Too far

Written By: - Date published: 8:05 pm, August 7th, 2012 - 394 comments
Categories: labour - Tags:

It looks like someone from within Labour’s top team* has decided to have a real nasty go at David Cunliffe via Duncan Garner.

Regardless of what you think of Cunliffe, this kind of pointless and destructive politicing is exactly why people have no faith in Labour as a government in waiting.

I don’t know whether this is an attempt to blame someone else for the recent bad polling (and total strategic failure that’s generated it) or whether it’s an attempt to smear a potential competitor in a lead-up to a leadership challenge, but it makes Labour look like a bunch of childish clowns.

My advice? Pull your f*cking head in and focus on providing Shearer with some decent strategy and support or we’ll see another three years of National because nobody wants to vote for people who behave like this.

*I think we can all guess who

394 comments on “Too far ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Matthew Whitehead 1
    7 August 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Actually no, their centrist policies, lack of faith in their own principles, and general disrespect for the idea of having to earn their own political support is why people have no faith in Labour as a government-in-waiting.

    The sniping at each other just reinforces that impression with a healthy dose of “oh, they’re like every other stupid politician.”

    • Hami Shearlie 1.1
      8 August 2012 at 12:37 am

      They elected Shearer as leader because they thought he’d be no threat to their own personal ambitions!! And look how that’s turned out!! Cunliffe might ruffle some feathers, but he’s the man the members of the party wanted. Looks like they were right!! How can Labour expect us to have any faith and belief in them when their Leader never looks or sound sure of anything and has no genuine conviction about anything either. Cunliffe sounds confident, and believes in what he says. That is the difference. The caucus chose last time and they mucked up big time. Next year, the members might get their choice – then the polls will be very interesting!!

  2. mickysavage 2
    7 August 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Hear hear.  He should be ashamed of himself.  He should also be blamed for the various fcuk ups that have happened over the past few years.

    He should also retire.

    Quickly. 

  3. Pete George 3
    7 August 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Do you think “Pull you’re f*cking head in” is a sufficient response to this? It’s well up the scale of blatant cowardly attempts to not just smear but totrash someone’s political career.

    If “*I think we can all guess who” gets away with this the party pretty much deserves all the scorn it will no doubt get.

    Cunliffe is obviously in a hopeless position leadership-wise but if he could be bothered after this he could still contribute to the party rebuild. Instead he is being used as a scapegoat – by the root of much of the party’s problems. Until that is excised…

  4. Pascal's bookie 4
    7 August 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Onya IB.

    This bullshit does nothing other than hand the government something to laugh at.

    No one out in voter land gives a shit about internal party squabbles, but they laugh when one side points out that the other is a shambles.

    Someone needs to think long and hard about what they are doing in parliament, and who they are serving, and who is relying on them.

    • felix 4.1
      7 August 2012 at 8:41 pm

      Dunno about “nothing other than”, I think it’s far worse than that. Politics, the left, and the country generally would be poorer without Cunliffe.

      But, yeah.

  5. the sprout 5
    7 August 2012 at 8:37 pm

    agreed. he’s really an enemy of the Labour Party.
    and when his last support evaporates and a new power base rises, he and his mates will be put to the plank. good job too. they have caused the NZLP and the people who need the NZLP enormous damage.

    • RedLogix 5.1
      7 August 2012 at 8:51 pm

      Agreed. This has to be the beginning of the end. There is no ‘staging a recovery’ from this; either the existing caucas cabal is gotten rid of or Cunliffe departs and takes a vital chunk of active membership with him.

      Either way something has to change. Preferably sooner.

      • the sprout 5.1.1
        7 August 2012 at 8:53 pm

        my pike’s sharpened and ready to go

      • Peter 5.1.2
        8 August 2012 at 8:46 am

        Yep. The reality is that whilst the current leadership team stays, the party bleeds activists, especially young activists. So, a Cunliffe victory can’t really come too soon I don’t think.

  6. Te Reo Putake 6
    7 August 2012 at 8:54 pm

    The stupidity of this ham fisted and cowardly attempt at kneecapping Cunliffe is that it hurts both Davids. Rather than demote Cunliffe, Shearer has to find the courage to dump the loose lipped loser that Garner tapped up. Whoever it is.
     
    On the up side, once the change process is finished, it should be a lot easier to de-select MP’s whose egos, and mouths, are bigger than their talents.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      7 August 2012 at 8:58 pm

      They frakin’ pulled this stunt on Cunliffe while he was out of the country.

      • Te Reo Putake 6.1.1
        7 August 2012 at 9:16 pm

        Exactly. Cowardly, as I said above, and not behaviour that should be acceptable in a Labour caucus.

        • Inventory2 6.1.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 9:19 pm

          Quite ironic actually, given that Cunliffe is one of those who has criticised Key for having holidays overseas. Rather karmic in fact 😀

    • Lightseed 6.2
      7 August 2012 at 9:06 pm

      And if both the Davids are hurt, who benefits?

      Clue. His name isn’t David.

      From Duckie’s perspective, Not David would just be another convenient front guy.

      • Colonial Viper 6.2.1
        7 August 2012 at 9:11 pm

        They must really think those hoardings put up themselves, and those flyers magically appear in peoples letter boxes. Do they want to gift the Tories T3?

        • Georgecom 6.2.1.1
          7 August 2012 at 10:20 pm

          An important point well stated.

          Every labour MP will do well to remember one important point – you being in parliament isn’t about your ego or your career, you are there to serve and do whats best for the party and for the country.

          If you can’t put that before your ego or career, resign.

          People who put up the hoarding and deliver the pamphlets don’t do it because the MP is a nice person of to help them advance their political career, they do it to get a party elected who can start to deliver some policies that NZ needs.

          If you are not in politics to serve that type of people, resign.

      • mickysavage 6.2.2
        7 August 2012 at 9:58 pm

        Aye lightseed.  This is a very targeted and calculated leak.  The beneficiary should be checked out.

    • Anne 6.3
      7 August 2012 at 9:14 pm

      @TRP
      +1

  7. higherstandard 7
    7 August 2012 at 8:55 pm

    If it has been quacking like a duck for the last several decades why has no-one in labour ever had the balls to call it a duck ?

  8. gobsmacked 8
    7 August 2012 at 8:55 pm

    No one out in voter land gives a shit about internal party squabbles

    That’s what these idiots don’t get (or don’t care about). Those of us who are Labour voters or Labour-inclined are (for the most part) not in Camp Cunliffe or any other internal sect.

    Not asking for a white knight. I’d settle for basic competence, and some evidence of energy and focus. Even that seems beyond them.

    This is actually worse than Rogernomics. That was terrible, but it was an ideological split. It was about policy, beliefs, values … substance. The current bickering seems to be about who likes who. And nobody outside their private club gives a fuck.

  9. alex 9
    7 August 2012 at 9:00 pm

    If you all think you know who it is spreading this, why not name them and force the issue into the open? The people on this blog who are part of Labour (I am aware this is not a Labour blog, but there is some crossover) should grow a spine and make He Who Must Not Be Named defend their actions.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      7 August 2012 at 9:02 pm

      Not a bad idea, but insufficient now, mate.

    • higherstandard 9.2
      7 August 2012 at 9:02 pm

      Mallard and Little.

      • Pete George 9.2.1
        7 August 2012 at 9:06 pm

        They’re more afraid of Mallard than they are of sinking with the ship.

      • Lightseed 9.2.2
        7 August 2012 at 9:09 pm

        Not Little.

      • gobsmacked 9.2.3
        7 August 2012 at 9:11 pm

        I’ve no idea who “they” are. Some who comment here may be insiders, but most of us are just People On The Internet.

        Sure, my guess would be Mallard, but based on nothing except – he’s a dick. With countless previous offences.

        • Pascal's bookie 9.2.3.1
          7 August 2012 at 9:33 pm

          Could as easily be Robertson. And the fact that no one knows is just another reason why this sort of thing is so bloody stupid.

          Shearer should call a meeting with all of the ABC glee club, stand next to Cunliffe and tell the pack of know nothing swine that he wants personally signed written denials from all of them along the lines of:

          Any one who won’t sign should be given the option of resigning.

          • Kotahi Tāne Huna 9.2.3.1.1
            8 August 2012 at 8:53 am

            Yep. Exactly the sort of response I had in mind. Followed by a quiet announcement in the next few days that someone is retiring in 2014.

          • tc 9.2.3.1.2
            8 August 2012 at 8:57 am

            That would take leadership qualities, so it ain’t happening

        • Tracey 9.2.3.2
          8 August 2012 at 10:02 am

          I endorse this view 100%

          As an aside, given the lengthy summer break and so on, why is any MP ” away on a lengthy family holiday overseas” at the moment. Many kiwis work for places that make them take almost all their annual leave over the Christmas break, and have maybe a week left over.

          If you want lengthy family holidays outside the shutdown period you should not stand as an MP.

          • Carol 9.2.3.2.1
            8 August 2012 at 10:06 am

            Many kiwis work for places that make them take almost all their annual leave over the Christmas break,

            And some work in places where they prefer you to take annual leave outside the usual holiday period because places keep running over the summer.

            • Tracey 9.2.3.2.1.1
              8 August 2012 at 10:37 am

              Agreed. I have never had a job of the later kind, but really he needs a lengthy holiday now? How can he and his party argue for worker’s rights while he flaunts the opportunites of office. Not jsut him, any MP who does this grinds my mill.

              Cunliffe though is not int he later category you describe.

              • Carol …
                8 August 2012 at 10:48 am

                I have no idea why Cunliffe is taking a holiday now, and if he worked throughout the summer period.

                But just picked up on your holiday point because my workplace requires having some of us working over the summer. I choose to do that and take leave at other periods of the year, as do some others at my workplace.

    • Te Reo Putake 9.3
      7 August 2012 at 9:14 pm

      I’m not afraid to name the mole. I heard it’s Stephen Joyce.
       
      Nobody knows, Alex, ‘cept Duncan Garner and the presumably drunk twat he was talking to.

      • higherstandard 9.3.1
        7 August 2012 at 9:16 pm

        Joyce and Mallard are one and the same… it’s all done with mirrors and cunning camera angles.

        • Te Reo Putake 9.3.1.1
          7 August 2012 at 9:22 pm

          Well, I don’t think Weta Digital would have to do much work to make Joyce look like Piggy Muldoon, hs, but it’d be a stretch to turn him into Trade Me Trev!

      • alex 9.3.2
        7 August 2012 at 9:20 pm

        That is actually a fair point, this could easily be a National smear. Its a serious problem though when the automatic assumption is that its the chief strategist of Labour.

        • Pete George 9.3.2.1
          7 August 2012 at 9:30 pm

          Alex, Duncan Garner blogged:

          Two very senior MPs have told me they would like an internal travel fund set up to keep Cunliffe out of the country for as long as possible. How nasty is this caucus? He is clearly not missed.

          But Cunliffe is not only disliked by his caucus – he is not trusted. So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy.

          He’s either right, or he’s knowingly colluding with a National smear. Which is credible?

          Greens must dread the part of coalition where they have to duck the ‘strategies’ of he who thinks he’s chief of Labour.

          • Colonial Viper 9.3.2.1.1
            7 August 2012 at 9:33 pm

            🙄

            • Te Reo Putake 9.3.2.1.1.1
              7 August 2012 at 9:35 pm

              Ironic that a joke candidate can’t spot an actual joke, eh? 🙄

              • Pete George …
                7 August 2012 at 9:43 pm

                Ironic that for all your bravado here you can’t call the problem what it is and instead resort to feeble diversions, again.

                Do you want your party to regain any credibility at all? Or are you as addicted to nasty politics as Mallard to call him on it.

          • alex 9.3.2.1.2
            7 August 2012 at 9:39 pm

            Well yeah, I think everyone agrees that its probably the Duck, but you can’t rule out the possibility that this whole process has been started by the Nats, and only two MPs in Labour have been stupid enough to have attacked Cunliffe. It isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that Garner is inflating the story because, well, journalists often do that.

            • Colonial Viper 9.3.2.1.2.1
              7 August 2012 at 9:45 pm

              So you think that the minimum case here is that two senior Labour MPs have wailed on the record, on one of their own colleagues to Duncan Garner, so well known for his impartiality and even handedness, and that its not a general strategy by the larger Labour caucus.

              I mean, WTF does that change whats been talked about here.

            • Pete George 9.3.2.1.2.2
              7 August 2012 at 9:45 pm

              I’m sure there are inflations, by Garner possible and likely by ‘the source’.

              But unless this is addressed quickly and strongly all that will be left is deflations, of party.

              • Colonial Viper …
                7 August 2012 at 9:55 pm

                🙄 don’t you have something of your own deflating

                • McFlock …
                  7 August 2012 at 10:15 pm

                  His electoral support is already as deflated as possible – like a used condom in the Botanic Gardens on Sunday morning.

  10. Blue 10
    7 August 2012 at 9:16 pm

    I am so sick of this shit. So this is what David Shearer’s ‘leadership’ looks like? Letting loose lips in the caucus publicly denigrate one of their colleagues and insinuate that Shearer himself lacks confidence in Cunliffe?

    As far as I’m concerned, Shearer needs to fucking stand up and take ownership here. If he lets this shit pass without doing anything about it, then he has shown exactly what kind of ‘leader’ he is.

    • gobsmacked 10.1
      7 August 2012 at 9:22 pm

      Yes … and worse.

      This just reinforces the preception that Shearer is nothing, except the Not-Cunliffe. He wasn’t chosen for his own qualities, he was just ABC (Anyone but …). Could have been Parker or anyone. It didn’t matter.

      So the caucus have saddled Labour – and the country – with the “leader” who makes John Key happy. Helluva job, guys.

  11. Lightseed 11
    7 August 2012 at 9:17 pm

    I think it’s interesting to consider ‘why now’? That often leads to answers as to ‘why’.

    Why is Duckie trying to white ant Cunliffe now?

    Ok, Shearer’s had some bad polls. Boo hoo.

    If you have a few bad polls and your plan is to stick with Shearer, then you work on improving him, get his numbers up at least enough to stave off any run from Cunliffe in the 2013 leadership vote. The last thing you want to do when a leader you back has some bad polls is attack a potential leadership challenger.

    You don’t attack Cunliffe if your plan is to stick with Shearer because – as noted by others – it makes Shearer’s leadership look in question. It weakens Shearer’s leadership security when Duckie attacks Cunliffe.

    But what if you want Shearer’s leadership in question, except you don’t want Cunliffe to be the alternative because you’ve got your own man lined up, and you want blame for leadership questions sheeted home to someone other than you and your man?

    Well, then, you start attacking Cunliffe.

    • felix 11.1
      7 August 2012 at 9:23 pm

      That’s very astute. However the fact remains that Shearer’s leadership has been in question since he assumed it, regardless of anatidaen shenanigans.

      • the sprout 11.1.1
        7 August 2012 at 9:45 pm

        and it’s Shearer, assuming he is actually the leader, who needs to take responsibility, find who it is, and denounce them.

        • mickysavage 11.1.1.1
          7 August 2012 at 10:06 pm

          Yep Shearer needs to make someone walk the plank on this.  if he does not then he will piss off the activists, give this sort of behaviour formal approval, and weaken himself.

          If he is going to be a leader he needs to step up now. 

          • felix 11.1.1.1.1
            7 August 2012 at 10:09 pm

            And if he doesn’t then everyone needs to stop making excuses for him.

            • quartz 11.1.1.1.1.1
              7 August 2012 at 10:12 pm

              Maybe he could write the Auditor General a letter asking her to investigate. Like he asked her to investigate Jones and Cunliffe.

          • dancerwaitakere 11.1.1.1.2
            7 August 2012 at 10:13 pm

            Remembering what happened to Chris Carter it is about time that those who continue to split the party apart get their justice.

            • Calledit 11.1.1.1.2.1
              7 August 2012 at 11:22 pm

              Good point Dancer. Shearer must show leadership here. Those talking need to be identified and then disciplined appropriately. The difference now being, they didn’t undermine Cunliffe like they wanted, they’ve undermined the Leader, the Deputy and the entire Caucus as well as utterly disgust a large proportion of their activist base. I think that’s sufficient for expulsion. I will go wave them off.

  12. Bill 12
    7 August 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Thing is, when fuckers start with this level of shite it’s fairly often the case that they percieve a zero sum game somewhere in the mix. And that means they are utterly incapable of ‘pulling their head in’. All they see is their own head going on the block if they do. And that perception dominates everything they do.

    So unless the organisation they belong to just ‘takes them out’ for the higher good of the organisation, it just goes on and on…

    • Lightseed 12.1
      7 August 2012 at 9:44 pm

      zero sum game is right. Organisations on the grow don’t behave like this because there’s enough power and success to go around.

      Kind of reminds me of something Monbiot wrote before he became big oil’s stool:

      “If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”

      And while you have the zero sum mentality, you’re never going to grow because you’ll oppose any success of something within your organisation as you see it as coming at a cost to you.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    7 August 2012 at 9:30 pm

    Someone needs to tell Shearer that he is being politically played by people that he probably thinks are his friends.

    • the sprout 13.1
      7 August 2012 at 9:43 pm

      true cv.
      bit of a shame then that Shearer has surrounded himself with those very same players, and those players have made a good job of driving away anyone who might have once cared to tell him.

      • Anne 13.1.1
        7 August 2012 at 10:32 pm

        bit of a shame then that Shearer has surrounded himself with those very same players,

        He had no choice. It was pay back time. Those ‘players’ were the ones who did the deal with Parker that ensured Shearer the leadership. But its different now. Shearer has to stand up to them and show who’s boss. What’s more he has to do it publicly otherwise they will be seen to have got away with it. And if it doesn’t happen? Watch the rapidly rising resignations from the Party and the rapidly falling support in the polls.

        Just what the Tory doctors ordered!

  14. prism 14
    7 August 2012 at 9:36 pm

    This assessment by Duncan Garner is strong stuff. It’s pretty sad to read. He says that he knows about majority views or has been directly advised by two senior MPs. Numbers Garmer has referred to I have bolded. Reasons which he says are factual, or are reports he has received I have put in italics.

    The majority of Labour politicians clearly dislike David Cunliffe. With a passion. And with a serious degree of what now looks like hatred and mistrust.
    Two very senior MPs have told me they would like an internal travel fund set up to keep Cunliffe out of the country for as long as possible.
    But Cunliffe is not only disliked by his caucus – he is not trusted. So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy.
    According to Shearer’s sources, the Labour leader no longer trusts Cunliffe. That view is shared by the majority of the caucus.
    He is not just disliked – he is actively campaigned against.

    Why all this distrust? What concrete things has he failed in? It sounds like the sort of backbiting that work cliques sometimes indulge in, but this is on a godzilla scale.
    The close-up photo appears as deliberately unflattering as the N..z.s pictures of J..s when they were dealing in propaganda against them trying to connect them with scurrying rodents.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      7 August 2012 at 9:52 pm

      You do not get to work, as Cunliffe has, in a senior role in one of the world’s top management consulting firms by “not delivering” and by “being lazy”. Almost by definition you have to be an absolute top producer of results to even be considered for such a role.

      And I have personally seen Cunliffe work a hostile room filled with a hostile crowd during campaigning, with other big Nat names on stage just metres away, and Cunliffe simply and totally owns the space.

      Fucking Labour MPs lying through their teeth.

      • hush minx 14.1.1
        7 August 2012 at 10:51 pm

        I’d note too that it’s been Cunliffe who has delivered speeches that actually mean something (just compare him to Roberston on that environment platform). So the unhappy picture is that there are senior MPs who let their jealousy get in the way of one their performers doing their job – and they want to run the country? I think not. Plus – let’s not forget the leadership vote was closer than those same critics claim. I think they’ve just illustrated they don’t have much credibility.

      • Hami Shearlie 14.1.2
        8 August 2012 at 12:49 am

        Totally agree with you CV!!!

    • Lightseed 14.2
      7 August 2012 at 9:54 pm

      we only have those two sources’ word on how the rest of caucus feels. And Duckie and Grant aren’t exactly neutral observers.

      Just as they aren’t neutral when they claim the result of the Shearer v Cunliffe vote was one-sided. They don’t actually know the result – only Moira does.

  15. AAMC 15
    7 August 2012 at 9:48 pm

    Cunliffe’s recent speeches are the only thing that would cause me to contemplate voting for Labour.

    Perhaps he’d be better advised to jump ship and start a new movement on the Left that finally showed leadership, let neo-liberalism and neo-classical economics go and engaged all those people who don’t see the point in voting for a bunch of clowns caught up in a dick measuring contest while the economy and environment burn and the Free Marketeers once again steal the narrative around Obama’s failed Keynesianism.

  16. vto 16
    7 August 2012 at 9:49 pm

    .
    well from peering in through
    the rainstained windows

    important
    what do they say?

  17. just saying 17
    7 August 2012 at 10:07 pm

    What strikes me is how desperate this latest action is. It is heartening to think that the bullshit “strategy” and that has dominated the party for the length of its oppositon, and its puerile proponents might be finally feeling the heat – and about time too.
    Not that anything is likely to change imo. The die is cast. Labour has made it’s bed and anyone who can’t lie in it might just avoid some nasty diseases.

  18. bad12 18
    7 August 2012 at 10:09 pm

    You Labour Party people is so so very funny, Garner suffering from a lack of attention on a slow news week and obviously prompted by His own paymasters drops a ‘Labour scandal’ on you all, all without a f**king shred of evidence and you bite, nay you all fall for it and rabidly begin the attack doing the bidding of Garners Paymasters as if they owned ,

    Wake up people, there aint a shred of evidence from Garner, His allusion to senor members of Labours caucus is a cunning wee trick…

    • gobsmacked 18.1
      7 August 2012 at 10:16 pm

      Well, now that Garner’s piece has been picked up across the net (it’s not just on here), then senior Labour members will want to make clear that it’s all rubbish. If it is.

      If us being “duped” smokes them out, so much the better.

      • bad12 18.1.1
        7 August 2012 at 10:33 pm

        But if your a Labour Party member, (not me), then in who’s interest is it that you all publicly pick sides for a brawl over leadership in what appears to be a left/right divide,

        Garner is best ignored, or, laughed at, i find it one hell of an amusement that you all would let rumors that are just as likely to have emanated from Garners vivid imagination set the political agenda,

        If Cunliffe is out of the country, that’s OK let Him deal with it in His own way on His arrival back here, (a true sign of leadership),

        Going feral on the net about who you ‘think’ is Garner’s senior Labour source simply encourages Him to continue stirring the pot,

        Does Labour have a scheduled leadership challenge in early 2013, better to be debating who you have as a preferred candidate than allowing 3News the opportunity to make mischief…

        • Richard Christie 18.1.1.1
          7 August 2012 at 10:43 pm

          Off topic> Watching Garner I used to wonder who the hell in TV3 instructs those on camera to move their arms like disembodied Thunderbird puppets.

          Most disconcerting to have hands and arms moving independently to whatever content is being related.

          • bad12 18.1.1.1.1
            7 August 2012 at 10:57 pm

            The same Paymasters as what tell the prick what to say and when and where to say it, robots like Garner are paid 100s of thousands a year to deliver the Bossman’s message,

            Today’s Bossman’s message is lets get a vicious s**t-fight going in the Labour Party, Garner has done that and will duly be patted on the head at some stage by becoming the media manager to someone high up in the Tory food chain,

            The Bossman’s reward for the effort expent is to know that He has You all hooked where He wants You…

        • hush minx 18.1.1.2
          7 August 2012 at 10:55 pm

          sort of hate to say it but isn’t that a bit naive? This is politics where perception matters as much as reality. And Shearer has just been handed a big internal management challenge. Perhaps he could ask Helen for advice seeing she’s headed this way. She must wonder what on earth they are doing (bet Grant has blotted his copy book with her on the political management front too!)

          • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.2.1
            7 August 2012 at 11:15 pm

            Grant has tactical nous politically, but H1 and H2 always provided the overarching direction and strategy. That’s not his strengths.

    • rosy 18.2
      7 August 2012 at 10:16 pm

      Good point, but it’s not a slow news week (with asset sales, education, volcanos, Olympics – there’s plenty going on out in newsland). The question is – what else is going on that a planned distraction is a useful strategy? Maybe it is just to undermine Cunliffe while he’s away, but maybe there is something else going on that the instigator of this would prefer not to have in the headlines.

      • bad12 18.2.1
        8 August 2012 at 12:02 am

        Ok, if there is something ‘going on’ within Labour it will be the silent positioning of Andrew Little to throw His hat into the ring of any future Labour Party Leadership contest,

        I should imagine that the union affliliates 40% of the decision will in union circles be decided at the CTU level so Little would enter such a contest with an assured 40% and wouldn’t find it difficult to then find the rest of a majority…

        • rosy 18.2.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 12:34 am

          Interesting. So if Garner was even a little bit correct then damaging Shearer and Cunliffe would be fine by these people. Maybe a bit of break the party to fix the party thinking going on.

          Another option is that there is something going on in National, so Garner is happy to spout any old thing as truth (which it may well be/have been at some stage) as long as it takes the heat off that something that would otherwise be quite damaging to the government.

          Of course I have no idea, it’s just that this sort of stuff usually has a purpose, it’s just finding out what it is (could simply be that Garner is bored and wants to stir *shrug*).

        • Colonial Viper 18.2.1.2
          8 August 2012 at 12:37 am

          Union delegates are proposed to have 20% of future leadership votes.

          • bad12 18.2.1.2.1
            8 August 2012 at 1:22 am

            My bad, your right, the unions have a 20% say in who will be the Labour Party Leader, hmmm my reading of it would be that even with 20% Andrew has the best chance of winning the contest should He enter one at any given time,

            If it were a leadership contest of the 3, Shearer, Cunnliffe, and, Little, my belief is that Little would win,

            There are two things which Helen Clark said while Prime Minister, upon election She said Her’s would not be a radical Government,(business as usual),

            And, Helen also spoke of the Labour Party being a Party of Social Democrats, Good luck anyone wanting to attempt to drag Labour to the left, i doubt most of the Caucus see themselves as Socialists…

    • weka 18.3
      7 August 2012 at 11:18 pm

      ” there aint a shred of evidence from Garner”
       
      I wondered about this too. Garners uses an awful lot of words to basically repeat one thing: a couple of people told me that some other people hate Cunliffe, so he will never be leader.
       
      So? Are we in kindergarten?
       
      It’s a complete piece of shit journalism.

      • bad12 18.3.1
        8 August 2012 at 12:04 am

        Aha, can i edit??? It’s a complete piece of CYNICAL shit journalism…

        • marty mars 18.3.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 8:40 am

          I wonder if, as key gets more and more desperate to sell off the assets and Māori appear to have stuck a stick in his spokes, he needs the official opposition to be more divided. Nothing better to create more division than ‘leadership’ and the various ambitions and egos involved. Just have to watch and see I suppose.

          I hope labour and its members sort it out because I’d like Mana to have labour in coalition with them in a few years. Kia kaha labour.

        • tc 18.3.1.2
          8 August 2012 at 9:10 am

          Remember that Duncan’s paymasters wouldn’t be broadcasting without Joycees taxpayer handout.

          • felix 18.3.1.2.1
            8 August 2012 at 3:49 pm

            I doubt that’s a consideration for him, even if it is for his boss. He could work elsewhere if he wanted to.

      • David H 18.3.2
        9 August 2012 at 4:12 pm

        It’s a complete piece of shit journalism.
        By a shit Journalist.
        From a shit TV station.

  19. mickysavage 19
    7 August 2012 at 10:12 pm

    I am really annoyed with this.  I analyzed previously (http://waitakerenews.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/is-david-cunliffe-now-shearers-best.html) the white anting of Cunliffe and concluded it was a load of crap.  Looks like I will need to revise my analysis. The evidence is even more damning now.

    And how callous to do this at a time when Cunliffe is overseas and not able to defend himself. 

    • Calledit 19.1
      7 August 2012 at 11:07 pm

      Isn’t this how it works though? You continually undermine him over a long period of time and create doubts about his performance amongst his colleagues, then when he his away, because you’re chicken shit, talk off the record to a journalist?

      They’ve overwhelmingly failed in an attempt to undermine Cunliffe though. All they have succeeded in doing is showing how ill-prepared Labour currently is to provide an alternative government in waiting. This Caucus cannot govern in this state.

      Your analsysis may gave been more about hoping than analsysing Micky? I can understand why if it was. But, the thing here is that they’ve (these two senior MPs) sufficiently alienated activists enough that they’ll struggle to engender any real on the ground support as time passes.

      ABC is real it seems. What they forget is that it’s numbers that count in politics, and while numbers in caucus are important, it’s adding up the ones outside that should matter to them more. Apparently they don’t get that though.

      Those leaking are guilty of an offense against the current party constitution.
      They should be identified and considered for expulsion.
      MPs playing these games should fess up and either move on or do their job.

    • Jilly Bee 19.2
      8 August 2012 at 11:04 am

      +1 mickeysavage – my membership card is sitting on my desk with a pair of scissors close by. I have repressed the urge to cut the card in half, but if the leader doesn’t take charge of this debacle and sort it out. . . . . .

  20. Georgecom 20
    7 August 2012 at 10:27 pm

    One thing people can do, email or telephone their local Labour MP and tell them clearly that if the Garner thing came from the Labour caucus, its bollocks.

    Ask the MP to raise the issue in caucus and pass on their opinion.

    Something I think I am going to do.

    If the party wants to get more than 30% at the next election, if the party wants people out putting up hoarding and leafletting, if the party doesn’t want leftists looking at the Green Party as a possible option, cut out the crap.

    • bad12 20.1
      7 August 2012 at 10:38 pm

      Oh as far as looking to the Greens as a Party of social justice that happened here about the time Sir(spit)Roger Douglas became Minister of Finance for the Labour Government…

    • bad12 20.2
      7 August 2012 at 10:47 pm

      PSSST, emailling your MP etc, why, better to email that c**ksucker Garner and tell the slimy little turd to either provide the proof of His sources in the Parliamentary Labour Caucus, or shut the f**k up…

      • Pascal's bookie 20.2.1
        7 August 2012 at 10:53 pm

        Dude, garner doesn’t have to provide the Labour caucus with proof he has a source. He has to provide that proof to his employer.

        If labour thinks he is lying, they can go the press complaints people and accuse garner of making shit up. But they won’t do that, because he has a source. Which is why there haven’t been any Labour MPs on here or twitter or anywhere else calling him a liar.

        • bad12 20.2.1.1
          7 August 2012 at 11:08 pm

          Ummm i hate being addressed as dude, call me c**t or bastard or something ok,

          Do YOU not think that Garner OWES YOU the duty of proof as a high profile journalist producing this s**t,

          If you do not think that Garner owes YOU that proof then i can only say sorry i think the Bossman of TV3news owns you,

          Hint,hint, it’s like on the standard, we don’t always do it but we is supposed to provide links to our assertions upon facts…

          • Colonial Viper 20.2.1.1.1
            7 August 2012 at 11:18 pm

            PB is just explaining how the news media game works. Ideally, for credibility, journalists should identify their sources explicitly. If they have been asked not to do so by their source, or there is other substantial reason why it is not appropriate or safe to do so, the journalist will still have to justify his source to his boss before the story can go to print.

            • bad12 20.2.1.1.1.1
              7 August 2012 at 11:34 pm

              You is funny when you try and play the straight man, Garner’s source was the Bossman at TV3news,

              The Bossman at TV3news owns little Duncan’s over-fed and under-worked butte lock stock and barrell,

              Little Duncan as much as He might pretend otherwise tells New Zealand all about New Zealand politics in the manner that little duncan’s Bossman tells Him too,

              When YOU, ME or anyone else here or anywhere else takes on board as TRUTH a 3news ‘rumor’ as that truth then the Bossman at TV3news owns whoever does,

              And the Bossman at TV3news is beholden to??? which in turn leads to???

              • Colonial Viper …
                7 August 2012 at 11:44 pm

                Well, Bossman can’t be the source because Bossman is not 2x senior Labour MPs.

                • bad12 …
                  7 August 2012 at 11:54 pm

                  Jesus CV, thats low browed don’t you think, Garner tells you that 2 senior MP’s said Blah blah blah to Him and suddenly YOU are a true believer in the veracity of Garner and TV3news,

                  Next time i see you bagging the MSM i will simply remind you of your belief in the truth in the rumors they spread…

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 August 2012 at 12:05 am

                    What you’re basically saying to me is that Bossman and Garner are running off a script of fiction and these two senior MPs are completely imaginary. Well, I await Labour MPs coming forward as one tomorrow and saying TV3 is full of shit.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 August 2012 at 12:53 am

                      Actually, they all should anyway. Then the public could see who holds back, or Garner calls a liar.
                           
                      More interesting is the timing – it’d leave the standard 18months to solidify the victor’s leadership. But on the flip-side, if Shearer manages to weather it and sort it out, it would be regarded as making his bones. That which does not kill his leadership would make it stronger.
                            
                      If it’s at all true, of course. Because most of the comments appear to be jocular and possibly lubricated by alcohol. So rather than “who is manouvering for a leadership battle?”, the pertinent question might well be “who was out on the piss with Duncan over the weekend?”.
                           
                      Hell, I said crappy things about one of my own colleagues this evening – no alcohol, just tired and a shit day and something got under my skin. But really I wouldn’t want them gone, because we have complimentary skillsets and she’s actually quite a nice person. It’s just that the approach she took today looked like the jizz icing on a tremendous shitcake was not particularly conducive to improving my task.

                    • bad12 …
                      8 August 2012 at 1:08 am

                      Until such time as Garner names these 2 senior MP’s then yep, to me it remains wee duncan’s speculation and without wee duncan naming His supposed sources He is simply throwing s**t at the whole Labour Caucus while openly inviting us all to join in which unfortunately many have…

      • Georgecom 20.2.2
        7 August 2012 at 11:09 pm

        The important thing, if you don’t rate the idea of silly buggers going on inside the Labour caucus, tell your local MP and ask them to raise it in caucus.

        If the issue is discussed and turns out to be a Garner beat up or a Nat Party smear it can be dealt with.

        If it is some stupidity from within the Labour caucus it gives the MPs the opportunity to understand that people within the party don’t see anything clever about the action.

        If the MPs hear from party activists who do the hoardings and run electorate campaigns they will get the picture.

        Grizzling about it on a blog won’t bring a halt to the action by itself.

  21. Richard Christie 21
    7 August 2012 at 10:34 pm

    Garner has been played for a sucker as much as anyone else.

    • Colonial Viper 21.1
      7 August 2012 at 11:05 pm

      Good observation.

    • Calledit 21.2
      7 August 2012 at 11:16 pm

      Hmm… I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. He’s been across this a while now, it seems to me he is more saying “alright, you guys wanna do this, here it is and I will put it out there”… remember, this isn’t new for Garner, he has been following this aspect of the Labour Caucus for some time.

      This ABC thing has been around quite some time, as I understand it, it’s also grown alongside the shifts within Caucus of the powerbase. Garner reported similar stuff in November during the leadership campaigns and had been reporting it ealier in 2011 too.

      In my opinion, I think Garner has called a bluff and gone public rather than play with undertones. Just my view though.

      • Colonial Viper 21.2.1
        7 August 2012 at 11:20 pm

        Garner will know that he is being used as a pawn in a silly Labour knife fight; but he does get a good exclusive story out of it, and it’ll make his tory mates chuckle, so why not.

        • Calledit 21.2.1.1
          7 August 2012 at 11:24 pm

          Risky game to play when you’re the one in Caucus and don’t realise how much it seems to me Garner might actually know. Silly knife fight is right, but it might be a blessing, maybe… if we are lucky, they’ve stabbed themselves CV?

      • bad12 21.2.2
        7 August 2012 at 11:23 pm

        Across it??? when you have stopped talking as if you were my Television set i might formulate a reply worthy of a fellow human…

        • Calledit 21.2.2.1
          7 August 2012 at 11:25 pm

          I’m sorry… Ok, he’s been reporting on this for over a year. It isn’t new… so I don’t think this is all Garner being used, he’s playing this too right?

          • bad12 21.2.2.1.1
            7 August 2012 at 11:42 pm

            Your talking tho as if Garner is some sort of independent voice in all of this, for Gods sake, Garner does and says what He is told to say,

            Funny people here, i see it all the time, the MSM get dumped upon at regular intervals for the LIES they continually put out to the public and here you all are falling all over yourselves to become true believers…

            • felix 21.2.2.1.1.1
              8 August 2012 at 8:32 am

              I’ve never picked Garner as having a particular ideological axe to grind or to be overwhelmingly in favour of one party or another (beyond the general consensus to only discuss ideas within the context of the contemporary neo-lib economic paradigm, of course.)

              Mostly he just follows the blood, be it red or blue.

  22. hoom 22
    7 August 2012 at 10:43 pm

    As someone who deserted supporting Labor for Greener pastures long ago, it is an interesting question.

    As an outsider he comes across to me as a guy who knows what he’s talking about, has a plan & is capable of easily defeating the arguments of the Nacts.
    Hell they refused to even let Blinglish be in the same room as him during the election campaign.

    It seemed clear to me that the Nacts were piss scared of facing Cunliffe.

    But there has been this enduring rumor that he is hated within Labor and I have no idea why.

    • mickysavage 22.1
      7 August 2012 at 10:44 pm

      He is hated by those whose egos are larger than their intellects.

      • higherstandard 22.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 9:10 am

        I thought you were a fan of silent T ?

        • felix 22.1.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 9:15 am

          Use your big words, not your whaleoil words.

          • higherstandard 22.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2012 at 11:20 am

            I thought that was a ‘Hone” word.

            ……. oh and just for you, I’m delighted that the cagamosis the caucus finds itself in is causing such localised exsibilation and skoptsy.

            You’re quite right far more satisfying when one lunges towards the hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian. Must be off now as I can’t xenobobulate.

    • bad12 22.2
      7 August 2012 at 11:02 pm

      It is the same divide in Labour as what was there in the times of Micky Savage and John A Lee, an often bitter battle between the left/right paradigm of economics which seen Lee still writing pamphlets bagging Savage while the latter was on His death bed…

      • Colonial Viper 22.2.1
        7 August 2012 at 11:03 pm

        So in the contemporary situation…who is in the death bed?

        • bad12 22.2.1.1
          7 August 2012 at 11:11 pm

          Larffs way to literal, the reference was inserted to show the ‘bitter’ nature of that left/right fight within Labour way back in the times of Savage/Lee…

    • tc 22.3
      8 August 2012 at 9:22 am

      Ability and delivery are feared by those who couldn’t organise a BJ in a brothel and lack the level of required talent to defend their undeserved positions.

  23. QoT 23
    7 August 2012 at 11:01 pm

    this kind of pointless and destructive politicing is exactly why people have no faith in Labour as a government in waiting.

    Just to be picky, IB, there are a lot of other reasons – and I kind of balk at throwing this one around, because it’s exactly the same line that was used against everyone who tried to point out that Goff was doing no one any favours (except for the Nats) – “Shut up, you’re a splitter, you’re making us look bad, why are you attacking us from within, you must be a Greens plant” etc.

    Sorry about that awful pun there, it just slipped out of my keyboard.

    But to turn around and contradict myself, I do agree that it’s beyond stupid and looks incredibly insecure to be leaking dirt on the guy who lost the leadership race. I mean, what are the ABC cabal afraid of? That Cunliffe might make another inspirational, true-Labour, blogosphere-cheering speech? Wait …

  24. AmaKiwi 24
    7 August 2012 at 11:29 pm

    Duncan Garner’s factual errors:
     
    “Sources have told me Shearer was advised to demote him (Cunliffe) when he became Labour’s leader, but Shearer resisted.”
     
    Wrong Duncan.   Completely false. 
    For three years under Goff, Cunliffe was Labour’s Finance Spokesperson, which put him in line to be Minister of Finance in a Goff government.  This is the second most powerful position in the government.
    Shearer demoted Cunliffe to Economic Develop and gave Parker Finance.  Economic Development is way down the line of important portfolios and has to clear everything with the Finance Spokesperson.  In effect, Shearer muzzled Cunliffe from Day 1.  
     
    “Cunliffe can count his (friends in caucus) on one hand.”
     
    Wrong Duncan.  Completely false.
     
    By all accounts the leadership vote was very close.  Once having lost, Cunliffe and his supporters have all had to go to ground.  That’s what happens when you lose a leadership fight.  Those on the winning side get the top spots and those on the losing side go along and play loyal so they are not completely shut out in the caucus wilderness.
     
    As for comments about Cunliffe’s disloyalty and the rest of that b.s., my personsal experience of David Cunliffe is precisely the opposite.  I recently asked him in private if he was going to make a bid for the leadership.  He replied, “The position is not vacant.”
     
     
     
     
     

  25. AmaKiwi 25
    7 August 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Duncan Garner’s factual errors:
     
    “Sources have told me Shearer was advised to demote him (Cunliffe) when he became Labour’s leader, but Shearer resisted.”

    Wrong Duncan.   Completely false.
     
    For three years under Goff, Cunliffe was Labour’s Finance Spokesperson, which put him in line to be Minister of Finance in a Goff government.  This is the second most powerful position in the government.

    Shearer demoted Cunliffe to Economic Develop and gave Parker Finance.  Economic Development is way down the line of important portfolios and has to clear everything with the Finance Spokesperson.  In effect, Shearer muzzled Cunliffe from Day 1.  
     
    “Cunliffe can count his (friends in caucus) on one hand.”
     
    Wrong Duncan.  Completely false.
     
    By all accounts the leadership vote was very close.  Once having lost, Cunliffe and his supporters have all had to go to ground.  That’s what happens when you lose a leadership fight.  Those on the winning side get the top spots and those on the losing side go along and play loyal so they are not completely shut out in the wilderness.
     
    As for comments about Cunliffe’s disloyalty and the rest of that b.s., my personal experience of David Cunliffe is precisely the opposite.  I recently asked him in private if he was going to make a bid for the leadership.  He replied, “The position is not vacant.”

     
     
     
     
     

    • bad12 25.1
      7 August 2012 at 11:48 pm

      Finance Minister round the Cabinet table might be number two, but, depending upon the financial literacy of the number one, the Prime Minister, Finance could well be described as the most Powerful position in a Government,

      Spot on about the BS of wee duncan tho, i can’t for the life of me see why people here would let the Tory’s in the form of TV3 attempt to set the political agenda…

    • Blue 25.2
      7 August 2012 at 11:56 pm

      I respectfully disagree with DC. The position of Labour leader is very much vacant.

      • Bill 25.2.1
        8 August 2012 at 1:25 pm

        ‘The position of Labour leader is very much vacant’

        I assume you mean the position is filled and the leader is vacant?

  26. BillODrees 26
    7 August 2012 at 11:50 pm

    Quote from above somewhere! CV? 

    “They must really think those hoardings put up themselves, and those flyers magically appear in peoples letter boxes. Do they want to gift the Tories T3?”

    “They” think the Tories will become unpopular and loose. “They” think we just have to remain bland and inoffensive to the middle ground and “they” will inherit the world. “They” probably have some theory that says the hoardings and leaflets have no impact. “We” are not important.
     
    If this type of behaviour from the ABC group is not severely punished the party will be damaged for a generation. 2014 and 2017…… 

     John Key will walk down to Tony Astle’s Antoines in Parnell and have the legendary Duck a l’orange to celebrate this gift that keeps on giving. 

    • Colonial Viper 26.1
      7 August 2012 at 11:59 pm

      Yeah, that’s pretty much how I read it too.

      • s y d 26.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 9:22 am

        In a fit of procrastination I’ve read through all these posts and the conclusion I’ve arrived at is that :
        a. I really need to get this shitty work done
        b. act, national, united future, labour are simply a range of brands, all prepared by the same outfit, don’t really matter which one you buy cos at the end of the day it all goes back to the same owner. Pams? Home Brand? or maybe a bit of Signature range?? whats it to be eh..spolit for choice…

    • prism 26.2
      8 August 2012 at 9:24 am

      I was checking the meaning of the word caucus in NZ and caught up on Labour history. It got itself together in 1916 after various factions stopped fighting each other and coalesced. The oldest party may have warped so much that it is now a square trying to fit into a round hole. It has had since 1984 to recover its mojo, Helen Clark kept it going ‘manfully’ but she has gone now. The women and men who are left are fighting to win the tin medal for the next election by bettering their previous record of losing with an ever-growing minority. This last debacle is evidence that it is doomed if it doesn’t heave itself up from its present deep trough.

      Patience and encouragement are needed and appropriate for helping a child to learn or a person disabled by an accident in helping them to recover. But where the mind is concerned, little can be done to overcome strong emotional drives and obssessions. Labour is Rosemary’s Baby at present and it needs to exorcise and excise its proponents of destruction very soon.

      Let those who want an intelligent and responsible and clever government for NZ people in this difficult century either support Greens or get behind another party which has an aspirational name – can’t think what. The Great NZ Party? No. Clever people here could come up with something good.

      • Carol 26.2.1
        8 August 2012 at 9:36 am

        or get behind another party which has an aspirational name – can’t think what.

        hmmmm…. you mean like Mana

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana

        Mana is an indigenous Pacific islander concept of an impersonal force or quality that resides in people, animals, and inanimate objects. …
        It has commonly been interpreted as “the stuff of which magic is formed,” as well as the substance of which souls are made.

        • prism 26.2.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 11:51 am

          Carol 9.36am
          Mana sounds good. The present one may end being The One. As an alternative to Labour it would need to widen its purview.

  27. fender 27
    8 August 2012 at 1:40 am

    Maybe Garner was so drunk he thought Judith Collins looked like a defendant in her defamation case and she used the situation for revenge.

    Or it could be an interest only payment on the 45 million dollar loan.

    Or someone wants to make history by being sued for defamation by one of their opposition and one of their own colleagues simultaneously.

    • bad12 27.1
      8 August 2012 at 1:57 am

      But,but,but, i watch TV3news every night, those nice people wouldn’t spread misinformation denigrating a particular political Party because the opposition to that political Party as the Government had made a 43 million dollar loan to that TV channel would they???…

  28. newsense 28
    8 August 2012 at 1:46 am

    Ok well so far for my left dream team Ive got Julie-Anne Genter and Cunliffe. How many short of a government is that?

    All that malarky with Parker on the environment happend recently. Linkd?

  29. insider 29
    8 August 2012 at 2:00 am

    Sniff! Smells like pay back for the barbara ward story…

    • insider 29.1
      8 August 2012 at 2:06 am

      And possibly for treading on portfolio toes through speeches

    • felix 29.2
      8 August 2012 at 7:09 am

      You’re on another planet mate. That was a only considered a “story” by the dozen-or-so losers in nz who take the Slater child as anything more than a dull joke. Oh hang on, Mallard’s one of them…

      • insider 29.2.1
        8 August 2012 at 8:07 am

        It was the herald that connected parker’s sudden withdrawal from the leadership contest with stories about ward. Personal attacks breed similar responses.

        This attack on cunliffe seems very personal, not just common garden sniping IMO. Who has a really personal axe to grind? Mallard? He seems an equal opportunity disliker. Maybe that’s why he gets fingered for everything…

        • quartz 29.2.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 8:14 am

          It was Shearer’s backers who ran up the Ward stories to push Parker into standing down. Same people that are attacking Cunliffe.

          • quartz 29.2.1.1.1
            8 August 2012 at 8:17 am

            Barbara is very highly regarded in Auckland labour circles. There’s no way Cunliffe’s people would shit in their own nests by bringing her into a smear.

        • mickysavage 29.2.1.2
          8 August 2012 at 8:14 am

          Cunliffe had nothing to do with the Ward story.  Running a bit of counter smear insider?

          • just saying 29.2.1.2.1
            8 August 2012 at 8:34 am

            This particular allegation is patently false.
            Even I, with no insider knowledge whatsoever, knew all about the Parker/Ward situation long before the leadership race. The reason it caught my attention (from the mainstream media) was the Chris Knox connection.

            The idea that a senior journalist would need Cunliffe or anyone else to point it out to him or her is ridiculous. This was a story that involved pop-celebrity, as well as a tragic/heart-warming human interest, and national politics. It would have been very strange if it hadn’t resurfaced when Parker became a contender for the leadership.

        • felix 29.2.1.3
          8 August 2012 at 8:18 am

          I wasn’t commenting on who reported it, just on who gave a shit. Which as I recall was not many, if any, probably because he was never considered a serious contender.

          But you could be right. I also recall John Denver wussing out of a fight after being promised a ride in a space shuttle.

          • just saying 29.2.1.3.1
            8 August 2012 at 8:50 am

            I didn’t see why it should be an issue in the leadership race. Just that there would have been a lot more (probably unwelcome) publicity.

            If ABC supporters want to use smear tactics, maybe they should stick to smears that can’t be instantly proven to be false.

            Not a good look.

  30. chris73 30
    8 August 2012 at 8:40 am

    I’d just like to point out that for the last couple of months (years?) I’ve been banging on about:

    T. Mallard being a dick
    Labour need to start acting like a team

    In fact even yesterday I posted:

    chris73 9.3.2.1.1
    7 August 2012 at 12:12 pm

    Mallard is an a-grade twat. I mean you could point out his failings in the house, his piss-poor election strategies, his habit of getting side tracked but really hes just a twat and I’m pretty sure even the Labour party could find someone better.

    and

    chris73 9.3.2.2.1
    7 August 2012 at 12:37 pm

    You know what might work better then another heartland tour? The Labour party working together as a team and not getting side tracked by trivialities (usually of their own making)

    CV then thanked me for trying to sidetrack with a triviality but I’m thinking I’m pretty right on this one 🙂

  31. Pete George 31
    8 August 2012 at 8:41 am

    What if Shearer’s hand was on the hatchet handed to Garner? If there’s no word or action from him is a reasonable assumption to make.

    • Tracey 31.1
      8 August 2012 at 10:39 am

      It’s an assumption but not sure why it’s reasonable. Afterall everyone knows when a football chairman express faith in his manager, the manger is gone within a week. Shearer’s comment just gives food for the sharks, whatever he says it will be dissected and ridiculed.

      The PM usually comments though, has he yet?

  32. Kotahi Tāne Huna 32
    8 August 2012 at 8:41 am

    The poison intended for Cunliffe is in Shearer’s cup. Someone has to drink it.

    • just saying 32.1
      8 August 2012 at 9:01 am

      Very interesting observation. You may be right.

      But I wouldn’t underestimate the Labour parliamentarians’ ability to continue on as if nothing was going on, or ever had, and to sweep the who thing (poison and all) under the carpet. When it resurfaces the response remains the same.

      This seems to be their response to all emerging problems, including to the years-long ever-worsening Goff situation. Do nothing, make like the three wise monkeys.
      Carry on.

  33. Roy 33
    8 August 2012 at 9:04 am

    Does there have to be a source for this gossip, other than Garner’s own imagination?

    • marsman 33.1
      8 August 2012 at 9:38 am

      Agreed Roy.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 33.2
      8 August 2012 at 9:45 am

      I accused a journalist of bias once. He said “that’s exactly what the other guy says” or words to that effect. I think they’re happiest when both sides are equally pissed off with them.

      It wasn’t that long ago that we were dissecting CollinsBoagLuskgate.

      Still, it isn’t very comforting to know that the Labour Party has its very own Cameron Slater.

  34. Sunny 34
    8 August 2012 at 9:06 am

    Labour is dead in the water with the current ‘leadership’ ( whining, entitled, complacent, smug, catty, comfortable, dull, incoherent, dithering, embedded, adept at slicing away core traditional voters, useless at weaving alliances with other left wing parties and to top it all, a terminal case of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. (PS Grant Robertson, those duds won’t look any good on you either)

    Who cares what Duncan Garner says? In fact the more the MSM media get stuck into Cunliffe the more I want him and his strategy team at the helm…esp if the next election is closer than we think.

    • tc 34.1
      8 August 2012 at 9:33 am

      +1 yes when you get asked as labour leader to comment on share sales of SOE’s and you compliantly answer instead of ‘selling an ROI of 18% for debt of 4%….’ or something similar shows you’ve little clue an how to keep the agenda where it needs to be.

      Shearer as leader is what Nats want, smashing the team up further is a bonus.

  35. AAMC 35
    8 August 2012 at 9:43 am

    Reading of the Labour divide and bickering and the vitriol in the comments above, it baffles me that political insiders don’t understand why people ( particularly those of, or who would benefit from the Left ) have stopped voting.

    • chris73 35.1
      8 August 2012 at 9:53 am

      Plausible deniability would be my guess. As one the most popular political blogs in NZ (though trailing whaleoil and kiwiblog) and the most popular left wing blogs I’m pretty sure most of the Labour MPs have checked this site out.

      However putting into action what is stated on this site (and others) is probably considered too hard so instead they’ll organize “heartland tours” because its much easier to do and they can be seen to be doing something.

      Rather then what people actually want them to be doing.

      • lprent 35.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 10:05 am

        (though trailing whaleoil and kiwiblog)

        Reminded me that I really do need to expend some time to find out the technical means that they’re bloating their page view numbers up. It was rather amusing watching David receiving some advice and his page view numbers almost doubling over the following two months with no apparent increase in popularity. I wonder when David next writes about his view times off google analytics if they have moved from his previous 5 minutes per visit to something like the 18 minutes that Whale reported (ours is currently edging towards 6:30 on analytics).

        But I can’t see any particular reason to inflate our figures through technical means even if it is trivial to do.

        We had that kind of thing going on by accident for a couple of months last year when facebook screwed up their new version of the async API. It just made it harder to keep track of what was actually happening on the site because of the extra counts whenever people opened their facebook pages and it came back and picked up a copy of the page to get the images and because it made the server overwork.

        • mickysavage 35.1.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 12:53 pm

          When I changed themes in blogger I seemed to get a significant increase in views.  I was around the 3k a month mark and now they are about 12k.  I would like to think it is the witty intelligent writing style that I have but I cannot but wonder if there is some technical reason …

          • lprent 35.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

            It wouldn’t surprise me that a theme change can move it especially on a low volume site. It is a lot harder to get that type of effect on a large site. But check closely to see if it increased the number of visits/visitors and length of visits. The most common increase from theme changes is just keeping your same readers for longer.

            We had a 40% increase in page views for a few days when we went to the current layout because people would drill down and back up to the front page before getting a another page. Regulars of course soon found all of those alternate links with the side-to-side, comment links, etc etc. It rapidly dropped to a 10-15% difference within a week and based on navigation patterns since then I think it has dropped since then. But of course kiwiblog didn’t change layout earlier this year so I don’t think that explains his doubling of page views.

            Changing your search engine systems can increase hitrates, and I’d suspect that is what you got with the theme change. But again there is a difference between a low volume site where the effect can be marked, and a larger site. With something this size it usually just causes and increase in overseas hits. But for a NZ political blog that is pretty meaningless in terms of effect. Autopublishing posts and even comments to social networks can have a significant effect, but usually just for overseas traffic.

            The simplest way to see what has been happening if you have access to the stats is to simply look through the list of pages that they count in and see if you agree that these are the pages you’d expect. WordPress stats and analytics give the referring sites. That was how I realised that facebook was trashing our site. If you have raw web logs, then looking at the referers that have been clipped out of the processed stats (ie bots) is often useful when you’re looking at how everything heads towards your site.

            I also like looking at google analytics where they show the statistical movements between pages on your own site. That is how we optimized the navigation with the theme change.

            Of course the absolute easiest to boost numbers is to just start counting spambot and search engines. There are a number of ways to encourage bots to trigger stat counters.

            Almost as good are bits of javascript that simply call to refresh a tabbed page on the clients browser. The stats counters have no way of knowing that a human hasn’t been doing anything. It’d be reflected in much longer ‘visit’ times (like 18 minutes) because it is essentially just measuring tabs left running in the background on browsers.

            To figure out what is happening externally, I’d have to read page source including the javascript and CSS out to find out. It is a eyestrain to dig through the page for a complex site and not to be taken lightly. Especially since scanning and writing code is what I do all day normally. But I have new (and bloody expensive) glasses. So when I get bored some day….

            Update: DPF says that the reason for the increase on his site is due to the sitemeter javascript only being installed on the front page. Damn that means we have some more work to do.

            • felix 35.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2012 at 3:40 pm

              Why does having the sitemeter javascript only on the front page increase the count? (If it’s not too hard to explain to a relative noob)

              • BernyD …
                8 August 2012 at 3:47 pm

                It increases when they add it to the sub pages

                • felix …
                  8 August 2012 at 3:54 pm

                  That’s what I would’ve thought, but doesn’t lprent’s last sentence say the opposite?

                  Typo maybe?

                  • lprent …
                    8 August 2012 at 5:33 pm

                    Yeah it was. And I corrected it after I read it again.

                    He had the sitemeter installed on the front page but not on the subpages. That meant that anyone going into a post to read comments wasn’t going to have an additional page view. We have a different type of site to KB and the behaviour is different.

                    On KB most of the passive readers only have to read the front page because usually the posts are complete on there. But occasional readers will frequently have to read more than one ‘front page’ because they’ll have to go to older posts. People only have to click into the post page if they want to read comments.

                    This site has more posts on the front page. But to read the posts here you have to click into the post. But most regular readers of the site will then read posts from side to side to see each post in turn and read the comments. Which is what the site is designed for.

                    So looking at the rough numbers.

                    On our site this means that just over a third of the pages viewed daily on average are the front page. It is less during the week days and more during the weekends and evenings.

                    However after KB put the sitemeter on the post pages, it roughly doubled the page views
                    Visits Page views
                    July 2011
                    Kiwiblog 223132 311878 = 1.30 p/v
                    The Standard 142388 313987 = 2.21 p/v

                    July 2012
                    Kiwiblog 284853 540438 = 1.89 p/v
                    The Standard 143382 327875 = 2.29 p/v

                    Ummm we really did have a crap month last month…. Always do at mid-winter. It is quite different this month so far.

                    But I was quite puzzled last year about why the pages per visit at KB were so damn low last year. I tended to attribute it to differences in the way that sitemeter (KB) and statcounter (TS) calculated what a ‘visit’ was but the difference was rather large.

                    Now it becomes obvious. Probably only something like 30% of the readers (1.0 – (1.30/1.89)) at KB go into the posts themselves and get exposed to the sewer (I can see why you’d want to avoid it). Most of the readers at KB just read the front page. Only about a quarter of the readers at KB refresh the front page or move to another front page during a ‘visit’ (although some of those may people going down to a post and then up to the front page again).

                    We get more readers going into the posts because they have to. Rather than 70% of our page views being front page as at KB, an average of 35% are. But the majority of the people reading our site will read more than one post mostly by moving sideways – which is what analytics shows.

                    Interesting…

                    And I still don’t believe Whales numbers. His site also has everything readable from the front page and most people have no real interest in reading the comments because the comments on that site are really moronic. You’d expect to see a pattern that showed fewer page views per visit than KB’s

                    But somehow he has 2.05 p/v in July. Not to mention an 18 minute time per visit average on analytics earlier this year. We have just over 6 minutes and the last reported one from analytics for KB was 5 minutes something. Somehow the average person wants to stay on Whales site about three times longer than thye do on kiwiblog? Yeah right..

                    Whaleoil has such a different pattern that there is something really weird going on.

                    • felix …
                      8 August 2012 at 6:14 pm

                      Curiouser and curiouser. How are W.O’s stats collected?

                    • Inventory2 …
                      8 August 2012 at 9:31 pm

                      And I still don’t believe Whales numbers. His site also has everything readable from the front page and most people have no real interest in reading the comments because the comments on that site are really moronic.

                      Do you ever read the stuff you write before hitting the “Submit Comment” button lprent? There are as many “moronic” comments here as anywhere else.

                    • lprent []
                      8 August 2012 at 9:58 pm

                      Sure they are, you write here. However even you are capable of writing multiple paragraphs with intent to inform and argue. Most comments I have read over there are only a few lines lines long and have the information content of a babies scream. They are loud, emotional, and only their mother Whale can really understand the context about which of their bodily orifices they are crapping out of this time. Quite disturbing watching him nurturing them…

                      Now I have disturbed everyone with some unfortunate mental images…

                      Generally the arseholes people who write here tend to be mostly adults, I don’t have to nurture them (nor do I wish to), and they frequently teach me things that I didn’t learn before I left edendale primary – which appears to be the limitations of Whales wit.

        • BernyD 35.1.1.2
          8 August 2012 at 3:54 pm

          I think (as you already know) hit counts are not a true indication of popularity.

          When you think about the number of times Kiwiblog and Whaleoil get their names in the news it’s not surprising they get hits.

          Based on what I’ve seen, TheStandard is growing more popular every day, and when you start hearing it’s name in the news it will go through the roof.

          If you can keep the stats clean then you’ll have some “Real” stats to think about.

          And you can laugh merrily at the other blogs attempts to make themselves “popular” 😉

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 35.2
      8 August 2012 at 10:23 am

      Political disengagement sounds like a GINI coefficient sort of thing if you ask me. But I say that about everything.

  36. AmaKiwi 36
    8 August 2012 at 10:31 am

     
    This has been the most interesting set of postings I have ever read on The Standard, probably because none of us can yet predict the likely outcome.
     
    Cunliffe will be back in the country in one week.  I can tell you now what his public reaction will be:  “No comment.”  He has integrity and intelligence.
     
    Invariably, the person at the top of any organization sets the tone of behavior.  So this is possibly Shearer’s most important moment.  
     
    – Was Shearer personally responsible for the attack on Cunliffe?
     
    –  Or is Shearer a vindictive person who set the tone which encouraged underlings to carry out this attack? 
     
    – Or is Shearer a weak leader who allowed underlings to think they could act this way with impunity?
     
    From postings here, I estimate the “usual list of suspects” for the attack includes at least 8 or 10 members of the Labour caucus.   A cloud hangs over every one of them until the true culprits are exposed and punished.
     
    If the two high ranking sources for Garner’s report are not exposed and punished, the Labour party might unravel here and now.
     
    As they say on television, “Stay tuned for the next exciting installment.”
     
     
     
     

    • bad12 36.1
      8 August 2012 at 11:32 am

      What amazes me here is the number of people that actually BELIEVE as fact what a paid hack of a nearly failed television channel has to say about the political party that DIDN’T bail out that nearly failed CORPORATE television channel,

      I am further amazed that based upon that belief the number of people willing to bag the Labour Party which they claim to support is extremely high,

      TV3’s Garner has published this rubbish as FACT, befor we all start frothing at the jowls we all should be emailing Garner and demanding of Him the names of the 2 high ranking Labour MP’s he claims to have got this information from,

      IF Garner cannot bring Himself to divulge His supposed sources within the Labour Party it is either because He is a gutless quisling OR He hasn’t got any,

      My view is that Garner will be well rewarded in the future by becoming the head honcho in a future high profile politicians media team for this particular piece of speculation, without the names of His sources tho, that’s all it is, s**t-stirring…

      • Pete George 36.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 11:39 am

        demanding of Him the names of the 2 high ranking Labour MP’s he claims to have got this information from,

        That won’t work, media don’t reveal sources, a standard and longstanding practice. So the only way of finding out is to ask Shearer, Roberston, Mallard, the whole Labour front bench, who are all implicated unless this is sorted out.

        Waiting and hoping it will go away is unlikely to work. Apparently there is ‘much much more’ to come.

        Either Shearer is knowingly behind it, or he has to come out and front foot an effective response.

  37. AAMC 37
    8 August 2012 at 11:39 am

    There’s a telling frame at 5.09 in this slideshow of pics I took at the Asset Sales march in April

    • Antonina 37.1
      8 August 2012 at 11:52 am

      Very telling!!

    • Tracey 37.2
      8 August 2012 at 12:53 pm

      Could parents please not foist banners onto young children.

      I talk to 16 and 17 year olds who 9/10 voice political opinions that mirror their parents, which makes sense. 6 and 7 year olds ought not be carrying banners. Take them on the march but don’t foist your ideology onto them.

  38. David Farrar 38
    8 August 2012 at 11:50 am

    Lyn: I discovered sitemeter was installed only on my frontpage, and not the individual pages, so was under-counting the page views.

    • chris73 38.1
      8 August 2012 at 12:34 pm

      Burn!

    • lprent 38.2
      8 August 2012 at 2:33 pm

      I discovered sitemeter was installed only on my frontpage…

      Damn, I bet that annoyed you.

      I been wondering what had happened. But that would account for the rapid increase. The front page is typically between a quarter and a third of page views here, but would be higher on your site as your posts can usually be fully read on the front page.

      I’d expect in that case that it would have increased your average visit times by a minute or so as well. While it would have increased your visits, they would have gone up less than the number of page views.

      Damn that means we still have some work to catch up *sigh*

      Well that just leaves Whale’s 18 minute visit time to investigate when the work pressure drops back a bit further..

      Update: Looking at the history, the front page can get up to 50% of the daily page views – but only on the weekends and public holidays. Probably people peeking in and finding that we haven’t been writing. That pushes the average just over a third of site page views

  39. fatty 39
    8 August 2012 at 12:42 pm

    To be honest, this event gives me more hope for Labour than I had a week ago. I would be more afraid for the party if there was a strong backing of Shearer, and no in-fighting within Labour.
    I am sick of hearing that National are blinded by their ideology…this is completely false. National are driven by their ideology, and they use it successfully. They are driven by neoliberalism, third-way, and social liberalism.
    It is the Labour party that is blinded by their ideology, they have been since 1984. Labour are blinded by neoliberalism, third way, and social liberalism. Shearer is the last thing Labour needs, Shearer is the last thing NZ needs. Labour needs to open their eyes and reconsider their ideology. Labour needs an in-house fight, cause the third term was lost when Shearer was appointed.

  40. SHG 40
    8 August 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Labour MP Su’a William Sio says he will be voting against the same-sex marriage bill, which he says could cost the party the next election.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7436056/Labour-MP-Dump-gay-marriage-bill

    That would be Su’a William Sio of Team Cunliffe, yes?

    Nice timing.

    • Blue 40.1
      8 August 2012 at 12:58 pm

      Why do you put him on Team Cunliffe? Last I heard, he was one of the MPs who refused to say which way he was voting.

      • Colonial Viper 40.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 2:41 pm

        Because it suits SHG to chuck randomised nonsense around to see what sticks

  41. ak 41
    8 August 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Journalists pick up scuttlebut and gossip all the time. Usually they have the professional nous to sit on it – and thus pick up more.

    The only certainty from this pitiful “my sources” piece is that Garner has just burnt off years of hard-earned trust and will not be confided in again. Even by his tory piss-mates.

    The only interesting question is why, and why right now. At a guess, Shearer would be wise to talk asset sales, and nothing else.

  42. Tigger 42
    8 August 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Why isn’t Duncan blathering on about the secret meetings where Key has told the National party elite he wants out and they’ve told him he can’t go. If a fucking nobody like me knows then he must know.

    • sweetd 42.1
      8 August 2012 at 2:06 pm

      Can’t be too secret if a fracking nobody like you knows. Then again, it might all be in you head. Any evidence to back up your claim?

      • felix 42.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 4:05 pm

        “Can’t be too secret if a fracking nobody like you knows.”

        Well duh. The point, there it was.

  43. AmaKiwi 43
    8 August 2012 at 1:42 pm

    I disagree with criticizing Su’a William Sio decision to vote against same-sex marriage.

    Labour’s first priority is to get elected.

    We (Labour) need to recognize the issues which are critical to the largest number of voters. Same-sex marriage is not one of them. Nor, for that matter, are asset sales or a capital gains tax. Neither of these will have an overwhelming, immediate, positive impact on individuals.

    What are the issues critical to voters? I don’t know. My perspective is limited to my personal situation. The only way for me to find out what issues will motivate people in my community to vote Labour is to ask them what is troubling them.

    If Labour expects to win an election its members need to ring doorbells and find out what is really pissing people off. There is a saying, “All politics is local.” If people are saying, “What really angers me is that I lost my job,” or “I am afraid to walk in my neighborhood,” etc., Labour has to become a voice for those people. It’s MP’s have to become the people’s champions.

    Su’a William Sio is reminding us that within some sectors of the Labour Party same-sex marriage will cost Labour dearly.

    Labour needs to be aware of the overall cost versus benefit of backing any issue. If it will win a lot of votes at little cost, you make it a headline issue. If it will divide the party, go softly. It doesn’t mean you abandon your ideals. It means you are not so stupid as to spit in the face of your allies simply because their values are not identical to yours on all issues.

    Politics is the art of compromise.

    That’s why the “Anybody But Cunliffe” has always been pure b.s. Being in Parliament is proof you have made many compromises and will do it again when required. I’ll bet the Labour caucus could compromise enough to work with Rupert Murdoch, if he could get them elected.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 43.1
      8 August 2012 at 2:32 pm

      Not criticising his decision to vote against it – although I could. I’m criticising his framing of it as a Labour Party priority when there are so many other bills on the ballot, not to mention a nationwide campaign against asset sales…

      PS: and especially considering the fact that he is running National’s lines.

      • Carol 43.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 2:36 pm

        Actually, I agree with some of what both AmaKiwi & KTH say. I reckon if Labour focuses more on issues that are really important to Sth Aucklanders – jobs, income, housing etc., the marriage equality issue wouldn’t be such a big focus for those that oppose the bill.

        • King Kong 43.1.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 3:08 pm

          There is a perception out there that Labour has become the party for gays and beltway nob heads.

          If this is not the case and you wanted to show the public that the perception is not the reality would you introduce a gay marriage bill.

          • McFlock 43.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2012 at 3:24 pm

            A perception diligently fertilized by evolutionary throwbacks like you.

          • Tracey 43.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2012 at 3:50 pm

            I guess you have missed the PM’s blatant photo ops with the gay community when there is so much work to be done on “real” issues…

            Yes, you are right, Labour should become a red neck uncompassionate party to lure the voters back, and then NZ would look like… well like it does today. KK, any idea what the plan (short or long term) of this government is following asset sales, you know, for when the next crisis hits? I think you might be missing one “K” from your name.

            • King Kong 43.1.1.1.2.1
              8 August 2012 at 4:03 pm

              I never said Labour had to turn into a pitch fork toting lynch mob.

              All they had to do to disprove the perception was make sure that, for the next little while, the things they championed in the spotlight weren’t about homo’s or social engineering.

              • lprent …
                8 August 2012 at 4:44 pm

                You mean something like Shearer’s heartland speech today? Or whatever he was saying to grey power yesterday?

                I rather suspect that the emphasis you are seeing is mostly from your own fevered fantasies.

                • King Kong …
                  8 August 2012 at 4:47 pm

                  I did say “spotlight” and unfortunately/fortunately not much of what Shearer does qualifies for that.

                  • lprent …
                    8 August 2012 at 6:00 pm

                    But that has also been the normal pattern for the last 30 years that I have been interested in politics. The media ‘spotlight’ what makes news. News has to be trivial enough to express in a soundbite.

                    National understand that and so they highlight mindless, pointless and mainly ineffectual bigotry like the myth of crushing cars, 3 strikes, or turfing kids off benefits because their parents smoke. Labour doesn’t usually pander as much to the media with such stupidity, so the media spotlight what they can understand and fit within a soundbite.

                    Unfortunately the real world problems don’t fit within soundbites so you usually find National screwing things up big time in power because they’re unused to thinking (but getting great press in opposition), and Labour struggling to get anything in the press while in opposition but being very effective in power.

                    I see from the comments that Shearer is trying to redress the stupid bigotry imbalance in his speech today. So I guess you’ll be happier.

          • deemac 43.1.1.1.3
            8 August 2012 at 4:43 pm

            you may not have noticed it’s a Private Members Bill! The Labour Party has no influence over what gets drawn.

            • King Kong 43.1.1.1.3.1
              8 August 2012 at 4:53 pm

              You should have some control over what goes into the ballot though and you don’t have to go through with it if selected.

              • McFlock …
                8 August 2012 at 4:57 pm

                lol.
                It’s a member’s bill, not a party bill. And if the MP waere bullied to withdraw it when it gets selected, it’s an even worse look than leaving it to a conscience vote, not matter what the fundies think.

          • mike 43.1.1.1.4
            9 August 2012 at 4:28 am

            Ok, we get it KK.

            Look dude, why don’t you just come out of the closet. It’s actually easier than you think check it out:

            • King Kong 43.1.1.1.4.1
              9 August 2012 at 9:34 am

              Your gay. No, your gay. No, your gay.

              Razor sharp stuff Mike.

              • mike …
                9 August 2012 at 1:39 pm

                “You’re” not “your”. Primary school spelling stuff there Kong, goes well with your high school bigotry.

    • BernyD 43.2
      8 August 2012 at 2:38 pm

      It’s a matter of inspiring them to vote in the first place, a party that will fight for them as individuals.

      Which is the same rhetoric that national uses for it’s voters.

      The answer to the polls is simple, get out there and tell people face to face that you will fight for them and their families. (You can do this through TV as well)

      Don’t walk away afterwards wondering if you “Won” them over.
      Walk away knowing that person believes you will fight for them.

      You’ll never win an individual over by spouting “Generalised” ideals.

    • SHG 43.3
      8 August 2012 at 2:39 pm

      @AmaKiwi: you disagree with criticising Sio for being a bigot?

      Seriously?

      • Craig Glen Eden 43.3.1
        8 August 2012 at 3:09 pm

        Bigot such a lovely term like all names such as fagot often used by people when they are intolerant of others ideas or beliefs! Less name calling aye SHG its really not needed.

    • Tracey 43.4
      8 August 2012 at 3:47 pm

      “Su’a William Sio is reminding us that within some sectors of the Labour Party same-sex marriage will cost Labour dearly.”

      It takes courage to fly in the face of people’s imaginary friend, but losing votes is not a good reason to not do the right thing.

      Aren’t they focusing on a bill before parliament? That doesn’t mean everything else is ignored. I bet hundreds of bills a year are passed without most NZers knowing anything about them, that doesn’t mean they matter more or less.

      I don’t elect an MP to vote on anything other than a representation of the people who elected them. Conscience vote only exists because of the ridiculous party lines which say irregardless of your constituency you will vote as we say. So a conscience vote is not about voting for your personal preference it’s about NOT having to vote the party line and actually representing your constituents. If that means finding out what they want, then do it. It may expend time but frankly no more time than is expended furthering their own careers or taking lengthy family holidays while parliament is sitting.

      Please don’t cave into the rhetoric which suggests it’s not a high priority so we shouldn’t being doing it. The official line would be the world is flat if that’s how we thought/acted.

      The media is giving airtime to this issue so it makes it appear that Labour and anyone else is focusing only on this. Labour has issued press release after press release on other issues. I see some here who beat up the MSM for pandering tot he Nats seem to be overlooking their condemnation of this because it’s about same sex marriage.

      The same people who dont want same-sex marriage said the sky would fall and we would become sodom and Gomorrah if we got Civil Unions… Haven’t noticed any scraps of sky in my backyard yet.

    • QoT 43.5
      8 August 2012 at 9:25 pm

      The “we can only focus on one thing at a time” is bullshit when it’s a National Minister saying it, and it’s bullshit when it’s an Opposition MP saying it.

      It’s a Private Member’s Bill, not a Labour Bill. It got drawn in the ballot out of masses of other Bills. The only MP “focusing” on it is Louisa Wall. And it’s a conscience vote, on which only two parties, neither of them Labour, have declared a staunch party line.

      Now if Sio wants to go out there and get some headlines fighting for the good Christian salt-of-the-earth folks of South Auckland, I’m pretty sure no one is stopping him.

  44. starlight 44
    8 August 2012 at 2:06 pm

    I am no fan of shearer,he is a bumbling,stumbling,character who would be better suited
    in his previous job.
    The mere fact that labour cannot pull back support at such a crucial time when the nats
    are obliterating everything the average kiwi mums and dads,kids, hold dear shows there
    is a real problem in labour politics.
    Labour lost touch with its main stream base,the original reason for its exsistance was
    to protect and enhance the daily lives of the average joe,fast forward to today and
    voters options are watching labour tilt toward national and rather than vote labour
    they vote greens or dont vote at all,as in the last election.
    Cunliffe has proved himself many times in parliament,he is confident,articulate,
    intelligent and has true labour ideals,for the labour party to be bagging him only
    goes to show their own short-commings and a tendency to only be in politics
    for themselves and not the people,if the leader selection was put to traditional
    labour voters Cunliffe would have won hands down.
    Garner should not be taken too seriously with his words as his hand is held out
    to JK to offer him support and in order to have the right outcome he has to claim
    dirty tricks are going on in labour,JK will be proud of him though,he has us venting
    our displeasure.

    • OneTrack 44.1
      8 August 2012 at 9:00 pm

      Or maybe the problem is that National is really “obliterating” everything the average Labour beltway denizen holds dear, and the “average kiwi mums and dads” couldn’t give a stuff. Things like asset sales and gay marriage spring to mind. The common perception is that Labour is now really only for gays and political science majors. The comments on this post help reinforce that perception..

      • felix 44.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 10:26 pm

        National is obliterating gay marriage?

        Wow, someone should tell John Key about that.

    • infused 44.2
      8 August 2012 at 10:10 pm

      I think A lot of National voters said this years ago….

  45. DH 45
    8 August 2012 at 2:10 pm

    I had a read of it and came away wondering what Cunliffe had done to Garner. Seems to me it’s Garner with the knife out there, a lot of the personal attack on Cunliffe in that article looks to be coming from Garner himself.

    I’m curious to know when Duncan Garner became the shoulder to cry on for the Labour Party. He’d have us believe they’re all crying over their lattes & confiding in him which I find scarcely credible.

    • lprent 45.1
      8 August 2012 at 2:46 pm

      He does get the knife out for people. Chris Carter being the obvious example.

      But that only becomes an issue is when he is given material to work with.

      • DH 45.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 2:59 pm

        It’s the material that bothered me. This one in particular……..

        “So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy.”

        I might believe it if one or two people said that about him, but not ‘so many’. It’s too subjective, almost scripted. Unusual selection of words too, not a common phrase.

        • lprent 45.1.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 3:18 pm

          Yep. And it is also not what I usually hear about Cunliffe. When it comes to workload, the opposite has been a far more common complaint. Although I hear that he has eased up considerably since last year.

          I wonder who commonly uses that particular phrase. I’ll bet that some of the Wellington authors will know. I’d really like to politically evisicate whomever has been running this nasty wee campaign.

          What is really annoying is that this is going to overshadow the heartland speech from Shearer today in the media. That is a real pain because many of those areas are really hurting with the stupid policies of this government, and it is a electorally winning strategy to pickup MMP votes in the smaller towns and rural areas.

          • kb 45.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2012 at 3:30 pm

            According to David Farrar, Cunliffe was the highest-performing non party leader MP from April to June this year. If that’s “eased up considerably” then the sources who called him “lazy” are blatantly lying.

            http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/07/opposition_performance_statistics_q2_2012.html

          • McFlock 45.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2012 at 3:35 pm

            It’s an opinion piece, so Garner has done a lot of editorialising – the line is whether his interpretation of synonymous messages would be similar to  someone without his particular belief-set.
                    
            Interesting that he paints Cunliffe as “sneaky and lazy” with a “big brain and obvious talents”. And as for my personal “journos on the piss with mps” theory, wtf does this paragraph mean:

            According to Shearer’s sources, the Labour leader no longer trusts Cunliffe. That view is shared by the majority of the caucus   

             
             
             

            • Carol 45.1.1.1.2.1
              8 August 2012 at 3:44 pm

              Well, if you include the sentence before that quote, it reads:

              my sources tell me Shearer is deeply disappointed with Cunliffe and he feels let down. This relationship cannot last.

              According to Shearer’s sources, the Labour leader no longer trusts Cunliffe. That view is shared by the majority of the caucus.

              So people claiming to be close to Shearer have made these claims.

              • McFlock …
                8 August 2012 at 4:00 pm

                Maybe (or maybe Shearer himself was the main leak, or merely someone who brought the tea-tray into the caucus room) – but I was thinking more of the clumsy, rushed paragraph that obviously said that Shearer needed “sources” to know whether or not he trusted someone.
                       
                Someone’s brain was fizzing with the goodies he wanted to blog about ASAP – and rushed judgements might not seem like such a good idea a few hours later.

            • Pascal's bookie 45.1.1.1.2.2
              8 August 2012 at 3:56 pm

              That sentence is a classic reminder that Garner is a broadcast journalist. When reading his blogs, which will not have been edited, close reading won’t necessarily get you further than normal reading.

              My take on the piece is that he had two sources who recently said something (in the last two days).

              The “So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy” will be fill from the leader selection battle being used to give colour to the new comments. Perfectly legit to use this BTW.

              When pollies go spouting to journos and telling them shit not for attribution, that gives the journo two things. The story the pollies were telling and the fact that they are telling it. Both those things should be put into the context of the story. Otherwise the journo is not doing their fucking job.

              More often than not, the comments will be about an opposing party, or a policy, or whatever, so the motivation for wanting the journo to spread the story is clear. So the ‘why are you telling me this’ aspect doesn’t actually add much.

              When it’s an intra party personality squabble though, that motivation is actually a more legitmate story than the comments themselves. ‘Why are you telling me this’ is all of a sudden the far more legitimate and interesting story. So guess what the story will look like. A narrative about why some pollies are talking smack about their colleagues.

              • Carol …
                8 August 2012 at 4:23 pm

                I think a close reading is MORE likely to be useful in a piece that’s not carefully edited… the Freudian slip et al…?

                On the “Why are you telling me this…?

                I agree that it looks like something has been said in the last few days, and that Garner added this to previous things that Labour MPs had said to him.

                But it was Garner that went seeking some comments, following the latest 3 News poll:

                That’s become so very clear to me this year – but even clearer since I released our 3 News poll on Sunday night.

                I suggested David Shearer might be rolled before the next election if he couldn’t get his numbers up. And while not many in Labour denied that – they all said Cunliffe won’t replace him. Over their dead bodies.

                So Garner was stirring up on the leadership question, and went asking questions about this. His “Shearer sources” responded by backing Shearer and claiming Cunliffe is not a credible leader.

                Why any Labour MPs would trust making such comments to Garner I have no idea? They should have said something less nasty about Cunliffe.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  8 August 2012 at 4:42 pm

                  It’s not that he isn’t edited that makes close reading a waste of time, it’s that he’s a sloppy writer. If the writing isn’t precise, it’s a fool’s errand parsing the fuck out of it.

                  Good catch that he went looking for comment, but the comments he got are telling. They didn’t laugh it off. ‘Don’t be stupid’ is the text book response to leadership questions. Instead he was told that Shearer doesn’t trust Cunliffe and blah blah. That’s deliberate shit. And why they said it is the story. And so it’s the story he told. Just like the poeple who spoke to him knew he would when they said it.

              • DH …
                8 August 2012 at 4:42 pm

                Well, maybe. But that statement is one of the most damaging you can make about a person professionally. A lot of people, me included, value our professional reputation higher than even our personal reputation. I don’t know Mr Cunliffe but if someone made that type of claim about me publicly I’d be seriously angry. It cuts right to the heart of professional pride & ethics IMO.

                I’m quite surprised Garner printed that, it’s pretty vicious and potentially very damaging. We may hear more on that front.

          • Olwyn 45.1.1.1.3
            8 August 2012 at 5:27 pm

            Did you read the heartland speech? It is riddled with the kind of appeals to middle class prejudices that are pissing people off with the whole box and dice of them. To quote;

            “Last year before the election, I was chatting to a guy in my electorate who had just got home from work. In the middle of the conversation, he stopped and pointed across the road to his neighbour.

            He said: “see that guy over there, he’s on a sickness benefit, yet he’s up there painting the roof of his house. That’s not bloody fair. Do you guys support him?”

            From what he told me, he was right, it wasn’t bloody fair, and I said so. I have little tolerance for people who don’t pull their weight.”

            http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/david-shearer-speech-grey-power/5/131125

            It is a bit much when a Labour Leader at the present time confines his identification of leeches to the small fry at the bottom of the food chain.

            • McFlock 45.1.1.1.3.1
              8 August 2012 at 5:38 pm

              I agree about those bits, but it was a speech tailored to the prejudices of his audience.
                     
              And breaking superann adjustments of last election to people who have a panicked reaction when anyone touches it – for good reason, but it’s still a panicked reaction. 

              • Olwyn …
                8 August 2012 at 5:51 pm

                It also robs people of hope who are the targets of such prejudices. And surely it is possible to address people’s concrete concerns rather that nurture the prejudices that are destroying this country. How the hell can you stand up for the people who are constantly being kicked while at the same time bagging them to score points?

                • McFlock …
                  8 August 2012 at 5:57 pm

                  yep – still wanting it both ways.
                  But at least there was a detectable amount of substance in the speech, is my point. It’s a weak pulse, but at least it’s still there. 
                        
                  I’d like it stronger, though 🙂 

              • Kotahi Tāne Huna …
                8 August 2012 at 5:55 pm

                McFlock, with respect, fuck the prejudices of his audience. A leader who only reflects can easily be replaced by a mirror.

            • belladonna 45.1.1.1.3.2
              8 August 2012 at 8:05 pm

              How does he know why that person was on a sickness benefit. He could have had other health problems. Not the first time Shearer has had a go at beneficiaries. So disappointing. Not what I expect from Labour at all or maybe I do from this lot.

            • bad12 45.1.1.1.3.3
              8 August 2012 at 8:54 pm

              Thanks David Shearer for reminding me twice in 2 days why i don’t vote Labour, thats a pathetic attack on a sickness beneficiary worthy of the Leader of ACT,

              How does the new Leader of act, ooops sorry Labour know what the particular example was on a sickness benefit for,

              Those 2 speeches from Shearer have sure as hell changed my mind, to such an extent that i now fully realize why many in Labour want Shearer gone…

              • OneTrack …
                8 August 2012 at 9:12 pm

                “From what he told me, ……..”

                Interesting, your default response is to reject any criticism of a probable “sickness beneficiary” ripping off the system and instead you attack the messenger, including the leader of the Labour party and also ( indirectly) the guy who had just got home from work and who described the issue to Shearer – work where he knew his taxes were helping to pay his neighbour to stay at home and paint the roof on his house.

                Is there a party who is actually FOR the worker these days?

                • Olwyn …
                  8 August 2012 at 10:30 pm

                  You do not have to show that you are for the worker by being against the sickness beneficiary, on the basis of anecdote. It is possible to actually engage with the real concerns of both, rather than attempting to sell yourself to one by reflecting his prejudices. And as Robert Winter has pointed out, “Labour does not put the individual’s role in the social contract first. Its traditions argue for the establishment of a polity in which society’s side of the contract is established first, which then creates the environment in which the individual comes to the party.”

                  http://robertwinter.blogspot.co.nz/

                • weka …
                  8 August 2012 at 11:07 pm

                  “Interesting, your default response is to reject any criticism of a probable “sickness beneficiary” ripping off the system”
                   
                  Google ‘invisible disability’. You cannot tell someone’s disability from looking at them. You certainly cannot tell someone’s eligibility for SB by looking at them across the street, not matter what they are doing. I can think of any number of scenarios whereby someone might be legitimately on SB and still be painting their roof. If you can’t, then that just tells us you are ignorant and should shut the fuck up about disability until you are better informed.
                   
                  Shearer’s comments are blatant prejudice and discrimination on the basis of disability and it’s appalling that we have someone who wants to be the PM of this country indulging in that.
                   
                   
                   

  46. captain hook 46
    8 August 2012 at 2:34 pm

    Garner has always been a slimy piece of work so dont put to much faith in what he says.
    He may have got one in so to speak but his past will catch up with him.
    You cant serve two masters and when you see or hear him interviewing someone out of politics who has actually achieved something then he turns into or perhaps reveals himself as a snivelling creep.

    • lprent 46.1
      8 August 2012 at 2:42 pm

      I’ve often disagreed with his interpretations of facts and events. However I’ve never seen him claim anything as fact that has subsequently been shown to be false either in public or from what I have heard elsewhere.

      If you look at the facts in his post they tend to be pretty damn irritating for a party activist. We need this type of crap like we need a hole in the head.

  47. Tracey 47
    8 August 2012 at 3:52 pm

    I find it hard to believe that Ms Wall, who has some contact with the South Auckland community has not gauged reactions before and since submitting her bill to the ballot…

  48. Allyson 48
    8 August 2012 at 4:03 pm

    What is labour about today. For me it’s Gay marriage and protecting Trade Unions from the Lobbying Bill.
    I dont know if Cunliffe is needed, but something is. Come on guys there will be an election in two years

  49. JonL 49
    8 August 2012 at 4:10 pm

    “Either Shearer is knowingly behind it, or he has to come out and front foot an effective response.”
    Bwah hah ha ha !
    He hasn’t to come out and front footed an effective response on anything yet – why would he on this…….

  50. AmaKiwi 50
    8 August 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Yes, Tracey, there is an election in 2 years and Labour is doing poorly. You are right. We need to focus on winning the election.

    Press releases are junk mail. If you want the media to tell your story you have to give them a story, you have to give them street theater.

    Street theater requires imagination and effort, but it pays off. Example, the Wizard of Christchurch. His opinions were not particularly insightful, but he was able to repeatedly get media coverage because he gave them a show.

    I am sorry to disappoint the intellectuals out there, but nobody reads philosophy anymore. But everyone loves a good show.

    • King Kong 50.1
      8 August 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Political street theatre is creepy and generally makes you look like you are insane.

      Then again maybe thats just the stuff that young Labour and others put on in Midland Park sometimes.

      • McFlock 50.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 4:55 pm

        Like any theatre, it can be outstanding or utter shite.
                     
        The Yes Men have had some good moments, as has Michael Moore (the yank, not the tool. And the yank has had some bad off-days, btw), and Laibach / NSK have had some outstanding moments. Locally, I’ve seen and participated in both good stuff and utter shite.
                       
        One of the best ones was a Law lecturer who protested the closing of the UO Russian studies department by playing Russian folk music on a flute every lunch hour with a sign hanging off the flute. Good once, but the continued commitment got a lot of respect – and apparently pissed off the Registry no end 🙂 .

      • prism 50.1.2
        8 August 2012 at 5:40 pm

        To the conservative thinker, who doesn’t ever expose their mind or actions to any now thought or situation in which they might expose their low abilities, anybody out of the strictly normal and trying something creative is Odd and Weird.

  51. deemac 51
    8 August 2012 at 4:49 pm

    the trashy women’s mags and tabloid papers are full of stories attributed to “sources close to” some celeb. Does anyone trust them? Or do people really believe Garner is above all that? Is he the only person here without an agenda?

  52. gobsmacked 52
    8 August 2012 at 5:42 pm

    The title of David Parker’s latest blog post is deeply, sadly ironic …

    http://blog.labour.org.nz/

    As for the content of the post, the comments tell the story. Labour’s leaders have reached the politician’s nadir … worse than being disliked, now they’re simply ignored.

    • Carol 52.1
      8 August 2012 at 5:54 pm

      spoken like a business manager with little that’s inspiring or innovative:

      Moving forward, and moving forward together
      blah, blah blah ……very real and achievable solutions to the current hollowing out of our work force and the flow on effects … stake in the future … manage the economy to ensure NZ prospers, …Prosperity requires economic growth and opportunities …New Zealand needs balance. …. outflow of young people will …Our pro-growth savings policy will increased capital available for investment. … Our pro-growth tax reform …address the out-dated orthodoxy around monetary policy … sustain are often (not always) driven off the resource base … bring NZ back to prosperity.

      All that biz-speak is just boring, and I’m sure a bit of a turn-off to those Labour should be drawing back to support a left-wing party.

      • xtasy 52.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 11:52 pm

        The problem with some is: They think the more they write (no matter what), the more they will convince and be successful. It is a worry, I’d say.

  53. chris73 53
    8 August 2012 at 6:00 pm

    I’m reminded of a thread on here a little while ago, something about National eating their own…irony you are a cruel and fickle mistress (but more often then not quite amusing)

  54. Kotahi Tāne Huna 54
    8 August 2012 at 6:06 pm

    Nope, I’ve had it up to here with this crap.

    David Shearer: “When times are tough, everyone has to tighten their belt, including the public service.”

    Who let this neo-liberal apologist into the Labour Party?

    What the hell was wrong with saying – “it wasn’t austerity that pulled the world out of the Great Depression – it was the New Deal”, or any number of other entrées into everything the left can be proud of and is supposed to represent?

    • chris73 54.1
      8 August 2012 at 6:17 pm

      As a right winger I wouldn’t be adverse to a new deal coming in as long as it was like the original. I could see it being hijacked by factions on the left AND right for their own nefarious ends

    • Colonial Viper 54.2
      8 August 2012 at 6:19 pm

      I’m pretty angry about all of this.

      • RedLogix 54.2.1
        8 August 2012 at 6:37 pm

        The core problem is that these people have been captured by a system which completely insulates them from reality.

      • BernyD 54.2.2
        8 August 2012 at 6:40 pm

        Don’t be. Shearers only crime is not being in the media.
        We don’t need him to fly in the face of “The Clowns”.

        When the policies start to come through and he ups his presence in the Media…
        Then we can start analysing his work,
        All these articles are doing (which has been commented) are trying to inflame a “Leaders” fight in labour.

        It’s obvious that many people have concerns about Shearer but like I said , it’s because he’s not in our face every day.

        Give it a chance, we have no data.

        • Kotahi Tāne Huna 54.2.2.1
          8 August 2012 at 6:54 pm

          This is what I have been telling myself – we’ve seen how “unpopular” Labour leaders can turn all this negative press around before.

          But this isn’t negative press – it’s a message from the leader of the Labour Party. The fact is, when times are tough that’s what the public service is there for!!! It’s not even like this is a controversial opinion. There is no case from history that supports the austerity kool-aid – not a single one.

          No parasan!

          • BernyD 54.2.2.1.1
            8 August 2012 at 7:09 pm

            ” it’s a message from the leader of the Labour Party. ”
            As stated by a third party.

            And I agree “Austerity” is a knee jerk reactionary answer.
            But that’s Nationals’ MO, they cut education, health, welfare everytime.

            • felix 54.2.2.1.1.1
              8 August 2012 at 7:13 pm

              What do you mean “stated by a third party”?

              It’s from his speech, isn’t it?

              • BernyD …
                8 August 2012 at 7:15 pm

                Sorry was talking about the article by Duncan Garner

                • felix …
                  8 August 2012 at 7:17 pm

                  Ah so. Surely Labour hasn’t slipped behind the Greens yet, I thought…

                  • BernyD …
                    8 August 2012 at 7:29 pm

                    It’d be the death nel for Labour if the Greens started talking “real” heartland policy
                    Which they tend to do anyway, go Greens !

                • Kotahi Tāne Huna …
                  8 August 2012 at 8:48 pm

                  I’m well over Garner’s little ego-trip. Maybe it has substance, maybe not, but the gobshite coming out of Shearer certainly doesn’t.

            • mike e 54.2.2.1.1.2
              8 August 2012 at 9:13 pm

              and increase Con sultants every time.

        • felix 54.2.2.2
          8 August 2012 at 7:10 pm

          By now we should have plenty of data.

          It’s because we don’t that people are getting angry – that and we’ve already seen this movie three years ago.

          • BernyD 54.2.2.2.1
            8 August 2012 at 7:16 pm

            Absolutely agree,
            People wait with baited breath for too long and ….
            Everyone gets fish breath 🙂

    • Bill 54.3
      8 August 2012 at 7:07 pm

      I wish I hadn’t tried to read that speech. I say ‘tried’ ’cause I simply couldn’t get to the end…drier than the Atacama bloody desert. All the stuff he criticised he appeared to qualify by saying it wasn’t a recent occurrence – meaning the blame lies with the last Labour Goverment? And everything he could and should have critisised he fcking well agreed with.

      Y’know, things like “We have to start seeing our future collaboratively, looking at what we do through the lens of “NZ Inc”, looking at new ideas to get where we want to be in ten or twenty years instead of fighting over the stale debates of the past.”

      Oh, and here’s the link -although i hardly recommend it unless you have a masochistic streak http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/david-shearer-creating-healthy-heartland/5/131194

      You Labour members out there? ffs do something if you can! Even though I’m not and never have been a Labour voter, the fact is that within the political context we have I and undreds of thousands of others need a functioning (and at least social democractic) Labour Party.

      • BernyD 54.3.1
        8 August 2012 at 7:14 pm

        You and many others

      • bad12 54.3.2
        8 August 2012 at 7:40 pm

        Ouch that hurt, i managed to grind my way through 99% of that and am hardly more enlightened about what Labour would do in Government than befor i started,

        (grow more apples and get really smart with them seems to be the message)…

        • RedLogix 54.3.2.1
          8 August 2012 at 7:56 pm

          Actually I did read the whole speech.

          The basic idea is correct; that We need to harness the high end, high skill, clean and smart parts of the value chain.…. ummm yes … this has been obvious for decades. Lots of politicians have blathered similar sentiments before and you Mr Shearer sound pretty much just another one of them.

          I wanted to give you a decent fair go David Shearer. I really did. My partner remembers you from school days and speaks well of your character and there’s much to be said for a sane, measured loyalty to a good cause. So until now I was willing to wait and see how this worked out.

          You had a lot of loyal support David, now you get to show us whether you deserved it or not.

          • xtasy 54.3.2.1.1
            8 August 2012 at 11:46 pm

            Shearer is now touring the rural districts, hoping the increased unemployment there and the exodus of youth to Aus will get them a few more votes next time. But get real, Labour needs to do more than run after some desperately needed support in regions traditionally very anti Labour. Those that live there and are hard done by would have voted Labour in the past anyway!

            And his (and other’s ) talk about the “smart economy” are sadly not sufficiently thought through, and just talk, as there is NO policy, NO plan, and that is what Labour bloody well needs now. It is ridiculous to still go on about finding his way, trying to learn and getting some ground, when the last election is now nearly a year back.

            How much time do you give a new candidate? David, get, real, step back and let someone else have a go, thanks!

            • Colonial Viper 54.3.2.1.1.1
              9 August 2012 at 12:24 am

              But get real, Labour needs to do more than run after some desperately needed support in regions traditionally very anti Labour.

              Some of those provincial regions only turned very anti-Labour in the last 20 years.

  55. lefty 55
    8 August 2012 at 7:15 pm

    I have mistrusted Labour for a long time, but at the end of the day have never been able to bring myself to actively campaign against them.

    That’s because National have always been the party of the bigots, the beneficiary bashers, the attackers of the welfare state’s provision of pensions and the blind defenders of ruling class greed and keeping them out of power has been important.

    The Labour Party of 2012 under David Shearers leadership is just as bad as National at all those nasty things.

    Unless something changes, unions and progressive organisations will have no choice but to actively campaign against Labour in the next election, even if it means backing dodgy Russel.

    • RedLogix 55.1
      8 August 2012 at 7:23 pm

      How long has Shearer got to act on this before his silence confirms his complicity?

      Another 48hrs max?

      • Bill 55.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 7:27 pm

        How often do toothless helpless babies bite the hand that spoon feeds them Red?

      • felix 55.1.2
        8 August 2012 at 7:28 pm

        I really can’t imagine why he needs that long.

      • Colonial Viper 55.1.3
        8 August 2012 at 7:33 pm

        you’ve got to ask why the delay

        1) he is raining investigative brimstone and hellfire down on caucus in order to find out who and what happened in order to sort them out (good)

        2) he’s not too worried or he’s waiting to take a few temperatures before deciding whether or not to make a fuss in caucus (bad)

        • felix 55.1.3.1
          8 August 2012 at 7:42 pm

          3) doing some quick polling to see what Waitakere Man thinks about it all (fucking disgraceful)

      • gobsmacked 55.1.4
        8 August 2012 at 7:54 pm

        At the moment he will feel he doesn’t need to respond, because the media beyond Duncan Garner haven’t picked it up.

        Of course he should respond, but saying nothing is entirely in line with the passive (non)strategy Shearer has adopted as “leader”.

    • Bill 55.2
      8 August 2012 at 7:25 pm

      Fully agree with all the sentiments you express. But the analysis behind that last sentence? Dunno… ’cause I can fully see unions and progressive orgs avoiding the choice on the grounds ‘we have always backed Labour. It’s what we do and therefore beyond questioning (and we don’t want division within our own org ‘comrades’)”

      • BillODrees 55.2.1
        8 August 2012 at 8:03 pm

        He will respond very soon. He knows that a good leader has to back a performing team member who is unfairly dissed or else he looses the confidence of the rest of the team.

        If David Shearer does not come out supporting his spokesman then others will wonder whether he will support them in similar circumstances.  Shearer is too experienced to make that mistake.

        • Colonial Viper 55.2.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 8:34 pm

          If David Shearer does not come out supporting his spokesman then others in the Cunliffe camp will wonder whether he will support them in similar circumstances.

          FIFY

          Changes the decision slightly, doesn’t it.

  56. lefty 56
    8 August 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Yes Bill. They will try to avoid making the choice – and thats a huge problem because if these groups ignore the state of Labour, and continue backing it ,they are betraying the people they supposedly represent as well.

    • Te Reo Putake 56.1
      8 August 2012 at 7:40 pm

      Bollocks. The MP’s aren’t the party.

      • Bill 56.1.1
        8 August 2012 at 7:47 pm

        How’s it bollox? I mean you might argue that the party is it’s membership or whatever. But it’s the MP’s who have all the power. I mean, is there any mechanism for recall of an MP by party members? Are there any mechanisms for members to have direct and concrete input to policy or strategy or…anything?

        • Te Reo Putake 56.1.1.1
          8 August 2012 at 8:11 pm

          It’s bollocks because the party has survived worse. The assumption that MP’s are all that matters is naive in the extreme. And yeah, you’re right that there is no mechanism for party members to sack MP’s, but Labour’s hardly alone in that. No party anywhere in the world has that mechanism that I’m aware of. Well, possibly the Cuban Cummunist Party, if their constitution is anything like the old Soviet one, which did actually have a recall option.

          • Te Reo Putake 56.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2012 at 8:25 pm

            Communist, Dammit!

          • Colonial Viper 56.1.1.1.2
            9 August 2012 at 12:02 am

            It’s bollocks because the party has survived worse.

            Technically, I suppose you can call limping along with no ideological core, heavily depleted membership, fuck all money, weak affiliates, near zero influence outside Auckland and Wellington “surviving”.

        • Colonial Viper 56.1.1.2
          8 August 2012 at 8:28 pm

          Caucus has veto over all policy promoted by the party.

  57. Hugh Allan 57
    8 August 2012 at 7:58 pm

    A silly group of nincompoops are attempting a DBS tactic against Cunliffe. They will be marginalized. Labour will return to its roots.

  58. AmaKiwi 58
    8 August 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Previously RedLogix asked the critical question:

    “How long has Shearer got to act on this before his silence confirms his complicity?

    “Another 48hrs max?

  59. Pete Sime 59
    8 August 2012 at 9:53 pm

    This has made me so angry.

    Over the next couple of days I intend to launch a website with an online petition which Labour members can sign to call on David Shearer to resign as leader of the party due to his ineffective leadership. Perhaps we can embarrass him into doing the right thing.

    The vacancy and subsequent leadership contest would allow us to exercise our new voting rights. I don’t know how big the membership is, so I have no idea what a good proportion would be, but 1,000 sounds like a good initial goal.

    In the meantime, Labour members can sign the petition here. I’ve included a requirement for people to give membership ID number, which is hidden public view.

    You’ll note that I’ve chosen to reveal my surname. I’m not going to sail under false colours.

    • Te Reo Putake 59.1
      8 August 2012 at 10:11 pm

      “The vacancy and subsequent leadership contest would allow us to exercise our new voting rights.”
       
      Er, no. It’s a proposal at this point, not a right. I won’t be signing your petition, Pete. It’s not needed.

      • lprent 59.1.1
        9 August 2012 at 12:02 am

        Yep I’d imagine that it is unlikely to be in force for a few years. It will have to go though the usual route. Congress 2014 would be my bet.

    • xtasy 59.2
      8 August 2012 at 11:14 pm

      “Over the next couple of days I intend to launch a website with an online petition which Labour members can sign to call on David Shearer to resign as leader of the party due to his ineffective leadership.”

      Although not a member, I totally support you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • lprent 59.2.1
        8 August 2012 at 11:47 pm

        Don’t be daft. Been all through this strange scenario before, several times, including with Helen in 1994-1999 and the musical chairs in 1989-1990.

        For some strange reason people outside of the party seem to think that their lack of effort in the party is valued by those who actually expend effort for it.

        In most cases it is not. From past members we might be interested in their views. Some with considered views we might be interested in perspectives. Most others, especially ones with faux concern and who show a complete lack of knowledge about the party, we simply think are kind of nuts. Ummm… Which do you think your blunt instrument fits within…

    • Colonial Viper 59.3
      8 August 2012 at 11:16 pm

      Thanks for stepping up and organising this mate.

      • xtasy 59.3.1
        8 August 2012 at 11:22 pm

        When you write to opposition members, even pointing out lies that government ministers spread via the media, the opposition members not even getting their acts together to issue contrary media releases, to contradict statements, to do their own research and not even answer emails, that speaks for itself, either INCOMPETENCE or INDIFFERENCE.

        That is NOT what opposition is there for. They are supposed to do their jobs. They are sadly not doing it sufficiently and failing. And if they take no stand, do not respond or comment to the media, that tells the public what?

        Basically: That the LIES by goverment ministers must be the truth, because no opposition member has contradicted it!

        Basta!

    • AmaKiwi 59.4
      9 August 2012 at 12:20 am

      To Pete Sime

      Another petition I want is that the party leader be elected by the membership ONLY. One member, one vote. No specially weighted votes for MP’s or so-called affiliates. If you agree, would you please add that to your webpage. It’s a bit beyond my I.T. skills.

      Labour Party membership costs $20 a year. If unions want influence in the party they only need to have union members complete enrollment forms and each pay $20.

      There is only ONE definition of democracy: one member, one vote. The supposedly new “democratic” proposal to let the caucus have 40% of the power deciding the leader is insulting.

      Labour leaders talk about “democracy” the way a whore talks about virtue.

      • Colonial Viper 59.4.1
        9 August 2012 at 12:22 am

        Labour Party membership costs $20 a year.

        More like $7 a year if thats all you can afford, and coming up, just a donation of your choice will do.

  60. xtasy 60
    8 August 2012 at 10:28 pm

    All this crap just confirms my decision, that i am more or less done with this party. A leader by the name of Shearer now thinking he can gain traction by gaining in the rural vote, not even being able to get enough support in the more crucial urban centres, does simply seem to be rather deluded and incompetent.

    I have written to Labour MPs on important issues and not even heard back.

    The polls are shocking, and no matter how many excuses people in or without Labour may find, it is a bit ridiculous, to think that by now Shearer had not had enough time to find his way, to get experience and to come up with ideas and policy plans that offer a real alternative to the rotten lot presently running the show.

    I am totally disillusioned, aghast with the present Labour Party. Also many in the front bench may have the odd points to make, but they all have NO PLAN!

    If they do, tell me what it is, please, as it is a puzzle that I see, where many bits do not fit together. It is all nice to come with gay marriage bills, and some other feel good stuff, but the country will not be run on such issues.

    Bloody wake up, get rid of Shearer at the next possible review, send a few others from the front bench to the back benches, get some fresh blood through recruiting and enlisting, it is time bloody running out.

    The Greens are NOT ready either, with too much personal “fluff” in the ranks.

    I see only about 5 of them really delivering some performance, the rest are seat dwellers and lifestyle adherents not finding much ground to gain votes.

    NZ politics is in a dismal state of affairs, this debate here just proves it.

  61. infused 61
    8 August 2012 at 10:43 pm

    So it begins.

  62. xtasy 62
    8 August 2012 at 10:47 pm

    The anger and confusion expressed by many here is a bad sign for the state of “the left”. Maybe it is not so much an ill intended “agenda” by Garner or who may have had a “chat” with him, maybe Garner actually just simply states the facts.

    Has anybody ever bothered to watch Question Time in Parliament on television?

    Has nobody noticed that Cunliffe has been absent most of the time?

    Has nobody realised that when Cunliffe was in the House and asking questions, he got little support from around him, he also made some very silly questions, which instantly caused the ire of the Speaker and were ruled out of order.

    Cunliffe has not been a member in the House with much motivation and spirit.

    At the same time Shearer has NOT delivered what should have been expected by now. He is NOT a good leader, he lacks force, spirit and appeal to the public. He is a nice chap, good at something, but NOT at leading the major opposition party!

    I also cannot see Parker, Robertson and certainly not Little “lead” Labour. All those that think so are wishful thinkers. Annette King and Goff are goners of years gone by. Ardern is too insecure and not organised enough, Hipkins is a guy with potential, but (at least now) not a leader either.

    Others have long disqualified themselves. Maybe run an advertisement for a Leader now? Bryan Gould for a tip? Well his times have gone too I am afraid. Time for some real “fresh blood”, if there is any.

    No there won’t be, for some time, so the only solution is a totally new party to the left. Mana is a good start, but they have the touch of primarily being a Hone and alternative Maori Party. So come up with a new idea perhaps.

    • fatty 62.1
      8 August 2012 at 11:54 pm

      “Mana is a good start, but they have the touch of primarily being a Hone and alternative Maori Party”

      Its only Hone as the focus in the media (and he’s got more morals than the rest of them put together), I always saw them as an alternative to the Greens. Policy wise, they have little in common with the Maori Party

      • xtasy 62.1.1
        9 August 2012 at 12:03 am

        I agree with you. Hone turns some off, and I criticise him for not being much of a communicator, as he does not respond enough to emails and other approaches, but he certainly is a person who stands his and his partys ground, and for that deserves respect for that. What a bloody contrast to willy nilly “sharpless” Sharples and Tariana, who are running out of ideas fast.

  63. peterlepaysan 63
    8 August 2012 at 10:53 pm

    Kaukas Kamikaze!

    Doubledipton blinglish and Hawaiian shonkey will be pissing themselves laughing.
    The Nats have a free run for the next 9 years (at least)

  64. xtasy 64
    9 August 2012 at 12:28 am

    Truth is Labour does NOT represent working people, certainly NOT the low wage workers any more. If they would, we would have a leader speak this out and address it, but it is NOT happening. Only a few back benchers still speak Labour policies, others in the front line are talking close to corporatised talk, wanting to even consider (like National) to allow privatisation of parts of welfare, health and so forth.

    Labour started digging its grave in 1985/1986, it accelerated in the late 1980s under Douglas and Prebble. The turnaround after that was half hearted and in confusion. Division has existed since. Labour needs a CLEANSING, a PURGE of the ones still slightly flirting with the “laissez faire” free economic and privatisation ideology. That is needed, once that is completed, voters may look at Labour for an alternative again.

    Thanks!

  65. xtasy 65
    9 August 2012 at 12:55 am

    I would like to add the below link for another authentic revolutionary background story this Labour Party should take very serious, if it wants to have a future.

    Also we have country here, where even the richest, like Kim Dotcom, get raided in their homes pushed and shoved tot he ground, and getting their rights as human beings denied.

    Do not get me wrong, but I have been there. The NZ police are breaking laws on a regular basis, this is also in regards to protestors, at least in some incidents.

    This would deserve a separate chapter, but I have first hand records and evidence of human rights breaches, Independent Police Conduct Authority and even Office of Ombudsmen not doing their jobs and covering up failings and breaches of law.

    Just for a bit of reminder and entertainment:

  66. Greg M 66
    9 August 2012 at 12:59 am

    Good article Irish Bill, and some good comments.
    Whoever is in government, the voters deserve a strong opposition with good alternate policy.
    We are not getting that at the moment, and democracy isn’t happening.
    Sort out the divisions, support, or change the leader and most of all…Sell me some policy!
    Regards Greg.

  67. xtasy 67
    9 August 2012 at 1:25 am

    Maybe a new Rosa Luxemburg in the making, just a bit of a frivolus guess, Sahra Wagenknecht, leader of the Left Party:

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/linkspartei-gysi-wagenknecht-koennte-meine-nachfolgerin-werden-11848222.html

  68. Salsy 68
    9 August 2012 at 1:57 am

    Labour have too long been wagged by an old neo-lib tail. If Cunliffe breaks away and starts his own party, a true left wing party with real alternative solutions, then without a doubt they will be soon be the party for working New Zealand. They will also become the preferred and natural partner for the Greens, and this will ultimately spell the end for Labour. Perhaps this is actually the best way forward.

  69. Tracey 69
    9 August 2012 at 8:35 am

    “Whale’s 18 minute visit time” – I wonder if all their employers know???

Links to post