The disgrace of the ABC gang is they NEVER had a credible alternative to Cunliffe. If they had, the past 5 years would have been a horse race instead of a bloody nightmare.
   • Apples 6.1

     2 October 2014 at 10:48 am

     I agree with some of the suggestions Certainly we need to move past character assassination. We need a leader that people can work with.

     DC is reviled by some members of caucus because they think he undermined and showed disloyalty to Goff/Shearer. But DC’s fans also couldn’t put up with someone from the group that they think undermined DC (the so-called “ABCs).

     Grant isn’t part of either group. There are no credible claims that he did anything to undermine DC’s leadership. He’s also a “left” candidate which should get the majority of members on board.

     So he is our best chance of unity. He’d be an excellent leader and Prime Minister.
     • Ant 6.1.1

       2 October 2014 at 10:49 am

       Grant rolled Shearer. He just ended up losing to Cunliffe.
       • Apples 6.1.1.1

         2 October 2014 at 10:55 am

         That’s a popular story in the David Cunliffe fan fiction universe. But it’s not true.
       • Not a PS Staffer 6.1.1.2

         2 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

         Grant used Maryanne Steet to roll Shearer.
         • Apples 6.1.1.2.1

           2 October 2014 at 1:09 pm

           No he didn’t.
         • Hami Shearlie 6.1.1.2.2

           2 October 2014 at 2:33 pm

           Yep, Maryan was doing the numbers for the Robertson faction!
           • Apples 6.1.1.2.2.1

             2 October 2014 at 3:24 pm

             Grant was Shearer’s deputy. There is absolutely no evidence that he was anything but completely loyal to Shearer.

             That is a baseless, malicious rumour.
             • Ant …

               2 October 2014 at 3:39 pm

               Completely loyal apart from that time he rolled Shearer 😀
               • Apples …

                 2 October 2014 at 3:52 pm

                 Except he didn’t. And I think if you make that claim, the onus is on you to adduce at least some basis for it.

                 Cunliffe, on the other hand, well we all know he openly undermined Shearer.
                 • Ant …

                   2 October 2014 at 4:04 pm

                   Here you go:

                   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11112967

                   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9094314/Robertsons-lead-ebbs-as-Labour-runoff-begins

                   Street is a Robertson lieutenant and a key supporter. They just lost the leadership contest :p
                   • Apples …

                     2 October 2014 at 4:25 pm

                     Street is perfectly capable of acting without Grant. In fact, she did! Nothing in either article suggests that Grant was part of it. Grant was not part of it. He supported Shearer as his deputy.

                     Of course… that was at the same time DC was undermining Shearer and a lot of commenters at the Standard were calling for him to resign.

                     (also, general point, MSM not necessarily the most accurate place to get Labour Party news).
   • Tracey 6.2

     2 October 2014 at 3:14 pm

     bob harveys rebranding idea is great if he can find the millions, minimum, rwquired to do more than change a logo and a slogan. he has been to enough troughers with the right wingers to know how much they spend on their WHOLE PR strategy.
     • Ant 6.2.1

       2 October 2014 at 3:43 pm

       I think branding is overrated in this respect, Labour just need to get their message right and stick to the basics with some consistency. It shouldn’t need fat cheques to branding consultants to accomplish. Here’s a free starting point for them: work, fairness, prosperity.

       National stick to the basics and they are well served by it, half of Labour’s problem is trying to overcomplicate everything.
       • Tracey 6.2.1.1

         2 October 2014 at 4:00 pm

         i agree with you Ant. Bob harveys day has gone. this is not about a logo and a slogan.

         labour will need to find a way to counter the PR strategy of the right which will rain down on the next leader as it did on goff and shearer and cunliffe.
7. Bill Drees 7

   2 October 2014 at 10:15 am

   Mallard, Cosgrove, King, Goff, Robertson have to be given the lowest positions in the Party rankings when Cunliffe is re-elected. The high rankings that they were given the last time just didn’t work.
   They should all be told that they will not get selection next time. Any on the list should be asked to resign . Time for new faces.
   • Apples 7.1

     2 October 2014 at 10:53 am

     All those candidates hold electorates and the local party will decide whether to re-select them (if they stand again) – not the West Auckland faction of the Labour Party. Mallard wasn’t even on the list.

     However, I do agree that we need some rejuvenation and some fresh faces. Especially in the leadership!
     • Not a PS Staffer 7.1.1

       2 October 2014 at 1:03 pm

       Apples, the membership in Wellington is as pissed as the membership in West North and South Auckland about the behaviour of the Caucus faction that will not accept the leadership vote of last December.
       Shearer has only a few workers in Mt Albert and they are loyal to the Party rather than Shearer. Mt Albert was once the strongest LEC in the country. There are many in Central Wellington who resent the cliquish way that Robertson runs that shop.

       When the selection is over many party members will let their electorate MP know how pissed they are with their behaviour. There will be many contested selection meetings next time around.
       • Apples 7.1.1.1

         2 October 2014 at 1:19 pm

         That’s a lot of bluster but very little of it is true. You don’t speak for the “membership in Wellington” or the membership of anywhere else. If you are a member, you can speak for yourself.

         Grant has an impressive electorate organisation with 100s of volunteers and activists. I would like to see someone try to contest that selection – lol.

         However, I’m not going to defend Cosgrove or Shearer. Cosgrove in particular needs to be shown the door (also not an electorate MP, sorry for the error in my previous post).
         • paddy 7.1.1.1.1

           2 October 2014 at 3:36 pm

           Claims of 100’s of volunteers is just a claim by one Robertson acolyte about mythical others. I saw some young people waving placards “Vote for Grant Robertson”. Friends in Well Central tell me that the most leaflets in their letter boxes were from National, the Greens and the Conservatives in that order. There was no campaign for the Party Vote in Wellington Central. It was galling to see PV campaigns for National, Greens Conservatives ACT , NZF and InternetMana but plenty of Vote Robertson. Beware Robertson.
       • Hami Shearlie 7.1.1.2

         2 October 2014 at 2:36 pm

         I’ve heard many say that Robertson hardly darkens the door of his electorate office and looked down his nose at a meeting when constituents were mentioned. Wonder if that is true?
         • Apples 7.1.1.2.1

           2 October 2014 at 3:28 pm

           Well that is complete nonsense. He is an extremely popular local MP and outstanding at constituency work.

           “I’ve heard many say”? Hm… have to wonder if those “many” are actually spreading rumours for an ulterior purpose don’t you.
     • Tracey 7.1.2

       2 October 2014 at 3:15 pm

       what do you think of mallards moa comments
       • Not a PS Staffer 7.1.2.1

         2 October 2014 at 8:27 pm

         Que?
     • the pigman 7.1.3

       2 October 2014 at 8:34 pm

       Cosgrove does not hold an electorate. Stop lying.
8. paddy 8

   2 October 2014 at 12:34 pm

   Apples is actually Grant Robertson desperately trying to fudge and mislead.
   • Apples 8.1

     2 October 2014 at 12:36 pm

     I wish.
   • lurgee 8.2

     2 October 2014 at 12:43 pm

     Nah, you’re just a blusterer.

     Apples pointed out there was no discrepancy with the decline in Robertson’s party vote and the national picture. If that isn’t true, it should be easy for you to prove he is a liar.
     • paddy 8.2.1

       2 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

       Will do so once the specials are announced on Saturday.
       • lurgee 8.2.1.1

         2 October 2014 at 12:54 pm

         He won’t be a liar then, though, as he’s basing his assertion on the currently available information. His statement will no longer be correct, but he will only be a liar if he insists it is still correct. It seems unlikely that the specials will be influential enough to significantly prove the case.
     • paddy 8.2.2

       2 October 2014 at 1:58 pm

       In the Wellington Central Party Votes announced so far Labour won 7351 votes out of 30,737 that were cast which means that just 23.91% of Well Central voters party voted Labour whilst nationwide it was 24.7%.
       12,006 or 39% voted National and 28.06% voted Green.
       26.56% voted Labour in 2011 in Wellington Central – That is a whopping 9% drop in Party Vote Labour (23.91/26.56 x100)
       The Robertson apologists are trying to trick people. Apples should apologise.
       • Apples 8.2.2.1

         2 October 2014 at 2:37 pm

         None of what you said refutes anything I said. The PV has dropped in Wellington Central. It dropped basically everywhere. The “swing” in WC was less than the nationwide swing on the preliminary numbers. Let’s wait for specials to know that for sure.

         The PV has also dropped massively in New Lynn. Which is my main point, which you have completely avoided. You can’t blame Grant for the loss of the PV in WC without also throwing DC under a bus. Not logical.
         • paddy 8.2.2.1.1

           2 October 2014 at 3:04 pm

           Paul Foster-Bell the National MP was right when he said at Aro Valley MTC that he shared something with Grant Robertson. ” We both want David Cunliffe to lose.” Grant Robertson ignored the Party Vote which massively moved more to the Greens than anywhere else in the country. Don’t give me crap about the Labour/Green combined vote. Robertson was supposed to be working for a raised Party Vote for Labour which he failed to do for the second time in a row. If Cunliffe wins the leadership vote then your hero will further try sink the Party Vote in Wellington Central. Robertson had and has no interest in Cunliffe winning in2014 or 2017 . You seem to adore Grant. I do not trust him. Take off the blinkers.
           • Apples 8.2.2.1.1.1

             2 October 2014 at 3:36 pm

             paddy – that is a conspiracy theory which has absolutely no basis in fact. It’s David Cunliffe fan fiction.

             I was in WC for some of the campaign. Everything Grant did was about the PV. All his materials were about the PV. At the debate you mention, Grant refuted that claim and asked for the PV.

             Actually what you are saying is deeply insulting to the 100s of volunteers who worked on that campaign. Who spent their spare time trying to get DC elected PM, only to have him suggest they were the reason he didn’t get elected. It’s nasty stuff and it will backfire on DC if his supporters keep peddling it.

             And what you STILL refuse to answer —> why did the PV also fall in New Lynn? And why don’t you hold DC responsible for that?
             • paddy …

               2 October 2014 at 4:20 pm

               Robertson publicly asked for the Party Vote at a packed Aro Valley meeting just so he could have plausible deniability from suckers. He had a room full of Labour/ Green people . He won not a single PV from anyone in the room. He is not stupid but nor is he loyal to anyone but himself. BTW there were not hundreds of volunteers. That’s a myth. There were about 20.
               • lurgee …

                 2 October 2014 at 8:41 pm

                 What a bizarre contention. The people there undoubtedly gave him their electorate vote, as he was returned with an increased majority. They were obviously reluctant to give him their party vote, as less than 1 in 3 party votes came his way. So a shout out for party votes may well have won a few over.
         • AmaKiwi 8.2.2.1.2

           2 October 2014 at 7:59 pm

           New Lynn boundary changes means it is now much more National. New Lynn lost large areas of Avondale and Kelston. The new Kelston electorate Labour PV was strong.
     • Tracey 8.2.3

       2 October 2014 at 3:16 pm

       or she
9. adam 9

   2 October 2014 at 12:45 pm

   Enjoy your game of thrones all you lib/labs. When a real socialist turns up in the labour party – write me a wee note. In the mean time, no more red weddings ah…
   • Jones 9.1

     2 October 2014 at 1:13 pm

     Actually, a pacific red wedding is probably what Labour needs.
   • Te Reo Putake 9.2

     2 October 2014 at 2:15 pm

     Plenty of real socialists in Labour, Adam. Me for one. But by all means carry on with your sectarian smugness, John Key loves Tory enablers.
     • Apples 9.2.1

       2 October 2014 at 2:50 pm

       I’m a democratic socialist. And we should recognise and celebrate that we have moved the party a long way since ’08. It was a shame we lost industry standard agreements from our manifesto this time (thanks DC), but we actually had a some excellent policies.

       There will always be a few people who think we don’t go far enough. Okay to stay outside the tent. But I think at least acknowledge those in the party who are working hard to bring about a left-wing Labour Government.

       In my view, Grant is the best hope we have of bringing that about. He’s the one who can win on Labour’s values and left-wing policies.
       • word 9.2.1.1

         2 October 2014 at 3:13 pm

         @Apples. Disagree. Robertson is full of himself, he will not do what you think he will. I hope he loses.
       • Mark 9.2.1.2

         2 October 2014 at 4:01 pm

         You are part of a party that anyone from the left from the 70s, 80s and 90s considers a right wing party.Because that is what labour is. What was considered the centre in those times is now classed as extreme left wing. Thats how far the right have moved the whole framework.
         The Labour Party left wing. Piss off. More like a “Blairite” copy of what passes for left wing in 2104. Future prospects- Zero
         • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1.2.1

           2 October 2014 at 4:12 pm

           +1

           Move to Germany to see how the extreme Left can destroy an economy. They even have “workers representatives” in company boardrooms ffs, and don’t get me started on their bludger-friendly “welfare”.

           Stupid communists.
           • Kiwiri 9.2.1.2.1.1

             2 October 2014 at 7:09 pm

             All of Germany has now pretty much removed all university fees – like the policy proposed by Internet Mana Party.
             • GregJ …

               2 October 2014 at 7:15 pm

               Norway as well. Also you will note no fees for foreign students.
           • AmaKiwi 9.2.1.2.1.2

             2 October 2014 at 8:04 pm

             And Germany is the strongest economy in Europe, despite the cost of re-building the former East Germany from 1989 to the present.

             Worker representatives in company board rooms is NOT a bad thing. It produces better results than the old fashioned “us” and “them” management model.
         • lurgee 9.2.1.2.2

           2 October 2014 at 8:47 pm

           You are part of a party that anyone from the left from the 70s, 80s and 90s considers a right wing party.Because that is what labour is. What was considered the centre in those times is now classed as extreme left wing.

           Yeah, well, 30 years of neo-liberalism, individualism and consumerism will do that to a country.

           Re-aligning New Zealand will take about the same amount of time. There are two options: either make compromises, and start from the centre and work left, gradually persuading the majority to go along with you; or go further left, enjoy another three terms on the opposition benches and hope somehow that National screw it up so badly they are driven from power, yet somehow leave things intact enough for Labour to start the rebuild.

           Blair, whom you dismiss out of hand, was very good at winning elections, and managed some good reforms before he went mad. So don’t knock centrism. The view from the moral high ground looks very like … surely you know how that one ends by now.
10. Mark 10

    2 October 2014 at 1:45 pm

    As someone who left Labour 30 years ago and will never come back, I have enjoyed the last six years of the Labour MPs all back stabbing and undermining their own people. They want the public to trust them and yet they don’t trust each other. The next six years will be just as enjoyable for us on the left who hate Labour.
    • Richard 10.1

      2 October 2014 at 7:54 pm

      Well at least I know why labour went downhill. When the going got tough they got up and left.

      Still your here bad mouthing labour, so you haven’t really left. Or were you left at all?

      If your some communist pulease. Plastic communist! because if you really new communists and communist life and regimes you wouldn’t be communist. Take that personally from the son of a refuge who saw his whole family shot in the back of the head. But have a heart all those under 16 were not killed they waited until they reached that age, then shot them or made them prison workers. Lucky Dad escaped.

      I’ve been there, they also murdered the local Muslim priests in their sleep, innocent priests, then headed to my families estate. So please don’t glorify the red way.

      I agree we need a return to more work representation and stronger union collectives. The right have shown a will to revert and change most rules for the employer. They cannot be trusted, a need to return the workers rights is in dire urgency. Labour lost their way and started focusing on other issues to much. That’s a given. They are not the labour of old, they rebranded and cocked it right up.

      Whoever, whatever you were, you should have stayed and fought to keep the workers at the forefront of labour policy. IMHO. Based on what you said.
      • Chooky 10.1.1

        2 October 2014 at 10:31 pm

        how do you know Mark was not an activist elsewhere for workers, those on low wages , beneficiaries and Maori?…in fact if it is the Mark I know …he has spent his whole life doing just that!

        ….there are far more productive organisations to work for at the flaxroots level than the NZ Labour Party
11. Bill Drees 11

    2 October 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Rodney Hide recommends Stuart Nash to the Labour membership!

    Simon Lusk is doing a great job!
    • Mark 11.1

      2 October 2014 at 4:05 pm

      Slater, Hide, Hooten, Lusk,– All he needs now is annointment by Key and he will be home and hosed.
      • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1

        2 October 2014 at 4:14 pm

        Sounds like a plan: Nash takes the centre, the Greens take the Left, and then the NZLP members and affiliates help the Greens make the policy while Nash smiles and waves.
    • Kiwiri 11.2

      2 October 2014 at 7:15 pm

      Rodney Hide recommends Stuart Nash to the Labour membership!

      That’s just typical mischief-making from that notorious corner.
    • Richard 11.3

      2 October 2014 at 8:08 pm

      Rodney, just saying it makes a clown image in yellow, appear in my head. Gimmick boy.

      Not being rude but Rodney, Mallard and Banks should form a party, call themselves “Conservative, Labour, Or Whatever Needs Saying” and run for office, seriously, DO IT>
12. Torney 12

    2 October 2014 at 4:00 pm

    I think both Cunliffe and Robertson are well left of centre and we don’t need to worry about them ideologically. That’s not the problem with either of them, and the accusations being thrown backwards and forwards about either of them obscures from the real issues at stake.

    Out of the two, I support GR because he appears to be well-liked by his caucus (so might actually be able to unite them) and he didn’t just lose an election by a record margin to National (those minimising it need to read a bit more history).

    I also think that GR knows what a good Leader’s Office looks like, since he worked in one, and that he’s proven himself to be competent. I cannot think of a single time where GR has made a gaffe in the media that harmed the Party, for instance.

    FWIW, I also believe that Labourites and leftists attacking people who support either candidate as disingenuous trolls or neo-liberals prevents us from having a proper debate around the actual merits of each candidate.
    • Apples 12.1

      2 October 2014 at 4:17 pm

      Exactly. Point well made Torney.
      • Not a PS Staffer 12.1.1

        2 October 2014 at 4:46 pm

        Aaaaah, That is so sweet! Apples (never poisted before today) agrees with Torney (never posted before).

        Clare Curran must now be advising Robertson’s team!
        • Apples 12.1.1.1

          2 October 2014 at 4:52 pm

          Ha. Actually I have posted a couple of times over the last couple of days. It can be quite a hostile environment down here, just trying to share the love.
          • Clean_power 12.1.1.1.1

            2 October 2014 at 6:01 pm

            For the sake of the Labour Party, Grant Robertson must win and ,more importantly, David Cunliffe must withdraw. It is the only way forward.
            • Ant 12.1.1.1.1.1

              2 October 2014 at 7:34 pm

              Weren’t you talking up the Nashy Boy™ as lord saviour of Labour last week?
          • Mark 12.1.1.1.2

            2 October 2014 at 7:22 pm

            Where have you been all these years. Why is it suddenly now you want to enlighten us poor confused souls as to the virtues of that arsewipe Grant Robertson. A couple of my old comrades have rejoined the Labour Party to excise a bit of utu. Hope your hero is ready for the shit fight heading his way.
            • lurgee 12.1.1.1.2.1

              2 October 2014 at 8:56 pm

              Ah, far left ‘fellow travellers’ like the Militant tendency infiltrators in the British Labour party in the 70s? That ended well. With A decade of Thatcherism, and almost the same amount of Majorism, and then Tony Blair leading a neutered Labour Party to untrammelled power that it knew not what to do with. The Right love entryist clowns like your ‘old comrades.’ Idiot wreckers who achieve nothing but absolute impotence.
              • Mark …

                2 October 2014 at 10:22 pm

                You have to lay off the cheap weed. You are starting to make as much sense as John Armstrong. The whole analogy is quite bizarre. As are most of your postings lately. A little dose of Serenace 5 will do you the world of good.
                • Chooky …

                  2 October 2014 at 10:40 pm

                  +100 Mark…lurgee is way off the beam…. full stop

                  …in fact i think he is a t…l under the bridge…he just surfaces when he perceives something interesting happening up on the road in order to distract, divert and lay little traps…trip wires for Lefties
                • lurgee …

                  3 October 2014 at 8:26 pm

                  You said you had some “old comrades” intent on joining Labour to “excise a bit of utu.” Pray explain what that is meant to mean if not entryism by far left wreckers?

                  Like I said, we went through this in Britain in the 70s with Militant Tendency. The result was three decades of neo-liberal hegemony. Whn Labour finally returned to power in 1997, it had been so gutted of socialism it had no idea of what to other than carry on with Thatcherism. If you want another 30 years of neo-liberalism here, join your “old comrades” on their wrecking mission.

                  If you’d rather not have another three decades of social blight and maimed life, but can’t bring yourself to join in constructively, just piss off and let those still trying get on with it.

                  “… all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice … the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce,” as a far wiser man than either of us wrote.

                  You’re the farce, in case you’re still struggling to work it out.
13. Chooky 13

    2 October 2014 at 4:10 pm

    Internet/MANA and the Greens will be watching the outcome of this leadership election with interest ( as will Winston Peters)

    …and unless the Labour Party membership does something about caucus careerists (those who have rogered the Labour Party for 30 years )…. and their sprouts Nash and Davis ( darlings of the NACT right wing who want a Nact cloned Labour ) ….and either calls them to heel or gets rid of them …..it is all over rover for the Labour Party…. the maggots will be left to feed on the old dying anemic Labour dog…and the voter blood transfusion will defect to a new Party

    ‘I feel sorry for Labour Party members and supporters’

    By John Minto / October 2, 2014

    “For the past 30 years these loyal Labour followers have struggled in vain to regain control of the party from the extreme right wing policies introduced by Labour government Minister of Finance Roger Douglas in 1984. Those policies remain at the core of Labour economic policy even today despite them leading directly to the massive inequality, endemic poverty and demeaning hardship which characterises so much of family life in New Zealand today”…..

    – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/02/i-feel-sorry-for-labour-party-members-and-supporters/#sthash.WoGxBVzy.dpuf
14. felix 14

    2 October 2014 at 5:53 pm

    The best strategy for labour is a series of short term leaderships punctuated by bitter bloodlettings, each leader getting one crack at the task and then out on their arse.

    Worked for the allblacks.
    • Chooky 14.1

      2 October 2014 at 6:22 pm

      lol
    • lprent 14.2

      2 October 2014 at 6:28 pm

      I’ve missed that barbed wit..
    • greywarbler 14.3

      2 October 2014 at 6:38 pm

      @ felix
      Pity you couldn’t have come out of seclusion in time to put the fellers straight before the election. What was very much needed was ensuring a big cough-up of fur balls to cleanse the candidates ready for a proper catfight. We had lots of snarling stand-offs but they never amounted to a fair fight and our tom got nobbled and is now licking his wounds.
      We need a definite spray to mark the edges of our territory and then a good staring competition to show that we are a force to be reckoned with.

      Are you available as coach or consultant? Payment in catnip wine and tender salmon pieces?
      • felix 14.3.1

        2 October 2014 at 8:57 pm

        mmm, salmon…

        (but nah, they never take any notice – too busy listening to the barking of dogs.)
15. Richard 15

    2 October 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Comments are hilarious and some sadly lost in the hills.

    Picking a labour leader for the labour party should be taken very seriously.

    The decision is, who is best as leader of Labour, and do we include whether he’s going to win the election into the answer.

    Culiffes 0-1 on elections.

    Cunliffe would need serious work if re elected to overcome the press and bias incorrect perceptions fermented by people who don’t like him.

    Robertson is gay obviously. Has their ever been a gay PM of any country? IDNK but cannot think of one so hard ask that is, for him to win over the homophobes.

    No experience, doesn’t look the part, seen any short fat gay leaders about on your travels?

    and therefore is their a third choice yet?

    Cunliffe has to be the one, He has the manner of a PM, the stature and posture, the oration skills, He’s got a good head on his shoulders, well educated and experienced in parliament.

    He only had a short time as party leader, was brilliant against a very sharp Key and Hosking in the debates.

    Obviously he doesn’t people please , most likely the opposite and has told a few labour members a truth to many. Hence the hate club(allegedly). You find the best war time achievers were not that well liked, Patton, Montgomery, I expect it, par for the course. We all new Helen wasn’t that loved but liked her the more for it. Respect the HC. Perhaps why I don’t like keys manner of PM ship.

    call me old fashioned but the PM needs to be seen to be able to crack the whip occasionally. Sadly the only whip I could imagine Key whipping would be in some Gay parlour called “Closet dwellers”

    back to the point, neither choice is really a sure winner, and not even the third and Klingon wannabe’s. Perhaps labour should play Nationals game and coach up a new face the crowd will love.
    • lurgee 15.1

      2 October 2014 at 9:01 pm

      Robertson is gay obviously. Has their ever been a gay PM of any country? IDNK but cannot think of one so hard ask that is, for him to win over the homophobes.

      Ted Heath in Britain was a ‘confirmed batchelor’ and I think everyone knew what it meant.

      Where has this idea that Cunliffe was ‘brilliant’ in the debates arisen from? He waved his hands a lot and shouted, looking like a rude oaf. He was flat-footed by the most obvious line of attack imaginable. He was, at best, adequate, but far, far, far from brilliant.
      • Richard 15.1.1

        2 October 2014 at 9:30 pm

        Obviously personally based. I suppose shouting at key was something Cunliffe did more for me than the voters judging by the election results.

        maybe the truth lies more along the lines of Cunliffe looks the more capable to give old John a good slapping for taking the piss and lying to the whole country the SOB he is..

        I don’t think Robertsons handbag will cut the mustard.

        Brilliant is a fair comment I thought after Goff “show me the money” and Shearer..ssh shhs hshsh shearer.
16. Richard 16

    2 October 2014 at 7:34 pm

    For every left there must be a right, for every up a down. Ying and Yang ,God and the devil.

    National are destroying their Yang, this can only lead to ultimate Kaos and the destruction of the universe, it must be stopped by any means possible to save mankind, an important a decision.
17. Ant 17

    2 October 2014 at 7:53 pm

    Moira asks members not be dicks during the leadership race, member acts like a dick immediately:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11335826

    hahahahaha Labour FML
    • Paul 17.1

      2 October 2014 at 8:52 pm

      Herald frames it as an ‘Orewellian decree.’
      I very much doubt the Herald reporters are widely read enough to have read, let alone understood, George Orwell.
      If so, they might want to make connections to the GCSB.
      A little more relevant.
      • Richard 17.1.1

        2 October 2014 at 9:41 pm

        1984..2014 30 years late, hmm that would be about right for NZ.

        ironic.
    • greywarbler 17.2

      2 October 2014 at 9:04 pm

      @ Ant 17
      Well here is a companion piece from Quin from 2011 where he talks about how he was very active in rolling Helen Clark in favour of Phil Goff and explains the reasons and situation as he saw them. When you have read this you won’t be surprised to see him throwing his weight around on the casting couch, if he can find it.

      Sound familiar? Fifteen years ago, Helen Clark stared down a party coup mounted by her eventual successor, Phil Goff. But her victory came at a huge price for Labour. Phil Quin, one of the plotters, offers an insider’s account.
      About six weeks before Helen Clark finally cemented her grip on NZ Labour – one which she maintains to this day, even in absentia – I had finally convinced Phil Goff to topple her. It was Easter Weekend, 1996,….
      After decapitating Mike Moore in the days following his strong showing at the 1993 election, Helen Clark failed to connect with Kiwi voters. Her media performances were wooden. She seemed aloof, and her intelligence came across as arrogance….
      By 1990, the Labour Party, a shadow of its former self, was ripe for a takeover – and a small group of activists, bound primarily by loyalty to Clark, stepped into the breach. Margaret Wilson, Ruth Dyson and other loyalists aligned with trade union affiliates and left-wing branches to wrest control of the party’s governing bodies and candidate selection processes…..

      Phil Quin, a New York-based writer and columnist, worked in the Labour Party research unit on and off between 1989 and 1996. His blog is thenewtasman.com.
      The conspirators
      * Martin Gallagher
      * Janet Mackey
      * Chris Carter
      * Rick Barker
      * Phillip Field
      * John Blincoe
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10716608
      and
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11266928
      edited
      • Murray Olsen 17.2.1

        3 October 2014 at 3:27 am

        Sounds like Quinn wants to be the Blubber Boy of right wing social democracy.
18. Tim 18

    2 October 2014 at 8:52 pm

    The more interesting question is Deputy? The only electorates where Labour won the PV were the Maori seats and 3 in Sth Ak, Kelston and Dunedin North.

    Clearly there has to be recognition of Maori/Pacific voters. It is simply not credible for Labour to have two Pakeha dudes in charge, or even two Pakehas.

    What is the process for selecting the Deputy?

    I’d go further and like to see the key Finance & Economics spokesperson chosen too, National have done well with the stability of their Triumvirate – Key, English and Joyce.
    • Chooky 18.1

      2 October 2014 at 10:32 pm

      Nanaia Mahuta for Deputy!….a woman and a Maori ( covers all bases….and she is Way more effective and better looking than Jacinda…you know who)
19. Paul 19

    3 October 2014 at 5:51 am

    ‘Nash may yet go for leadership’
    “[He] didn’t want to be the one to trigger a leadership battle that the party had no appetite for.”
    But sources say he is reconsidering as the rivalry between Cunliffe and Robertson has turned increasingly bitter. “This is the last thing our party needs, two people going hammer and tongs at each other. It will just turn off New Zealand,” one source said.

    Source??? …Clayton Cosgrove, Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff or which reactionary neoliberal member of the caucus.

    If Nash becomes leader the neoliberal nightmare is prolonged indefinitely.
    More people will be disenfranchised as Labour lurches even further to the right and away from its founding principles.
    It will be like the US Democrat Party…..the 2nd corporate party.

    Powerful business people want Nash and Davis to be the face of Labour.
    Wonder why?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10574032/Nash-may-yet-go-for-leadership
    • Cave Johnson 19.1

      3 October 2014 at 6:21 am

      People keep suggesting that leadership itself can push the party left or right, but how does that work when the policies are set by the party and not by the leader?

Links to post

1. Keep an eye on Charlie the Chimp – he gibbers, sure, but he would make one helluva great Labour leader | Alf Grumble: posted on 2 October 2014 at 3:30 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS