No rush to judgment

Written By: - Date published: 10:31 pm, September 23rd, 2014 - 146 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

It would appear that the Labour caucus has decided to take its time to fully consider all implications of what was a massive defeat before proceeding to decide questions of leadership. I think that is wise – we have to get the Labour horse in proper shape for the next race before we worry about the jockey.

The Party constitution requires “as a matter of course” that there will be a caucus vote to endorse the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party. This is  not an option; the vote has to be taken. And it has to be taken “no later than three months after the date of a general election.” But it can be taken at a time of the caucus’ choosing. It does not have to be immediate.

Note that it is an endorsement vote for the Leader, not a confidence vote as described by Meltdown Paddy at TV3.  The bar is high – in order not to trigger a party-wide election the Leader has to get the endorsement of 60%+1 of the caucus.

Labour caucus members will have heard and delivered a lot of straight talking today. I sat in that caucus for over eight years, and saw and occasionally participated in quite a number of sometimes very robust debates. I think what is not often appreciated by outside observers is that people can have strong and different views but still retain respect for each other, and can at the same time retain their collective shape.

People who put themselves up for election to Parliament put their lives on the line. When they lose, and when they lose as badly as this, it hurts. They are grieving, and we should not be surprised if denial and anger come to the forefront at the start. While we may grieve too it is not quite the same for us and what we should do is give our MPs the space, time and respect they all deserve.

So I think they have made a wise decision to consider all aspects and implications of this loss before doing what they must by way of endorsing the Leader. Believe me, there is plenty to consider and the issues are not simple.

Labour has had three leaders in six years, and arguably we would have been better served if the process of electing Phil Goff and David Shearer had been more considered. Also in my view if there is to be a party-wide leadership election the candidates should be required to propose a detailed manifesto and plan, and not just be judged on the basis of a speech.

There is a lot that needs fixing, and a lot of listening and discussing to be done. Remember the old saying “act in haste, repent at leisure.” No need to rush; the voters aren’t hanging out for the decision.

146 comments on “No rush to judgment ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jim Nald 1
    23 September 2014 at 10:52 pm

    the voters aren’t hanging out for the decision

    What about The Membership where empowerment and re-engagement with a broader base has been much needed for many years?

    The next course of action must take into account the urgency of rebuilding that base and not let the period before Christmas/New Year just drift away into summer.

    • greywarbler 1.1
      24 September 2014 at 9:43 am

      @ Jim Nald
      Hi. Good point. Christmas preparations will fill the mind, then summer holidays and then climbing back on the rack again! all puts distance between the important decision and needed further action. October-early November should see things settled one way or the other. And the follow-up activity on a planned time scale.

      I have learned about the Gantt chart which is a well-regarded project planning tool. They have been paper based and though there is a web version, I think easily, accessible wall charts would help Labour plan their moves and define and sharpen their concepts.
      Try these Labour to state clear objectives instead of your fuddled circular arguments, with individuals going off like rockets in different directions. Also do a mission statement and you could have a favourite song, not necessarily The Internationale!, and play that at every session just to remind everyone of the goals.

      Explanation of Gantt process
      http://creately.com/blog/diagrams/use-gantt-chart-plan-project/
      http://www.smartdraw.com/articles/gantt-chart/gantt-chart-tips.htm

      Images for different charts – pick one/two!
      edited

      • Tracey 1.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 11:28 am

        Greyw

        I honestly think that twenty in LP caucus truly believe that john key is popular just by waking up each morning as leader of the NP.

  2. Bill 2
    23 September 2014 at 11:00 pm

    Three months of prospective candidates sniping at and undermining David Cunliffe then. Great.

    Three months of bollocks and bullshit leading the news, while ‘Dirty Politics’ and spying slip away. Fantastic.

    Three months of Labour being cast in a negative light by every Paddy and sock-puppet on the block. Fucking amazing.

    • Distilled essence of NZ 2.1
      23 September 2014 at 11:08 pm

      Would you prefer Labour to be led by the ABC faction?

      • AmaKiwi 2.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 2:41 am

        Will the members endorse anyone other than David Cunliffe?

        If not, why the wait?

        Mike is right, “There is a lot of fixing to be done.” But you can’t create new personalities. Fixing the party is separate from who will lead.

        @ Bill is right. Sort the leadership NOW.

        • Hanswurst 2.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 9:22 am

          +1. As individuals, members should make it known on no uncertain terms that they are displeased with having to wait to affirm Cunliffe and press to have the vote as quickly as possible.

          On a related note, is a person joining now eligible to vote, or do you have to have been a member for longer? What is the story with members who are not resident in NZ? They need special dispensation to join as members in their last electorate of residence, but can they vote?

          • Apples 2.1.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 10:46 am

            I’m a member. I voted for David Cunliffe last time. And I don’t think I will be doing that again!

            So please not presume what we think. Some of us want a considered process, where we get to figure out the issues and get to think about who is the best leader.

            • Hanswurst 2.1.1.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 7:44 pm

              I’m not presuming what anybody thinks. I’m commenting on a blog about what I’d like to see happen. History indicates that people who disagree with me as you do will ignore me and do what they want, just like you.

  3. Ant 3
    23 September 2014 at 11:09 pm

    I think Cunliffe is probably right to get it done before Christmas, it means whoever the leader is has a chance to put a team together and get it ready for 2015. Otherwise that’s 6+ months wasted if they have to run the primary in early late Jan/Feb when people are back from holiday.

    • blue leopard 3.1
      24 September 2014 at 10:35 am

      +1 It would mean they would be starting afresh and with renewed resolve in the new year knowing who their leader is, rather than still having things up in the air.

  4. Saarbo 4
    24 September 2014 at 7:29 am

    The crux of the problem seems to be if the ABC group defy/challenge the democratic decisions of the membership, why would they then not defy the democratic decision’s of the electorate.

    The problem for me was Shearer, Nash and Cosgrove talking to the media and criticising their leader, this shows a clear lack of discipline. I also witnessed Shearer criticizing Cunliffe at a campaign public meeting.

    The problem with an extended process is the longer it carries on the more Labour’s voters move away. This whole process is disappointing and embarrassing.

    We will leave our VFL going in the mean time but they need to sort things out sooner rather than later in my view….what a mess.

    • Pascals bookie 4.1
      24 September 2014 at 8:24 am

      Spot on Saarbo,

      The message after the lection should have been unified. ‘We have a lot to discuss and a process to go through, I support the leader of the party as we go through that process’ and ‘You have my statement, thank you’.

      Instead, we had what we had. And now the people who talked to the media are crying that they need more time, and it’s outrageous that the Leader is trying to rush things. These people are idiots. There is no use blaming the media for covering the story either. The story is legitimate and was handed to them on a plate by the people who talked to them.

      • Hanswurst 4.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 9:28 am

        The message after the lection should have been unified. ‘We have a lot to discuss and a process to go through, I support the leader of the party as we go through that process’ and ‘You have my statement, thank you’.

        Indeed. Looking at what Shearer has actually said… he demoted and humiliated Cunliffe for a lot less in 2012. Just saying.

    • Anne 4.2
      24 September 2014 at 9:45 am

      Could not agree more Saarbo and Pascals bookie. I suspect the motivation for the public utterances had more to do with spite than anything else.

      I noted on another post that Shearer didn’t have a single David Cunliffe hoarding in his electorate. As far as I could tell, neither did Goff in Mt. Roskill. Both these electorates are next door to New Lynn so one would expect they would show their support for Cunliffe in this way at least.

      It looks like their game plan was to destabilise Cunliffe the moment the election was over. No recognition of the huge detrimental affect from the ongoing Dirty Politics meme and the lack of comprehension by a politically gauche and gullible public… no recognition of the enormous amount of damage they did to the Labour Party by talking out of line in the immediate aftermath of the election.

      Iprent is right. Behaving like children.

      • Tracey 4.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 11:08 am

        There was one i saw on corner of sandrignham rd and mt albert rd that had cunliffes face… Wasnt there in the beginning of the campaign tho… Thats goffs territory

        • Anne 4.2.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 12:09 pm

          Pleased to hear it… must have appeared after my perambulation along Mt. Albert Rd. To clarify my comment above: I know Goff spoke to media but I didn’t pick up any derogatory comments directed at Cunliffe. Maybe there was something I missed.

  5. outofbed 5
    24 September 2014 at 7:42 am

    Well,
    This obviously can’t continue.
    So something radical is required or else more of the same
    SO split the Labour factions into two parties, rename them appropriately
    Say Labour left and Labour center for now
    Form an alliance for the election Called the Social Democratic alliance the SDA

    The Greens have reached their ceiling but have a very large group of outstanding socially minded people who wont be able to get on to the Greens small list
    Reach out to these people and the activists they could bring

    The Greens could then become an environmental party who, in negotiations would go with which ever block could do the most for the environment

    Sorted

    • karol 5.1
      24 September 2014 at 8:05 am

      Great, You want to demolish or split the Green Party to service a suicidal Labour Party.

      I suggest that Labour put it’s own house in order.

      The Greens are quietly getting on with things. They have core values and policies they all support.

    • SPC 5.2
      24 September 2014 at 8:18 am

      If it is simply about a winning strategy, then Labour needs the Dunneites (Davis, Nash, Goff, Shearer, Mallard, Hipkins and O’Connor and Cosgrove – the front pricks) of its caucus to form a centrist party under Shane Jones to replace NZ First. They can run on raising the age of super and compulsory Kiwi Saver contributions.

      The Labour Party and Greens competing with National for its support in forming coalitions.

      • Tracey 5.2.1
        24 September 2014 at 11:13 am

        LP clearly thought a national govt was better than a labour/green/IMP/nzf understanding. Otherwise TTT makes no sense. Woodhouse campaigning for electorate votein epsom makes no sense and failing to have a private sit down chat with greens about Ohariu… Makes no sense.

        When you have a LP prepared to risk another national term for personal caucus reasons you are in deep shit.

        Without the party, goff, shearer have no electorate to “love” them. Cosgrove is nothing without the party… Shearer was gifted an incredibly safe seat, so his sanctimony is misplaced.

        • SPC 5.2.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 11:34 am

          The Green Party could and should have refused to stand candidates in MMP rort electorates. Ohariu, Epsom and also TTT in 2014.

          The Labour Party position on TTT is, as it has always been, to compete with Mana Party for the seat even though Mana was an ally.

          This time it linked this position to appearing to be above the MMP rort, and hope this translated to increased party vote support nationwide.

          However the loss of independent Maori MP’s in the Maori electorates and a return to Labour dominance is a potential threat to the continuance of these seats once Key is no longer PM.

          It would be better for Maori if National and Labour backed right and left wing affiliated but independent Maori groups, such as Maori Party and Mana.

          • greywarbler 5.2.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 12:17 pm

            @SPC 11.34
            Why should Greens weaken a perfectly good party to aid Labour that threw its hair around and sang “I want to do it my way”? Labour the prime prima donna!

            The Green response must be to stay on target, ride the pricks and keep on keeping on. They are the only solid people’s party in NZ and have kept democracy alive for the country while the others have buggered around and in so doing buggered the country. Or raped or rogered it whichever.description you prefer.

            • SPC 5.2.1.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 12:31 pm

              Not standing candidates in those 3 electorates would have weakened Greens a little (maybe 0.1% on the party list without a candidate campaigning for the party vote) for more significant gain in the relative power balance between left and right (not to help Labour) – by keeping ACT and United out and keeping Mana in.

            • Tracey 5.2.1.1.1.2
              24 September 2014 at 1:48 pm

              How was greens position weakened by my position. In both ohariu and epsom greens campaigned for parry vote. Could have withdrawn from ohariu and campaigned for party vote only.

        • McFlock 5.2.1.2
          24 September 2014 at 1:45 pm

          Well, labgrnnz1imp was never on the table, because nz1 wasn’t going to go with imp.

          Additionally, Labour regaining TTT and the other Maori seats (bar 1) is a pretty solid statement about the desire to rebuild labour’s foundations.

          Act is withering on the vine, and there’s only a narrow window where the difference between a nat and a lab pm is one seat. One we’re not looking at right now.

          Personally, I suspect that caucus is a lot more reasonable about getting Labour headed sensibly in the long term than are a lot of the more vocal self-loathing labourites.

          Yes, the election was a shitnado. Was it down to individual caucus members, or the party’s strategy? maybe just bad luck, and the “media headwind” Labour sails into being an outright gale this time around. Shit happens. But cue more allegations that caucus member X is a neoliberal or has some other attribute that makes them a reasonable scapegoat.

          • Tracey 5.2.1.2.1
            24 September 2014 at 1:53 pm

            I am sure it is a combination, disloyal/ill disciplined caucus, disconnect between membership and caucus, strategy and the very wealthy ruthless machine that is behind the scenes of nats and ACT.

            Given lp cant match the dirty tricks for want of resource or desire that leaves the other areas.

            I struggle to believe that a change of leader alone will reverse things…

            Key was parachuted in to fulfil a specific role, bankrolled and a strategy in place.

            Labour appear to think you can succeed doing this in reverse order…

            If thats true this charismatic person must stand out like a sore thimb… And yet…

            • McFlock 5.2.1.2.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 2:06 pm

              key was parachuted in by greasy eminences.

              The thing about Labour is that they expect a leader to lead, rather than follow the dictats of the ruling council of sith lords (or whatever national has).

              The other issue is that nats, by and large, are unprincipled about anything other than the dollar.

              Labour members have lots of principles, often conflicting. Caucus members reflect that. The trouble is that labour party and possibly caucus members seem to be in a bit of a cycle of “if I stamp my foot and refuse to compromise, then if nothing happens it must be the other side’s fault. If I compromise and stop bitching for an entire two months and nothing happens, it must be the traitors and splitters I imagine before me. Whatever happens, it can’t be anything to do with any external party or event”.

              I’m a bit pissed at the country right now. I’m not sure Labour put too many steps in the wrong direction, though. Sometimes you can fight a good fight and still get a massive kick in the nuts.

          • Chooky 5.2.1.2.2
            24 September 2014 at 2:41 pm

            “Well, labgrnnz1imp was never on the table, because nz1 wasn’t going to go with imp”

            …….that is besides the point and not relevant ……The internet MANA Party wanted a SUPPORT role to the Labour led coalition OUTSIDE caucus

            …NZF could not have prevented this

            …and had Labour got more votes and the Left worked and voted strategically ( ie to oust Dunne and help Hone….it may well have been a viable coalition…even necessary that INt/Mana supported it

            • McFlock 5.2.1.2.2.1
              24 September 2014 at 3:10 pm

              Had labour got more votes…

              Yeah, well, they didn’t, and playing silly buggers by supporting rotten boroughs like the nats do would probaly have knocked another seat’s worth of votes off the dismal party vote anyway, so Labour wouldn’t be better off with Hone still in TTT.

              • Chooky …
                24 September 2014 at 4:10 pm

                well we no longer live in a first- past- the- post environment…but Labour dinosaur wants to play prima donna and hasnt cottoned on yet that people dont like it and want MMP cooperation

                the Int/Mana is not a “rotten borough”..and nor are the Greens

                • McFlock …
                  24 September 2014 at 4:36 pm

                  TTT would be a rotten borough if a larger party (or several) had to refuse to contest the seat just to preserve the hope that a tiny party might get one MP.

                  Just to be clear – if labour had refused to contest any number of electorates in the hope that semi-popular also-rans might get an electorate seat, we’d still have a national government in 2015.

                  • blue leopard …
                    24 September 2014 at 4:48 pm

                    @ McFlock,

                    You appear to be missing the part where National, Labour & New Zealand First moved to actively promote Hone’s competitor? I don’t know why you would forget that, the message was very clearly broadcast on National television.

                    Hardly ‘non-rotten’ behaviour

                    I wonder why they would do that for an ‘also-ran’?

                    Additionally, it wasn’t simply Hone we lost out on, it was Harre too.

                    Also, having spoken to a few of last year’s non voters – it was way easy to get them fired up to vote for IMP than any of the other parties.

                    I wonder how many non-voters voted for IMP?

                    And I wonder how many will vote again after this outcome?

                    Hone speaks out strongly for the most marginalized in this country and that Labour were involved in outing him is reprehensible to me, for countless reasons, only some of which I have mentioned here.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 September 2014 at 5:07 pm

                      You appear to be missing the part where National, Labour & New Zealand First moved to actively promote Hone’s competitor?
                      Labour promoted their candidate. National and NZ1 repeated their historical practise of not running candidates, but then they don’t exactly have major support in TTT. But Hone needed Labour to throw in the towel to win. That would had made TTT Labour’s Epsom. Tories would love to see the left become as unprincipled as they’ve been for years.

                      I wonder why they would do that for an ‘also-ran’?
                      Yeah, that must have skewed a couple of dozen votes.

                      Additionally, it wasn’t simply Hone we lost out on, it was Harre too.
                      True. Maybe IMP should have run a better campaign.

                      I wonder how many non-voters voted for IMP?
                      ??

                      And I wonder how many will vote again after this outcome?
                      None. They’re non-voters. And turnout was about as bad as last time, wasn’t it?
                      Fucking non-voters. They vote for nothing, and they get it.

                      Hone speaks out strongly for the most marginalized in this country and that Labour were involved in outing him is reprehensible to me, for countless reasons, only some of which I have mentioned here.
                      He also cut a deal with a dude who gave $50k to John Banks.

                    • Chooky …
                      24 September 2014 at 5:50 pm

                      +100 blue leopard..

                    • blue leopard …
                      24 September 2014 at 7:14 pm

                      McFlock,

                      I really have supplied rather a few reasons as to why I disapprove of Labour joining in on ousting Harawira/IMP.

                      You,on the other hand, only appear to be supplying dubious arguments and some stuff that is actually made-up. Could it be that you don’t really have a decent argument?

                      But Hone needed Labour to throw in the towel to win.

                      I’m sorry but I simply don’t accept this. This is an assumption. Labour didn’t just supply a candidate, there was some real dirty politicking going on surrounding Davis. (including some of the usual suspects frm ‘Dirty Politics’)

                      If it was such a forgone conclusion, please explain to me why National and NZ First felt the need to broadcast to the Nation for their followers to support Davis?

                      re your non-voter comments:
                      disingenuous – I clearly qualified what I meant by non-voters in the prior sentence.

                      Is that the only approach you can offer? Disingenuity?

                      He also cut a deal with a dude who gave $50k to John Banks.

                      That doesn’t discount the point I was making re the strength of Hone’s ‘voice’.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 September 2014 at 10:51 pm

                      “Dirty politiking”? Such as?

                      And yes, taking KDC’s money did weaken hone’s voice.

                      As for national’s/nz1’s motives, I have no idea – maybe they just wanted to stir more shit amongst the left, so you guys can blame hone’s lost exclusively on Labour for the next decade. Objective accomplished.

                    • blue leopard …
                      24 September 2014 at 11:10 pm

                      Dirty politics in Te Tai Tokerau electorate:

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11304222

                      http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/kelvin-davis-continues-antiinternet-mana-campaign-2014080500

                      Either the left learns to work together or we continue to fail.

                      “United we stand divided we fall” isn’t simply a hollow slogan, there is truth to it.

                      The whole issue over the controversial nature of KDC and his funding of IMP was not helped by a complete lack of counter propaganda.

                      Let us not forget the type of people who fund National.

                      People don’t seem to have a problem with voting for them – or is that because it is all done out of sight? Or perhaps it is o.k for right-wing aims to be strongly financially supported by left-wingers aren’t ‘allowed’ to do that?

                      The double standards in this country is breathtaking.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 September 2014 at 11:30 pm

                      lol

                      Talk about misleading descriptions.
                      The book “Dirty Politics” dealt with secret payments to bloggers so they would publish the payers’ articles under their name.

                      It didn’t cover:

                      • interested parties publishing articles under their own name
                      • dickheads making public donations under their own name
                      • plans that got canceled by someone with a brain
                      • honest opinion published under the holder’s name, clearly labelledas opinion

                      That stuff is called "politics". Some of it might not exactly be "vote positive", but my argument has never been that Davis isn't a dick. Just that hone lost an election, fair and square.

                      But it seems that when hone loses an election, it's Labour's fault, but when Labour loses an election, it's Labour's fault.

                      Although I agree with the last bit – still barely managing to persuade myself not to hate every second person I see when walking down the street.

                    • blue leopard …
                      25 September 2014 at 1:19 am

                      The entire work of Dirty Politics was documenting the type of underhand dealings that go on in National.

                      Davis decides to appeal to National voters by launching an attack website and gets donations from two of the many dirty dealers in that book. The donations only went public because that suited the dirty dealers.

                      This is not unconnected to the subject matter of the book, I consider it disingenuous to say it is unrelated.

                      On a more agreeable note, oh boy, I’m guessing there must be lots of people thinking and feeling what you expressed in your last sentence. I heard someone else express a remarkably similar sentiment a few days ago, and I certainly find what you said fits the way I am feeling to a T!

                    • McFlock …
                      25 September 2014 at 1:25 am

                      Underhand is hidden, deniable.
                      Davis didn’t solicit those donations. He forwarded them to charity.
                      The website was openly attributed. Not good, but not in the realm of WO/Ede, either. Negative politics, but not a dirty trick.

                    • blue leopard …
                      25 September 2014 at 2:11 am

                      I considered that underhand also meant dishonorable, not above-board, not fair play. It was a dirty trick to capitalize on the negative aspect of the connection with Dotcom, the type of trick I would hope potential allies would not conduct on one another,

                      I cannot find the email, but Davis’s idea was to appeal to rightwing money. He did solicit the donations. Do you think he would have paid the money back had it not gone public?

                      There appears to be a problem with accepting money from a very wealthy person who wishes to donate to a left-wing cause, yet not over a Labour candidate appealing to the right wing to oust a candidate that will bring 2+ MPs (and competent ones) compared to one.

                      I accepted the stance of Labour distancing themselves from IMP, but when it started to be a stance of openly disapproving and feeding everyone’s fears, I think was an extremely unintelligent approach to take.

                      I do hope that Labour and the left get their strategic thinking in place in three years time. This issue over TTT and slandering Dotcom being counterproductive is such a no-brainer, I consider it odd that I have to spend so much time making a case for it.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 September 2014 at 5:37 pm

                      It was unfair to point out the potential downsides of doing a deal with kdc? I disagree. If it’s untrue “slander”, hone has recourse (if only to show up the lies for what they are).

                      The two $100 donations were made as election gimmicks by tories. Davis wasn’t responsible for them. He put out a general request for donations and those muppets responded. Stop trying to make it look like he went cap in hand to slater and farrar for cash.

                      There appears to be a problem with accepting money from a very wealthy person who wishes to donate to a left-wing cause, yet not over a Labour candidate appealing to the right wing to oust a candidate that will bring 2+ MPs (and competent ones) compared to one.

                      There is an issue with accepting money from someone who also donates to right wing politicians, yes. As for the “bring 2+ MPs (and competent ones) compared to one”, that is wishful thinking. It could just as easily have cost Labour 3 mps.

                    • blue leopard …
                      25 September 2014 at 6:04 pm

                      It is pretty clear we disagree over this one, McFlock.

                      I think the arguments you are raising are weak at best.

                      You say Davis didn’t go cap and hand to Farrar &co, yet the email that was leaked indicated the idea was to target right wing money. So what the hell did he expect?

                      You don’t appear to appreciate the effect of having someone like Hone in parliament has had, despite my having laid out the issue in a fair amount of detail and supported by evidence.

                      I, also, had my concerns re KDC. I chose to vote IMP despite that because I saw through the whole concern and realised it actually was irrelevant. I think both Hone & Harre would have added much needed strength and experience to the left wing dialogue and decided that IMP were actually pushing the two most important issues facing us; addressing poverty and the whole issue around the internet, including spying and capitalizing on the internet by developing the that sector.

                      This is where the connection with KDC would have probably been useful – he is very talented in IT, creating businesses and making money. It would seem he would be pretty invested in making something happen in NZ in that sector. He would also have good connections in that regard.

                      I strongly supported Labour’s policies too. I couldn’t decide between the two parties I liked them both alot. Ultimately I chose to do what I could to get IMP into parliament. This choice wasn’t unrelated to the uncooperative stance, ending up in slander, that Labour chose to hold in order to ‘appeal to middle New Zealand’ whom clearly I aren’t a part of.

                      I do not regret my choice. At least I know I did my bit and if there were 100, 000 Nzers with a bit of spine and put their vote where their mouths were, then Hone wouldn’t have needed to win TTT.

                      It is pretty saddening to me that, like the last election, there is only approx 26,000 people prepared to support a person like Hone, who very clearly to me, is one of the more honest and motivated politicians out there. There are 285, 000 children in poverty. These two numbers show something is awry with our country.

                      2+ vs -3?
                      Whatever

                    • McFlock …
                      25 September 2014 at 7:14 pm

                      I think part of the disagreement is that you are conflating plans that were scotched and never put into practise, with tory shitstirring and legitimate politics, and labelling all as part of a “dirty politics” strategy masterminded and carried out by Davis’ campaign.

                      Similarly, you seem to be overstating Hone’s contribution and minimising the work of everyone else inside and outside parliament.

                      Hone was part of a movement, a concerted effort by many individuals and organisations. Saying child poverty wouldn’t be on the agenda without him is an insult to everyone else.

                    • blue leopard …
                      25 September 2014 at 7:20 pm

                      Yes McFlock,

                      Like I said, I disagree.

                      You continue to distract from the main point I have been making, imputing points I am not even attempting to make and responding to the reasoning and evidence I have supplied, simply with your opinion.

                      This approach of yours is getting a bit dull.

                      Yawn

                    • McFlock …
                      25 September 2014 at 8:07 pm

                      Your evidence was two news reports alleging that there was an emailed plan that was scotched by labour before anything was done, and a parliamentary speech where hone claimed to have done stuff two years before. What did he say about it in 2009? Because Metiria Turei, Annette King, and Catherine Delahunty were all working on it then. Hell, have a look at what the Children’s Commissioner has been up to some time.

                      So what do you disagree with? That it would still be an issue without Hone ever having won TTT? Yeah, that’s where I call bullshit.

                    • blue leopard …
                      25 September 2014 at 8:56 pm

                      It was this comment that I was disagreeing with:


                      “TTT would be a rotten borough if a larger party (or several) had to refuse to contest the seat just to preserve the hope that a tiny party might get one MP.

                      Just to be clear – if labour had refused to contest any number of electorates in the hope that semi-popular also-rans might get an electorate seat, we’d still have a national government in 2015.”

                      In which I responded: what Harawira faced was a whole lot of parties coming in behind Labour.

                      I was trying to point out that you are showing concern over principles re Labour’s not pulling out, yet you are not acknowledging the untoward politics that occurred around that electorate that put Hone at a complete disadvantage. This included plugging the idea on primetime news. (Which also would have the effect of scaring off people from voting IMP in case Hone didn’t win the electorate, thereby lessening the chance that they reached 5% to boot).

                      And you are concerned about ‘rotten boroughs’ in relation to Labour pulling out or not?

                      You assume that Labour had to withdraw, for IMP to win apparently missing that there were a whole lot of things against Hone than simply having Labour stand a candidate.

                      Something you have never responded to

                      I asked you why you referred to IMP as an ‘also-ran’ when this tactic was conducted, which indicated IMP were a threat and had a good chance of winning that electorate.

                      Something you have never responded to.

                      Additionally, in response to your casual attitude toward the loss of IMP, I pointed out that if there were any people who were non-voters in previous elections, who had got fired up to vote for IMP, they might end up completely put off voting again. I considered this too is part of the damage of IMP not winning and something I would have hoped Labour had in mind before acting to ensure IMP was killed.

                      The point about Hone being a big loss, wasn’t to say he was the only person who ever did anything about poverty in this country, that is a pathetic misreading of what I have been putting across. Probably deliberate because your argument is weak. Supplying me, therefore, with a link presumably to show someone else pushing poverty issues, doesn’t address the point I was making at all.

                      The links I provided to you of Hone’s speeches was to jog your memory of what the culture around poverty was only a few years back, so that you might notice there has been a big shift, and that big shift ‘coincidentally’, I guess in your eyes, occurred since Hone has been in parliament. I am not saying Hone did that all, but I would say his input made a significant contribution to that shift. As he said, and I recall, people weren’t taking it very seriously at all when he first started plugging feeding kids at school.

                      Now there is a watered down version of that occurring in some schools.

                      Or did you think National came up with the idea all by themselves?

                      Additionally, it wasn’t simply Hone we lost out on, it was Harre too.

                      Also, having spoken to a few of last year’s non voters – it was way easy to get them fired up to vote for IMP than any of the other parties.

                      I wonder how many non-voters voted for IMP?

                      And I wonder how many will vote again after this outcome?

                      Hone speaks out strongly for the most marginalized in this country and that Labour were involved in outing him is reprehensible to me, for countless reasons, only some of which I have mentioned here.

                    • blue leopard …
                      25 September 2014 at 9:10 pm

                      Sorry, from “Also, having spoken to a few of last year’s non voters …” onward is a cut and paste error and wasn’t meant to be included in the comment, I meant to delete it but didn’t see it until it was too late. 🙂

                    • McFlock …
                      25 September 2014 at 9:53 pm

                      In which I responded: what Harawira faced was a whole lot of parties coming in behind Labour.

                      I was trying to point out that you are showing concern over principles re Labour’s not pulling out, yet you are not acknowledging the untoward politics that occurred around that electorate that put Hone at a complete disadvantage. This included plugging the idea on primetime news. (Which also would have the effect of scaring off people from voting IMP in case Hone didn’t win the electorate, thereby lessening the chance that they reached 5% to boot).

                      Which is not something Labour was responsible for, so why the fixation on emails for plans that were never carried out?

                      And you are concerned about ‘rotten boroughs’ in relation to Labour pulling out or not?

                      I was concerned about Labour deciding to become as shallow and unscrupulous as Naact, yes. In response to chooky squarely blaming ” Labour dinosaur wants to play prima donna”.

                      You assume that Labour had to withdraw, for IMP to win apparently missing that there were a whole lot of things against Hone than simply having Labour stand a candidate.

                      Something you have never responded to

                      None of it has a damned thing to do with Labour. Labour could either run a genuine campaign, or not. They ran a genuine campaign, and hone lost.

                      I asked you why you referred to IMP as an ‘also-ran’ when this tactic was conducted, which indicated IMP were a threat and had a good chance of winning that electorate.

                      Something you have never responded to.

                      1.3% and an electorate loss self-evidently says “also ran”. What you think nact behaviour “indicated” is irrelevant – I think it “indicated” that they might as well foment a bit of lab/imp friction in a seat nact/maori were never going to win. Mission accomplished.

                      Additionally, in response to your casual attitude toward the loss of IMP, I pointed out that if there were any people who were non-voters in previous elections, who had got fired up to vote for IMP, they might end up completely put off voting again. I considered this too is part of the damage of IMP not winning and something I would have hoped Labour had in mind before acting to ensure IMP was killed.

                      What did labour do to “ensure IMP was killed”? Run an honest campaign? As for your mythical almost-inspired nonvoter, I’ve already matched that with the de-inspired left voter pissed at Labour playing nact games.

                      The links I provided to you of Hone’s speeches was to jog your memory of what the culture around poverty was only a few years back, so that you might notice there has been a big shift, and that big shift ‘coincidentally’, I guess in your eyes, occurred since Hone has been in parliament. I am not saying Hone did that all, but I would say his input made a significant contribution to that shift. As he said, and I recall, people weren’t taking it very seriously at all when he first started plugging feeding kids at school.

                      Quite specifically, you said that it wouldn’t have happened without Hone. Not just “significant”, but that it wouldn’t have happened without him. Bullshit.

                      Now there is a watered down version of that occurring in some schools.

                      Or did you think National came up with the idea all by themselves?

                      Nah. I think they got it off Hone – and the Greens, and CPAG, and a variety of decile 1/2 pilot programmes, and at least ten years of hard work by any number of organisations. And I think it would have happened without Hone. Maybe not the same way, but it would still be on the agenda.

                      Additionally, it wasn’t simply Hone we lost out on, it was Harre too.

                      And what might we have lost by Labour running a purposefully weak campaign?

                      I wonder how many non-voters voted for IMP?
                      And I wonder how many will vote again after this outcome?

                      2008 Maori party got 2.4%.
                      2011 Maori + Mana got 2.5%
                      2014 Maori + Mana got 2.6%

                      Not a huge impact on the full quarter of voters who don’t vote.

                    • blue leopard …
                      26 September 2014 at 1:49 am

                      Which is not something Labour was responsible for, so why the fixation on emails for plans that were never carried out?

                      Nah, McFlock, it is you that keeps bringing up the email thing. I used it as an example that there were dodgy tactics being conducted including, hypocritically, appealing for cash from Nats and a concerted effort going on to paint IMP in a bad light for their association with Dotcom. This is a matter that Davis admitted he expoited:

                      “Davis put his victory down to a focus on exploiting Harawira’s perceived weaknesses – including Mana’s relationship with Dotcom, though he was also undoubtedly helped by a last-minute endorsement from NZ First leader Winston Peters and suggestions the Maori Party had also encouraged its supporters to back Davis to oust Harawira.

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10527144/Kelvin-Davis-blasts-Mana-Party

                      Note the use of the word ‘perceived’. It was about manipulating perceptions – a task, once completed, shot the entire left-wing cause in the foot.

                      You keep saying none of it was to do with Labour – on the face of it some of it wasn’t, yet right from the start Labour had the option of placing Davis higher on the list.

                      And from Cunliffe in the last few days:

                      “The Labour leader was today willing Maori voters in the north to crush Dotcom.”

                      And further in the article:

                      “While Mr Cunliffe may need Internet Mana’s votes to unseat National, he doesn’t want anything to do with Dotcom.

                      “I detest the influence of big money in New Zealand politics, wherever it comes from,” says Mr Cunliffe.”

                      Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/cunliffe-detests-dotcoms-big-money-2014091718#ixzz3EKY0cLH7

                      I agree that Labour had to distance themselves from IMP, however this way that Mr Cunliffe ‘turned’ toward the end was most unhelpful, because while they had to distance themselves – it would have been cleverer to not aim at ‘crushing’ them, because like the article says, there was more chance of gaining a majority with IMP, than ‘crushing’ IMP. Prior to this point, I thought Mr Cunliffe was managing the delicate balance well.

                      Additionaly, it actually would have been better for the left had the left wing defused right wing propaganda surrounding Dotcom, rather than feeding it. Dotcom, after all, was working with the same aim as the other leftwing parties.

                      “I was concerned about Labour deciding to become as shallow and unscrupulous as Naact, yes. In response to chooky squarely blaming ” Labour dinosaur wants to play prima donna”.

                      Yes, well I agree with Chooky. They certainly are acting like dinosaurs.

                      This becomes a real issue when the aim of getting into government is not kept in sight. When a percentage here, and a percentage there, an MP here & 2 MPs there are not valued, there begins to be quite a build up of lost advantages. Mana and Labour split the vote in Waiariki, allowing Flavell to win and they competed with one another in TTT causing IMP to drop out completely. Maori gained 2 MPs (so far) for 1.29 of the vote due to the Waiariki win and IMP lost 2 MPs due to TTT. Had Labour been acting strategically these two districts could have been more profitable for the left.

                      In 2005 Helen Clark told people to vote for the National candidate in Epsom. While it didn’t work, interestingly they gained their highest party vote in Epsom that year. I guess at least part of the reason Clark was so successful at staying in government was because she was capable of thinking strategically and didn’t throw away a percentage here and an MP there.

                      “Quite specifically, you said that it wouldn’t have happened without Hone. Not just “significant”, but that it wouldn’t have happened without him. Bullshit.

                      Please stop misquoting me this is what I said; “I don’t think the whole feed the kids thing or poverty issue would even be on the agenda if it weren’t for Hone.”

                      Like I also said, I was open to being refuted on this one – a few examples of something being achieved by the Greens or Labour would have sufficed. On having looked into, it in order to respond to you, I have ended up seeing more & more evidence that Mana was very instrumental in getting this issue addressed.

                      It is now a reality. Yes it was being talked about, but it hadn’t been acted upon – Mana prioritized the issue and now there are some school ‘breakfast clubs’ You can go back and make-up imaginary scenarios, if you like – but this is what occurred and very quickly after Hone started speaking about it.

                      Again I will say, I think this is an advantage for small parties, where they can focus on one or two issues and push for them. The larger parties have a huge amount of issues they are covering, which means they can’t message as strongly and become as strongly associated in the focussed way Mana achieved.

                      But, meh, it dunt matta, let’s just crush the small parties on our side, so that 1 MP can win and we lose 2 or 3 others because it isn’t ‘fair’ to do otherwise. And while we are at it let’s not ‘crush’ Nat support parties, because that’s not ‘nice’ and instead let us compete with one another and spread right-wing narrative in the process and then, when it all goes horribly wrong, let us squabble about how we need to be more right wing (this is the dialogue surrounding Labour) and the evil Mr Dotcom and how he ruined it all for everyone. How dare him bring out those bloody world respected journalists and lawyers to try and inform us about our sorry little government, bloody German foreigner and his stinking money, he can shove it. He must be right winger and lying, despite funding the leftwing because, well, he’s a foreigner, and he’s fat…and he has American and Canadian friends…

                      I’m unclear quite what the point you were making with those last numbers, but you have compared the final results of the previous two elections with the preliminary results of this year’s one, which is likely to be a tad higher.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 September 2014 at 1:36 pm

                      getting a bit bored with this, but one comment did stand out:

                      You keep saying none of it was to do with Labour – on the face of it some of it wasn’t, yet right from the start Labour had the option of placing Davis higher on the list.

                      Labour list selection was announced around the 23rd June.
                      The Maori Party announced their candidate on 24 may.
                      Hane announced that the Maori Party were looking like withdrawing from the TTT campaign on september 18.

                      So now your criticism of Labour running a successful campaign includes not being clairvoyant.
                      Maybe you think that this is an unfair characterisation. However, the timeline clearly shows that you’re grasping at straws for any excuse to blame Labour for running an open and honest campaign. The Labour party cannot predict the future and is not responsible for the actions of tory parties or the tory scumhole bloggists. Labour sctoched Davis’ website plan, so he bitched about it publicly. Because yes, Davis looks like a bit of a dick. But as dicks go, he was the selection of his electorate (not Labour head office) and in the electorate he seems to have been a successful dick. So really, your issue is with the TTT electorate for selecting a dick and then voting for that dick. Well, there’s a lot of that going around at the moment.

                    • blue leopard …
                      26 September 2014 at 5:21 pm

                      Are you trying to tell me that the people in Labour were unaware of the pivotal nature of TTT prior to making the list selection?

                      Who is grasping at straws?

                    • McFlock …
                      27 September 2014 at 8:38 pm

                      well, it’s not pivotal, because national is still in government regardless.

                      And if your criticisms of davis are correct, then it would seem that the list selection committee chose more wisely than the electorate did.

              • blue leopard …
                24 September 2014 at 4:18 pm

                @ McFlock

                Instead chances are they lost the votes by association just the same, they definitely would have lost votes through the picture of lack of cooperation with other leftwing parties that was created, and we lost Hone’s voice in parliament too.

                Excellent work.
                Ho hum 🙄

                • McFlock …
                  24 September 2014 at 4:41 pm

                  well, I agree that Labour should have worked more closely with the greens. Probably underestimated how stupid people would be re: tactical voting, too (looking at some of the electorate/party splits).

                  I won’t particularly miss Hone. For every thing he did or said that I liked (e.g. emphasis of hungry kids), there was something that made me wary (e.g. the IMP alliance).

                  • blue leopard …
                    24 September 2014 at 5:03 pm

                    Oh well, McFlock was threatened by Hone, so meh who cares about Hone being outed?

                    It dunt matta

                    Lets just look forward to another few years of Mr white guy insulting people and and telling us reassuring lies while he destroys lives but hey! he’s wealthy and white and smiles and doesn’t offend my conditioned sensibilities so its all gud…just need to wait for Labour to become more like National and we’ll be home & hosed.

                    I don’t think the whole feed the kids thing or poverty issue would even be on the agenda if it weren’t for Hone. Seriously, I know the Greens pushed on poverty alot but I really think Hone embarrassed the establishment enough to actually make the whole narrative shift.

                    Bt meh, he threatens you so too bad about all the good he might have done.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 September 2014 at 5:23 pm

                      lol

                      Whatever.
                      Keep pretending that the only thing between Labour and the government benches was a thousand-odd votes for hone.

                      I don’t think the whole feed the kids thing or poverty issue would even be on the agenda if it weren’t for Hone.
                      What a load of crap. But it does illustrate one of my pet peeves about the left in the last few years – the number of previously sane individuals who latch onto one person as a champion who is better than all others combined. And then decide that folks who don’t share their idolatry are right-wing splitters standing in the way of the left (because what’s a zealot without a persecution complex).

                    • blue leopard …
                      24 September 2014 at 6:51 pm

                      Whoa! Impressive shadowboxing you are conducting there, McFlock

                      Keep pretending that the only thing between Labour and the government benches was a thousand-odd votes for hone.

                      I haven’t been arguing that it made the difference between Labour winning or losing (although it might have).

                      What a load of crap. But it does illustrate one of my pet peeves about the left in the last few years – the number of previously sane individuals who latch onto one person as a champion who is better than all others combined. And then decide that folks who don’t share their idolatry are right-wing splitters standing in the way of the left (because what’s a zealot without a persecution complex).

                      For starters, I worded that pretty carefully – this was my opinion (note the word ‘think’) and was fully open to you telling me how this wasn’t so. It was my impression and did wonder whether it was accurate or not.

                      As for the rest of your paragraph wtf are you talking about? It would appear that you are the one with the persecution complex, not me. Where have I called you a ‘right-wing splitter’?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 September 2014 at 7:00 pm

                      Hone and Laila would have been brought in two outstanding two left wing voices in Parliament instead of a single middling one.

                      Flavell should have been ganged up on and pushed out. -2 support MPs for National, +1 for the Left.

                    • blue leopard …
                      24 September 2014 at 7:23 pm

                      +1 CV

                    • McFlock …
                      24 September 2014 at 11:18 pm

                      BL, I saw that it was your opinion. I believe I communicated what I thought about that opinion.

                      Do you really need someone to list the incredibly hard work of the Childrens’ Commissioner, Bryan Bruce with TWO documentaries, innumerable NGOs from CPAG to the Sallies to JRMcKenzie Trust, not to mention dozens of local and central govt politicians, all over at least the last decade, just to demonstrate that hone is not the only, major, or even significant reason that child poverty is onthe agenda? You like to speculate about motives of tories – why do you think key is bothering to pay lipservice to the issue after hone’s out of parliament? Surely if hone was the major voice that was the difference between poverty being newsworthy or not, then smile&wave would talk about something else?

                      Maybe parliament would have been better with laila and hone, maybe not. And maybe being as bad with TTT as the nats are with epsom would have lost another 1.26% to the nats. That’s the thing about maybes.

                    • blue leopard …
                      24 September 2014 at 11:41 pm

                      Yes, good one for pointing out all the people who went into getting that information and getting it out to the general public awareness. I was studying the research by C Waldegrave & co from the Family Centre earlier this year. This research started in about 1995/6, to monitor the effects of the Ruth Richardson cuts (amongst other things) so they knew there were problems way back then. Labour responded 9ish years later, in 2004ish, by introducing working for families, yet this didn’t help people on welfare.

                      It seemed that Hone started talking about how we spend money on soldiers in Afghanistan, that they should be brought back and the money should be spent on feeding children instead, and has had a bill re feed the kids in the pipelines for ages and hey ho suddenly National seems to be looking into feeding kids in schools. What a coincidence.

                      It is one thing to have the research, it is another to get it being acted on in the government. Hone may not have been the only one, but I don’t think you can say he had no impact on that very important matter.

                      It seems to me sometimes a smaller party can have a strong impact when they focus on one or two issues. I believe this is what occurred with Hone & shifting the narrative in parliament.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 September 2014 at 11:58 pm

                      His impact was not so significant as to make him irreplaceable, or to leave silence in parliament on the issue without his contribution.
                      Off the top of my head, Jacinda Ardern has regularly raised the issue in parliament, as have a couple of other Labour mps.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      25 September 2014 at 12:33 am

                      Hone did more than a bit of hand-wringing in Parliament though.
                      His sense of humour and earthy personality commands attention and respect.
                      A conservative family member (who at the weekend finally defected to Winston after a life time of voting for the Nats) surprised me with her almost grief for Hone being out of Parliament.
                      As BL said, no-one’s claimed Hone is the sole reason for child poverty being in the spotlight.
                      Academic reports in themselves do not prompt action, as the right simply constructs its own narrative around the outcomes (which are often the consequence of things the right embeds, like structural unemployment).
                      Losing Mana means there is a lack of a left-wing economic voice in Parliament. Hone needed a second MP in Parliament to flesh out this role, because of the demands of his electorate.
                      Had he been there, I think Hone would have come into his own this term, helping to puncture the alarming hegemony of the Nats.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 September 2014 at 12:48 am

                      As BL said, no-one’s claimed Hone is the sole reason for child poverty being in the spotlight.

                      But BL did hold the opinion that “I don’t think the whole feed the kids thing or poverty issue would even be on the agenda if it weren’t for Hone”.

                      So he might not have been sufficient, but on that model he was necessary. I disagree – I think it would still be on the agenda because a whole shedload of other people have been pushing the same issue.

                      On the other hand, other people and organisations have also done much more than just academic research or handwringing in parliament.

                    • blue leopard …
                      25 September 2014 at 1:03 am

                      Thanks Ergo,

                      I am a bit puzzled that someone would not acknowledge the value of a strong voice for the most vulnerable in parliament – and as [I think] you imply, this actually helps other leftwing parties shift their narrative too.

                      Here is part of a speech by Hone in 2013, which reminds me of how things used to be, not so long ago:

                      “In 2011 I made the Feed the Kids campaign Mana’s first ever major campaign. I found that whenever I raised it in the House I noticed that although we all know that child poverty exists, politicians were retreating behind glib phrases, saying nasty things about bad parenting, blaming the global financial crisis, or going quiet to fit with the party line. They were refusing to deal honestly and openly with what has become a major disgrace in 21st century Aotearoa.

                      Unfortunately, whenever they are in Government both major parties struggle to admit that child poverty is a problem, but they happily attack those in power about it as soon as they go into Opposition….

                      And this speech in 2014 indicates what sort of work goes on behind the scenes in getting this issue into the narrative:

                      “Mr Speaker – I have been humbled by the positive responses to MANA’s Feed the Kids Bill from a whole host of child, family, health, education, and faith organisations all around the country, who helped raise awareness about just how many of our kids are going to school hungry in Aotearoa, and what we should be doing about it.

                      They have worked hard to remind us all that the crisis of child hunger and its devastating effects on brain development, health and learning means we need to urgently focus on feeding the kids rather than blaming the parents; that poverty has doubled in the last 25 years and children are its greatest victim; and that poverty won’t go away without big changes in employment, wages, housing and support for families in need.

                      Mr Speaker – things have changed a lot from when everyone was scoffing at MANA for even talking about Feeding the Kids during Election 2011, to a TV poll last year that showed70% of Kiwis support a government-funded food in schools programme; and to food in schools being the only policy issue to make the top 10 news stories in 2013… ”

                      [I added bold]

                      And McFlock, I just don’t agree with you. You appear to be forgetting the shift that has occurred under Harawira’s watch. I really think his work deserves more than a glib ‘meh’ .

                      And let’s face it, I suspect your glibness toward Harawira’s work is only being expressed in order to shore up some frail point you are failing to make.

                      Respect where it is due would be a fine thing.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      25 September 2014 at 1:18 am

                      Yes, it does shift the narrative.
                      Mana would have been a left anchor in a Parliament that has shifted right. The Greens do a great job, but they are more open to the nonsense characterisation of being the ‘far left’ when there are no other parties there.
                      Without Hone I doubt Cunliffe would have ended up giving the undertaking in the last debate to be held accountable on his progress on feeding the children.

                    • blue leopard …
                      25 September 2014 at 1:24 am

                      +100 Ergo

                      I very much agree with both your comments. You make a very insightful point that the whole dynamic of the left and right shifts when there is a smaller, more forceful party involved in parliament.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 September 2014 at 1:36 am

                      Hone’s work in 2011 wasn’t new, it followed on from work by CPAG and others. And I doubt he was the only MP to support it.

                      I’m not glib about his work, but he is part of a wider movement. One that will continue with or without his voice in parliament. Maybe he’ll do a winston and be back next time.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      25 September 2014 at 1:37 am

                      McFlock; NGO activity and research in this area grew because of the vacuum left by neoliberal parties that ignored the issue, including Lab5.
                      As Hone says in BL’s speech excerpt, the main parties go on the attack about child poverty in Opposition, and ignore it in Government.
                      Crucially, Hone promoted the issue at a Parliamentary structural change level – and that even seems to have nudged National into action.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 September 2014 at 5:26 pm

                      Hone wasn’t the only one to raise it in parliament.
                      And he won’t be the last.

                      Did he raise it when he was in government?

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      26 September 2014 at 3:39 pm

                      Did he raise it when he was in government?

                      I don’t know.
                      But his fallout with the Maori Party and criticism of its relationship with National are the actions of someone whose loyalty is to principles rather than ‘the party’.
                      That is why he gets things done.
                      In this respect he is similar to Jim Anderton.
                      We need more MPs like them, and fewer party cadres and time servers.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 September 2014 at 4:08 pm

                      Jim Anderton fucked a successful left wing party because he supported going to war and we didn’t, and democratic systems were going to hold him to account. Not the best comparison to make if you want to praise somebody.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      26 September 2014 at 4:30 pm

                      And that truculence is why we have a BANK.
                      Don’t you get it?
                      Neither man is perfect, but both are genuine and decent, and try to serve the best interests of their people.
                      Jim didn’t walk away from his labour principles when the other MPs did.
                      Stubbornness cuts both ways and can make life difficult for others. That’s just the way it goes.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 September 2014 at 4:42 pm

                      Yeah, I can do without that sort these days. They might build one or two things, but they try their best to burn it down when they get pissy that others have an opinion, too.

                      Toss a coin as to whether we’d be better off without that sort, frankly.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      26 September 2014 at 4:48 pm

                      I don’t think that’s fair on Jim.
                      But given you used the word ‘we’, implying personal involvement, you can’t be expected to be objective.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 September 2014 at 7:33 pm

                      yeah, I was an Alliance member who one might say was somewhat surprised that a nonviolent pro-peace and apparently democratically-organised party had just rubber-stamped a Middle East military deployment at the request of the USA. The last in a long line of autocratic dictats. That’s not leadership, it’s conceit.

                      And then I watched him burn it down. But I guess “being familiar with what happened” means I can’t be objective.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      26 September 2014 at 8:35 pm

                      Fair enough. My comment about objectivity was somewhat churlish.
                      I do not like the reactionary side of Jim Anderton, but I do like and acknowledge what he achieved as a conservative politician who rejected neoliberal economics and stood up for his people.
                      Compare that to all the Labour MPs who stuck to the neoliberal ship and didn’t rock the boat over Afghanistan or anything else.

  6. aspasia 6
    24 September 2014 at 7:53 am

    Mike we have a detailed manifest based on the policy platform endorsed by the Party. That is what any leader needs to endorse and implement. The idea that the caucus leader has a free hand to implement their own version of whatever they think the Party stands for is a large part of the problem.

  7. Craig Glen Eden 7
    24 September 2014 at 8:08 am

    Personally I have had enough of some in the Labour caucus who are totally undisciplined.
    Shearer has been the worse by far, Grant has been more careful with his words. I dont think that that is because Grant is sage wise it’s just Shearer is a total idiot.

    Paddy Gowers presentation of the situation was exactly the type of stuff we are going to get from the sock puppet. Labour needs to shut down this leadership issue very fast in my view. While Labour supporters know Labour is not going to get a fair throw of the dice with many in the media we need to stop handing them the loaded dice. If the Leadership issue is not resolved soon we are going to have this over hyped negative bullshit for months which will support Key’s Narrative.

    The majority of members believe and know Cunliffe is the best person to lead the party. Just because a Leader losses an election it dosnt make them less of a leader. How many in this or past caucuses would have come out the very next day and blamed Helen Clarke’s leadership as the reason we lost that election. Labour’s election campaign for the last three elections has been poor and I think its a long bow to blame Clark, Goff or Cunliffe for that.

    • Mike Smith 7.1
      24 September 2014 at 10:41 am

      Craig

      Rule 308 (c) of the Party Constitution adopted at the 2012 conference states as follows:
      “As a matter of course, no later than three (3) months after the date of a general election, there will be a caucus vote to endorse the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The number of votes required to endorse the leader shall be 60% of votes cast plus one (1). If the Party Leader is not endorsed a leadership election process, as described in (d) below, is triggered.”

      The Caucus vote of endorsement is not an option; it is a requirement “as a matter of course.” That is why David Cunliffe’s proposal made at a stand-up on Sunday last that the party proceed straight to a party-wide election was never going to fly; it is against the Constitution. That is also why the questions put to him by journalists on Tuesday were not unreasonable.

      I believe the Caucus quite reasonably wants to take its time before it moves to endorse or otherwise. Once they do decide, we will know whether or not there will be a party-wide election. At this stage, I wouldn’t make any assumptions about anything. It’s time for cool heads in my view.

  8. Tracey 8
    24 September 2014 at 8:15 am

    i believed goff resigned too early. He had some momentum from the election and could have resigned six months in. It seems caucus learned nothing from that by wasting no time ripping into each other.

    IF everyone had shut their months yesterday would have been seen as a debrief or calm review instead its been called a crisis, a shambles a meltdown.

    I am not certain these folks have the ability to learn from the past.

    Twenty not wanting cunliffe is important but how the leaders of the challengers behave is surely reflected by how anyone speaking out against orders is behaving now?

    From a distance (cuebette midler) this observer believes that the opposition to cunliffe believe moving labour to the centre will secure their jobs and it is secondary who they represent.

    • SPC 8.1
      24 September 2014 at 8:20 am

      It’s why I vote Green’s, they place policy wins before baubles.

      And their MP’s put a per centage of their pay into their party, rather than buying rentals.

      • Tracey 8.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 11:15 am

        Exactly. Its not like the nats and their background strategy havent tried to find stuff on the greens personally…

    • Craig Glen Eden 8.2
      24 September 2014 at 8:21 am

      + 1

    • Liberal Realist 8.3
      24 September 2014 at 10:39 am

      “From a distance (cuebette midler) this observer believes that the opposition to cunliffe believe moving labour to the centre will secure their jobs and it is secondary who they represent.”

      Spot on Tracey. The ABC crowd has been Labour’s problem all along.

      The election of Goff as a supposed placeholder was a stupid decision. The election of Shearer was a complete clusterfuck.

      A significant portion of the ABC MPs campaigned for their electorate seats this last election, far more vigorously than the party vote. This is a very clear indication that they’re more interested in their own hides that the interests of the Party and it’s members.

      Labour – rid yourselves of the 1984 redux ABC fuckwits. They had their time between 84 & 90. They’re a bunch of National lite troughers that are only interested in themselves.

      ABCer’s belong in the National Party.

  9. Dont worry. Be happy 9
    24 September 2014 at 8:36 am

    So we have to get the Labour Party horse in good shape before we worry about the jockey eh? News for you boyo…. Jockeys don’t ride dead horses.

    • Tracey 9.1
      24 September 2014 at 11:19 am

      The first question that they need to ask is why is there a labour party. Second, who does it want to represent. Then the choice of leader more naturally follows.

  10. lprent 10
    24 September 2014 at 8:52 am

    Mike. The problem is that we have had the same review and wait in 2008 AND 2011. As far as I can tell they usually seem to just look for what they want to see. Certainly I have always felt that such reviews ignore everything outside the beltway. They always revert to beltway business as normal and forget everything that was tried and worked or failed.

    Looking at what went into the constitutional review in 2012 criticizing MPs positions and performance compared to what came out was interesting. Virtually everything was sanitized. About the only things that came through were hubs and voting for leaders. Probably because they couldn’t be sanitized out after they were already in use and the caucus screwup selecting Shearer as a political gamesmanship exercise.

    A review just means that we lose 6 minimum and probably more like-12 months of building up the capabilities to win the next election. A lot of the direct experience blurs and doesn’t get used for next time. People move on to other things because nothing is happening.

    The same freaking screwups show up in the next election like clockwork BECAUSE of the review…

    The reviews as they are carried out are completely pointless

  11. brian 11
    24 September 2014 at 8:52 am

    It seems from all the discussion here that

    (a) Supporters of Cunliffe; Want a vote tomorrow

    (b) Supporters of ABC; Want the vote delayed until Cunliffe gives up

    (c) Supporters of Labour; Want the vote as soon as possible after a vision for Labour is discovered, and are happy to accept Cunliffe or Shearer, or anybody else

    • SPC 11.1
      24 September 2014 at 9:03 am

      I prefer the leader of a party to be by vote of the party, not caucus. This is what Green’s do. This favours Cunliffe.

      I also favour a delay to the vote till next year. Even if Cunliffe wants an earlier decision by the party. The party members should have time to make a considered decision.

      As to your c – how does one “discover” a vision for Labour (core convictions or by focus group)? Can it be done in 3 months?

      • brian 11.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 9:13 am

        @ SPC (11.1)

        I would have hoped that Labour had some idea what their vision is, perhaps tucked away in cupboard somewhere.

        If they haven’t got one, everything else they do (including selecting a Leader) is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

        • Tracey 11.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 11:21 am

          Plus fucking one. It is so obvious to everyoneexcept the caucus… Or those in caucus who think canabilism increases the membership.

      • brian 11.1.2
        24 September 2014 at 9:45 am

        @ SPC (11.1)

        “I prefer the leader of a party to be by vote of the party, not caucus. This is what Green’s do. “

        I suggest the views of the caucus and of the party with the Greens are remarkably similar, compared to the problem that Labour has.

        The Labour Party can choose a vision that will see them become advocates for those who “labour” for a living; perhaps the teachers, the nurses and people in traditional union occupations. They are a worthy group of people to support, and could guarantee Labour continuing support of 15-25%. This appears to be the current model for Labour, as implied by the method they choose the Leader.

        Perhaps in cooperation with other parties, all concerned primarily with Social Justice (current and yet to be formed) there is a future for the left? Other like minded parties could advocate for issues such as
        (a) Inequality and Poverty (Mana);
        (b) Science, and the environment (Greens);
        (c) Innovation and Business ( ?? ).
        The Left desperately need to start attacking on Item (c) which is currently completely owned by National

        Is such cooperation possible in Politics? Dirty John has shown that cooperation is possible, even if “cooperation” is based on pseudo parties he props up such as ACT and Dunne. He is desperately trying to attract Winston First into the fold, to guarantee a 25 year reign, reduced by the inevitable mortality of Winston.

        Labour has shown no talent for honest cooperation. They are at the kindergarten level of understanding on this issue. Their future is therefore to develop that talent, or to have a vision with a broader policy appeal (and compete against parties such as the Greens and Mana)

      • AmaKiwi 11.1.3
        24 September 2014 at 10:02 am

        @ SPC

        “how does one “discover” a vision for Labour”

        That’s beltway b.s. for “What issues will win us the next election.”

        • brian 11.1.3.1
          24 September 2014 at 10:38 am

          @ AmaKiwi (11.1.3)

          “how does one “discover” a vision for Labour”
          That’s beltway b.s. for “What issues will win us the next election.”

          Yes it is, IF the vision is as low as simply “Aiming to win the next election”

          You have raised a fundamental difference between the Greens and Labour:
          Labour does not have a vision, and is floundering along, with “success” or “failure” being the election result.
          The Greens started with a vision, with no expectation of becoming the Government. They have been able to measure success with implementation of policies – by anybody – which match their vision. It’s the reason that the Greens have been able to hold their head up high and work cooperatively with Dirty John on an issue to issue basis

          • Tracey 11.1.3.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 11:25 am

            I agree that it appears that the labour caucus, or enough of them believe winning the next election is a vision, when its a goal.

            Surely for a political party winning seats and more seats than anyone else to boot is a given.

            Labour needs to work out WHO it wants to represent. WHY it wants to represent those values and then work on the HOW. It can only win the election when EVERYONE is working on the HOW.

            • Enough is Enough 11.1.3.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 11:32 am

              In my view those questions are answered.

              Labour’s policy platform was pretty solid. Other than Parker advocating for austerity by increasing the eligibility for super, Labour’s policies were good and targeted to the people in society in most need.

              The issue in this election was the lack of unity and support for the leader.

              • brian …
                24 September 2014 at 12:00 pm

                @ Enough is Enough (11.1.3.1.1.1)

                “Policy platform was pretty solid”
                …… on what basis? (In a light hearted manner, I’ll suggest this sounds a little like Joyce’s “pretty legal” for which he is currently being mocked internationally)

                ~~~~~~

                Other than Parker advocating for austerity by increasing the eligibility for super
                Was he really advocating for austerity, or are you making that up?

                There was a lot of emphasis on taxes, which was a mistake. I’ve written before that taxes are not bad, if those paying the taxes know what they are getting for them … and agree. Essential to say “You pay me this, and I’ll give you that” What you are receiving may be as simple as lower taxes elsewhere (perhaps for fairness, but fiscally neutral), or it may be to pay for specific policy programmes.

                I happen to agree with raising the age of eligibility for super, as a policy that will have to happen as our demographics change, and as our general health is improving, and people both expect and want to work longer.

                There will probably lots of other policies that will be more deserving of government funding. But the policy could easily be framed in a caring manner:
                (a) as Dunne suggests (perhaps), giving people the option of receiving super at a range of ages, and the amount depending on the age that it is first received. (I see some problems with this too) and/or
                (b) Allowing the current, or a lower age of eligibility depending on health

                ~~~~~

                “In my view those questions are answered” ……
                “Labour’s policies were good and targeted to the people in society in most need.”

                With respect, those questions have NOT been answered. I agree with Tracey when she asked
                “Labour needs to work out WHO it wants to represent. WHY it wants to represent those values and then work on the HOW”

                You imply that the answer for WHO, is “the people in society in most need”
                That is a possible and worthy answer, but is it really the only people that Labour are concerned about? Surely not, unless it really does want to be a special interest group party. Perhaps you are right. But it highlights the issue. Every single voter has their own private view of what Labour stands for. Presenting multiple reasons why voters may choose to place their votes elsewhere. eg, Why should I install a government for the next three years who only cares about the people in most need? Such a narrow focus.

                And you haven’t even begun to imply what your answer is to Tracey’s WHY and HOW. And the HOW is, as Tracey answers correctly, the most important of all, with regard to success at the election.

                • phillip ure …
                  24 September 2014 at 4:36 pm

                  @ brian..

                  “..I happen to agree with raising the age of eligibility for super, as a policy that will have to happen as our demographics change, and as our general health is improving, and people both expect and want to work longer. .”

                  and how do you see that playing with the demographics that now see very little of super..

                  ..because of their earlier mortality..?

                  ..and many of whom are traditional labour voters..(we’re told..)

                  ..this is like another version of how cycle-tracks are mainly for fit white men…

                  ..large tranches of society do not share in that common-good..

                  ..raising the pension-age makes sense for those cyclists..

                  ..but not for those many mainly poor..both in wealth and quality of diet..

                  ..their ‘general health is (not) improving’…

                  ..they will die much sooner than those cyclists..

                  ..so they will all vote against raising the pension age..

                  ..(and yes..!..i know that labour had early retirement options..

                  ..but most didn’t hear/know that..they just heard ‘pension age going up’..

                  • brian …
                    24 September 2014 at 6:05 pm

                    @ Phillip Ure

                    [1]..because of their earlier mortality..?..
                    Nobody has ever got the pension when they are dead.

                    [2]..and many of whom are traditional labour voters..(we’re told..)..
                    Many people eat chicken for dinner.

                    [3]..this is like another version of how cycle-tracks are mainly for fit white men..
                    No. Super is a universal benefit

                    [4]..large tranches of society do not share in that common-good..
                    No. Super is a universal benefit

                    [5]..raising the pension-age makes sense for those cyclists..
                    Life expectancy has gone up rapidly, long before cycling became popular. And so has old age activity; desire to work longer etc.

                    [6]..but not for those many mainly poor..both in wealth and quality of diet..
                    Those with poor health do die sooner. There are sections of Society that have a significantly lower life expectancy than others:
                    * Men less than women
                    * Maori and Pacifica
                    This needs real action
                    There are people who choose to die earlier with alcohol and tobacco. My response is that Society should still support them in older age, and I advocated in my reply that Super should be available as it is currently for people in poor health. Dunne’s proposal is also worth considering

                    [7]…their ‘general health is (not) improving’..
                    Refer response to [6]

                    [8]..they will die much sooner than those cyclists..
                    Even cyclists are not immune from health problems, and even death

                    [9]..so they will all vote against raising the pension age..
                    The raising of the pension age should only be carried out, if the money is being used for something deemed to be a higher priority that would otherwise not be funded. I’ll vote against the increase in the pension age, otherwise.

                    I expect if you ask anybody if they want the pension age to be increased the answer will be NO. But if people are being given the choice of an increased pension age or lack of available funding for something else, the response may be different.

                    All I am saying is that the increasing number of people over 65 is going to keep rapidly rising for the next twenty years. It will become an extraordinary burden on the smaller percentage of the earning public. Given that life expectancy has increased since Super was introduced by well over 10 years, is it too much to ask to increase the age of super by 2-3 years?

                    [10]..(and yes..!..i know that labour had early retirement options..
                    So why have you introduced all the largely irrelevant points above?

                    [11]..but most didn’t hear/know that..they just heard ‘pension age going up’..
                    Well that is certainly a problem that I understand. I hope that very point is being discussed behind Labour caucus doors. But I guess we will never know. Would be disloyal, so they say.

                    • KJT …
                      26 September 2014 at 8:54 pm

                      However did we support all those boomer children, with half the work force away at war, when we were supposedly much poorer. sic.

              • Tracey …
                24 September 2014 at 1:55 pm

                Apart from parkers….

                Exactly, mixed messages

      • Enough is Enough 11.1.4
        24 September 2014 at 11:16 am

        This trainwreck of a campaign and the embarrassing past 3 days has shown the selection process is fatally flawed.

        In my view:

        (a). The leader of the Party should be selected by the Party, i.e. the President.

        (b). The candidates should be selected by the Party.

        (c) .The leader of the Caucus should be selected by the Caucus.

        We are simply asking for a dysfunctional caucus if they have a leader forced on them that they do not support.

        If Cunliffe is restored as leader does anyone seriously think the leaking and troublemaking will stop?

        It is a recipe for disaster and inevitable defeat in 2017.

        • Tracey 11.1.4.1
          24 September 2014 at 11:32 am

          So, to stop the leaking and dissenting by those who didnt get what they wanted, you ignore the paid up members and concede to them. I have a feeling that is a recipe for national lite.

          Ironically cunliffe let those people stay which is far more than shearer did in his time as leader… But cunliffe is arrogant and nasty…

          Welcome to the looking glass eie

          Genuine question, do you want labour to become more right wing if it will win the next election?

          • Enough is Enough 11.1.4.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 11:39 am

            Considering I vote Green – No.

            And no you do not ignore the paid up members. The paid up members select the candidates who become the caucus. The members create that group, I just think that group should decide who amongst them is the best person to motivate, inspire, galvanise and lead them.

            Cunliffe stepping away from a job that he has failed at does not mean the party will all of a sudden lurch to the right.

            The party as a whole has not really moved, on the left right scale, from where it was under the leadership of Helen and then Phil. Cunliffe going won’t automatically change where the party sits.

            • Tracey 11.1.4.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 1:57 pm

              Dont most PMs fail to win an election first? Certainly most before john key who as i said got parachuted to front a despicable strategy of deceit

            • phillip ure 11.1.4.1.1.2
              24 September 2014 at 4:44 pm

              @ nough..

              “..Cunliffe stepping away from a job that he has failed at does not mean the party will all of a sudden lurch to the right…”

              yes it will..

              ..because the rightwingers currently throwing all the shit will have won…

              ..and they will forge on down that proven failed road of trying to be like national..

        • brian 11.1.4.2
          24 September 2014 at 12:10 pm

          @ Enough is Enough (11.1.4)

          That’s an interesting idea. To have a Leader of the Party (perhaps David Cunliffe) and a separate new position: Leader of the Caucus (perhaps David Shearer).

          How will that work?

          • Enough is Enough 11.1.4.2.1
            24 September 2014 at 12:37 pm

            That idea already exists.

            The leader of the party is Moira Coatsworth.
            The leader of the caucus is David Cunliffe. I am just saying the leader of the caucus should be selected by the caucus.

  12. BM 12
    24 September 2014 at 8:55 am

    Why don’t you just copy what national does.
    It obviously works.

    • brian 12.1
      24 September 2014 at 9:53 am

      National currently have a system that places Key on such a pedestal, that he can almost act however he likes.

      The system will work as long as the voters consider him to be “Buddy John” and do not understand his role as “Dirty John”

      What he does works well for those privileged by his reign. And the privileged want to believe that everybody else will benefit from being “trickled on”, even though they are being pissed on.

      The OUTCOME doesn’t really work for everybody left on the scrap heap. It doesn’t really work for the victims of Dirty Politics.

      Now which part of National does Labour want to copy?
      And who will it work for?

      • BM 12.1.1
        24 September 2014 at 10:00 am

        It’s structure.

        Keep the amateurs (party members) out of the decision making.
        Say this is what we stand for, you like it join up.
        The party members shouldn’t have so much say and sway.

        I consider a politics to be a profession like most other jobs, they’re the pros, they’re the people at the political coal face, they know what works and what doesn’t.
        Let them do their job.

        Last thing they need is a bunch of know it all ass hats on the outside sticking their oar in and telling them how to do their job.

        • AmaKiwi 12.1.1.1
          24 September 2014 at 10:06 am

          @ BM

          “The party members shouldn’t have so much say and sway.”

          Thank you, David Shearer.

          • brian 12.1.1.1.1
            24 September 2014 at 10:16 am

            @ AmaKiwi (12.1.1.1)

            I presume your response was some half witted idea of a smear? Picked up on a Cameron Slater “Whaleoil 101” class?

            You may not like David Shearer, but does that mean that everything about David Shearer and everything he says is wrong? Surely not.

            I’d rather hear your arguments on the issue, rather than your ad hominem “cleverness”.

            • The Al1en 12.1.1.1.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 3:38 pm

              “You may not like David Shearer, but does that mean that everything about David Shearer and everything he says is wrong? Surely not.”

              He would have been an acceptable and no doubt competent minister, just as long as he never tried to ad lib during question time.

              His behaviour has been a total disgrace since election night. Pretty hard to come back from such disloyalty or ever claim high standards.
              He should go if he’s not pushed first.

              • brian …
                24 September 2014 at 4:26 pm

                @The Al1en (12.1.1.1.1.1)

                I’m quite happy with Shearer’s behaviour, and of the comments of others. If honest opinion is shut down, and kept secret, on this odd sort of concept of “disloyalty” that you (and plenty of others) talk about …..this is AFTER the election after all! …… how can anybody judge that the Party has considered all the possible reasons for the result.

                Yes, you can purge him, and can purge all the others that do not want Cunliffe to stay (to suggest a Leader needs to be replaced can be defined exactly how, if criticism is disloyal and a disgrace?). Sort of like the futility of Book Burning, I think.

                The little party remaining can sit around a small campfire together, in total “loyalty” and total oblivion.

                By the rules of the Labour Party, an endorsement vote is required within three months of an election. Seems fair to me. It’s one way of getting the leadership over and done with. Exactly where do the rules say that nobody else apart from the Leader are permitted to express their views? These are the very three months when honesty is required.

                We’ve got enough secret squirrel (secret whale) stuff going on with the Dirty John Party. If the same stuff starts happening in the Labour Party, I will be very grateful for the whistleblowers. David Cunliffe and others will, perhaps, call these whistleblowers, traitorous evil “leakers”. There is something similar in that sort of response to Dirty John.

                If Cunliffe stays and criticisms have NOT been aired, he is doomed in the long term. Those criticisms will survive and kill him with a thousand cuts. The only future for Cunliffe as leader, is that he survives any and all criticism, and is still deemed to be the best Leader. That is real endorsement.

                • The Al1en …
                  24 September 2014 at 5:10 pm

                  I don’t believe honest opinion is best delivered the morning after an election thumping on TV and through the media. Time and a place has everything to do with it. His disloyalty has been epic and does him much discredit.

                  Back him or sack him and put it to the members.
                  Blood on the carpet, who ever loses goes away.
                  Fin.

                  And I’m not fooled by that fall in behind the victor to victory rubbish, that didn’t and won’t work with this caucus. Seems some were just eying up the spot to stick the knife.

        • brian 12.1.1.2
          24 September 2014 at 10:09 am

          @ BM (12.1.1)

          Ok, I’ll go along with that. I missed the main point of what you originally wrote.

        • CrashCart 12.1.1.3
          24 September 2014 at 10:38 am

          I wouldn’t normally agree with you BM but I think there is actually value in what you say.

          National stakes it turf. It says to people if you want what we say then come and join our party or just vote for us. It is easy to understand and people find that appealing on election day. As to whether that is actually what they stand for is a whole other discussion.

          Labours problem is that they say “Hey we are the left vote for us”. Helen use to celarly set the parties agenda in a consistant way that people could understand. Now when people ask what Labour is it is not clear. That is because it shifts. people aren’t sure what they are getting. Leaders are changing and giving the impression (may ot be actual fact) that the direction of the party is changing with them. Therefore the only impression they really have of the party is what they see in the media. What do they see there? Last year Cunliff getting accused of undermining Shearer and getting demoted. Now they see Shearer actually publically undermining Cunliff. The only impression they have is of a party that is more concerned with infighting and who has the biggest Dick.

          Labour needs to put down its claim on a policy space. It needs to say this is what we stand for and the leader is just a way of helping us reach this. If you like our policies then join our party or just vote for us.

          • brian 12.1.1.3.1
            24 September 2014 at 10:45 am

            @ CrashCart (12.1.1.3)

            “When people ask what Labour is, it is not clear” ……..

            “Labour needs to put down its claim on a policy space. It needs to say this is what we stand for and the leader is just a way of helping us reach this.”

            Yes. Absolutely Yes.

            It’s what I have been referring to as a Vision.
            THIS IS WHAT WE STAND FOR

            Labour: What do you stand for?

        • Tracey 12.1.1.4
          24 September 2014 at 11:34 am

          John key knew politics?? No he didnt. He knew big banking and future trades. So you are half right, cos he brought all the unethical, nasty tctics from there to politics.

          • Puckish Rogue 12.1.1.4.1
            24 September 2014 at 3:11 pm

            Since he got 48% of the vote not knowing politics imagine the carnage if he did know politics

            • Tracey 12.1.1.4.1.1
              24 September 2014 at 3:21 pm

              BEFORE he was a politician. I did not say he doesnt know it now. re read the post I was responding to. I also have knowledge on him that you do not cos I read dirty politics

              • Puckish Rogue …
                24 September 2014 at 3:47 pm

                I also have knowledge on him that you do not cos I read dirty politics

                – Very good but I’ll see your knowledge and raise you an unheard 48% of the vote in an MMP environment and see you with gaining more votes in his third term then in his previous terms

        • KJT 12.1.1.5
          26 September 2014 at 8:57 pm

          And BM shows his true views on democracy.

  13. SPC 13
    24 September 2014 at 8:56 am

    I think this all went wrong when Goff resigned as leader after the defeat in 2011.

    Defeat of a government after one term is rare. And given Helen Clark had been leader for near 15 years, the public had to get a sense of the party continuing under new leadership rather than change leaders.

    Party modernisation, democratisation and building membership levels is the area for re-connection to the community.

  14. Lanthanide 14
    24 September 2014 at 9:18 am

    “Note that it is an endorsement vote for the Leader, not a confidence vote ”

    Please describe what the distinguishing difference is between an “endorsement vote” and a “confidence vote”.

  15. SPC 15
    24 September 2014 at 9:18 am

    The easiest part of the review is identifying what the polls say about support for Labour in the various demographics.

    The drop in support amongst those over 65 was notable.

    The bribe of free medical got no traction with them. So it would appear that any breach of the concept of universal super from age 65 comes with risk (Key’s focus on maintaining the integrity of the system counting more with them – as it implied stability and security, than all the media support for Labour’s emphasis on future affordability).

    And I for one am wary of compulsory Kiwi Saver, particularly at levels that would allow it to replace tax paid super (with means tested lower rate tax paid super for those with no other means). Many in National want this to happen and have Labour bring in compulsory Kiwi Saver would be to hand this opportunity to them on a plate.

    • KJT 15.1
      26 September 2014 at 8:59 pm

      Compulsory Kiwi saver is simply privatisation of super.

      Those of us that remember the 70’s and 80’s know that privatisation of any State services means higher costs and less service.

      How people cannot see that gifting up to 9% of wages to the private finance industry to lose in the next GFC is a lot more costly than universal super, is beyound me.

  16. shona 16
    24 September 2014 at 9:31 am

    Just get on with the vote I am sick of the media driving the decision making within the caucus. The majority of members want Cunliffe as leader . Suck it up or resign. I am disgusted with these middle class whining self serving greedy a***holes. They will never get in government again even if the funding from the business sector favours them. FFS hold the leadership contest now. It is Goff ( who is a TPPA mole) who is driving it anyway. Sack the lot of them.

  17. Blue 17
    24 September 2014 at 10:01 am

    If only it were true that there is no rush to judgment. Unfortunately, that isn’t even remotely true. The Labour caucus and the media have already made their decision and now we are facing a long, drawn-out bloodbath.

    I can only say that I will not support any of the Labour MPs who have spoken out as leader. If they have no loyalty to the party then they get no loyalty from me.

  18. Tom Gould 18
    24 September 2014 at 10:19 am

    Its fascinating reading all this re-written history around the demise of the Goff and Shearer leaderships and the current calls for unity and loyalty and an end to leaking, and where it’s now coming from. John Key went though a phase of calling his critics hypocrites, so guess it’s just a matter of time.

  19. SPC 19
    24 September 2014 at 10:26 am

    An unintentionally funny column from Fran O’Sullivan today

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11330165

    My response – the idea that if Labour was National as you would like National to be, it would be a credible alternative to National is the sort of arrogant thinking that Key is trying to prevent himself from succumbing to.

    • Tracey 19.1
      24 September 2014 at 11:39 am

      Repeated by BM. We have heard it for years, wrapped in different packaging… If lp was more like nats i’d vote for them… Its such a vacuous statement.

      Has anyone asked fran if that includes getting dirt of nats from prostitutes… Cos thats like national, giving addrsses of opponents to peolle who want to harm them? Trawling through peoples credit card details, publishing stuff as your own but actually copying and pasting for the highest bidder?

  20. RedBaronCV 20
    24 September 2014 at 10:29 am

    Well I believe in having a strong opposition so I gave some money to this party among others. Now, I don’t care how much fighting goes on behind the doors, I don’t expect it to be all over the media who are just waiting to lap it all up and spin it and maybe even attribute stuff to insiders who are no more an “insider” than me.
    The MSM are just waiting to feed off this so “Don’t do it in public”.

  21. Rob 21
    24 September 2014 at 3:50 pm

    Totally agree the media are not your friend
    They are jackels

  22. SeanExile 22
    24 September 2014 at 4:47 pm

    And again the same people, some who even voted greens, state that the party had a good election campaign and the right policies. When you say that in the face of the worst election result in 80 years you probably need to take some time off, do some soul searching and then look at the same question again with fresh eyes.

    lets face it, we failed, we failed miserably. Why and where we failed I’m sure that numbers, poll data and other specific tools can determine. But lets wait for such info and see what segments we have lost, that will say a lot and allow us to make the required changes.

    May I also suggest that “vote positive” and then a sign of Cunliffe, who spent a few years publicly (on every NZ TV channel), doing everything in his power to undermine the previous leadership perhaps isn’t the brightest. Kiwis watch TV. Intriguing, disloyalty isn’t seen as something positive. It doesn’t resonate with kiwis. And before you say that in fact it doesn’t matter and David Cunliffe is seen in great light with the average kiwi and that I’m wrong, let me again point to the election result. Case closed.
    Vote positive might once have worked with Shearer but it sure doesn’t work with Cunliffe.

    • Anne 22.1
      24 September 2014 at 6:48 pm

      May I also suggest that “vote positive” and then a sign of Cunliffe, who spent a few years publicly (on every NZ TV channel), doing everything in his power to undermine the previous leadership perhaps isn’t the brightest.

      Except that he didn’t!!! That was a totally false meme created by an unholy alliance between the Nats and the MSM. An alliance that continues unabated. Both are integral parts of “Dirty Politics”. Shame on you and the thousands of others for being so gullible as to fall for it.

    • Colonial Viper 22.2
      24 September 2014 at 6:57 pm

      Thanks for parrotting the 3 year old media line about Cunliffe.