Return of the King?

82 comments on “Return of the King? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. karol 1

   25 February 2013 at 8:21 am

   And Shane Jones *groan*.
   • karol 1.1

     25 February 2013 at 8:22 am

     PS: What about Louisa Wall?
     • IrishBill 1.1.1

       25 February 2013 at 8:23 am

       Nope. She’s too connected to Cunliffe.
       • mickysavage 1.1.1.1

         25 February 2013 at 9:47 am

         Yep, one of the most effective Labour MPs who did us all a favour by taking out one of the old crusty right wing Labour MPs, who campaigned really well and increased Labour’s party vote, who through her efforts last year in getting the Marriage Equality Bill through the first reading, who is Maori and female and a dream representative is being punished because she supports Cunliffe.

         Words are starting to fail me …
         • higherstandard 1.1.1.1.1

           25 February 2013 at 9:51 am

           She is Maori and female ?………. so what.

           She is an intelligent motivated MP who does heaps for her electorate and in parliament that’s enough to have her moved up the ranks without resort to gender and race based politics surely ?
           • vto 1.1.1.1.1.1

             25 February 2013 at 9:55 am

             Yep. If she was White and male would that make her less effective at her job mickysavage?

             … the stereotyping that goes in this country …. so shallow
           • karol 1.1.1.1.1.2

             25 February 2013 at 9:55 am

             Trevett thinks Jones will be promoted to front bench as shadow Maori spokesperson.

             So far Team Shearer has been dominated by a pretty regressive conception of masculinity.
           • fatty 1.1.1.1.1.3

             25 February 2013 at 10:06 am

             She is Maori and female ?………. so what.

             So that’s a good thing. If we look at who holds power and who gets paid more in NZ, it is Pakeha males. That is a fact.
             So, your statement suggests that ‘we are all equal and should be treated the same’…is that what you mean? If so, why do Pakeha males dominate? Are Pakeha males genetically superior?
             You need to expand on your reasoning higherstandard. You have some interesting assumptions, please explain.
             • vto …

               25 February 2013 at 10:15 am

               I think the explaining needs to come from micky. Your own post fatty suggesting that it is a good thing implies some ‘genetic’ difference between the genders and races, as you put it, otherwise why would it be a good thing? So, what are the differences?
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 25 February 2013 at 10:34 am

                 Actually, it’s the social representation that seems to be what people are after. If a person is description then they are representative of people who meet that description. It’s identity politics.

                 It’s not something that I can understand.
                 • vto …

                   25 February 2013 at 10:45 am

                   Yes I struggle with it too, especially in the context of wider bigotry and stereotyping in this country.

                   But even what you suggest DTB implies a difference between “descriptions”. If people require a mix of gender, race and age to represent our society then that means people think there is a difference between gender, race and age in our society.

                   The entire issue is confused and unsettled. It doesn’t rest in an easy position currently imo.
               • fatty …

                 25 February 2013 at 10:43 am

                 No, my post was asking what is the reason for the difference between men & women, and also Pakeha & Maori?
                 Why do Pakeha males dominate? Higherstandard suggests there should be no preference given towards females and/or Maori, so I’m asking why does that inequality exist…is it genetic? Its a fair question.

                 I completely oppose the idea of genetic inferiority. The differences between men & women, and also Pakeha & Maori relate to our sexist a patriarchal history (and continued today). Changes have been made but these inequalities persist. Since it was policies that created these inequalities, I’d suggest that policies and allowances are made until we are equal (or as equal as possible).

                 So, my question remains…what is the reason for the inequality? Is it genetic? Or, if it was policy, why don’t we have a responsibility to make policies and allowances so that our racist and sexist society becomes more equal?
                 • mickysavage …

                   25 February 2013 at 10:52 am

                   In a perfect world our Parliament would be truly representative of our population. Right now there are too many middle class white males there and not enough women, especially women of different backgrounds, and especially especially really effective ones.
                   • vto …

                     25 February 2013 at 11:08 am

                     Sure. So what are the differences between the genders? and races and ages …..

                     fatty wonders about genetic differences too (whatever superior or inferior mean).

                     A while ago many posters on here were adamant that there were no such differences, yet now there are?
                   • Green Viper …

                     25 February 2013 at 11:21 am

                     If you want to see a real representation of women in New Zealand you need look no further than the Co-leadership of the Greens and their caucus..
                   • fatty …

                     25 February 2013 at 11:32 am

                     Yes, I do wonder if genetic inferiority underlies the we’re all equal claim. Because if we are all equal, why are there longstanding inequalities? As I said above, the difference between genders and races is due to us not addressing past policies (which unsurprisingly were built upon the idea of genetic differences).

                     A while ago many posters on here were adamant that there were no such differences, yet now there are?

                     It appears so. Once the left stops striving for equality by trying to right the wrongs of the past, then aren’t we just accepting inequality between men & women, Maori & Pakeha as natural?
                   • vto …

                     25 February 2013 at 12:00 pm

                     Differences are not the same as inequalities I guess, although one is likely to lead to the other. If it is accepted that there are differences then policy should work to avoid potential inequality that may arise from that difference.

                     But really, I don’t think society knows or has accepted an answer which is required as a first step – are there differences? Without knowing that how on earth can policy be developed addressing inequalities, other than as a pretty blunt instrument?

                     It all has a way to go yet, hence its rather raucous and dividing nature as an issue..
                   • karol …

                     25 February 2013 at 12:07 pm

                     And maybe if the current Labour caucus were more diverse they’d be focused more on social security (which impacts pretty heavily on Maori, Pacific people and women, especially under NAct) rather than putting the majority of focus on people in paid work.
                   • vto …

                     26 February 2013 at 8:12 am

                     mickysavage, wouldn’t mind picking up on another of your kneejerk stereotypes – that of middle class.

                     Gets to thinking, ok, so which ones in Parliament is mickysavage thinking are middle class, which ones lower class and which ones upper class.

                     Love to see some examples mickysavage, because “middle class” is thrown around by the kneejerk more mindlessly as a stereotype, attracting the follow on abuse as it goes, more often than any other.

                     So if you’re around micky, explain your kneejerks
           • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.4

             25 February 2013 at 8:15 pm

             Royal Flush takes 5 cards mate, no holding back in this game
   • fatty 1.2

     25 February 2013 at 8:27 am

     surely not…Shane Jones is repulsive to everyone. Who does he represent?
     • Enough is Enough 1.2.1

       25 February 2013 at 8:56 am

       I can’t understand how or why Shane Jones is still in the Party…now we are talking front bench. Give me strength.
   • David H 1.3

     25 February 2013 at 10:00 am

     Well that will scare off a few thousand more voters. Who’s next Tamahere?? Oh well the Greens will just keep on climbing in the polls then. And as the ABC crowd will have their paws in this, then I hold Little or no hope for 2014.
2. Mr Burns 2

   25 February 2013 at 8:24 am

   All I can say on behalf of rich old white males who hate the collective everywhere is that we really appreciate the mess that Shearer and ABC are making of the Labour Party and if true this reshuffle will ensure that National is voted back into power in 2014.

   I can taste that tax cut now …
   • Yorick 2.1

     25 February 2013 at 8:58 am

     Sadly, I think you are right.

     However, I have discovered Buddhism .. and detachment.

     The sun will still shine, lambs will still be born, as will humans .. life will go on.

     We can always retreat into our own personal nirvana to escape New Medievalism.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       25 February 2013 at 9:52 am

       Or gain strength from our own personal nirvana to return to the world and defeat New Medievalism.
       • blue leopard 2.1.1.1

         25 February 2013 at 11:08 am

         +1 Colonial Viper
     • blue leopard 2.1.2

       25 February 2013 at 11:22 am

       @ Yorick,

       Its great that you are attempting to be positive, yet you appear to have missed something and concerns me that your description of Buddhism more closely resembles “checking out”. I can see that this may not have been intentional and so I write this to clarify.

       As I understand it “detachment” isn’t all about retreating from the world,
       It allows one to act in the world without getting wound up and caught in [addictive] destructive emotional/mental cycles of reactivity.

       Compassion is the most emphasized aspect of Buddhism, and particularly Mahayana Buddhism, would implore you to act and engage with people, and do everything to assist others even prior to coming to a point of peace.
       • Yorick 2.1.2.1

         25 February 2013 at 6:14 pm

         @ blue leopard

         It is difficult to do irony in a text-based forum without sticking up a flag saying *irony*. It takes away all the fun.

         You are, of course, correct .. but I would caution against confusing religious teachings with ethical behaviour such as the treatment of the Islamic Rohingyas in Arakan

         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Rakhine_State_riots

         and the role of Theravada in recent Indochinese wars.

         As for Mahayna, have a look at

         http://ebookee.org/Fortress-Monasteries-of-the-Himalayas-Osprey-Fortress-104-_1915219.html
         • blue leopard 2.1.2.1.1

           25 February 2013 at 7:10 pm

           Ah, sorry, it only slowly dawned on me that irony was a possible option (after posting the comment)!

           some people use ” /sarc ”

           There is nothing in my comment that would indicate that I was confusing a “religious teaching” with behaviour. I was simply relaying the theory…
   • Lanthanide 2.2

     25 February 2013 at 9:05 am

     Tax cut? Yeah right.
     • Mr Burns 2.2.1

       25 February 2013 at 10:54 am

       Not for you Lanthanide, only for the very wealthy.

       This then lets us trickle the wealth down on all those that are lower than us.
3. Rupert the Beer 3

   25 February 2013 at 8:52 am

   And Kris Fa’foi – another of the Leader’s Office paratroopers – to Pacific Island Affairs apparently. It’s good that Fa’foi and Parata have both been promoted as reward for turning Mana from safe-Labour to marginal…
4. geoff 4

   25 February 2013 at 8:53 am

   Zombie caucus
5. Anne 5

   25 February 2013 at 9:03 am

   From what emerged on Eddie’s post last evening “Something about deckchairs…” the immediate future for Labour looks grim indeed.

   Such unprincipled behaviour – delusional rumour mongering and the last minute selection of a secret ballot caucus spy – reeks of paranoia, stupidity and neurosis.

   Trevor Mallard and Chris Hipkins stand up!
   • Anne 5.1

     25 February 2013 at 9:07 am

     http://thestandard.org.nz/something-about-deckchairs/
     • Olwyn 5.1.1

       25 February 2013 at 11:36 am

       I cannot raise my jaw off the floor since reading about that last night Anne. Hipkins being a vote counter completely undermines the secrecy of the secret ballot. I just do not get the lengths to which these people are prepared to go. If the present leadership team was too right wing to please members like me but polling at 45% I would understand it. If they had genuinely taken Labour back to it roots but were polling at 25% I would think that they were willing to risk losing an election to save the party. But as things stand what they are doing is just bewildering.

       As a side issue along related lines, I would also like to know if Matthew Hooton now works for the LP. Cactus Kate has a couple of times intimated that he does, but this has never been confirmed or denied. The caution they employ in framing their arguments about such things as work, housing and welfare, especially welfare, almost suggests that he is now in charge of it. “Don’t mention injustice or Matthew will growl at you.”

       I have nothing against Annette King, and see her as a hard working pragmatist more than a conspirator, but given the water that has gone under the bridge so far, I don’t hold much hope for this reshuffle.
       • xtasy 5.1.1.1

         26 February 2013 at 2:32 am

         Olwyn: New Left Party, only answer!
         • Olwyn 5.1.1.1.1

           26 February 2013 at 10:16 am

           It could end up coming to that xstasy, the way things are going. Labour presently seems determined to negate its reasons for existence, like the old Liberal Party that they displaced in the thirties.
6. Raa 6

   25 February 2013 at 9:04 am

   I’m a fan of Ann. She’s done the hard yards in rest homes and knows her way around the system.
   She would bring a realistic cool head and valuable hard-won experience to Health .. if not beyond.
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     25 February 2013 at 9:07 am

     She’s currently the housing spokesperson. She’s done a reasonable job, so lets hope moving her into Health is so they can get another big hitter on that role, as it seems to be the only area that the public is paying attention to Labour on.
   • rosy 6.2

     25 February 2013 at 11:33 am

     +1 Raa. She was a very effective health minister and understands the importance of primary care and population health. No-one is giving Tony Ryall a hard time about the shift toward counting operations at the expense of basic health care. She can do this.
     • xtasy 6.2.1

       26 February 2013 at 2:38 am

       Hahaha, I do not share your hope as much, but “instinctively” only days ago, I sent a an email cc, that addressed major issues in National’s dishonest health policies. They tell the public all these Goebbels like one liners that Ryall loves, about numbers on “elective surgery”, but heaps of other cuts, slashes and failures go totally under the radar.

       Not even the shit media get it. I read some reports, I know more, and so do others.

       So let us hope King picks that and other stuff up, and exposes rotten Tony Propaganda Rile.
7. James 7

   25 February 2013 at 9:06 am

   The standard, Standard reader is a leftie – labour voter.

   If you guys are groaning and moaning about what a lousy job your party is doing and having a caucus that is (and I will be polite) sub-par to say the least, how can you expect “normal” people to support them.

   Yet you seem shocked when the Nats and the most popular PM since ages ago is polling so far ahead of you guys.

   Its not rocket science. You guys could be on the opposition for a long time yet. Laugh if Trevor is still running the show in 2017 mwahahahaha
   • Lanthanide 7.1

     25 February 2013 at 9:09 am

     “Yet you seem shocked when the Nats and the most popular PM since ages ago is polling so far ahead of you guys”

     Erm, I don’t think anyone here is shocked. We’re moaning and groaning because the party leadership is so bad, and the evidence to back up these feeling is the polling, which has barely budged since 2009.
   • Rupert the Beer 7.2

     25 February 2013 at 9:09 am

     If Trevor is still “running the show” in 2017, I fear there will be no show to run…
   • bad12 7.3

     25 February 2013 at 10:23 am

     Yes continue the dream, right up till November 2014, when you will be faced with a Labour/Green Government, albeit with a paper thin majority of 1 or 2 seats,(remarkably like the current Slippery lead National Government),

     Better start stocking up the cellar, you are sure going to have a cause to add a lot of whine with your cheese…
8. Tom 8

   25 February 2013 at 9:35 am

   James, what is your wish list ?

   Increased low-wage labour in rural industries, assisted emigration for anyone with a tertiary degree ?
9. Peter 9

   25 February 2013 at 9:36 am

   So Labour takes the Treasury benches in 2014 by reshuffling the same people who sat in those portfolios on the Treasury benches in 2004?

   Smart move, Mr Shearer…
10. Tom 10

    25 February 2013 at 9:37 am

    Is the ACT offensive in Epsom linked to this new poll ?
    • bad12 10.1

      25 February 2013 at 10:10 am

      Yes ACT has been offensive in Epsom for quite some time, about now would be the time for the voters in that electorate to wake up to the smell,

      National have to continue to do deals with ACT in Epsom to retain any hope of re-election in 2014, by doing so tho, National run the risk of losing soft votes from the margins of it’s party vote as voters react to such continued deal making by taking their Party vote elsewhere…
11. Raa 11

    25 February 2013 at 9:42 am

    One from the man himself ..

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8345723/Key-It-ll-be-a-tight-election-ra
    • bad12 11.1

      25 February 2013 at 10:01 am

      Yes Slippery the Prime Minister would know, after-all the National Party conducts it’s own polling on a weekly/monthly basis,

      i have been saying for quite some time that the 2014 election will be close with a 1-2% gap either way this far out from the actual election National are up against the wall as slipping that 1-2% on election day will probably cost them the Treasury benches,

      My pick is that the ‘clever’ tactic of Slippery bringing the Maori Party into the coalition early on in 2009 wont pay off with the Maori Party losing at least 2 of it’s electorate seats,

      Should Labour and Mana pick up 1 of those Maori electorate seats each i would suggest this far out that that would mean bye bye National with Labour+Green+ Mana having a 1 seat majority in the House…
      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1

        25 February 2013 at 1:07 pm

        You’ll probably still need Winston to pull that combo off.

        Unless Labour get at least 35% or 36% on e-day.
12. chris73 acualy is Dolan 12

    25 February 2013 at 9:58 am

    Whats King done (or not done) to deserve a kicking from Ryall?
13. burt 13

    25 February 2013 at 10:04 am

    This is a joke right…. Wow… Fresh thinking from Labour …. Way to appeal to the voters… appoint the tainted and stained to the big jobs….

    WHO IS THE LABOUR PARTY SERVING – THE PEOPLE OF NZ OR THE LABOUR PARTY CRONIES.
14. Enough is Enough 14

    25 February 2013 at 10:29 am

    When you have a party at war, what is the best way to heal and bring the two fighting factions together.

    A. Hug your enemy and bring them in close (Clark/Cullen)
    B. Banish them and their allies to the bank bench in some strange act of ‘leadership’.

    Will the party be united by weeks end or will the cracks between the factions be widened o a gulf. Only Shearer can control and my money is on him fucking it up again.
    • alwyn 14.1

      25 February 2013 at 1:36 pm

      You, as with Helen Clark, clearly approve of the old President (Lyndon) Johnson view.
      “It is better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in”
      • xtasy 14.1.1

        26 February 2013 at 2:42 am

        alwyn: Someone at the head of Labour does not learn from history, because he himself is “history” before he even makes it!
15. VivaciousViper 15

    25 February 2013 at 11:02 am

    It is sad to watch the slow demise of the labour party, re-arranging the ‘deck chairs’ for
    some who are compliant with the wishes of those who are responsible for that demise is
    just mind boggling.
    The ‘old hands’ should stand aside and bring new talent to the front bench on merit, not
    because they comply, the old hands then should mentor the new front bench so that
    they have support,there also needs to be a greater eye on succession of the leadership.
    My history has been labour,(apart from the clark years),my future will be for a party who
    respects the people,is democratic,also takes the people with them,is open minded and
    listens to the prospective voters,is engaging, a leader who represents all of those things
    and is enlightening and clear about party policies and the needs of the people and potential
    voters.
    Annette King fits comfortably within the ‘deck chair’ movement,so no surprises there.

    A rejuvination not regurgitation is needed right now.

    Does Labour deserve my two ticks in 2014, No, unless big healthy changes occur.
16. gobsmacked 16

    25 February 2013 at 11:17 am

    “And we’re coming to you live from the red carpet, where the stars are arriving and excitement is building … Annette King looking lovely in 1980’s shoulder-pads … Trevor Mallard is here, he’ll be honoured with a “lifetime achievement award” (from National) … sadly David Cunliffe can’t be with us tonight … David Shearer would like to thank his wife – no, his kids – no his wife AND kids – no, his family – no, his parents, especially – um, his wife … er, what was the question again?”

    … “And the Oscar for Best Spokesperson who you’ve never heard of goes to … David Parker!”

    (NZ voters: Zzzzzzzzzzzzz …)
17. Rupert Snodgrass (stupid banned troll) 17

    25 February 2013 at 11:28 am

    The vastly experienced and immensely talented Annette King is a superb appointment.
18. Elizabeth Bourchier Real Labour 18

    25 February 2013 at 12:16 pm

    This must be just speculation from Clare, surely? Please say yes!!

    Shearer knows that the public knows the differance between a strong leader and a vindictive one?
    Surely a new team needs the likes of Cunliffe Wall and (sadly) Chauvel?

    Surely Shearer knows he has to show that he is independent of Mallard and Goff?

    Surely he owns nothing anymore to the Wellington Hutt clique ?

    Surely Cunliffe merits a position in the top 5/6?
19. George D 19

    25 February 2013 at 12:25 pm

    I hope this is an unfounded rumour. Why not Grant Robertson? A highly capable man and former Minister of Health.

    New Zealand needs someone who can take on Ryall, who is loosening the seams of the health system so it can be quietly disassembled – he’s to smart to try to rip it apart in one go. Kevin Hague is doing a decent job of his portfolio, but he could do with a heavyweight backup.
    • George D 19.1

      25 February 2013 at 12:27 pm

      I’m not saying King won’t do an excellent job. I think she will, really. I just think that the person with the portfolio should be ready to step into the ministerial position at the end of this term, and we know that isn’t possible with King’s imminent retirement.
      • chris73 acualy is Dolan 19.1.1

        25 February 2013 at 12:54 pm

        Going by this plan maybe a Goff will get a promotion…
    • alwyn 19.2

      25 February 2013 at 1:40 pm

      Your memory clearly differs from mine.
      Are you really suggesting that Grant Robertson is a former Minister of Health?
      Perhaps you haven’t noticed but Robertson only entered Parliament in 2008 and has never even been on the Government side of the House.
20. Pascal's bookie 20

    25 February 2013 at 1:03 pm

    Front bench:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Michael_Parkin/status/305829527588859905/photo/1#
    • chris73 acualy is Dolan 20.1

      25 February 2013 at 1:15 pm

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzFmCCKQHns

      Bit of classic 80s soundtrack which seems appropriate
    • Olwyn 20.2

      25 February 2013 at 1:16 pm

      From Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8347604/Labour-unveils-major-reshuffle

      David Cunliffe is bumped from the top 20.
21. George D 21

    25 February 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Congratulations to David Clark.
22. AmaKiwi 22

    25 February 2013 at 1:40 pm

    “Mr Shearer said his decisions were based on choosing the best person for each job.”

    And since David Cunliffe is the best person to lead the party, let’s leave him in the back rows so he won’t be damaged in our train wreck.
23. Treetop 23

    25 February 2013 at 1:47 pm

    The health portfolio is the best place for King. Health has a lot of cross over with housing, ACC, Work and Income and education. The health system eventually pays (hospital admissions) when the mentioned services have not provided the necessary assistance.
    • xtasy 23.1

      26 February 2013 at 2:47 am

      That is sadly so, because noone else in Labour really has enough understanding of the health portfolio. King was not doing much for Housing, to be honest. Hone Harawira took that role. And apart from that, King may have the knowledge and insight, but times moved on, there is a ruthless new operator at the helm, and knowledge and experience may not suffice to deal with the most ruthless operator!

      I am split between hope and despair.

      Ultimately, the new lineup shows, SOCIAL WELFARE is NOT a priority for Shearer and Labour!
24. One Tāne Huna 24

    25 February 2013 at 1:47 pm

    Excellent decision regarding Trevor Mallard. Cunliffe, not so much. He has no incentive to follow the leader now.
    • One Tāne Huna 24.1

      25 February 2013 at 1:54 pm

      PS: hadn’t picked up that Cunliffe has got fisheries and associate finance, not quite so bad. Isn’t it great that Mallard’s “ability” has been recognised though?
25. Anne 25

    25 February 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Mallard’s position means nothing OTH. He’s still top dog and is running Shearer behind the scenes.

    Demoting him is just an attempt to appear ‘even handed’ and it was probably suggested by Mallard himself. How stupid do they think we are?
    • higherstandard 25.1

      25 February 2013 at 6:20 pm

      very
      • Colonial Viper 25.1.1

        25 February 2013 at 6:30 pm

        +1 lol
        • higherstandard 25.1.1.1

          25 February 2013 at 7:14 pm

          Well we do keep voting the buffoons in so it’s hard to disagree that we are a stupid lot.
          • Anne 25.1.1.1.1

            25 February 2013 at 7:38 pm

            🙂

Links to post

1. Oh, aren’t you clever? | Ideologically Impure: posted on 27 February 2013 at 7:01 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS