Labour’s three factions

348 comments on “Labour’s three factions ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   25 March 2013 at 2:53 pm

   Nice write up Eddie. In there somewhere is there a Labour Party which is going to unashamedly advocate for ordinary workers, those on the minimum wage and the underclass. I hope so.
   • Peter 1.1

     25 March 2013 at 3:38 pm

     Focus groups are telling the current MPs that such a Labour Party has no future, therefore, this does not exist.
     • Elizabeth Bourchier 1.1.1

       25 March 2013 at 4:52 pm

       Who controls the engagement with the marketing co running the Focus Groups?
       Shearers office, peopled with Robertson loyalists.

       So the stuff fed to the MPs is always going to re-inforce the status quo.

       MPs who are giving more weight to Focus Group FUD than their own soundings (and value based instincts) are merely weathervanes. Decorative sweet things.
       • Peter 1.1.1.1

         25 March 2013 at 5:33 pm

         Absolutely – it’s a nice cozy tight little circle, with inherent feedback loops. And, as with all feedback loops, it’s garbage in, garbage out. What pisses me off the most is not that this happens – this happens with all political systems – it’s that Labour knows it’s the case, has a mechanism to reconnect (the party…), and then mendaciously chooses to ignore it.

         It’s great if you want to reduce Labour to a brand only, and then keep getting relected, generally by way of the list and the residual 30% of people in NZ who don’t like the tories and won’t vote Green.

         It’s great for job security – because as a Labour MP, you really need job security, because there’s nothing more ex, than an ex-Labour MP…

         It’s also proven – for now – to be a winning strategy, winning against anyone, such as David Cunliffe, who has tried to challenge it. The question is, how long can certain people hold to their positions as kings of their crumbling little hill.
     • The Fan Club 1.1.2

       25 March 2013 at 8:46 pm

       Peter, there really aren’t focus groups doing this kind of work. I know you’d like there to be, but there aren’t.
       • Jim Davis 1.1.2.1

         25 March 2013 at 8:48 pm

         You’re a parliamentary staffer. One of the ones hired by Robertson. I’m guessing Vic Young Labour, either present or within the last five years.
         • the pigman 1.1.2.1.1

           27 March 2013 at 2:14 am

           +1
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.2

         25 March 2013 at 11:04 pm

         Peter, there really aren’t focus groups doing this kind of work. I know you’d like there to be, but there aren’t.

         Sure there are. Labour is paying one of the big firms* hundreds of thousands of dollars to carry out the ongoing work.

         * It’s not Curia haha
         • The Fan Club 1.1.2.2.1

           25 March 2013 at 11:18 pm

           CV, trust me, I know who we do our internal polling through. I also know that focus groups are not a major part of the party’s research work.
           • lprent 1.1.2.2.1.1

             26 March 2013 at 12:57 am

             UMR. Never been too impressed with their work.
           • Daveo 1.1.2.2.1.2

             27 March 2013 at 12:18 pm

             You still spend around a million dollars a year on polling though eh?
       • Peter 1.1.2.3

         26 March 2013 at 8:54 am

         Then it’s worse – the money for focus groups has dried up, and it’s basically caucus putting its finger in the Wellington breeze and guessing which way to go?

         And no, I have very little desire to work with the current parliamentary team. Didn’t mind doing some small projects for the last team, but in the current environment, it’s best to stay well away from Wellington.
         • lprent 1.1.2.3.1

           26 March 2013 at 9:13 am

           Yep. Stupidity reigns making it too hard to do anything useful.
   • mike 1.2

     26 March 2013 at 10:22 am

     And so do I. I’m looking forward to the companion piece on the factions within the National Party. That should uncover some doozies!
2. chris73 acualy is Dolan 2

   25 March 2013 at 2:55 pm

   Imagine picking one of those factions for a pub quiz team…
   • fender 2.1

     25 March 2013 at 5:09 pm

     Imagine being able to spell ‘actually’ in that quiz…
     • McFlock 2.1.1

       25 March 2013 at 5:38 pm

       lol
     • felix 2.1.2

       25 March 2013 at 6:22 pm

       fender pls
     • Beryl Streep 2.1.3

       25 March 2013 at 9:34 pm

       Whoosh!
     • Rhinocrates 2.1.4

       26 March 2013 at 9:27 am

       A-k-s-h-u-l-e-e?
3. just saying 3

   25 March 2013 at 2:58 pm

   In what alternative universe is Trevor Mallard left (careerist or otherwise)?
   Left of what exactly? Not the tea party apparently:
   Here I would place a screen shot of his tea-party rant about being taxed to death to pay for beneficiary bludgers, from his face book page. But I didn’t know how to shoot the screen back then.
   But most of the regulars probably remember the incident – he took it down after someone in the party had a chat with him about the wisdom of it. Never retracted the sentiments though.

   More to the actual point of the post – are you sure about this Eddie? How much is educated guess-work? I know Trotter wrote something along similar lines recently.
   • Rich 3.1

     25 March 2013 at 7:23 pm

     To some extent these are just labels, really? It’s all about who might get them a spokespersonship / overseas job / ministerial post (if Labour ever gets re-elected) and they just coalesce around a patr̄on accordingly.

     I don’t think somebody like Sio who was the only (I think) Labour MP to oppose marriage equality could be regarded as Left?

     If they were really left-wing, they’d join the Greens or Mana. 🙂
     • Beryl Streep 3.1.1

       25 March 2013 at 9:57 pm

       Damien O’Connor and Ross Robertson also opposed marriage equality.
4. Colonial Weka 4

   25 March 2013 at 3:09 pm

   “As for the Left faction, you may be wondering why they failed to trigger a leadership vote in February when their faction had one more vote than they needed. It was simple bluffing. Moana Mackey and Iain Lees-Galloway voted Shearer because they thought he had the votes, and quite sensibly didn’t want to be punished by the Right – though it doesn’t look like it did either of them any good in the reshuffle.”

   You mean the secret vote in February, where MPs should have been able to vote without who they voted for being known?
   • Anne 4.1

     25 March 2013 at 5:05 pm

     You mean the secret vote in February, where MPs should have been able to vote without who they voted for being known?

     Yeah, the one Chris Hipkins got himself elected to the counting of… so that he and his political masters could work out how each MP voted.
     • Rhinocrates 4.1.1

       25 March 2013 at 5:07 pm

       Hipkins really is an utter shit, isn’t he?
       • felix 4.1.1.1

         25 March 2013 at 6:24 pm

         Yep. An utter shit.
         • Anne 4.1.1.1.1

           25 March 2013 at 6:44 pm

           😀
           • Tigger 4.1.1.1.1.1

             25 March 2013 at 8:44 pm

             When you’re fighting dirty bastards like Key and co sometimes you need shits on your team…
             • felix …

               25 March 2013 at 9:58 pm

               What makes you think he’s on our team?
             • Magnus_McManus …

               26 March 2013 at 10:55 am

               No, you need brains. That rules Hipkins out. The guy hasn’t had an original idea since pre-school.
5. Incensed 5

   25 March 2013 at 3:11 pm

   What a load of utter rubbish. Speculation upon speculation.

   But then that is the old chestnut; create instability in the left.

   I suspect Eddie must be a Nat as he constantly determines to under mine any alternative to the vicious and nasty government of National.

   Eddie do you want to be rid of John Key etc or do you want them to continue?

   If you want rid of, stop all this nonsense and put your focus into ridding the nation of the Nat instead of smearing the left.

   One other thing. Its about Policy not Personality. It’s about team work not the individual. Together eveyone achieves more.
   • Peter 5.1

     25 March 2013 at 3:40 pm

     There is nothing in this post that will change National’s trajectory in the polls. In fact, it’s the current armed stasis of the Labour Party that keeps John Key high. People don’t like him and his increasingly dodgy/lazy decision making, but they look at the Opposition and don’t see anything better. So, they’ll keep voting National.
   • wobble 5.2

     25 March 2013 at 3:54 pm

     Looks like a pretty credible analysis to me. Certainly explains a lot that’s been going on.
     • Anne 5.2.1

       25 March 2013 at 5:18 pm

       You can’t blame Moana Mackey and Iain Lees Galloway – caught between a rock and a hard place.

       Plausible future scenario:

       Andrew little has mana and respect across the board. While I dislike some of those “careerists” there are others who are very talented and deserving of senior roles in a Labour-led government. I can envisage a future deal being brokered between the Cunliffe (left) and Robertson (careerist) factions and that looks pretty good to me. Fresh blood, fresh talent and fresh thinking on both sides.
   • Colonial Viper 5.3

     25 March 2013 at 3:58 pm

     One other thing. Its about Policy not Personality [1]. It’s about team work not the individual [2]. Together eveyone achieves more.[3]

     1) Show us the left wing policy on offer from Labour then. Where is it. 4 years out of power, what does Labour have for us. How much more time does Labour need.
     2) You should send the “team work” memo around the Labour Caucus.
     3) “Together” this is a good value. Is Labour offering solidarity with the underclass and the working class.
   • JK 5.4

     25 March 2013 at 4:08 pm

     Not much sense of a “team” working together coming out of Shearer’s mouth, Incensed. He’s the guy who says “I, I, I” all the time. Some say that’s because it helps with the impression of “strong leadership” but I beg to differ. Strong leadership involves everyone, takes people along with whoever is leader, and doesn’t keep highlighting themselves.
     • Rhinocrates 5.4.1

       25 March 2013 at 5:47 pm

       Admiral Sir John Jellico was a tactical genius and the strategic victor at Jutland. He was nicknamed “Silent Jack” because he never raised his voice and it was said that was because he never needed to. Shearer, with all his boasting, vendettas and willy-waving, proves that he is not a leader.

       He’s just Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss.
   • SpaceMonkey 5.5

     25 March 2013 at 4:37 pm

     “If you want rid of [John Key], stop all of this nonsense and put your focus into ridding the nation of the Nat instead of smearing the left.”

     There’s no point if the left a) offer no credible alternative or b) are going to rinse and repeat the same sort of behaviours as this current Government.

     At the moment, Labour does not offer a credible alternative. Waiting in the wings for the country to get sick of John Key makes Labour a National-lite government in waiting – in exactly the same way that National was accused of being Labour-lite in John Key’s first term. Where is the policy that marks Labour out from National?

     At the moment, one could be excused for thinking that under David Shearer, Labour is going to offer the same quality of Government as John Key’s National… maybe I’m being too cynical but since 1984, NZ politics has been highjacked by a mega-corporates with feet in both the Labour and National camps. The less said about policy the better, lest it require them to actually do something.

     To me, David Shearer looks to be representing those mega-corporate interests. Why would I vote for more of the same just because I loathe John Key?
   • Draco T Bastard 5.6

     25 March 2013 at 6:00 pm

     If you want rid of, stop all this nonsense and put your focus into ridding the nation of the Nat instead of smearing the left.

     We actually want the country to go left. Getting in behind the present leadership of the Labour Party will take it further to the right.
   • The Al1en 5.7

     25 March 2013 at 6:12 pm

     “If you want rid of [John Key], stop all of this nonsense and put your focus into ridding the nation of the Nat instead of smearing the left.”

     Did that from ’08 and fuck all good that did. Where have Labour been for four and a half years? Clearly not doing their jobs considering the ’11 result and piss poor polling ever since.

     “One other thing. Its about Policy not Personality.”

     No it’s not, not any more.

     “It’s about team work not the individual.”

     Not seen much of anything that looks like team work to me.
     Seen plenty of self interested career politicians positioning themselves for 2014, but fuck all team work. What party are you looking at?

     “Together eveyone achieves more.”

     Overseas bank accounts with more than us$50k for everyone to forget about.
   • Pascal's bookie 5.8

     25 March 2013 at 6:38 pm

     “One other thing. Its about Policy not Personality.”

     For the love of christ.

     It’s ‘about’ a whole bunch of things, working together. There are more than two things, and even if there were only two things, Personality would be more important than Policy in terms of Winning. In terms of governing, no. But you don’t get to govern until you win. You need all of the things. You need Policy to be a good government, but it will not win you elections by itself.

     Look at the last election. Actually look at it.

     Labour had a heap of bold policy that was actually quite popular, and Phil Goff.

     National had John Key and his MOM.
     • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 5.8.1

       26 March 2013 at 4:02 pm

       Labour had a heap of bold policy that was actually quite popular

       Yes, who can forget such hits as “Axe the Tax (note: Tax may not in fact be Axed)”
6. tc 6

   25 March 2013 at 3:12 pm

   Can now see where the energy has been going rather than build credible policies that will see them relected.

   If they’d just followed their LEC’s and voted as instructed we’d be seeing a DC led Labour viscerate this gov’t. Depressing post Eddie even discounting it for speculation.
7. JK 7

   25 March 2013 at 3:42 pm

   “Street is an odd fit with this faction, and no one I’ve talked to can explain what she’s doing there”.

   IMO Street wants to make a “name” for herself. It didn’t happen when she was Party president. It might happen if her euthanasia bill gets picked out of the ballot box. I think she’s forgotten her feminist politics in favour of herself.

   “A break will probably require either an election loss or some seriously bad polling (in the 20s) that makes the softer members of the Careerist Left change tack out of fear of being booted out of Parliament”.

   I can’t see the seriously bad polling happening until John Key gets stuck into Shearer during the actual election campaign. By then it will be too late to change the Labour leadership. I, too, like tc, find it a depressing scenario, and IMO I don’t think Eddie is too far out in his assessment of the Labour caucus as it is at the moment. But I would have left out the “left” from the careerist faction. Careerist types are individualistic = more likely to be rightwing, than left.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     25 March 2013 at 4:01 pm

     But I would have left out the “left” from the careerist faction. Careerist types are individualistic = more likely to be rightwing, than left.

     Indeed…personal career interests come first and foremost.
   • George D 7.2

     25 March 2013 at 4:09 pm

     During the leadership contest, Giovanni Tiso (one of NZ’s undervalued public intellectuals) asked openly what their political stances were, where their ideological platform could be found. None was delivered.

     Instead, we had to read into the little they’d said in public about ideas of people, economies, and the state. More became apparent over time, but we’re still mostly in a vacuum, and when we do make public judgments based on what we know we’re accused of falsifying matters and attacking from the right.

     As an insider with knowledge, and a track record here of speaking the truth, I have to trust ‘Eddie’s judgment on these matters, because there is little else for those of us outside to determine what the caucus actually believes.

     A similar analysis of ideological alignment in the Greens might be useful (but it’s not going to be me that does it, not today anyway). The Greens are somewhat softer in their divisions and until recently have been able to entertain the possibility of careerism – which has prevented those without strong ideological or practical convictions from entering and sustaining themselves, but they do cleave on a number of lines. These are primarily along consumer-individual amenable environmentalism (centrist, in other words), and collectivist notions of responsibility to each other and the earth we live on (leftist). Both are incompatible with the current Government, but the latter is much more so.
     • Pascal's bookie 7.2.1

       25 March 2013 at 5:02 pm

       Exactly George, whether or not this piece is informed, fanciful, or otherwise misses the point that it exists because of the way Labour is managed and how it communicates.
     • ghostrider888 7.2.2

       25 March 2013 at 5:33 pm

       Like this, George D 🙂
     • George D 7.2.3

       25 March 2013 at 5:34 pm

       ‘…unable to entertain the possibility of careerism’, rather.
     • outofbed 7.2.4

       25 March 2013 at 5:35 pm

       I’ll give it a whirl, top to bottom then in order
       leftist
       Delahunty
       Logie
       Roche
       Walker
       Mathers
       Turei
       Norman
       Clendon
       Hague
       Genter
       Hughes
       Brown
       Sage
       Graham

       amenable environmentalism
       🙂
       • Colonial Viper 7.2.4.1

         25 March 2013 at 6:37 pm

         So the Greens picked representative centrist leaders 🙂
     • The Fan Club 7.2.5

       25 March 2013 at 8:18 pm

       Eddie is just running pro-Cunliffe lines. He’s simply wrong about the motives and opinions of many of the MPs listed here, and in particular his conception of a “left” and a “careerist left” faction are basically self-serving nonsense.

       Also, Mackey backed Shearer to avoid being tarred as pro-Cunliffe? WTF, Mackey was doing Cunliffe’s numbers & was pretty seriously thought to be behind large parts of the maneuvering at Conference. (In fact the better bits had her handwriting all over them, I was quite impressed.) If she thought a vote for Shearer would protect she is much dumber than she is.
       • quartz 7.2.5.1

         25 March 2013 at 8:24 pm

         He’s simply wrong about the motives and opinions of many of the MPs listed here

         Name one of these MPs and explain why eddie is wrong about their motives. I’m willing to believe that’s the case but thusfar I find eddie more convincing than you.
         • The Fan Club 7.2.5.1.1

           25 March 2013 at 8:31 pm

           Mackey’s the obvious one. No way Mackey voted Shearer to try and get on side — too tainted already. Little’s pretty well known to be doing the work for Shearer.

           Calling Woods and Fenton careerists is incoherent. Likewise Street and Dyson (if you’ve got a left faction and Street and Dyson aren’t in it then it is not a left faction).
           • quartz 7.2.5.1.1.1

             25 March 2013 at 8:37 pm

             I didn’t realise Little was “doing the work” for Shearer. What kind of work? I don’t know anything about Wood but Fenton seems left enough that I would have thought she’d vote for Cunliffe.
             • The Fan Club …

               25 March 2013 at 8:42 pm

               Arg. You see, assuming that because someone’s “left” they’ll vote for Cunliffe is a large part of the problem. It isn’t a left/right split. (That’s why Robertson, Dyson, Woods, Fenton, Street, etc broke for Shearer. Because it’s not about left v right.)

               Yeah, Little was pushing the affiliates at conference not to block vote in favour of the 40% trigger.
               • Jim Davis …

                 25 March 2013 at 8:46 pm

                 He also said very pointedly that the reason for it was ‘anxiety about the current leadership’, and earned the displeasure of the Right because of it. You really don’t understand how this all works do you?
               • quartz …

                 25 March 2013 at 8:49 pm

                 Little also called out the concern about Shearer at the same conference so I’m more inclined to think he’s a wild card like eddie said.

                 Does that mean Shearer’s not part of the right wing of the party? What about Phil and Annette?
                 • The Fan Club …

                   25 March 2013 at 9:01 pm

                   Stating that this was a leadership debate was an anti-Cunlife line at the time. Michael Wood ran it as well, and he’s tight with Goff. Trotter argues that Little was rewarded for that line.

                   Marty, the split is about personalities & competence, in the main.
                   • quartz …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:07 pm

                     I took what Little said to mean concerns about Shearer’s competence but I wasn’t listening that closely. Who’s marty?
                   • The Fan Club …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:09 pm

                     The chap below.

                     No, “this is about leadership” was a line being taken by broadly pro-Shearer actors. It was an attack on Cunliffe and his backers in caucus.
                   • quartz …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:11 pm

                     OKay. But who is marty?

                     Edit: Oh, I see you were talking to marty mars. There’s a reply button you can use to keep your comment attached to the comment you’re responding to.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     25 March 2013 at 11:01 pm

                     Co-ordinated lines (lies), were run against Cunliffe at Conference.

                     This additional confirmation from TFC is no surprise to anyone who was there.
               • marty mars …

                 25 March 2013 at 8:51 pm

                 If it is not a left/right split, what and where is the split about?
           • Jim Davis 7.2.5.1.1.2

             25 March 2013 at 8:45 pm

             This is where you show you’re a punter, not a player.

             Mackey was reported in the media as shifting her support to Shearer in February. It might seem stupid but having seen the way others who’ve opposed him have been treated I can empathise with her decision.

             If you think Little is ‘doing Shearer’s work’ then you’re woefully misinformed. By all accounts he’s playing with a very straight bat and trying to avoid getting embroiled in factionalism. I’m not convinced it’s a winning strategy, but it’s the one he seems to have chosen.

             As the post points out Street is an odd fit with the careerists, and Dyson is driven by personal dislike. Woods is an odd one too. All of those three would be at the soft end – they deliver the votes but they’re not in the inner circle.

             Fenton is definitely driven by her career. She’s widely seen as being on her way out (unfairly I think) and is clinging to Shearer to save herself. Much like yourself, no doubt. I’m guessing you’re in Shearer’s pay. After all, the only people who seem to back Shearer these days are those who rely on him for either pay or position.
             • The Fan Club …

               25 March 2013 at 8:53 pm

               Yeah, Little plays it straight to a large extent, because apart from anything else he’s got his own future to consider. But he was definitely working against Cunliffe at conference.

               Again, if Mackey thought that she’d be able to get out of the inevitable freeze by a jump for Shearer that late, she was an idiot. Also, of course, she was doing the numbers for Cunliffe, and so if she thought they didn’t have them, they didn’t have them.

               According to Trotter, Woods was one of the people whipping for Shearer at conference.

               (If you’re listing factions, and there’s a faction of 11, 4 of whom are a bad fit, then maybe in fact you don’t have a faction at all?)

               (As I’ve repeatedly said, don’t work for Labour in Parliament or outside. Sorry.)
               • Jim Davis …

                 25 March 2013 at 8:59 pm

                 I think the problem is you’re taking the labels Eddie’s applied to the factions too literally. As he points out, they’re loose factions and ‘Questions of ideology, loyalty, and personal advancement all play their part.’

                 It’s not all political. The broad left-right split is, but the split between Cunliffe and Robertson’s factions involves personal advancement, loyalty and personal relationships. People move in and out around the margins. It’s a simple model, but it’s one that chimes with my experience. Like any model there are arguments to be had around the edges, but fundamentally this post nails the division lines in caucus.
                 • The Fan Club …

                   25 March 2013 at 9:05 pm

                   No, I think the problem is that Eddie’s factions aren’t an accurate reflection of the Party. The group of MPs backing Cunliffe don’t back him for ideological reasons, and calling them “left” is just not true. (I mean, Rino? Left wing? Hahaha.)
                   • hush minx …

                     25 March 2013 at 10:07 pm

                     I find this post fascinating, but would have to ask why are you so sure Mackey was doing the numbers? I know its reported as ‘common wisdom’ but I think we’d all agree how far off that common wisdom was when it came to picking the outcome of the conference vote. I’d have thought there would have been operators less above the radar doing the numbers work. It seems credible to me that Mackey just ran scared. Someone should have warned her of the power of collectivism when under attack!
                   • The Fan Club …

                     25 March 2013 at 10:22 pm

                     Why am I so sure about Mackey? Well, because no one ever contradicts when I say so!

                     As far as her handwriting being all over conference, well: Mackey and Flatt go back a long way (to their time in Young Labour), and that it was the DWU (Flatt in other words) that pushed hardest for the 40% at the Affiliates, then the Servos, and then the EPMU were basically just falling in line. And it was the block union vote that rolled the r&f who weren’t, in general, in favour of the 40% trigger.

                     So you’re looking at Mackey & people in the Auckland Servos as the prime movers there.
                   • @lee …

                     25 March 2013 at 10:36 pm

                     The Fan Club, I generally agree with what you’ve said in the comments on this thread, but I have it on reasonably good authority that Little was organising to get the affiliates to support the 40% threshold while publicly attacking it on the conference floor (I was there).

                     I wonder whether Little will turn out to be the prime beneficiary of all this, rather than Robertson: Little appears to have come out of it all as the grey man, with nobody sure what he thinks and being relatively unscathed.

                     I read the division as a simple reflection of the fact that the majority of caucus think Cunliffe is a wanker with an uncontrollable ego, who would be hell to work with as leader – i.e. they don’t think he has leadership skills; think Kevin Rudd without the Mandarin.

                     The thing that the parliamentary Cunliffe supporters almost all have in common is this: a perception they are shirkers and/or incompetents. A couple of them, Cunliffe included, just have poor personal relationships inside caucus and know that Cunliife being leader is the only shot they have of ever being in Cabinet.

                     I am continually amazed that people think Cunliffe is Left and that nobody touting him as the solution has ever seemed to pause publicly to ask how he went from one of the most economically rightwing members of the last government to the doyenne of the activist left of the Party? This is a protege of Helen Third Way Clark we’re talking about, an admirer of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: with all that comes with it, including (and especially) triangulation. This is a man who lives outside his electorate in Herne Bay(!) instead stooping to living in, say, Titirangi or Piha.

                     The positives around Shearer are that he is a very likable and good man, and a gifted leader (albeit not a natural politician) who does not shy away from and deals with internal conflict in robust manner, and who thrives under pressure. Shearer’s ego is well under control – it’s not like he thinks he’s an awesome public speaker, for instance.

                     It’s not about left or right, it’s about personalities: the party would be healthier if it were about the former. I think if the Cunliffe crowd were removed, then the cleavages would be far more ideological and better for the Party and NZ.
                   • The Fan Club …

                     26 March 2013 at 12:29 am

                     @lee, yeah, I have heard versions of that ranging from Little was playing two positions through to he just didn’t push the affiliates very hard. I don’t buy the claim he was pushing the unions towards 40%, but I do think he probably didn’t waste much capital on that.

                     He was still publicly pro-Shearer, no matter what was going on behind the scenes.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     26 March 2013 at 12:40 am

                     @Lee lolz

                     Now that you’ve detailed Cunliffe’s adherence to 3rd way politics, his supposed history on the “Right Wing” (lol) and his being an admirer of the likes of Clinton and Blair…

                     Please explain to us – what is Shearer’s stance on political economics? Which political leaders does he admire and why?
                   • @lee …

                     26 March 2013 at 9:22 am

                     Viper, I think Shearer is ideologically naive (some say “post-ideological”) and clearly didn’t initially understand why quoting people from the Finnish right, even though they’re way to he left of where Labour is on the political compass in reality, is not a good move.

                     Shearer clearly admires political and moral courage (and possesses it himself). I think he is focused on what he thinks works and is a pragmatist with a moderate inclination. I don’t think he has a sophisticated political economy worked out. He is, in reality, like a lot of decent humanitarians – his instincts are to help people practically and the desire to do that is what drove him into politics.

                     I’m not saying that Shearer is the great left hope, I just don’t think that Cunliffe is. Shearer is not a strong ideological force, which is the role Robertson seems to be playing. The idea that Shearer is some kind of neo-liberal ideologue waiting to spring the last round of Rogernomics on us is laughable though, and so is the idea that Cunliffe is a principled leftwing social democrat.
                   • felix …

                     26 March 2013 at 9:46 am

                     Oh come on @Lee.

                     The idea that Cunliffe is some sort of shit-breathing half-man-half-hornet mutation who feeds on rotting human flesh and lives in a sewer is laughable.
                   • Olwyn …

                     26 March 2013 at 10:13 am

                     I intend this as a reply to @Lee. This is the nearest “reply” button. Firstly, on the subject of Cunliffe. You forget that some people do actually know him, and that he has great support within his own electorate and LEC. No one actually expects him to be the reincarnation of Karl Marx. He does, however, take a genuinely centre-left position and defend it. In doing this, he puts himself in the position where he can be called to account if he fails to live up to it.

                     Now, this “ideological naivety” that you ascribe to David Shearer. Is this the best time in history for the main party of the left to be lead by an ideological naive? And what do “political and moral courage” amount to when one cannot discern the direction in which they will be pointed? Ruth Richardson was described in just those terms when she produced “the mother of all budgets.” Has it escaped your attention that the most enthusiastic cheer-leaders for this current leadership are from the right of the spectrum? So long as Labour cannot afford to sacrifice its right wing allies it can hardly mount a robust and effective opposition to the current government. And so long as it cannot mount a robust opposition it is going to be regarded with suspicion by many of its natural supporters.
               • @lee …

                 26 March 2013 at 12:08 pm

                 Felix, don’t be hysterical. That’s not what I said. Cunliffe’s got an ego that he struggles to restrain and poor relationships within caucus; I don’t think he’s the bogey man, just that it seems naive or myopic to take Cunliffe on face value.
                 • felix …

                   26 March 2013 at 1:48 pm

                   You started it fucko: “The idea that Shearer is some kind of neo-liberal ideologue waiting to spring the last round of Rogernomics on us is laughable“
   • Rhinocrates 7.3

     25 March 2013 at 4:10 pm

     too late to change the Labour leadership.

     I’ll expect that line from McFlock. Too soon to tell – give them time… more time… a few more minutes… microseconds… look, I know this guy Xeno and he had this thing about an arrow/too late, you’re rocking the boat and it’s your fault if the brand loses!
     • Colonial Viper 7.3.1

       25 March 2013 at 4:15 pm

       Yeah it’ll go straight from “too soon to change the Labour leadership” directly to “too late to change the Labour leadership”.
       • McFlock 7.3.1.1

         25 March 2013 at 6:06 pm

         Nope. I reckon there’s a window of nine months or so from now for a leadership challenge. But I don’t think it’ll happen, bar some significantly bad polling or a major scandal for shearer personally. Current polling is solid, not spectacular, but not abysmal either. Using eddie’s breakdown of the factions, that means the right are still able to hang on and the careerists are still assured of work.

         In the case of shearer getting pinged from leadership for whatever reason, the folk on the “right” strike me (although I don’t know all of them) as being unlikely candidates for the leadership, which leaves them putting up a careerist as a compromise candidate.

         I reckon labour could drop around 5 points during the campaign, so to be comfortable needs to be polling around 40% at the start of the campaign frenzy (if shearer doesn’t continue to improve his skills, of course). But then that assumes a 100% solid Key. I wonder if they’ll promise a brighter future for a third time?

         I’m not sure the rotten boroughs are entirely up for grabs, though, and there’s always the outside chance of the conservatives coming in with an electorate seat and winston only getting 4.95% (skewing the proportional balance).
         • Rhinocrates 7.3.1.1.1

           25 March 2013 at 6:42 pm

           That amount of calculation indicates desperation.
           • McFlock 7.3.1.1.1.1

             25 March 2013 at 6:59 pm

             If it were wrong or based on completely false premises, maybe.

             If labour continue on 32-35% for the rest of the year, do you really think anyone will have enough support to get rid of shearer in their favour? <30%, I can see that, but with the broad left on the cusp of taking the lead from national? Nah. So that leaves illness or scandal for shearer to cause a leadership change.

             Will labour drop during the campaign, and if so how much? That's tealeaf-reading, but if we assume shearer is as good as goff was (big assumption, but do you have a better idea? The guy is slowly improving), and key doesn't have "strong leader in time of crisis" qudos, do you think shearer will drop as much as goff did?
             • Colonial Viper …

               25 March 2013 at 7:03 pm

               but if we assume shearer is as good as goff was (big assumption, but do you have a better idea?

               You’re talking about Phil Goff here? Veteran MP, multi portfolio Minister, hugely experienced in Parliamentary and NZ Governmental processes?

               I suppose Shearer did save a few million lives, in comparison.
               • McFlock …

                 25 March 2013 at 7:10 pm

                 yeah, that’s the one.
                 The Goff who was bollocked in the debates by a swaggering boor who asked a simple, predictable question.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   25 March 2013 at 7:19 pm

                   I think Goff did relatively well during those debates, apart from that single incident.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 7:33 pm

                     people watch nascar for the crashes.
                   • just saying …

                     25 March 2013 at 8:02 pm

                     Goff had the advantage of having once been a left-winger. Shearer has no such history and no understanding of left-wing ideology or rhetoric. Goff was able to channel his former self to prevent a catastrophic loss, as would have happened if a significant proportion of the left flank of Labour had refused to vote for them. In those final debates Goff was in damage limitation mode.

                     When Goff spoke in those debates, I believe he was in character, and he actually believed his words. Inevitably, it didn’t last beyond the performances. No man is rich enough to buy back his soul, once he has sold it.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 8:33 pm

                     Very nicely said, just saying, though I’m not sure that Goff was ever a left-winger. He might have thought that he was, but genuinely progressive? I think not – his sexist, authoritarian dickishness evidenced by “Phwoarrr, I’d like to fuck Liz Hurley”, “Looters should be court-martialled and shot” and his anti-democratic actions in government suggest not.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:42 pm

                     mr rape analogy?

                     Oh you poor victim.

                     Note the quote marks.

                     Again, you could end this so easily – you can say that you were wrong, that you told a lie. It’s as simple as that.

                     Admit that you’re a liar.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:48 pm

                     Try replying to the right comment
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:51 pm

                     Try replying to the right comment

                     No McFlock. You claimed that I support genocide. Show me where I said “I support genocide”. Word for word. If it were true, it would be easy, if it were not possible, then you are a lying shit. Simple as that. You can withdraw the accusation and apologise any time you like.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 11:32 am

                     I’m not married. Never have been.

                     No, I demanded a yes or no answer, so that won’t do. That’s evasion, so if you don’t have a “wife” exactly, you must be beating your partner.

                     Now you see, do you understand what a leading question is?

                     It seems

                     Again, the insinuation. Your fantasies and projections mean nothing.

                     Be honest. You can apologise and withdraw your implied slander any time you like.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 2:27 pm

                     So “actually happened” = “lies”? What the fuck planet are you on?

                     No, lies about me.

                     I don’t give a fuck. It wasn’t a fucking question, you tool

                     Fuck fuck fuckety fuck fuck… and tits.

                     I am offended because comparing Labour having shearer as caucus leader with rape belittles them both and is fucking stupid.
                     

                     It’s not a comparison, it’s an idiom. Look those words up in the OED.

                     can’t work a reply button

                     On my browser, the reply button does not appear this far down the thread. I didn’t write the software. Also, I did not cause the drought.

                     I am offended

                     So I’m supposed to care about your delicate sensibilities? Alright, what about mine? Let that be a lesson to you. Can you perhaps appreciate the fact that things you say, insinuations you make, can be offensive – or are you so filled with righteousness that you think that nothing you say could possibly be anything other than the pure, unalloyed truth?

                     So you’re offended? Can you understand that you can be offensive?

                     You could simply say, “I think that the option you propose could lead to further atrocities because…” and a perfectly civil, reasonable conversation could follow. Instead you say – and these are your words:

                     You just prefer genocide

                     You can take them back any time you like.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 3:02 pm

                     So “actually happened” = “lies”? What the fuck planet are you on?

                     No, lies about me.

                     Well, you haven’t demonstrated that I’ve lied yet. And nice flipping around of the “subject” question, you little sohpist, you.

                     I don’t give a fuck. It wasn’t a fucking question, you tool

                     Fuck fuck fuckety fuck fuck… and tits.

                     Actually, swearing IS somewhat idiomatic of my socioeconomic area.

                     I am offended because comparing Labour having shearer as caucus leader with rape belittles them both and is fucking stupid.

                     It’s not a comparison, it’s an idiom. Look those words up in the OED.

                     lol

                     idiom, n. A form of expression, grammatical construction, phrase, etc., used in a distinctive way in a particular language, dialect, or language variety; spec. a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from the meanings of the individual words.

                     So they just randomly sprinkle their language with rape references in your neck of the woods, do they?

                     com’parison, v. 1. trans. To liken

                     Or were did you use idiom in the sense of:
                     idiom, n. […]
                     II. Non-linguistic senses.
                     4. A specific form, manifestation, nature, or property of something, now chiefly as fig. use of branch I.; (Theol.) a property of Christ as either human or divine. Cf. sense 5.

                     
                     can’t work a reply button

                     On my browser, the reply button does not appear this far down the thread. I didn’t write the software. Also, I did not cause the drought.

                     Scroll up to the first one above the comment you wish to reply to then. I’m in the same boat.

                     
                     I am offended

                     Then let that be a lesson to you. Can you perhaps appreciate the fact that things you say, insinuations you make, can be offensive – or are you so filled with righteousness that you think that nothing you say could possibly be anything other than the pure, unalloyed truth?

                     I’m prepared to be demonstrated wrong. E.g. you complain I said that you supported genocide, I say “the fuck I did”, so you provide a link to a comment where I said “Rhinocrates supports genocide”, that would be pretty clear that I was wrong to deny saying it. And given that I’m pretty sure you haven’t made a comment along the lines of “genocide is cool, there should be more of it”, for me to say that you supported genocide would be wrong.

                     But nothing has been that clear cut. You just equate “prepared to stand around and do nothing to stop it” with “support it”. And call me a liar and slanderer because of the inference you made, rather than make your position clear.

                     So you’re offended? Can you understand that you can be offensive?

                     You could simply say, “I think that the option you propose could lead to further atrocities because…” and a perfectly civil, reasonable conversation could follow. Instead you say – and these are your words:

                     You just prefer genocide
                     You can take them back any time you like.

                     You just prefer genocide over even thinking about paying people to stop it.
                     Seems to be a fair summary of your position in the thread, so no.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 3:21 pm

                     Well, you haven’t demonstrated that I’ve lied yet.

                     OK, let’s call them insinuations, but still there’s this:

                     You just prefer genocide

                     you can’t get past that, liar.

                     swearing IS somewhat idiomatic […] in your neck of the woods, do they?

                     You accuse me of double standards? If so, try not to make your own so obvious.

                     Scroll up to the first one above the comment you wish to reply to then. I’m in the same boat.
                     

                     I do that. Software is no excuse for you.

                     I say “the fuck I did”

                     You said this:

                     You just prefer genocide

                     You can withdraw that statement and apologise any time you like.

                     You just prefer genocide over even thinking about paying people to stop it.
                     Seems to be a fair summary of your position in the thread, so no.

                     “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

                     That is what misrepresentation means.

                     The fact is, I have thought about it and I have made it clear already. I said that enabling future genocides is a likely consequence of paying mercenaries. You are lying about me and misrepresenting me.

                     I am sick of your lies, so I will say it again: you are a liar.

                     I am offended

                     So, are you “offended”? Are your poor liddle feelings hurt, diddums?
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 3:40 pm

                     Come on McFlock, this is very easy. You like your “either-or” questions and unequivocal answers, so here’re mine:

                     Do I support genocide or do I not?

                     Just for fun, since I’ve never posted a comment on cancer, does that mean that I support cancer?

                     What are my opinions on dandruff?

                     Mannerism?

                     Baroque?

                     The Gothic Revival?

                     Hip-hop?

                     Tweed?

                     Does disagreement with you equal “evil”?

                     Answer please, otherwise you are clearly a kitten-eating evil overlord with dandruff.

                     Of course that’s all just suggestion, so I don’t need to justify it.

                     I think that one genocide is horrible. I think that more are worse. That’s it.

                     Since your’e such a bore, I’ll pre-empt your most likely answer:

                     DON’T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 4:02 pm

                     My, you are antsy. I’ll take your latest whining two comments in one.

                     
                     You just prefer genocide

                     you can’t get past that, liar.

                     It seems to be true.

                     swearing IS somewhat idiomatic […] in your neck of the woods, do they?

                     You accuse me of double standards? If so, try not to make your own so obvious.

                     Nope. I’m just pointing out you seem to have an irregular understanding of the word “idiom” – to go with “prefer = support”, I guess.

                     
                     Scroll up to the first one above the comment you wish to reply to then. I’m in the same boat.

                     I do that. Software is no excuse for you.

                     If you did that you wouldn’t be disjointing the threads.

                     I say “the fuck I did”

                     You said this:

                     You just prefer genocide

                     You can withdraw that statement and apologise any time you like.

                     I’d like to, but it seems to be true.

                     
                     You just prefer genocide over even thinking about paying people to stop it.
                     Seems to be a fair summary of your position in the thread, so no.

                     “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

                     That is what misrepresentation means.

                     Not if I don’t have a wife.

                     The fact is, I have thought about it and I have made it clear already. I said that enabling future genocides is a likely consequence of paying mercenaries. You are lying about me and misrepresenting me.

                     I am sick of your lies, so I will say it again: you are a liar.

                     Well, you’re an idiot. There’s no money in genocide. But for fear of a remote possible consequence, you will stand by and allow a certain genocide. Let me applaud your strong sense of ethical principle. clap. clap. clap.

                     
                     I am offended

                     So, are you “offended”? Are your poor liddle feelings hurt, diddums?

                     Sorry? Did you just reply to a comment of mine that you’d already removed from context and responded to? Are you drunk, stupid or both?

                     Rhinocrates …
                     26 March 2013 at 3:40 pm
                     Come on McFlock, this is very easy. You like your “either-or” questions and unequivocal answers, so here’re mine:

                     Do I support genocide or do I not?

                     Just for fun, since I’ve never posted a comment on cancer, does that mean that I support cancer?

                     Nope. But if, say, someone had written an article on chemotherapy, and you railed against all the side effects of chemo and put forward no treatment yourself. And then gone on to accuse the original commenter of being a neolib sociopath for even discussing chemotherapy, I’d have to say that although you don’t support cancer, you’re sure as shit not going to do anything to stop it.

                     Does disagreement with you equal “evil”?

                     No. But your lack of coherence and your general obsession is beginning to equal “dumb fuckwit”.

                     Answer please, otherwise you are clearly a kitten-eating evil overlord with dandruff.

                     Of course that’s all just suggestion, so I don’t need to justify it.

                     Since your’e such a bore, I’ll pre-empt your most likely answer:

                     DON’T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.

                     But you see, you haven’t spent the best part of a day trying to get me to take a position on any of those topics while I simply scream “lair! Prefer = Support! liar!”.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 4:07 pm

                     So just to recap the sum state of progress, rhino, we have achieved:

                     The fact is, I have thought about it and I have made it clear already. I said that enabling future genocides is a likely consequence of paying mercenaries.

                     Well, you’re an idiot. There’s no money in genocide. But for fear of a remote possible consequence, you will stand by and allow a certain genocide. Let me applaud your strong sense of ethical principle. clap. clap. clap.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 4:32 pm

                     Not if I don’t have a wife.

                     Partner then. You’re obviously evading. Clearly you beat and rape your partner because you specifically avoid the term “wife”.

                     And guess what? I don’t support genocide. Say it clearly: Do I support genocide or do I not? The answer is very easy. Yes or no.

                     You can end this with one word, and that word is “No”.

                     Why can’t you answer that question? That suggests to me that you want to insinuate that I do, but you’re too much of a coward to say it again.

                     thinks “prefers” means “supports”

                     That’s the implication.

                     I am offended

                     Oh you poor baby. It really doesn’t occur to you that you might be offensive? What if I said that I was offended? That wouldn’t matter because your precious feelings matter more than anyone’s.

                     Why should I care about your precious feelings when you don’t care about anyone else’s?

                     So, like my response to the wifebeater question (point out how it differs from reality), are you going for option 3 as “hiring mercenaries to prevent one genocide will enable other genocides”?

                     Gibberish.

                     You’re insinuating. If you want clarity, make your accusations clear, or withdraw them.

                     Say I don’t support it or not. It’s very easy and you can cut and paste this:

                     I, McFlock am a lying bastard and I made unfair and dishonest accusations and insinuations. I was wrong. In fact I’m a fucking moron with the emotional development of a toddler and I’ll use any lie and dissimulation to cling to my original position.

                     Easy, isn’t it?

                     Easy to do, now go ahead.

                     Otherwise, to repeat, you can end this with one word, and that word is “No”. Go ahead. Otherwise, you’re saying “yes”.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 4:57 pm

                     Not if I don’t have a wife.

                     Partner then. You’re obviously evading. Clearly you beat and rape your partner because you specifically avoid the term “wife”.

                     as an aside, why are you fishing to see if I’m single?

                     And guess what? I don’t support genocide. Say it clearly: Do I support genocide or do I not? The answer is very easy. Yes or no.

                     You can end this with one word, and that word is “No”.

                     True. I never said you did, apparently not even in a drunken stupor that I don’t recall. So “no”.
                     
                     Now, how about that three-faction model of caucus, eh? What likelihood does it suggest that shearer will be replaced before election 2014, barring some major scandal?
                     

                     Why can’t you answer that question? That suggests to me that you want to insinuate that I do, but you’re too much of a coward to say it again.

                     “again”? Never said it the first time.

                     
                     thinks “prefers” means “supports”

                     That’s the implication.

                     Nope. It’s the inference you made, in complete defiance of the meaning of either word, and an inference I even said was incorrect and too extreme at the time, you tool.

                     I am offended

                     Oh you poor baby. It really doesn’t occur to you that you might be offensive? What if I said that I was offended? That wouldn’t matter because your precious feelings matter more than anyone’s.

                     Sorry, did you just reply to the same out of context quote a THIRD time as if it was a new comment?
                     Do you have a medical condition to explain your memory issues?

                     Why should I care about your precious feelings when you don’t care about anyone else’s?
                     
                     So, like my response to the wifebeater question (point out how it differs from reality), are you going for option 3 as “hiring mercenaries to prevent one genocide will enable other genocides”?

                     Gibberish.

                     Only to the completely stupid.

                     You’re insinuating. If you want clarity, make your accusations clear, or withdraw them.

                     Say I don’t support it or not.

                     I did at the fucking time you paranoid delusional obsessive moron.

                     You’d just rather watch a genocide unfold that pay someone to stop it.
                     Apparently, you do so on the off chance that mercenaries might suddenly find money and no risk in genocide in the future (because regional volunteers can only kill 7,000 a week, but it would take mercenaries to make it baaaaad).

                     It’s very easy and you can cut and paste this:

                     I, McFlock am a lying bastard and I made unfair and dishonest accusations and insinuations. I was wrong. In fact I’m a fucking moron with the emotional development of a toddler and I’ll use any lie and dissimulation to cling to my original position.

                     Easy, isn’t it?

                     Easy to do, now go ahead.

                     But if I wrote that I would be telling a lie, because that is [rephrase]an incorrect statement.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 5:53 pm

                     really? Because you get quite impatient if I don’t give you attention immediately.
                     

                     Fine, go ahead with the supposedly subtle homophobic slurs if you like.

                     well and truly derailed.

                     Yes, funny why you’re so determined to keep it off the rails. You can win by stopping, you know because you’ll have proven that I’m the one who derailed it.

                     viable and indeed ONLY option

                     Oh, the ONLY option. Bold? Italic? Underlined? Bold, underlined and italic? Twenty-four point perhaps?

                     Was it the only option? And again, that’s Monday. What happens on Wednesday?

                     have another crack at being a moron

                     You’re poopy-pants and you’re mummie’s fat!

                     And should be limited by laws.

                     Ah, “should.”

                     Ah yes, let’s think about that… is the world governed by “should”?

                     No.

                     Sorry.

                     not all of them delight in mass murder

                     You cannot believe how reassuring that is. Really… ‘cos I don’t.

                     Tell that to the survivors of the folk you watched die on Sunday. Especially as Monday and tuesday

                     Wednesday, Thursday, Friday… and a profit every day!

                     Anyway, I’ve got to go now, probably won’t be back online until tomorrow, so don’t fret in my absence.

                     Oh yes that one “I’ve got to go now” – the exit with a flounce.
                   • felix …

                     26 March 2013 at 6:09 pm

                     toasting in epic bread
                   • McFlock …

                     27 March 2013 at 12:57 pm

                     really? Because you get quite impatient if I don’t give you attention immediately.

                     Fine, go ahead with the supposedly subtle homophobic slurs if you like.
                     

                     Not homophobic at all. Just pointing out that you seem to get antsy if I, personally, as an individual you have fixated upon, don’t respond to your comments within 20 minutes.

                     
                     well and truly derailed.

                     Yes, funny why you’re so determined to keep it off the rails. You can win by stopping, you know because you’ll have proven that I’m the one who derailed it.

                     See, but the trouble is that you’ll just derail another comment later on by resurrecting a months old thread because of your outrage at an inference you made, simply because you think “prefer” means “support”(clue: if I prefer a punch in the guts over getting hit in the face, it doesn’t mean I support whoever punches me in the guts).

                     Basically, I’m happy to resolve this right now, but not by lying. I never said you supported genocide. You are just prepared to stand around and do nothing for fear of purely hypothetical consequences. Where is the profit in genocide?

                     
                     viable and indeed ONLY option

                     Oh, the ONLY option. Bold? Italic? Underlined? Bold, underlined and italic? Twenty-four point perhaps?

                     Was it the only option? And again, that’s Monday. What happens on Wednesday?

                     Let’s look at the actual situation, shall we?
                     The UN and wider international response to the Rwandan genocide as it began and continued was not short of resolutions, recommendations, reports and condemnations.

                     It was short of people with guns who could stop it. Even aircraft to jam the radio station coordinating the atrocities would have saved countless lives.

                     The UN can’t give a moral backbone to casualty-averse nations who have Mogadishu fresh in their minds.
                     The UN can, however, change the internal UN policy against the UN hiring mercenaries for specific activities.

                     If you have a better idea, feel free to come up with it, because at the moment we’re still between “mercenaries” and “watch and do nothing”.

                     As it is, the OAU in particular seems to be getting more consistently active and capable, so that window of culpable inactivity is now closing and the point is moot. However, it was still a reasonable point to ponder under the circumstances at the time, and would probably have saved tens of thousands of lives.

                     
                     have another crack at being a moron

                     You’re poopy-pants and you’re mummie’s fat!

                     Nah, see, what you did there was actually vaguely relevant to the preceeding statement. Which places it in the upper percentiles of your contribution.
                     Try again.

                     
                     And should be limited by laws.

                     Ah, “should.”

                     Ah yes, let’s think about that… is the world governed by “should”?

                     No.

                     Sorry.

                     Well, you’re the one saying the UN should stand by and do nothing.

                     
                     Anyway, I’ve got to go now, probably won’t be back online until tomorrow, so don’t fret in my absence.

                     Oh yes that one “I’ve got to go now” – the exit with a flounce.

                     Rhino, while contact with me might be the highlight of your day, for me contact with you is prioritised somewhere around clipping my toenails. Is it really so difficult for you to belive that I might have more interesting things to do than sitting at my keyboard 24/7 waiting for your next failure with the english language, ready to answer within moments?
                 • felix …

                   25 March 2013 at 7:20 pm

                   And is that the Shearer who gets shot down by the same swaggering boor every question time? And rendered speechless by just about everyone who has ever put a microphone in front of him?

                   Serious question: What is it about Labour under Shearer that suggests to you that they can poll anywhere near 40% ?
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 7:44 pm

                     Three points:
                     1) Shearer is improving. Slowly.

                     2) I’m not entirely sure they will reach 40%. But that’s where I think they need to be to be reasonably comfortable at the start of the campaign. The left could still win from lab35%, but if I were lab I’d want some breathing room. I’d also want to avoid the 1:1 debates because that’s not the candidate strength, but that’s getting into tactics.

                     3) Although 40% might be a tall order, I don’t think they’ll do badly enough in the polls for caucus to do a leadership challenge before 2014, and after that then yes, the “cost of change too late in the game” becomes a factor. Not “too late to change”, more “too late to change without good reason”. Going by the three-camp analysis, the careerists will still have a job so they won’t be partial to a change until their seats become endangered by the polls [giggle]. That means a drop from the current low level – unlikely. No leadership change without them, so any change is doubtful.
                   • Alanz …

                     25 March 2013 at 7:49 pm

                     Yes, we would love to have a Leaders Debate … without a Labour leader under Shearer. Well done. Great tactic.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 7:53 pm

                     Well, um, that’s quite a precise figure… too precise maybe… things can change… I mean, as we know… um… it could go up. I’m not ruling that out… just recently, I said that Labour… am I leader of the Labour Party? I mean… I said that absolutely it’s a place for homophobes… and you know, I mean, um, they might take us over the … I mean I won’t rule that out, or not… I mean forty percent is a number and I won’t rule out forty percent… I mean I painted forty percent of my roof… maybe a hundred percent… um… I forget….

                     Or, more simply: give him time!

                     No really, come on, tell me with a straight face that Mumblefuck is going to be just fucking brilliant on the campaign. Tell me that he’ll make Oscar Wilde look like…. well Mumblefuck.

                     Furthermore, tell me, with a straight face again, that Mumblefuck actually has left wing ideals that he intends to implement and will be able to.

                     Oh right, the Greens are going to provide that? Right, ‘cos Mumblefuck wants to appeal to the middle, so he’ll let them propose things, but will he actually let them get their legislation through the third reading?

                     Considering his record for backstabbing already, can you support that?

                     “I mean, yes, um, I support… in principle… um, but…can’t support it, ah, whatever it is… in its current form…” is far more plausible.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 7:57 pm

                     alanz: I reckon a parliamentary leaders’ debate would be what to root for. Reckoned it last time, too.

                     Rhino, get a life.
                     Nobody’s saying shearer’s outstanding. What I’m saying is that he’s not bad enough to be kicked by caucus, and he might not be so bad that the parliamentary left lose in 2014, anyway. In fact I’m cautiously optimistic.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 8:04 pm

                     In fact I’m cautiously optimistic.

                     About what?

                     If Mumblefuck were to win, what exactly are you “cautiously optimistic” about that he would actually do?

                     Nobody’s saying shearer’s outstanding.

                     That’s an endorsement? Jesus Aitch Tap-Dancing Christ in a Sidecar. Get real Key’s a bastard, he’s swine, he’s a… well, I’m not a psychiatrist… but he’s a psychopath. He’s also popular.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 8:32 pm

                     What am I confident he’d do if he wins? Implement some left policy to keep greens and mana happy.

                     Oh, and I’m endorsing noone. Just saying that shearer’s probably here until the election.

                     If I had to endorse someone, I’d probably just say “vote alliance”
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 8:37 pm

                     What am I confident he’d do if he wins? Implement some left policy to keep greens and mana happy.
                     

                     You mean token gestures? “To keep them happy” Because they’re nutters who have to be tolerated for pragmatism’s sake. Right, OK. Cop out.

                     Oh, and I’m endorsing noone. Just saying that shearer’s probably here until the election.
                     

                     You’re probably right. “If rape is inevitable…”

                     Oh lovely, just lovely.

                     If I had to endorse someone, I’d probably just say “vote alliance”

                     Dante reserved a special circle in Hell for the cowards.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 8:45 pm

                     Oh I’m sorry, do you think any other labour party leader would do, given the caucus eddie outlines?

                     And I dare you to finish that comment and make the analogy explicit. I double-dare you.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 8:49 pm

                     Oh, you dare me, do you? Is this all about honour is it? How about saying that I support genocide or some other lie? I’ll deal with you on equal terms when you actually debate honestly instead of telling lies.

                     You can withdraw that accusation and apologise any time you like.
                   • felix …

                     25 March 2013 at 8:53 pm

                     “Nobody’s saying shearer’s outstanding.”

                     Yes, that’s kinda the problem. He’s not outstanding and nobody believes he is.

                     Hell, he’s barely mediocre. You like to point out that he’s improving, and fair enough – but look at the base he’s coming from. If he improved his performances 1000% they’d still be average (and they’d still be performances.)

                     John Key might be a cunt but he’s also very good at it. And he’s going to fuck Shearer up in the debates and everyone knows it, especially the tv stations which is precisely why they’ll insist on a head-to-head, and if Shearer refuses then everyone will say he’s afraid to debate Key and they’ll be right.

                     “ABC” eh? It’s becoming apparent that they weren’t kidding about the “Anyone.”
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:03 pm

                     Come on McFlock, I “double dare” you. Otherwise, you are a liar, and I have nothing to prove to a liar.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:10 pm

                     Impatient rhino?
                     You absolute tool. You use a rape analogy talking about shearer as labour party leader, and then complain about misrepresentation?

                     Tell me, did dante have a level in hell for stupid hypocrites?

                     Eddie’s post describes the situation as eddie sees it. I extrapolated from that. You want wishful thinking? Ok, I’d love it if the caucus of the first labour government were reanimated and made a permanent zombie government. It would be left wing AND cool. But in the real world shearers still leader and is unlikely to be rolled prior to the election. And that’s not a national tragedy.

                     But more to the point, what do you think any other labour leader would really do given the caucus eddie outlined?
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:13 pm

                     Answer the question, McFlock, you lying scum. You slandered me. Do I support genocide or not? If you claim I do, what proof do you have?

                     Again, You can withdraw that accusation and apologise any time you like.

                     Otherwise, a liar like you deserves no answer.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:16 pm

                     Felix, I agree the type of distinction, just not the extent. And actually a labour party in the mid30s gives real credence to the idea other parties should get facetime. Partners, not leader/followers.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:23 pm

                     Rhino, try any of the last dozen times I answered it, you dick.
                     Try googling “prepared to do nothing to stop it”, it might help. “Stand around and watch” and “seven thousand dead a week” might also be of assistance.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:32 pm

                     Rhino, try any of the last dozen times I answered it, you dick.
                     Try googling “prepared to do nothing to stop it”, it might help. “Stand around and watch” and “seven thousand dead a week” might also be of assistance.

                     No McFlock, that’s not good enough. The fact is that you said that I supported it. Your fantasises, waffles and suppositions are meaningless. You are a liar, a coward and a hypocrite.

                     Stop your weasel words and say once and for all that I did not actually say that I supported genocide and that you were a prick (at least) for suggesting that I do.

                     Do it, unequivocally, without qualification or excuse or more of your bloody weasel words.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:38 pm

                     Which actual comment of mine does your malfunction come from, mr rape analogy?
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:54 pm

                     Show me where I sad you supported Genocide, and I’ll show you why.
                     And quote marks make it a simile, not a metaphor. Still a rape analogy, “dickhead”.
                   • Colonial Weka …

                     25 March 2013 at 9:55 pm

                     I’m sure there might be some salient points in this conversation somewhere, but it’s starting to look like a couple of bitchy kids with poor impulse control.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 10:00 pm

                     Yeah, fair enough cw. This is going nowhere.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 10:19 pm

                     Then perhaps McFlock you’d like to withdraw the accusation then? Produce the evidence or otherwise…

                     It’s very easy. Do I support genocide? Yes or no? It’s easy to say. One word, three letters or two.

                     Why is this so hard for you?

                     I know it’s because you can’t admit that you are a liar.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 10:26 pm

                     Show me the comment and I’ll decide if I was wrong. No further comment without the link.

                     Hell, I’m only commenting now because you’re an obsessive dickhead. God must love perseverance, eh.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 10:42 pm

                     This:

                     http://thestandard.org.nz/105076/#comment-570893

                     I’ll decide if I was wrong

                     Oh really? That’s up to you, is it?

                     In answer to your question, no.
                     You just prefer genocide over even thinking about paying people to stop it.

                     It’s very easy to apologise if you had any honesty at all, liar.

                     Again, where do I say that I support genocide?
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 11:02 pm

                     Just a point, McFlock, the Internet does not forget, you lying prick.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 11:21 pm

                     Fuck I forgot that debate was so tedious.
                     I did see this this.
                     In fact, from the link you provided it seems you might be the liar. But I suspect deluded more than liar.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 11:22 pm

                     So nothing actually substantial McFlock? Are you trying to prove that Mathew Wormtongue supports you?
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 11:30 pm

                     Show where I said you support genocide.
                     Oh, it seems I didn’t.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 11:32 pm

                     No, McFlock, you did. You said I prefer it.

                     Again, answer the question. Where do I say that I prefer genocide?

                     If I don’t, then say so. Withdraw the claim or the insinuation and apologise, liar.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 March 2013 at 11:37 pm

                     Lol
                     But I never said it, you obsessive tool.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     25 March 2013 at 11:51 pm

                     You just prefer genocide

                     Your words are there, liar.

                     Yes, I’m obsessive. I believe in the truth. You seem to think that a concern for the truth is crazy. Well, I guess that suggests a lot…
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     25 March 2013 at 11:55 pm

                     McFlock always says he has no interest in the Labour leadership (even says its not really that important who is in charge) but consistently and insistently declares Shearer to always be ‘just good enough’.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 12:07 am

                     just good enough

                     Supported by increasingly desperate calculations and wishful thinking presented as certainties, or at least likelihoods that are as good as certainties… or something. Possibilities that could be certainties, or something. I’m waiting for the “Winston, something, blah, likely, maybe, well, if then will…”

                     Won’t that be wonderful? Being “pragmatic” and “centrist” and hoping on a coalition partner that includes the likes of Richard Prosser. Hey, that’s “realistic”.

                     Groovy.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 12:10 am

                     Lol
                     Support is not the same as prefer. Support is “yay, genocide”. Prefer is “mercenaries to stop a genocide? No, better not. Guess the genocide has to go ahead, cos we can’t stop it any other way”.

                     You seemed to be against using mercenaries to stop a genocide, yet produced no alternative prevention strategy. Which means the genocide would occur, rwanda rerun.

                     But this is all getting way derailed, and cv’s flying leap was just random.
                     Nightnight, rhino. No doubt you’ll be just as nutty tomorrow.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 12:23 am

                     You seemed to be against using mercenaries to stop a genocide, yet produced no alternative prevention strategy. Which means the genocide would occur, rwanda rerun.

                     “Seemed”

                     That is almost honest. You admit that you are making suppositions and putting words in other peoples’ mouths, finally. Still, you remain a liar.

                     Perhaps in future you might honestly represent opposing viewpoints, McFlock?

                     “Nutty” I may be, but a liar I am not.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 8:49 am

                     Well, apart from the fact that it seems I never actually said you support genocide, contrary to your claim.

                     But please feel free to correct my scurrilous misapprehension:
                     All other options exhausted, would you consider using mercenaries to prevent a genocide, or would you prefer to let the genocide unfold as it may?
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 8:55 am

                     Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no – no hedging allowed.

                     There is no gain to be had in debating with someone so fundamentally dishonest who will so willingly misrepresents their opponent and asks leading questions.

                     Thanks for showing how disingenuous you are so clearly.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 9:39 am

                     Funnily enough, this is a debate, not a press stunt or yes/no only question. It’s also the real life question shearer was discussing, based on real world situations he was faced with. If the alternatives seem invidious, it’s because sometimes reality is a bitch.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 9:45 am

                     not a press stunt or yes/no only question

                     You really have no appreciation for irony, do you?

                     That is exactly how you want to constrain it in order to denigrate me by insinuation.

                     I see that you’re avoiding my question, so I guess that you’re a wife-beater then.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 11:11 am

                     I’m not married. Never have been.

                     Keep dodging. I mean, it’s great you want to protest so much, scream “liar” incessantly, but frankly it smacks of protesting too much. Faced with the same situation shearer was dealing with, you’d rather pretend it was a contrived cliché rather than sit down and consider options for preventing it happening again.

                     It seems you really would prefer to let a genocide happen rather than even consider hiring mercenaries to stop it.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 12:03 pm

                     oh, you replied to the wrong comment again.

                     Anyway:
                     No, I demanded a yes or no answer, so that won’t do. That’s evasion, so if you don’t have a “wife” exactly, you must be beating your partner.

                     Here’s the difference: you posited a hypothetical situation that didn’t conform to reality, expecting a yes or no answer. I posited a question based on an actual problem that faced the UN in the 1990s, and still has not adequately been resolved.

                     I pointed out that your question bore no relation to reality. You are free to do the same about the question I posed you, rather than squirming around and trying to change the rules you set.

                     Be honest. You can apologise and withdraw your implied slander any time you like
                     Actually, having revisited the discussion I must say that I still sincerely and thoroughly believe that you would prefer to allow a genocide to occur rather than consider using mercenaries to stop it. Whether this is due to a sincere and principled moral belief, or simply because you are so petty that you’d let hundreds of thousands die just so you could call shearer “neoliberal”, that bit I’m not so sure on yet.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 12:29 pm

                     oh, you replied to the wrong comment again.

                     Oh, so you want to be selective. Evading the wife-beating question again I see.

                     Here’s the difference

                     No here’s the essential fact: leading questions are dishonest and you, in asking them, are dishonest.

                     I still sincerely and thoroughly believe

                     You can sincerely and thoroughly believe that you are Napoleon Bonaparte, but you have to prove that.

                     or simply because you are so petty

                     And again, a leading question.

                     Either you eat kittens or you are Satan.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 12:50 pm

                     oh, you replied to the wrong comment again.

                     Oh, so you want to be selective. Evading the wife-beating question again I see.

                     Nope. Just pointing out that whacking any random “reply” button defeats the purpose of having such a button at all.

                     
                     Here’s the difference

                     No here’s the essential fact: leading questions are dishonest and you, in asking them, are dishonest.

                     Nope. That was the situation. Those were the alternatives as they appeared at the time. You can do what I did, and point out how the question does not adequately describe reality. But then you’d have to come up with an alternative course of action and make a moral judgement yourself, rather than just screaming that you’ve been misrepresented.

                     I still sincerely and thoroughly believe

                     You can sincerely and thoroughly believe that you are Napoleon Bonaparte, but you have to prove that.

                     No I don’t. I believe it, and then and now stated why: your refusal to state a position or provide any realistic third alternative. You scream that you’ve been misrepresented, but refuse to say how you’ve been misrepresented. That complaint, frankly, goes in the round filing cabinet as “insufficient information to follow up”.

                     
                     or simply because you are so petty

                     And again, a leading question. Can you even lie straight in bed?

                     It wasn’t even a question, let alone a leading question. Note the lack of a question mark. It was a list of the most likely reasons that you would never under any circumstances hire mercenaries (could you ever conceive of a situation that you might?), even to prevent a genocide. Although now I need to add “the moral certainty that is the hallmark of the intensely stupid” to that list.

                     So just to tally up your score so far:
                     you claimed I said you supported genocide, when apparently I didn’t;
                     you claimed I asked a leading question, when it wasn’t even a question;
                     you compared the reasons why Shearer is unlikely to be rolled as leader of the labour party before election 2014 with rape;
                     you still claim to have been egregiously misrepresented, but refuse to state what your true position is;
                     and apparently I’m the bad guy.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 1:14 pm

                     point out how the question does not adequately describe reality.

                     Indeed. I’m glad that you admit that. Do not claim therefore that I support some imaginary position simply because I don’t support yours.

                     But then you’d have to come up with an alternative course of action and make a moral judgement yourself […] but refuse to state what your true position is

                     I have. It’s caution. The thing that is worse than one genocide is enabling future genocides. Plural.

                     refuse to say how

                     Astonishing. You’ve said so yourself, repeatedly.

                     Note the lack of a question mark.

                     Do you think it comes down to punctuation. Ooh, let’s see, perhaps I can reduce it to an either-or: either you’re illiterate or you’re deliberately quibbling to avoid a point.

                     you compared the reasons why Shearer is unlikely to be rolled as leader of the labour party before election 2014 with rape

                     You really just don’t get rhetoric, do you? I used a common idiom. Trying to take it literally and rolling about and playing the victim is just childish.

                     apparently I didn’t

                     “apparently”? Weasel.

                     Can you possibly appreciate the fact that caution and scepticism does not indicate a “preference” for genocide? Do you know that questions can be implicit? Do you know that insinuations needn’t be explicit – indeed, it’s their indirectness that makes them insinuations.

                     I’ll say this outright: you are dishonest and you slander by insinuation.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 1:37 pm

                     point out how the question does not adequately describe reality.

                     Indeed. I’m glad that you admit that. Do not claim therefore that I support some imaginary position simply because I don’t support yours.

                     Ha – nice sophistry from someone who accuses others of it.
                     See, the circumstance of my question actually happened. Yours was imaginary.

                     
                     But then you’d have to come up with an alternative course of action and make a moral judgement yourself […] but refuse to state what your true position is

                     I have. It’s caution. The thing that is worse than one genocide is enabling future genocides. Plural.

                     Actually, letting one genocide happen does enable others. “Who today speaks of the Armenians?”.
                     But are you arguing that hiring mercenaries to prevent one genocide will enable other genocides? Just to be explicit about it.

                     
                     refuse to say how

                     Astonishing. You’ve said so yourself, repeatedly.

                     It’s unclear whether you would consider hiring mercenaries if the situation were dire enough, or whether you would refuse that option and present no other, or whether you have some other option that would have resulted in Rwanda not becoming a bloodbath if only the Un had thought of it at the time.

                     Note the lack of a question mark.

                     Do you think it comes down to punctuation. Ooh, let’s see, perhaps I can reduce it to an either-or: either you’re illiterate or you’re deliberately quibbling to avoid a point.

                     Punctuation is generally regarded as a big fucking clue. And your either-or missed option three, the one I’d actually described where I was merely listing what I believed to be the most likely explanations for your idiocy, rather than making an interrogative statement designed to elicit information.

                     
                     you compared the reasons why Shearer is unlikely to be rolled as leader of the labour party before election 2014 with rape
                     
                     You really just don’t get rhetoric, do you? I used a common idiom. Trying to take it literally and rolling about and playing the victim is just childish.

                     So if it wasn’t literal, it was figurative? Like an analogy?

                     
                     apparently I didn’t

                     “apparently”? Weasel.

                     Nope.
                     There is always the slim possibility that what you said somehow magically intersects with reality – it was several months ago, and I have been known to drunk-comment. But the link you provided shows me saying that you prefer letting a genocide occur to hiring mercenaries that would stop it. Not me saying that you support genocide. So apparently, yes “apparently”, you’re full of shit. I’ll retract that “full of shit” if you actually show me the comment you’re derailing about.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 1:50 pm

                     See, the circumstance of my question actually happened.

                     I don’t doubt that, and I know several people who were there. However, that still does not give you license to tell lies.

                     But are you arguing that hiring mercenaries to prevent one genocide will enable other genocides? Just to be explicit about it.

                     Already have been.

                     Punctuation is generally regarded as a big fucking clue

                     But not the only one.

                     And your either-or missed option three… So if it wasn’t literal, it was figurative? Like an analogy?

                     Oh the irony. So let me get this straight – you are offended that your actual position isn’t one that was defined in my deliberately simplistic (and satirical) characterisation? Golly! Are you finally starting to understand? Perhaps I don’t fit your characterisation. Have you considered that?

                     actually show me the comment

                     I already have and you’ve even repeated it. Like my wife-beating example (a commonly used example in journalism schools), you deliberately constrain the terms to “prove” your prejudice. You are doing it deliberately.
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 2:12 pm

                     See, the circumstance of my question actually happened.

                     I don’t doubt that, and I know several people who were there. However, that still does not give you license to tell lies.

                     So “actually happened” = “lies”? What the fuck planet are you on?

                     But are you arguing that hiring mercenaries to prevent one genocide will enable other genocides? Just to be explicit about it.

                     Already have been.

                     Humour me. I would hate to be accused of misrepresentation. Is “hiring mercenaries to prevent one genocide will enable other genocides” a fair summary of your position?

                     Punctuation is generally regarded as a big fucking clue

                     But not the only one.

                     I would ask you what the clues were that you led you to think that I was asking you a question, but really, I don’t give a fuck. It wasn’t a fucking question, you tool.

                     
                     And your either-or missed option three… So if it wasn’t literal, it was figurative? Like an analogy?

                     Oh the irony. So let me get this straight – you are offended that your actual position isn’t one that was defined in my deliberately simplistic (and satirical) characterisation. Golly! Are you finally starting to understand? Perhaps I don’t fit your characterisation. Have you considered that?

                     You mean like the bit where I called you “mr rape analogy”?
                     Perhaps I understand you to be an idiot who doesn’t realise that an analogy is still ” A figure of speech involving a comparison; a simile, a metaphor”, according to the OED.
                     I am offended because comparing Labour having shearer as caucus leader with rape belittles them both and is fucking stupid.

                     
                     actually show me the comment

                     I already have and you’ve even repeated it. Like my wife-beating example (a commonly used example in journalism schools), you deliberately constrain the terms to “prove” your prejudice.

                     So, like my response to the wifebeater question (point out how it differs from reality), are you going for option 3 as “hiring mercenaries to prevent one genocide will enable other genocides”?

                     You are doing it deliberately.

                     No, I’m trying to follow an idiot who is deliberately obscure, can’t work a reply button, thinks “prefers” means “supports” and quite possibly has the reputed memory of a goldfish.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 5:15 pm

                     as an aside, why are you fishing to see if I’m single?

                     Don’t flatter yourself. You really aren’t very interesting. I’m sorry to tell you that.

                     True. I never said you did, apparently not even in a drunken stupor that I don’t recall. So “no”.

                     Fine, that’s it then. I’ll accept that as “I am a dissimulating arsehole”

                     Now, how about that three-faction model of caucus, eh? What likelihood does it suggest that shearer will be replaced before election 2014, barring some major scandal?
                     

                     Diversion. Irrelevant.

                     “again”? Never said it the first time.

                     Ahem: “You just prefer genocide”. Own your mistakes – i.e., own your lies.

                     Sorry, did you just reply to the same out of context quote

                     If you want to keep repeating your lies, go ahead. Don’t be upset if I point them out.

                     You’d just rather watch a genocide unfold that pay someone to stop it.

                     Right, that’s the essence of your slander. In your world, everything is a sliding scale. Well, your world is one in which slippery slopes are inevitable and you somehow imagine that the brakes can be magically applied somewhere halfway down that slippery slope.

                     I’d rather not watch a corporation profit from the next genocide. Obviously you support that, right? Do you really think that mercenaries are at heart humanitarians? Maybe the are… just like vegetarians care about vegetables.

                     I’m sure your so very flexible conscience will be happy with this. Meanwhile, the people who die on Monday can console themselves with the thought that it could have been worse on Tuesday and what happens on Wednesday is not their problem.

                     No, I don’t think that you delight in mass murder as you suggest I do. I think that you’re naive.

                     But if I wrote that I would be telling a lie

                     Well, what’s another lie? Shouldn’t you be consistent?

                     Now tell me about your delicate feelings. Are you offended?
                   • McFlock …

                     26 March 2013 at 5:35 pm

                     as an aside, why are you fishing to see if I’m single?

                     Don’t flatter yourself. You really aren’t very interesting. I’m sorry to tell you that.

                     really? Because you get quite impatient if I don’t give you attention immediately.

                     
                     True. I never said you did, apparently not even in a drunken stupor that I don’t recall. So “no”.
                     
                     Fine, that’s it then. I’ll accept that as “I am a dissimulating arsehole”

                     Accept it as whatever you want. i never said “support” in the first place.

                     Now, how about that three-faction model of caucus, eh? What likelihood does it suggest that shearer will be replaced before election 2014, barring some major scandal?
                     
                     Diversion. Irrelevant.

                     Except it’s the topic of the post we’ve well and truly derailed. This is one massive “irrelevant”.

                     
                     “again”? Never said it the first time.
                     
                     Ahem: “You just prefer genocide”. Own your mistakes – i.e., own your lies.

                     I would, if I’d said you supported genocide. But I didn’t. I just said you wouldn’t look at pretty much the most viable and indeed ONLY option that might have halted one or two massive atrocities in the 90s.

                     
                     Sorry, did you just reply to the same out of context quote
                     
                     If you want to keep repeating your lies, go ahead. Don’t be upset if I point them out.

                     not upset. Just intrigued that you choose to delete your previous responses su you can have another crack at being a moron.

                     
                     You’d just rather watch a genocide unfold that pay someone to stop it.
                     
                     Right, that’s the essence of your slander. In your world, everything is a sliding scale. Well, your world is one in which slippery slopes are inevitable and you somehow imagine that the brakes can be magically applied somewhere halfway down that slippery slope.

                     I’d rather not watch a corporation profit from the next genocide. Obviously you support that, right? Do you really think that mercenaries are at heart humanitarians? Maybe the are… just like vegetarians care about vegetables.

                     Nope. But they’re motivated by money. And should be limited by laws. And not all of them delight in mass murder, either.

                     I’m sure your so very flexible conscience will be happy with this. Meanwhile, the people who die on Monday can console themselves with the thought that it could have been worse on Tuesday.

                     Tell that to the survivors of the folk you watched die on Sunday. Especially as Monday and tuesday might still turn to shit for them.

                     Sometimes all we can do is try to save the “now” in front of us, and work on “tomorrow’s maybes” tomorrow.

                     No, I don’t think that you delight in mass murder as you suggest I do. I think that you’re naive.

                     Oh, I never said or even suggested you “delight” in mass murder, by the way. That’s another figment of your imagination.

                     
                     But if I wrote that I would be telling a lie
                     
                     Well, shouldn’t you be consistent?

                     Pretty much have been. But at least the discussion has inched forwards this time.

                     Now tell me about your delicate feelings. Are you offended?

                     Stop trying to chat me up with your dirty talk.

                     Anyway, I’ve got to go now, probably won’t be back online until tomorrow, so don’t fret in my absence.
                   • Rhinocrates …

                     26 March 2013 at 6:17 pm

                     really? Because you get quite impatient if I don’t give you attention immediately […] don’t fret in my absence.

                     It’s revealing that you suggest that I might be gay as if that were important. That certainly says a lot about you.
                   • swordfish …

                     27 March 2013 at 2:11 am

                     Christ, just like 2011: Labour sleepwalking to yet another defeat.
                   • McFlock …

                     27 March 2013 at 1:01 pm

                     really? Because you get quite impatient if I don’t give you attention immediately […] don’t fret in my absence.
                     
                     It’s revealing that you suggest that I might be gay as if that were important. That certainly says a lot about you.

                     What’s revealing is that the comment dealing with your personal obsession with me struck so close to the bone that you had to reply to it twice. Basically, you either want to date me, or if a tory ever outs my real life identity there’s a fair chance I’ll find a pet rabbit boiling on my stove.
               • just saying …

                 25 March 2013 at 8:04 pm

                 Fifty million lives CV. By his own hands.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   25 March 2013 at 8:45 pm

                   Ah yes, that was it. I vaguely know the person who helped him formulate that cheesy line as well.
                 • Rhinocrates …

                   26 March 2013 at 5:25 pm

                   Amazing. Joseph Stalin by some estimates, killed that many. Imagine that David Shearer countered that! He should be Pope!
               • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …

                 26 March 2013 at 4:07 pm

                 “Key went overseas, made $50 million, and brought it back to NZ; Shearer went overseas and left his millions in a Chase Manhattan account”

                 Now there’s an election tagline for you.
                 • Rhinocrates …

                   26 March 2013 at 5:28 pm

                   They’ll use it. Sure, “morally” Mumblefuck’s in the right… perhaps… but meanwhile, he ensures that Goff, King, Mallard, Hipkins et al will all have the best deck chairs at the bottom of the Atlantic.
       • prism 7.3.1.2

         26 March 2013 at 10:21 am

         Olwyn and CV
         Good analysis I think.
   • Rhinocrates 7.4

     25 March 2013 at 4:15 pm

     seriously bad polling

     Hmmm, at my most cynical, could it be that relegating the most “uncomfortable” folks to the lower end of the ranking is a strategy to eliminate them if the magical forces of historical inevitability do not decree that the next election is LINO’s (Labour In Name Only) next term? It’s something that may backfire if they win on electorate votes.
8. Rhinocrates 8

   25 March 2013 at 3:55 pm

   I’m wondering about this myself. How much is speculation? Personally, I can see a substantial overlap between the “careerist” and the “right”, who would all probably call themselves “centrist” and “pragmatic” or “realist”, even if there is a great deal of euphemy and delusion in such self-labelling.

   What evidence is there in their voting records?

   One other thing. Its about Policy not Personality.

   Ah well, should be indeed… I think that Helen Clark’s promotion of Michael Cullen versus Mumblefuck’s demotion of David Cunliffe tells us all we need to know about that.

   Actually, I think that Mumblefuck’s UN experience is not a boon, but a liability, as Key’s is in being a bankster. He’s used to being the pointy-haired boss in a bureaucracy and has no understanding that political parties always have factions because they are supposed to be representative. Factions are inevitable and maybe even a good thing. The fact that he can’t accommodate them is a more disturbing sign of his basic incompetence than his brain fade over his UN account.
9. John Williams 9

   25 March 2013 at 3:55 pm

   Total unmitigated crap once again from Eddie. He has never got anything right.
   • wobble 9.1

     25 March 2013 at 4:20 pm

     Except for recently being the first to out Labour putting up Trevor Mallard as speaker…
     http://thestandard.org.nz/foolish-games/

     And I’m sure Eddie has been right about a lot of stuff happening in Labour before.
10. Raymond a Francis 10

    25 March 2013 at 3:56 pm

    I am surprised at your putting David Clark and Megan Woods in The Careerist Left wing
    Any proof other than a gut feeling?

    Other than that no argument will your basic premiss
    • Lanthanide 10.1

      25 March 2013 at 6:45 pm

      Yeah, I’d agree on that. I think he’s just lumped them in together as an “everyone else” category. Surprised to see little in the Left group too.
      • Daveo 10.1.1

        25 March 2013 at 6:51 pm

        Clark is a highly competent MP and I’m sure he fits in the ‘some good people in this faction’ part of the analysis. He’s very close to Robertson though (was the celebrant at Robertson’s civil union) so is in with his lot. Woods is in the faction but only loosely.

        Little’s politics are strongly left. He’s very much his own man though and doesn’t easily fit into any of the factions. What is known is that he’s supported Cunliffe from time to time, including in the initial leadership race against Shearer. Have to agree with the post though, all you could say is he’s a wild card with Left tendencies.
11. Kevin Welsh 11

    25 March 2013 at 4:22 pm

    Careerist? Pfft.

    The minute they are identified they should be out on their ear. Anyone with careerist aspirations is not there for the good of their electorate, their party or New Zealand. They are there for themselves and by default have no business being in politics.
    • geoff 11.1

      26 March 2013 at 8:49 am

      The careerist label is a bit of a laugh. As far as I can tell they’re all careerists to some extent.
12. Nick 12

    25 March 2013 at 4:41 pm

    “As for the Left faction, you may be wondering why they failed to trigger a leadership vote in February when their faction had one more vote than they needed”

    Also pretty sure that Little is a Shearer supporter.
    • Colonial Viper 12.1

      25 March 2013 at 4:50 pm

      Little spoke out strongly against the tougher 60% Leadership confidence threshold. Too much instability and rocking of the boat by the membership he seemed to think. Can’t we just please leave the Labour Parliamentarians alone to do what they know best?
13. pollywog 13

    25 March 2013 at 4:46 pm

    Fa’afoi is a tool.

    One of them… ‘yes massa how high you want me to jump for you’ niggas IMHO.

    I’ve yet to hear him say, do, or write anything worthy of compliment.
    • IrishBill 13.1

      25 March 2013 at 4:53 pm

      One more like that and it’ll be time out.
      • pollywog 13.1.1

        25 March 2013 at 4:56 pm

        Sorry…should I have said negroes?
14. Darien Fenton 14

    25 March 2013 at 5:07 pm

    Eddie, why don’t you spend your time writing about things that matter instead of making stuff up – for example, the youth rates that passed last week? Didn’t see a peep on the Standard, except for a rerun of I/S.
    • pollywog 14.1

      25 March 2013 at 5:15 pm

      This does matter and imagine if someone had said that to Einstein?
      • Darien Fenton 14.1.1

        25 March 2013 at 5:16 pm

        It doesn’t matter if it’s not true.
        • pollywog 14.1.1.1

          25 March 2013 at 5:33 pm

          Oh you mean like Iraq’s WMD’s and Bush and Blair’s lies?
        • Colonial Weka 14.1.1.2

          25 March 2013 at 6:00 pm

          “It doesn’t matter if it’s not true.”

          So put up your own post or comment about what is true, or why Eddie’s post isn’t true. Telling ts authors (or commenters, or anyone really) to STFU doesn’t work here, and is a bad look for you.
          • Darien Fenton 14.1.1.2.1

            25 March 2013 at 6:41 pm

            OK then I will be the one who STFU – lesson learned
            • Rhinocrates 14.1.1.2.1.1

              25 March 2013 at 6:43 pm

              Translation: “Waaaaaah!!!!”

              You wonder why so few think you have any backbone?
            • Daveo 14.1.1.2.1.2

              25 March 2013 at 6:45 pm

              To be fair, you haven’t put forward an alternative model. From what I’ve seen and heard around the party Eddie’s simply laid out what everyone knows. So, if as you say, it’s not true, then enlighten us as to what is happening in caucus. Because to everyone outside caucus it looks like a fcking mess crossed with a baffling tolerance of incompetence and lack of strategic direction. Come on, Darien, tell us what’s really happening if this piece really is so off the mark.
              • The Fan Club …

                25 March 2013 at 9:06 pm

                Come on Daveo, there’s no way Darien can talk about what goes on in caucus.
                • quartz …

                  25 March 2013 at 9:10 pm

                  That’s not quite true, my friend works for Labour and is always talking about what happened in caucus.
                  • The Fan Club …

                    25 March 2013 at 9:28 pm

                    “my friend works for Labour talking” is very different to “MP writing over their own name”.
            • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.2.1.3

              25 March 2013 at 6:50 pm

              That’s not going to fly with this crowd, Darien.

              If you read what Colonial Weka wrote, her suggestion was to

              put up your own post or comment about what is true, or why Eddie’s post isn’t true

              Which is very different from not welcoming input from you.

              nb you may want to explain about caucus rules which (in theory) prevent Labour MPs from commenting on what their colleagues said or did not say in caucus.
              • Colonial Weka …

                25 March 2013 at 7:04 pm

                +1

                Darien, I for one would be interested in your perspective which is why I suggested you write your own response to Eddie’s post. And as CV suggests having a Labour MP explain how things work internally would useful.
            • The Al1en 14.1.1.2.1.4

              25 March 2013 at 6:59 pm

              Caucus had the chance to make Shearer to do the same and GTFO, but failed, again.

              Did you vote for him?
              If so, why?
              And if so, will you hold yourself accountable for your error post 2014 and resign (if you get a high enough list place to suffer the poll night carnage)?

              Tell all caucus members to get on here and answer the same three questions.
              • The Al1en …

                25 March 2013 at 9:32 pm

                Secret vote = Cowardly covering your arses and protecting your salaries and pension plans.

                Don’t like the topic list, stand by your conviction and announce who voted for who, so we all know for next time.
                Bet you don’t though, pay cheques the lot of you.
            • Rhinocrates 14.1.1.2.1.5

              25 March 2013 at 7:11 pm

              Remember Fenton – you’re working for us, and if you’re not, you’re fired! How would redundancy feel? A lot of us know about it already, unlike you.

              So you want to throw your toys out of the cot? Whoop-de-fucking-do. Do your job.
        • JK 14.1.1.3

          25 March 2013 at 6:37 pm

          I have yet to see some evidence, Darien, that it is not true. It was clear from the annual conference in Auckland where the factions lay, and who was in what faction.

          I would also like to see some evidence that Labour has policies which will help the disadvantaged, those in need of decent rental housing, those on low working incomes, and policies which will strength our public health and state housing, and state education systems, We need to know that Labour will reverse the current horrific changes proposed for the RMA if they go ahead.

          And I don’t want to see Shearer saying “I will do this, or I will do that” I’d rather see him saying things like “we’re in this together, we’ll work together” and then have him take us along with us on a vision of well considered policies which will work for Aotearoa-New Zealand.

          Labour is in limbo – and the peasants are getting restless. For some of us peasants, there are alternatives on voting day and you might find us deserting you in your hour of need if you don’t all hurry up and start looking left, instead of central-right.
    • Rhinocrates 14.2

      25 March 2013 at 5:18 pm

      Ooh, a press release. Goody! Yeah right. Elections are vending machines. Insert enough press releases and then government falls out.
      • Rhinocrates 14.2.1

        25 March 2013 at 5:21 pm

        Can’t edit so amendment:

        So NO, show that that you’re an alternative government in waiting.

        ALTERNATIVE – ie., different in substance, not detail.

        GOVERNMENT IN WAITING – i.e., competent.

        NACTMP have fucked up and will continue to do so… but how will you be better instead of being due to your “brand” being “nicer”?

        All I see is “LINO will be a nicer disaster!”
    • karol 14.3

      25 March 2013 at 5:51 pm

      Darien, the re-run of I/S on youth rates shows it’s an important issue for TS posters and commenters. We authors are voluntary contributors, unpaid, and most work full-time. We don’t co-ordinate between us on our posts, just post when we have something to say on an issue, and time to put it into a post.

      If you scroll down the main page you will see there’s been posts on diverse issues of importance to the left.
    • QoT 14.4

      25 March 2013 at 6:30 pm

      Darien, even sitting MPs should consider reading the policy when commenting.

      A partial list of these self-martyrdom offenses include:-

      …Abusing the sysop or post writers on their own site – including telling us how to run our site or what we should write. This is viewed as self-evident stupidity, and should be added as a category to the Darwin Awards.
    • karol 14.5

      26 March 2013 at 12:38 pm

      So, in response to being labelled as a careerist leftie, Fenton jumps in and asks why more attention isn’t being paid to an issue on which she is shadow spokesperson?
15. Ad 15

    25 March 2013 at 5:15 pm

    If this is the case (and I no longer believe it is the case since the leadership question is settled until after 2014) why not spell out your path to unity? We’ve had thousands of posts about this kind of thing.

    If it is not the case, surely you only have two options:

    – Mutually Assured Destruction as well documented before us in the Australian federal Labor Party and upcoming reshuffle and elections

    – Disciplined unity

    There may well be a myriad of minor variants, but the Aussie Crean scenario vs NZ Constitutional leadership change process seem to be the stark counterfactuals.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      25 March 2013 at 5:23 pm

      I know, I’m also disappointed that the peasants are revolting instead of living up to their assigned roles.
      • pollywog 15.1.1

        25 March 2013 at 5:36 pm

        Peasant needs a new job description.
      • Ad 15.1.2

        25 March 2013 at 6:04 pm

        Well the point is here that the peasants were never revolting; in fact they hardly smelled of anything at all.

        Whereas in Australia, they always revolting because they are always rotten from within.

        There doesn’t seem any need to choose between one or the other, until you have to run something really big. Then you have to choose. Both Labour and Labor have. And in Australia you can see the results of that choice in 6 weeks, writ large in the writs.
        • Colonial Viper 15.1.2.1

          25 March 2013 at 6:22 pm

          Then you have to choose. Both Labour and Labor have.

          Approx 24 Labour Party members in total confirmed the current leadership in Feb. Not enough to settle questions of legitimacy of process or leadership.
          • McFlock 15.1.2.1.1

            25 March 2013 at 6:31 pm

            actually, being >60%, yeah it was.
            • Colonial Viper 15.1.2.1.1.1

              25 March 2013 at 6:39 pm

              Funny thing is: questions of political legitimacy can’t be waved away by saying so.
              • McFlock …

                25 March 2013 at 6:42 pm

                True.

                I mean, even if the process was consistent with the constitution and had been re-examined by national conference just a few months previously, some people would still assume that illegalities went on because their candidate didn’t win.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  25 March 2013 at 6:54 pm

                  Wow, I’m awed by your theory of successful political management. I’ve got no questions left mate.
                  • McFlock …

                    25 March 2013 at 7:00 pm

                    lol
    • ghostrider888 15.2

      25 March 2013 at 5:36 pm

      portents indeed
16. mickysavage 16

    25 March 2013 at 5:38 pm

    Interesting post Eddie.

    I am fascinated by the sudden appearance of a couple of new commentators who allegedly know Labour’s internal workings better than you.

    And you seem to have hit a nerve with Darien. I wonder why?
    • Darien Fenton 16.1

      25 March 2013 at 6:34 pm

      Micky – the nerve is that tens of thousands of young workers will face pay cuts from 1 May. Maybe I’m just over-sensitive.
      • Daveo 16.1.1

        25 March 2013 at 6:41 pm

        Darien, I’m sure they’d accept a guest post from you or anyone else involved in the campaign. People are busy, they have lives, they aren’t paid for this and they can’t cover everything. Don’t hate on them, help them out.
      • JK 16.1.2

        25 March 2013 at 7:45 pm

        Darien – the other nerve that’s been hit is the news tonight that Labour is NOT going to continue funding the Cullen superannuation fund, and IS going to continue with the nonsense that NZ needs to raise the age of superannuation to 67 years. That is a scenario straight out of Dame Shipley’s report – a rightwing report if ever there was one.
        With unemployment rising, redundancies all over the place, those people just over the age of 50 who are being made redundant now, have little chance of getting other jobs – and you, the Labour caucus, are saying they’ll have to wait until they’re 67 before they can get superannuation. Doesn’t seem fair, does it ? Let alone all those people who do physical work and lose out on super because they die at a relatively young age. That’s not fair either.
        WHEN is Labour going to be fair to its people ? Answer me that, Darien – all those workers you purport to serve ……..
        • Colonial Viper 16.1.2.1

          25 March 2013 at 7:49 pm

          Labour buys into the same neoliberal orthodox monetary framework as National, albeit with more consideration for softening some of the social effects.

          Re: raising the retirement age to 67.

          Yet another version of making the younger generation pay more and more for the boomers to have easier lives.
          • Colonial Viper 16.1.2.1.1

            25 March 2013 at 7:51 pm

            Simple question – why not raise an additional $1B in taxation per annum to put into the Cullen fund, instead of increasing the super age?

            Anyways we have too many young workers now and not enough jobs. We need to be retiring people out of the workforce earlier, not later.
            • tricledrown 16.1.2.1.1.1

              25 March 2013 at 11:23 pm

              if we saved 3% more a year by increasing the tax take in 20 years we could abolish taxes and run govt on the savings interest!
              • Colonial Viper …

                25 March 2013 at 11:32 pm

                I like the plan in theory, but major central banks around the world are punishing savers and rewarding speculators by forcing interest rates down to 0%.
      • Rhinocrates 16.1.3

        25 March 2013 at 8:24 pm

        Maybe I’m just over-sensitive.

        Ooh, are your delicate feelings hurt? Spare us the sarcasm and sanctimony. That attitude of “you don’t appreciate me enough” is too obvious. What is Labour’s policy? Will you actually implement it? Will you?

        Do your job.
17. Draco T Bastard 17

    25 March 2013 at 5:52 pm

    While it’s clear something major needs to change in Labour, it’ll require either Shearer or Robertson to feel that it’s in their interests to break the relationship.

    Which means that it’s in everyone else’s favour to tell Labour to go fuck themselves. Find another party of the left that resonates with you and join them.
    • Rhinocrates 17.1

      25 March 2013 at 6:00 pm

      I wonder how long “Our turn!” and “Winston to the rescue!” are going to sustain their cognitive dissonance?
    • Ad 17.2

      25 March 2013 at 6:44 pm

      That philosophy of “you have to burn the village in order to save the village” has been the refuge of armies of tyrants and idealists alike for a while. One side of Gillard’s Labor has indeed told the leadership to “go fuck themselves”.

      And as a result, they royally have.
      • Colonial Viper 17.2.1

        25 March 2013 at 6:57 pm

        You’ve drawn the wrong lesson. This is what you get by choosing the wrong leader.

        That philosophy of “you have to burn the village in order to save the village” has been the refuge of armies of tyrants and idealists alike for a while.

        This is where you’ve gone off the rails.
      • Draco T Bastard 17.2.2

        25 March 2013 at 7:14 pm

        There’s plenty of other parties and Labour will only learn when it starts losing a proportion of votes. It’s not doing that ATM, it’s losing voters but the proportions are remaining remarkably static.
        • Colonial Weka 17.2.2.1

          25 March 2013 at 7:19 pm

          “it’s losing voters but the proportions are remaining remarkably static.”

          What? How does that work?
          • Colonial Viper 17.2.2.1.1

            25 March 2013 at 7:21 pm

            Low turnout, increasing proportion of non-voters.
    • marty mars 17.3

      25 March 2013 at 6:55 pm

      + 1 because this shit is going to go on right up to the next election and the one after that meanwhile the disadvantaged in our society continue to suffer.
      • muzza 17.3.1

        25 March 2013 at 10:41 pm

        Too right Marty, but you will be able to log onto TS, and read a commentary about all thats gone wrong, like a timeline to the demise of NZ inc, and hear all about the nasty things being done to the disadvantaged!

        In any case who will the disadvantaged be in say, 4/5 years time!
18. muzza 18

    25 March 2013 at 5:55 pm

    How many of these in any group, actually understand/appreciate the serious danger that NZ is in!

    Who inside the listed groups will speak out against the the monetary supply scam etc?

    Who is the most corrupted inside the listed groups – (can be more than one)

    Who at TS, believes there is any chance a single name of the listed groups, have the ticker, to come out and tell the public, just how corrupted NZ has become, and what part parliament is playing in the corruption!

    Anyone, nah, thought not!
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      25 March 2013 at 6:23 pm

      How many of these in any group, actually understand/appreciate the serious danger that NZ is in!

      Business as usual continues. Reassure the middle class that their expectations of present and future comfort are in safe hands.
19. Swim Between the Flags 19

    25 March 2013 at 6:54 pm

    I’m a bit of a lurker recently but have always enjoyed reading The Standard. In this case though, I’d like to ask Eddie for more detail as to why he believes this is an important post, or at least what people reading it feel like they take away from it?

    It looks to be nothing more than speculation (second hand/third hand whispers based on personal opinions), yet beyond stirring up readers to take a certain perspective on the names listed in each group, what purpose does it serve?

    From my interactions with some of the people listed in this post I suppose I can add my own speculation. Yes there are people within caucus who seem more friendly with some than others but I could hardly draw the conclusion that this means they are sitting in smoke filled rooms plotting against one another.

    In many instances it seems names have been dropped into ‘factions’ based on nothing more than MPs having good personal relationships with one another. Like in any workplace, not everybody is going to get along like best mates and personalities will always clash, but Labour MPs act professionally and take their job seriously because they realise how important it is for the left to win in 2014. How often is it the media, and more recently the blogs, putting forward and fueling the destructive narrative and how often is it the MPs? The vast majority of Labour MPs are getting on with the job.

    So they’re not sitting around plotting, they’re working hard for New Zealanders. The political landscape is difficult for the left at the moment, not just in New Zealand but around the world. We need to discuss how to maneuver across this landscape as one coherent whole leading into the next election, not quibble over who’s holding up the flag.

    What is the purpose of The Standard? There’s always some interesting content and stimulating discussion, but there’s often a little too much self-defeating, circle jerking speculation. This post just seems too far on the self-defeating side of spectrum. In saying that, it’s just my 2c and I respect TS and the fact that authors can post what they feel is important.
    • JK 19.1

      25 March 2013 at 7:52 pm

      I think if you read the speeches that certain MPs have given over the last 12 months or so, Swim Between the Flags, you’d understand – perhaps – why Eddie has labelled certain MPs as rightwing, others as left, and still others as careerists. If MPs say certain things that go against ingrained Labour principles, then they’re going to be looked at sideways, and speculation as to their real motives.
      You say the vast majority of Labour MPs are getting on with the job – but they seem a bit slack most times, to me. They’re not pushing Labour policy or principles. The Greens, and Winston are doing their job for them, and sometimes even Hone gets in on the act.
    • Alanz 19.2

      25 March 2013 at 8:13 pm

      2c? Is that all? Shearer should outsource his comms work to you.

      Thanks, Eddie. A few friends, interested in politics, have been talking about this and we came up with a list that only goes part way towards yours which is more comprehensive. We did come up with similar groupings .. but we had a couple of little categories for a handful of MPs .. and interestingly, their names have come up in comments elsewhere here.
20. Pascal's bookie 20

    25 March 2013 at 7:01 pm

    The fact that connected LP people seem to think that this post is the problem to be publicly attacked,

    rather than seeing it as a symptom of a problem to be identified and fixed,

    is yet another symptom of the problem.
    • The Fan Club 20.1

      25 March 2013 at 8:10 pm

      I like this post. It sets out pretty clearly the people who’re doing a good job and the people who’re off in the middle of nowhere fucking around. Of course, Eddie & MS & so-on are fucking around in the fantasyland where one day they’ll win the faction fight they keep begging to have, but the fact that they are posting this kind of crap on the internet is a pretty good indicator they never will. If you have the numbers you use them, if you don’t you talk about them.
      • quartz 20.1.1

        25 March 2013 at 8:19 pm

        If you have the numbers you use them, if you don’t you talk about them.

        Ooh, look at you all man of the world.
        • The Fan Club 20.1.1.1

          25 March 2013 at 8:27 pm

          Hey I’m not the guy posting my (inaccurate) whip counts on the internet. I am pretty sure my faction’s naught/nice lists are both accurate (why we win) and also kept close to the chest.
          • vto 20.1.1.1.1

            25 March 2013 at 8:41 pm

            So mr successful fan club – when do we (i.e. joe public) get to see something decent from you? Some talk about the important issues? The ponzi scheme that is our banking system? The law allowing your pricks to plunder our bank accounts? The smashing of the RMA that is going on right now? The outright lies that are told by this government? When is “your faction” going to actually do something worth listening to or looking at? When are you going to stand up to Key and English and call them liars? Reverse the Ecan theft?

            Seems to me not much matter who or what faction is leading te labour party at most particular points in time as the labour party has a momentum built up since its birth and it is that momentum that keeps it going, not much else.

            And just for final fling, given this is all about the personal – I don’t give a flying fuck about whether you have got the numbers at the moment in your silly caucusage. What I give a fuck about is what you are going to do abotu all sorts of BIG ISSUES. Issues that you, “the winners” are doing fuck all about. Sharpen up fool – your votes are far from guaranteed. Your personal crusade will end up being your demise.

            rant endeth (for now)
            • muzza 20.1.1.1.1.1

              25 March 2013 at 10:23 pm

              You won’t hear anything useful VTO, its not in the genetic makeup of those hanging off the coat tails of corruption to do anything other than hang on ever tighter, and stick their nose even further up the,* perceived most powerful arse* they can reach, regardless of if its the top, middle or lower hanging rectum!
      • mickysavage 20.1.2

        25 March 2013 at 8:30 pm

        Fan Club … nice to see you are back. I haven’t seen you for a while, the last time was to launch another anti Cunliffe diatribe.
        • The Fan Club 20.1.2.1

          25 March 2013 at 8:38 pm

          Yeah, I feel that given you guys can’t seem to accept that you lost someone has to occasionally drop by and remind you of the crushing defeats you get whenever you manage to push things to a crisis.
          • mickysavage 20.1.2.1.1

            25 March 2013 at 8:48 pm

            Yep it is a real crisis when the membership gets a larger say in who the leader is …

            One question though Fan Club. You are always so aggressive with your comments, are you sure you are a member of the Labour Party and not a Nat? I have a certain expectation of how lefties should behave although regrettably it is not universal …
            • Jim Davis 20.1.2.1.1.1

              25 March 2013 at 8:51 pm

              He’s a parliamentary staffer in the Robertson faction. I’d put money on him being Vic Young Labour, present or recent past. They’re swarming all over parliament at the moment. Hardly any politics, a lot of ambition, strong loyalty to Robertson and one of the main conduits of the anti-Cunliffe smears. I’ve seen enough of them in action, and I can positively smell it on TFC.
              • The Fan Club …

                25 March 2013 at 8:56 pm

                Hahah I mean really. Have never been a member of Vic Young Labour, never been paid a red cent by the Party or Parliament, etc.
                • felix …

                  25 March 2013 at 9:42 pm

                  Nah, I saw you flinch there. Jim touched a nerve.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    25 March 2013 at 9:50 pm

                    Ha!

                    TFC is fairly representative of a toxic, philosophically weak culture.
                    • The Fan Club …

                      25 March 2013 at 9:58 pm

                      Holy fuck I mean I have my issues with Young Labour but that’s a pretty douchey thing to say about a group of young people who are putting a lot of effort into the party.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      25 March 2013 at 10:51 pm

                      Yep. And I mean every word of it.

                      (You did say that you weren’t connected in any way with them though, right haha)
                    • Rhinocrates …

                      25 March 2013 at 11:00 pm

                      Funnily enough, I can easily imagine Robertson conveniently forgetting his faction’s anti-Cunliffe rhetoric and saying, “Have I got a deal for you…” to David Cunliffe as a correspondent (sorry, I forget your handle)… and David Cunliffe saying “Yes, if…”
          • The Al1en 20.1.2.1.2

            25 March 2013 at 9:24 pm

            “Yeah, I feel that given you guys can’t seem to accept that you lost someone has to occasionally drop by and remind you of the crushing defeats you get whenever you manage to push things to a crisis.”

            Prick. You think you’re smart ’cause the numbnuts you serve say you are. And you know it 😉
            • The Al1en 20.1.2.1.2.1

              25 March 2013 at 9:38 pm

              Biggest thing to remember, if it goes to a party wide vote, you’d be fucked, and you must definitely know that.
      • Pascal's bookie 20.1.3

        25 March 2013 at 9:52 pm

        Thanks for proving my point so precisely FC.
        • The Fan Club 20.1.3.1

          25 March 2013 at 9:56 pm

          What, you mean the point that people who want a faction fight get one? Yeah, that point’s a good one.
          • mickysavage 20.1.3.1.1

            25 March 2013 at 10:01 pm

            I never wanted a faction fight. Man I lived through the 1980s …

            Helen showed how to do it. No factions, promotion on ability and get the best out of everyone, good socialist principles …

            And fan club you obviously don’t see the irony but you proved PB’s comment perfectly.
            • The Fan Club 20.1.3.1.1.1

              25 March 2013 at 10:05 pm

              Micky, if you don’t want a faction fight, then why are you all so obsessed with whip counts and factional classifications?
              • mickysavage …

                25 March 2013 at 10:07 pm

                Um Fan Club citation needed …

                Apart from saying “interesting post Eddie …” I am not sure that I have said anything.

                Go on, point out where I have been obsessed with whip counts and factional classifications.
                • The Fan Club …

                  25 March 2013 at 10:10 pm

                  MS, “you all” kinda implies the plural: you and eddie and all the other Cunliffites lurking around.
                  • mickysavage …

                    25 March 2013 at 10:14 pm

                    Funny when you said “Micky, if you don’t want a faction fight, then why … ” I thought you were referring to me.

                    So you are saying I am part of a group some of who are obsessed with whip counts and factional classifications and therefore I am as well?

                    Care to rephrase?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      25 March 2013 at 10:33 pm

                      So you are saying I am part of a group some of who are obsessed with whip counts and factional classifications and therefore I am as well?

                      Remember, TFC said that his handlers are the specialists at that kind of obsessive factional work.
                    • The Fan Club …

                      25 March 2013 at 10:40 pm

                      Not really. I think everyone knows exactly where you sit in the factional game (that is to say, a rather expendable pawn of Cunliffe’s).
                    • muzza …

                      25 March 2013 at 10:44 pm

                      What tweezers like TFC don’t understand, is that the biggest sycophants are the most expendable pawns!

                      Or perhaps they do understand, but are invested so emotionally, into the arse-hole in front of them, they can’t recognise the smell of fresh air, or danger for that matter!
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      25 March 2013 at 10:50 pm

                      Not really. I think everyone knows exactly where you sit in the factional game (that is to say, a rather expendable pawn of Cunliffe’s).

                      Yes, thank you 🙂
          • Pascal's bookie 20.1.3.1.2

            26 March 2013 at 5:18 am

            the point that people who want a faction fight get one

            Nope. The point that “connected LP people seem to think that this post is the problem to be publicly attacked, rather than seeing it as a symptom of a problem to be identified and fixed”.

            There wouldn’t be posts like this if there wasn’t a problem.
            The fact this post exists, and has so many comments, shows how shit the leadership team is.

            And here you are, doing what?

            Nothing good for the LP as far as I can see.
21. TeRohePotae 21

    25 March 2013 at 8:39 pm

    Can you guys stop ruining my Labour Party with petty name calling, list making, and posturing. How about you all focus on attacking the Tories and bringing a much needed change of Government to this country.
    • Jim Davis 21.1

      25 March 2013 at 8:53 pm

      We’re fed up with the people in charge who are ruining the Labour Party. It’s the pathetic poll ratings, the lack of coherent left wing principles and the vacancy in the leadership that are ruining the party; a post on a left wing blog site is the least of our worries.
    • QoT 21.2

      25 March 2013 at 8:58 pm

      Mindblowing concept: some of us don’t accept the premise that “any” Labour-led government is a preferable alternative to a National-led government, e.g. one dependent on the Greens.
    • The Al1en 21.3

      25 March 2013 at 9:26 pm

      “ruining” 😆
    • lprent 21.4

      26 March 2013 at 1:09 am

      How about you all focus on attacking the Tories and bringing a much needed change of Government to this country.

      At present the most effective way to do that appears to be to vote Green until Labour sorts its crap out in caucus. At least the Green policies appear to be coherent, not as badly poll/focus group driven, and their caucus seems to largely work together. Well at least they do when you compare their performance against the dysfunctional and incompetent state of Labour MP’s both individually and even more so in caucus.

      Basically, I’m havng a really hard time seeing the current Labour caucus being able to run an effective government without some other party providing some ideas to give them a backbone. Sure Labour would be better than the Nats. But that really isn’t that hard. And I really don’t think that choosing between incompetent blowhard conservatives and less incompetent but incoherent and vague that is the current Labour caucus is the kind of aspiration I have for my vote.

      And incidentally, it is my Labour party as well and has been since 1981 when I first voted for them, and since 1984 when I first door knocked for them, or 1992 when I first started to actively campaign for them. So it will be a bit of a change next year will be the first time I revert back to the Values party I last voted for in 1978.

      Problem is that I see fuckall party at present in the Labour party and far too many MPs who’d I have a real problem saying what they stand for. I don’t even haven’t agree with their ideas – I never really did with Helen Clark’s caucus. I’d just like them to show that they have some frigging ideas that aren’t half-arsed and that they have thought through. In other words,that aren’t like their quarter acre dream houses for $300k in Auckland nonsense.
    • Peter 21.5

      26 March 2013 at 12:38 pm

      Ruining? How interesting. Your Labour Party must be weak indeed if a bunch of largely anonymous bloggers, who generally criticise but suggest improvement, can actually “ruin” your party.
      • One Tāne Huna 21.5.1

        27 March 2013 at 9:52 am

        Well put.
22. Tiresias 22

    25 March 2013 at 9:27 pm

    I’d need to know a lot more about ‘Eddie’s” credentials before giving this article much credence.

    Not that I’m greatly bothered. There are few names in the Labour Party I’ve heard of or care about as none have done very much to impinge on my awareness or given me cause to care about them. From the top down they seem ineffectual, seat-filling, party-game playing, turn-waiting empty-vessels – and to judge from what I hear from the House at Question-Time, most are still waiting on puberty.

    For most of my adult life Labour in the UK encapsulated what I believed and would have fought for, but now in the UK and NZ its just Right-Lite. In the UK many who felt like me supported the Liberal-Democrats in the last general election, as I think I would have done, and were badly, unforgivably, irredeemably betrayed. Here in NZ we fortunately have the Greens to fill that vacancy left by Labour. I hope they can learn from the Lib-Dem’s political suicide, as when the political charade fails entirely the door opens for the likes of UKIP, Bepe Grillo and Golden Dawn.
23. Saarbo 23

    25 March 2013 at 9:38 pm

    I get the impression that there are a number of Shearer supporters (TCL) in caucus who have finally lost their nerve, realise now that he is hopeless…and this is their way of squirming out of their lack of good judgement.

    Anyway, if it leads to the end of Shearer’s reign, it will be good for Labour and will improve Labours chances in 2014.
24. deemac 24

    25 March 2013 at 9:38 pm

    this article is pure kremlinology and unworthy of The Standard.
    In order to characterise MPs as right or left (let alone careerist – what does a non-careerist MP look like?) you have to produce evidence of policy differences.
    The article totally fails to do that, because there is none.
    The idea that an old hand like Cunliffe, with all his baggage as a minister, is to the left of Shearer is sheer fantasy.
    • Colonial Viper 24.1

      25 March 2013 at 9:54 pm

      The idea that an old hand like Cunliffe, with all his baggage as a minister, is to the left of Shearer is sheer fantasy.

      I can only agree, seeing that after all this time we still have absolutely no idea where Shearer’s personal political economic philosophy actually lies.

      Which I find unsettling, myself.
      • SpaceMonkey 24.1.1

        26 March 2013 at 2:33 pm

        David Shearer will not take the Labour Party left. A Labour Government under him will continue to sell NZ off to overseas interests. He is a plant for the elite in the same vein as John Key – different handlers, perhaps, but they share the same masters for sure.
        • Colonial Viper 24.1.1.1

          26 March 2013 at 2:38 pm

          Indeed, that’s my working assumption; happy to be proven wrong. All it would take is him speaking to 2 or 3 solid left wing policies in the next few months. Raising the retirement age is a bad start.
25. fatty 25

    25 March 2013 at 10:31 pm

    I hope someone digs some dirt on Shearer fast and he gets thrown out in disgrace…but it won’t be a Tory digging the dirt. Someone do it, please
26. The Al1en 26

    25 March 2013 at 10:32 pm

    “we still have absolutely no idea where Shearer’s personal political economic philosophy actually lies.”

    Well at least we now know he’s retarded when it comes to declaring offshore bank accounts with at least us$50,000 in them.
    Oh, and he that he doesn’t like the idea of a beneficiary doing home maintenance.
    • Colonial Viper 26.1

      25 March 2013 at 10:40 pm

      A spokesperson for science and innovation who doesn’t think that internet communities and social media is relevant.
      • Colonial Weka 26.1.1

        25 March 2013 at 11:19 pm

        A political party leader who thinks that people who talk on the internet don’t vote.
    • SpaceMonkey 26.2

      26 March 2013 at 4:47 pm

      No… he’s declaring his suitability for the Prime Minister’s office by showing he can brain fade with the best of them.
27. AucklandBasedLabourActivist 27

    25 March 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Thank you TS for this. The last time I read this site was in 2009. A few caucus members and committed MP followers (ie Young Labour ‘hacks’) on my Facebook feed constantly degrade the contributions of this blog, and tell us (active party folk) that it’s not worth reading. Well, after seeing a comment from an MP on Facebook tonight…I decided to have a look.

    After reading this it sums up so much about why, as a long time (and previously senior) party official, I feel so disillusioned with Labour’s internal politics.

    This sums up why Labour is best to lose the next election, than win it. And it’s incredibly hard to say that, but the reality stands that under David Shearer’s leadership are individuals who are effectively holding the party to ransom due to their own vendettas against individuals and their own personal ambitions. It’s insidious and it must stop now.

    I am seeing countless people leave in my Auckland community shifting to the Greens or disengaging completely because of the toxic attitude and behavior of MPs like Darien Fenton, Clare Curran, but very much led by Grant Robertson (people don’t realise it at face value), Annette King, Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff and co.

    Their behavior at the 2012 conference sums up their own ambitions. For their own hatred of David Cunliffe and fighting for their own personal political careers, they are prepared to tear apart the Labour Party, disrespect party members, manipulate long time activists and union affiliate members for their own political game.

    For the likes of Darien Fenton. The fact she’s come onto this forum shows her poor political judgement, but most particularly it shows she’s worried. She is very quickly losing credibility amongst her own core Labour support (from what I’m told, largely because of her antics at the Labour Party conference where she tried to manipulate union affiliates members and significantly disrespected affiliate leadership). Darien knows that this blog post exposes the realities of Labour’s internal situation. There are activists on social media saying this is satirical, saying this post is wacky and completely loony. Well, again, as a disillusioned former senior party official, it’s hard to write this so publicly, but this blog tells it for what it is. For activists to simply ignore this and say it’s far from reality, shows they are so stuck in their own (mostly Wellington) political bubble and interested in their own agendas than the Party as a whole.

    The bottom line however is that Labour need to change considerably in order for us to win the next election. The careerists need a slap in the face and Grant Robertson needs to stop holding the party back while he lines up the numbers in his favour.
    • The Fan Club 27.1

      25 March 2013 at 11:31 pm

      This is basically the faction fight: a rather unholy alliance of Auckland based Clark-era apparatchiks who never quite made it and far-left unionists who’ve filtered back in as the Alliance has died off against the rest of the party. Fortunately, the rest of the party is winning.

      It was Cunliffe that started the fight at conference and when he inevitably lost he can only blame himself.
      • lprent 27.1.1

        26 March 2013 at 12:53 am

        Looks to me like a pyrrhic “victory”. The type where the battle is won which merely ensures that the war is lost.
        • George D 27.1.1.1

          26 March 2013 at 2:27 pm

          
          This is basically the faction fight: a rather unholy alliance of Auckland based Clark-era apparatchiks who never quite made it and far-left unionists who’ve filtered back in as the Alliance has died off against the rest of the party. Fortunately, the rest of the party is winning.
          

          TFC, that may be so. But do you realise that Auckland makes up half your membership (and most of that half are Pacific, desperately underrepresented and continually patronised by the leadership) and one third of the country. Soon it will be 40%. You’ll never win enough votes in the blue provinces to get government, but if you depress the activists in Auckland, you depress the turnout, and you squander government.

          Nevermind also that “far-left” unionists (presumably people who believe in things like award wages and overtime, as retained under Australia’s far-left Howard Government) make up many of the rest of your activists. Take them out, and you only have rusted on loyalists, most of whom don’t have the energy to run the campaigns you need, and cheerleading Vic Labour youngsters, who are enthusiastic but don’t have the experience or nous (in most cases) to

          Dismiss the majority of your party, sure. But you’ll get people like Lynn, above, publicly declaring that they’re leaving the ship. As I said in a post I made earlier this year I’d rather he and others were in Labour, actually, getting out your vote and pushing the left over the line – we (the Greens) don’t need the talent. You also don’t need to have these fights in public, but if you do you need to find a way to conciliate quickly.
          • lprent 27.1.1.1.1

            26 March 2013 at 3:53 pm

            …publicly declaring that they’re leaving the ship.

            Not so much leaving the ship as going off and working on things other than the NZLP. At present they are too damn confused, completely incoherent on policy and direction, riven by silly internal divisions, and would only waste what time I give it. My monthly donation goes out as per normal. My membership presumably will still be updated. If there are things that only require advice rather than actual time (that I could expend more productively on something else), then I’d donate it.

            But I’m really not inclined to reward the dumbarses who have blindly been driving them to this pass. So I will vote elsewhere.
            • Anne 27.1.1.1.1.1

              26 March 2013 at 6:01 pm

              My sentiments too 1prent.

              There are a large number of people (some comment here some don’t) who have been in and around the Labour Party for much, much longer than at least half the current Caucus. We had outside careers, but we gave a great deal to Labour over the years. In the course of doing so we saw it all – the good, the bad and the ugly. There isn’t much going on we haven’t already witnessed or experienced before. In other words, together we are a veritable hive of knowledge and wisdom. Yet it seems many in this present Caucus think so highly of themselves… they believe they know it all and rarely seek any of us out for our advice or opinions. Instead they turn to individuals whose knowledge and understanding of the NZ Labour Party and its history is practically zilch.

              It’s my view that if they had had the presence of mind to speak to more of their predecessors and long-serving members, the NZ Labour Party would be in a much stronger and more stable state today.
          • The Fan Club 27.1.1.1.2

            26 March 2013 at 5:09 pm

            George, you don’t really get the split do you? It’s not Auckland as whole I’m talking about: it’s a small clique that was very dependent on Clark for patronage, and has now taken Cunliffe over as patron.

            If you look at Auckland based MPs, most of them back Shearer. Most Auckland activists back Shearer, or at least accept that he’s the leader at the moment. It’s only quite a small group that’s obsessed with this last-ditch destabilization effort.
            • Olwyn 27.1.1.1.2.1

              26 March 2013 at 5:21 pm

              What you don’t understand, TFC, is that not everyone is playing parlour games or seeking patronage. Such activities may be characteristic of the milieu you move in, but this is not the case for most people. People like or don’t like Shearer, Cunliffe, Robertson, etc. for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with insider faction-building or patronage.
              • The Fan Club …

                26 March 2013 at 5:47 pm

                Look, ABLA is blatantly someone who thought they were playing the game. That’s the kind of person who ended up a “senior party official” under Clark.
                • felix …

                  26 March 2013 at 6:28 pm

                  It’s pretty obvious reading ABLAs comments and reading yours who’s playing the game.

                  Ever since you’ve turned up here you’ve done two things consistently:

                  1. Bragged about your special inside information, upper-level contacts, and mover-shaker status, and

                  2. Fervently denied all of the above.

                  And I agree with Olwyn. We’re not all part of your fucking factions and power games and oh so intriguing tactical manoeuvres. Plenty of us don’t like Shearer for the simple reason that he’s quite shit.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    26 March 2013 at 6:32 pm

                    Holding an opinion like that, you must be a Cunliffe groupie QED
                    • felix …

                      26 March 2013 at 7:26 pm

                      Yep, that’s the proof alright.
                  • The Fan Club …

                    27 March 2013 at 5:54 pm

                    The Fan Club’s always been clear that we’re just fans. Paying attention gets you a long way, darling felix.

                    PS I do enjoy Anne’s assumption that ABLA is a male; I suspect ABLA is very definitely not a male…
                • Anne …

                  26 March 2013 at 7:16 pm

                  You presumptuous creep!

                  How do you know anything about ABLA’s background. It probably goes back many years perhaps even before Helen Clark. He makes loads of sense… you make none.

                  For a while it was funny reading your obnoxious crap but I, for one, have had enough. I think it’s time TFC was removed permanently from this site.
                  • felix …

                    26 March 2013 at 7:39 pm

                    +1. No use at all.
            • George D 27.1.1.1.2.2

              26 March 2013 at 5:40 pm

              It’s my understanding that there are a range of sentiments among in Auckland. Some of those people are upset at the way things have gone thus far, some are not. If it’s more than a handful, that’s a problem. It’s more than a handful.

              It’s up to you to work out how many they are, and to work out a way to repair the damage. I don’t know what that is – a range of actions have been suggested, all of which require some compromise from all. But even as an outsider I know that trying to beat them into submission won’t work.
              • The Fan Club …

                26 March 2013 at 6:18 pm

                The thing is George, they pulled some shit at annual conference that just isn’t ok to do. There’s got to be some recognition that they wanted a fight, and that’s what they got. Which, like, sucks, but also, MS and ABLA and so-on have to take some responsibility, and they really are not taking that on.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  26 March 2013 at 6:41 pm

                  Fuck off, the people who pulled shit at annual conference was your crew. Curran et al.

                  I’m looking forwards to Christchurch already. It’s gonna be a world of fun.
                  • hush minx …

                    26 March 2013 at 10:57 pm

                    So conference is in chch then? Dates I’m presuming are early November? Bet they avoid the 5th November though!
                    What will be interesting given last year is whether those who got up and active can be bothered doing the same again this year, or whether the apathy dictates that they find a quiet life instead.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      27 March 2013 at 6:36 pm

                      Bet they avoid the 5th November though!

                      That’s pretty funny.
      • millsy 27.1.2

        26 March 2013 at 7:55 am

        So I take it that you think that Labour should be National-lite then. That is the impression I get from historical analysis of your posts.
        • Colonial Viper 27.1.2.1

          26 March 2013 at 8:08 am

          TFC is only interested in winning internal political battles and defeating the other. Actually governing a country in the present and future interests of the people hasn’t occured to him.
      • mickysavage 27.1.3

        26 March 2013 at 8:36 am

        Funny that the desire to make the leadership selection process more democratic should be described as a “fight”.
        • Peggity 27.1.3.1

          26 March 2013 at 2:46 pm

          Not funny just sad.
        • The Fan Club 27.1.3.2

          27 March 2013 at 5:45 pm

          Hahaha very funny Micky, I’d call going on Morning Report and trash talking about the Party asking for a fight, wouldn’t you?
    • Colonial Viper 27.2

      25 March 2013 at 11:36 pm

      ABLA thanks for commenting with your thoughts. Glad you decided to check TS out again.

      I am seeing countless people leave in my Auckland community shifting to the Greens or disengaging completely because of the toxic attitude and behavior of MPs like Darien Fenton, Clare Curran, but very much led by Grant Robertson (people don’t realise it at face value), Annette King, Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff and co.

      Yep.

      If Labour no longer remains to fulfill its historic mission, then its time pretending is over.
      • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 27.2.1

        26 March 2013 at 4:17 pm

        led by Grant Robertson

        The thought of Mr “Um, err, I mean, I’m a relatively new member in the House, um” leading anything boggles the mind.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GU4h6aQTbDk#t=21s
        • Colonial Viper 27.2.1.1

          26 March 2013 at 6:43 pm

          I’m not arguing with you.
    • GeorgeG 27.3

      26 March 2013 at 12:14 am

      AucklandBasedLabourActivist ,thank you.
      • Anne 27.3.1

        26 March 2013 at 9:47 am

        +1
    • pollywog 27.4

      26 March 2013 at 9:09 am

      Fwiw I’ve decided to back Shearer in the meantime…

      …not his team or whoever, just him as leader!
    • JK 27.5

      26 March 2013 at 10:04 am

      “The bottom line however is that Labour need to change considerably in order for us to win the next election. The careerists need a slap in the face and Grant Robertson needs to stop holding the party back while he lines up the numbers in his favour.”

      Thanks ABLA – you have summed up what’s been happening very well, along with what happened at the conference.

      Whether the Labour caucus can change is debateable – I’m not holding my breath.
    • Anne 27.6

      26 March 2013 at 10:37 am

      The last time I read this site was in 2009. A few caucus members and committed MP followers (ie Young Labour ‘hacks’) on my Facebook feed constantly degrade the contributions of this blog, and tell us (active party folk) that it’s not worth reading.

      That doesn’t surprise me ABLA.

      There are some very intelligent and insightful people who post and comment on this site. They provide thought provoking ideas and are not afraid to be critical when criticism is deserved. Add to that a substantial dose of witticisms and amusing anecdotes and this blog-site is a twice daily must read. Sure, it has its share of dross too, but that is easily glossed over and ignored.

      The current Labour leadership and their party member sycophants are very scared of The Standard. That is why they find it necessary to vilify the site at every opportunity. I hope you will pass the word on to your friends and acquaintances that it is well worth reading…
      • Peter 27.6.1

        26 March 2013 at 12:33 pm

        And honestly, the worst they can do is send their MPs and advisors in, on taxpayer salaries, to attack the posters, or sometimes add your name, or pseudonym to a blacklist. Very occasionally, MPs might raise complaints with the ruling NZ Council of the NZLP, in order to try and muzzle posters. That last attempt backfired spectacularly on the MP involved.
        • Rhinocrates 27.6.1.1

          26 March 2013 at 12:51 pm

          We all know it, but let’s say it out loud. Let’s name them, because like Paula Bennett, they don’t believe in discretion:

          Clare Curran.
          • Peter 27.6.1.1.1

            26 March 2013 at 2:30 pm

            Yes, it was Clare Curran.
    • Rhinocrates 27.7

      26 March 2013 at 11:16 am

      Thanks ABLA. That’s enlightening, if depressing. I’m afraid that the right wing or careerist Labour caucus has drunk the Kool-Aid as it were… or to be just a little less obscure, as was said of Arthur “Bomber” Harris, they confuse advice for interference, criticism for sabotage and evidence for propaganda.. Honestly, I do not know if a LINO-led government will be any better than Key’s mob. That mob is awful, and they’re steadily stripping the country, but politically, they’re presenting a unified front and know how to play the game.

      The only thing worse than a conspiracy is lots of incompetent conspiracies marinated in solipsism and LINO epitomises that.
28. Bob Tambling 28

    26 March 2013 at 8:21 am

    If you want to sum up what is wrong with the NZP, compare and contrast these three websites
    http://www.labour.org.nz/
    http://www.national.org.nz/
    http://www.greens.org.nz/

    I mean the labour party site is just terrible
    A modern progressive party? Jeez
    • Colonial Viper 28.1

      26 March 2013 at 8:27 am

      They need to add a few more David Shearer images to the Labour website, to get the true presidential (not policy) feel that they are aiming for.
      • Rhinocrates 28.1.1

        26 March 2013 at 10:23 am

        As Winston Peters said of United Coiffure, it’s a personality cult in search of a personality.
    • Colonial Weka 28.2

      26 March 2013 at 9:21 am

      I like National’s Know Your Party thingy on their front page.
      • Bob Tambling 28.2.1

        26 March 2013 at 12:13 pm

        From the nzlp home page
        Click here for “my” plan for Canterbury
        Should be replaced by “our” plan for Canterbury

        You can only use a “presidentail me” style aka National and Key when you have a suitable candidate .This is the problem DS is undoubtly a nice bloke and all that but he ain’t a presidential style leader .
        If the NZLP reconised that it would be a start.
        Don’t try and copy the NATs you are going to fail ,be bold ,be different be inclusive
        • Colonial Viper 28.2.1.1

          26 March 2013 at 6:45 pm

          This is the problem DS is undoubtly a nice bloke

          Eh, this seems increasingly unlikely.
29. Brad 29

    26 March 2013 at 9:07 am

    Is the same Eddie whose only consistency is being consistently wrong when it comes to anything to do with Labour and his so-called inside ‘sources’? The Eddie whose most recent failures include claiming the knowledge that Shearer will call a membership-wide vote on his leadership and that Cunliffe will be ‘punished’ by being given the health portfolio? Eddie talks a big game but never delivers
30. kayabhs 30

    26 March 2013 at 9:21 am

    Ruth Dyson member of the ‘Careerist Left’?! The woman who championed neo-liberal reforms by running against Jim Anderton for the Presidency of the Labour Party?

    Next you’ll tell me that Cunliffe, who was a leader of a centrist caucus in ’99 and stood several leadership challenges at a time when the party was moving to the left is somehow head of the leftist faction….. oh wait.
    • prism 30.1

      26 March 2013 at 10:36 am

      kay..
      You’ve fingered the changing nature of politics in NZ with few having a clear picture of what they are about and which path they want to tread. This is a multi-choice question, and who is invigilating the results? Us I guess.
31. Rob 31

    26 March 2013 at 11:55 am

    [Citation needed]
32. Monique Angel 32

    26 March 2013 at 6:43 pm

    Weell.
    methinks it’s gonna take a bit more to upset the applecart, meself. Am following the same logic but getting a slightly different result. 1st Robertson (Careerist faction) , 2nd Cunliffe (Cunners faction but will pip Robertson with the right play) , 3rd Shearer (UN faction)
    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-labour-trifecta.html
    Just sayin. So nice to be back here; haven’t visited for a while.
    • millsy 32.1

      26 March 2013 at 10:40 pm

      Dont know why you keep coming back. We clearly dont want you.
      • Monique Angel 32.1.1

        27 March 2013 at 8:24 am

        To be honest I come back both because I’m a misanthrope and I appreciate the intellectual discourse. Is it pick on housewives day?
        • felix 32.1.1.1

          27 March 2013 at 9:21 am

          That’s not what “appreciate” means.
        • mickysavage 32.1.1.2

          27 March 2013 at 9:26 am

          Monique I just had a look at your blog. I take it you have never talked to a labour insider about what is happening?
        • Clockie 32.1.1.3

          27 March 2013 at 3:13 pm

          Misanthrope may have been a Freudian slip. You possibly meant to say masochist? But then again….
33. Stephen Judd 33

    26 March 2013 at 7:15 pm

    So basically, the supposed left MP group who didn’t go for Cunliffe all get labelled “careerist”, presumably in contrast to the pure motives of the other left group who apparently don’t care about personal advancement at all. That would make Eddie’s “The Left” the most unusual caucus faction I’ve ever heard of.

    Meanwhile it’s clear that Cunliffe can inspire great personal loyalty but it’s also clear that he can really piss off some of his colleagues. Eddie lists three factors — “ideology, loyalty, and personal advancement” — but glosses over the loyalty angle in naming the groups. People are motivated by personal affection and animosity as well. As several commentators on Twitter pointed out, the party would be healthier for some clear ideological factions out in the open, but that’s not what’s determining the leadership at all.

    This is why I have trouble taking this post with a grain of salt. Although it does give helpful insight into how some people are thinking.
    • Colonial Viper 33.1

      26 March 2013 at 11:07 pm

      Everybody needs to make a crust and pay the mortgage mate.

      “Careerist” indicates something other than that.
      • Stephen Judd 33.1.1

        27 March 2013 at 8:00 am

        As far as I can tell in this context it means “unwilling to support Cunliffe.” Remember, if that faction joined with the other faction, they would still be in the winning group and be advanced.
        • karol 33.1.1.1

          27 March 2013 at 8:11 am

          In the context of the Labour caucus, I take “careerist” to mean they make decisions (like choice of leader) based on their career ambitions first, with political values/principles being given low priority.
          • Colonial Viper 33.1.1.1.1

            27 March 2013 at 8:27 am

            And i thought that would have been obvious too.
            • felix 33.1.1.1.1.1

              27 March 2013 at 9:33 am

              And it was.
        • Daveo 33.1.1.2

          27 March 2013 at 12:23 pm

          The question is how far their careers would be advanced. The ones Eddie calls ‘the careerist left’ are being well rewarded (see the recent reshuffle) in a way they probably wouldn’t with Cunliffe’s lot. They’re also aware that the Right are older and will be retiring soon, freeing up more spots. I mean, a lot of these people are ex-staffers who’ve made politics their lives. They have no experience outside of it and I’d be surprised if they have any life plans beyond it. It’s an inward-looking, narrow little clique and the interests of number one trump all else.
34. KJT 34

    27 March 2013 at 9:09 am

    And. Some people still think we should let this bunchy of dysfunctional self seeking twits tell us what to do, unfettered by referenda or recall.

    Make no mistake though. National are equally as useless, they just have better PR firms so they can hide it better.

    If Shearer cannot bring the warring factions together, make good use of his more competent people, like Cunliff and sideline the time servers, then he is no leader.
35. Daveo 35

    27 March 2013 at 12:19 pm

    Christ Trotter’s weighed in with his take. Seems to square pretty well with this post:
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/27/with-god-on-their-side-explaining-labours-factional-divisions/
36. Skinny 36

    27 March 2013 at 1:11 pm

    Looking at the current Labour MPs on offer is less than inspiring. I called for fresh faces at the end of  the last Labour Government. 

    When will the party kick out the dead wood? They have had their time to move on without being pushed, now it’s time to swing the axe wildly.

     Shall we start naming them? is the question, although they know who they are as do we!
    • McFlock 36.1

      27 March 2013 at 1:14 pm

      List mps might be doable, but how would you overrule electorate committees’ choices for who they want to represent the electorate?
37. Skinny 37

    27 March 2013 at 3:23 pm

    That’s a have as HQ usually weave a path to get who they want in.

Links to post

1. Eddie on Labour’s factions | Kiwiblog: posted on 26 March 2013 at 9:01 am
2. With 'Friends' Like Eddie, Who Needs WhaleOil? - Recess Monkey: posted on 27 March 2013 at 2:23 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS