ABP Branch of Labour goes into recess; all Branch Officers to resign

Written By: - Date published: 7:39 pm, November 22nd, 2015 - 425 comments
Categories: labour, political alternatives, political parties - Tags:

The Andersons Bay Peninsula Branch of the Labour Party has been one of the most active,  progressive and politically innovative branches of the Labour Party over the last 18 months.

IMO no other Labour Party branch in Dunedin North or South has come anywhere close to our operational record of weekly meetings, event organisation, guest speakers, broad demographic involvement (particularly those under 50 years of age) and general membership growth. Not to mention our outreach to members and supporters of the Greens, Internet Party, Mana Party and others.

However, at a Special Formal Meeting of the Andersons Bay Peninsula Branch this afternoon, branch members and officers/delegates voted to put the branch into recess. All officers and LEC delegates of the branch have publicly indicated that they will be resigning from their positions.

In general terms, Labour as an organisation is failing ordinary Kiwis both locally in Dunedin and centrally in Wellington on many different levels and it shows every sign of continuing on that track. We want no part of propping up the Thorndon Bubble careerist ‘pretend and extend’ set any further and will be moving on to new political projects.

More information:

Several of the current officers and LEC delegates of the ABP Branch have become deeply dissatisfied with the performance and direction of the Labour Party both locally and in Wellington and no longer wish to remain in their roles or continue supporting the party.
Labour’s inability to be consistent in opposing the neoliberal/corporation-drafted Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), the softening of the stance against the 90-day right to fire, the ethnically divisive and ineffective tactics against Chinese property buyers in Auckland, the voting for National’s inequitable and discriminatory social welfare reform legislation, and the support of National’s spying and anti-terrorism bill, all point to a Labour Party which is now lost at sea but does not appear to recognise that fact.

The palpable sense conveyed has been that apart from minor
tinkering, there are no likely or viable prospects for positive, real progressive change coming from the Labour Party in the foreseeable future.

SFM

425 comments on “ABP Branch of Labour goes into recess; all Branch Officers to resign”

  1. sabine 1

    Good on ya. That at least is principled.

    • savenz 1.1

      Shocking! Are Labour listening????

      • Sabine 1.1.1

        Why? I don’t think this is shocking at all. If someone, regardless of whom is unhappy with the Party that they have affiliated with, worked with to the point of not finding a good word to say about said Party it behooves that person to leave that Party.

        Simple as that. I think it is better to have principles that force one too leave then stay and be unhappy.
        (old saying: Better an end with pain then pain without end)

        CV can now put his considerable energy to use at a different party of his choosing, he can create his own party, or he could just work for the general welfare of the left and help people find their ways to the voting booth – considering that one million people have not voted, to me that is the most important task for next election. And personally I don’t care if they vote Mana, The Greens or Labour for that matter, as we all know that the left in order to form a government will have to work together. There will be no such thing as just one winner.

        Personally i think CV has taken the only road open to him, and if his fellow supporters in Dunedin are leaving as well then that might not be the worst thing, as they too will be able to bring their savoir faire and enthusiasms to the Greens or maybe Mana or again create their own party which might be a good thing in the long term.

        The left is not loosing out on good men and women, and the Labour Party is not loosing out as clearly CV has felt for the longest time that Labour has left him.

        This now is a clean separation of which all parties can make the best of it. And yes, it behooves the Labour Party to pay more attention to those that are not quite in the middle as many of its representatives are.

    • Labour_Voter 1.2

      Why? I am disappointed. Labour under Andrew is holding steady at 30% and above and with Greens and NZ First has a good shot at becoming the government in 2017. These kind of actions demoralise supporters like me.

      • Sabine 1.2.1

        They don’t demoralize a supporter like me.

        I am not disappointed, in fact i am relieved. CV has strong misgivings about Labour an as such was not helpful to the cause of what is the Labour Party today.
        He strongly believes that the Party has abandoned its principles and will not go back to what it was pre 1980.
        My point of view is that no Party will ever go back to pre 1980 (the last time the world was still a bit innocent, and worlds could still be discovered). It is just not going to happen, and until we have other parties that are more suitable to the future (and i would throw National in as a defunct party fwiw), and I don’t think the Greens are going to be it (or else they would be trending higher) we have to work with what we got, not what we would like to have. Its a bit like an old car, it still runs, it still does the trick for now, but eventually it will be replaced. Maybe that is CV’s call, to replace the old with the new.

        So it is best for him to use his energy and ideas on a Party that seems more to his principles. That is something to be applauded, and his misgivings of Labour Day to Day business will now be less personal, at least i hope so.
        He can do good in so many ways, he does not have to be a Labour Man for it.

        I find it more demoralizing having to deal with a person that is still on job despite them despising the job and wanting nothing of it. Eventually something has to give.

  2. Draco T Bastard 2

    I suggest that you’re entire branch join Mana, the Greens or IP.

    • sabine 2.1

      +100

    • In Vino 2.2

      For heaven’s sake, Draco, 90% of people lazily do ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’ (short for ‘you are’). Get it right!
      In other words, I am not sure that I agree with your arrogant dismissal.

      • In Vino 2.2.1

        OK, having read subsequent comments, I will await enlightenment, but without bated breath.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1

          It’s obvious that CV and his entire branch of Labour members are further to the Left than the rest of Labour thus the best thing for them would be to join a party further to the Left of Labour. They have a number of options available to them but from what CV has said on here I’d say that Mana is probably their most compatible party but they probably see things differently than me about that else they wouldn’t have joined Labour to begin with.

    • Paul Campbell 2.3

      I don’t think CV is the entire branch is he?

      (hint: quick way to remember “your” vs “you’re” add the word “penis” after it ….)

  3. Magisterium 3

    Tautoko CV

  4. millsy 4

    So what next?.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1

      Exactly the right question – and our team is always thinking 2 to 3 steps ahead.

      • Ad 4.1.1

        Hope they let us know what steps those are.

        Some of the Green-Labour combinations in Auckland in terms of standing candidates might be worth perusing. There’s a Future West thing, as well as of course City Vision.

        Sincerely hope as a group you stay close to each other at least.

      • Hope you consider if your people can work with the Green Party instead- it sounds like you’d be an asset to wherever your next project(s) take you, but if you want to work independent, you do what you’ve got to do. 🙂

        Best of luck.

    • Chris 4.2

      Hopefully other branches do the same? Is the only way the party will take notice.

      • KK 4.2.1

        They won’t. As I said in my comment below, this branch was only set up recently, largely for the purpose of rolling Clare Curran. If they’d engaged properly in the party and if they represented anything more than themselves then they’d have been at conference debating these issues when they came up on the floor. They didn’t even show up as far as I’m aware. The recent party conference showed the membership are in good heart and that the bad days of caucus/party splits are in the past. People want to get on with it and win. CV’s branch would rather throw toys and relive old bitterness, and that’s fine, but let’s not pretend it’s any more than that.

        • weka 4.2.1.1

          That’s nasty. TRP did this the other day too, maligning CV instead of debating the issues. As in that thread, your comments appear inaccurate, probably deliberately. Is this part of Labour culture?

          • KK 4.2.1.1.1

            It’s a serious question. CV’s complaint is that Labour isn’t how he’d like it to be. So, what better opportunity than the party’s annual conference, where these very issues are debated on the floor and where party members can put up amendments and lobby to have them adopted? I was in the room and I didn’t hear a peep from CV or his branch. What we did see from the general membership was a respectful debate and movement on a series of progressive policies, with all in good heart. Then a matter of weeks later we see this high dudgeon from CV and his crew with their rebel branch in South Dunedin. I think most reasonable people will draw their own conclusions.

            • weka 4.2.1.1.1.1

              “So, what better opportunity than the party’s annual conference, where these very issues are debated on the floor and where party members can put up amendments and lobby to have them adopted?”

              I was under the impression that it’s not that straight forward. Are you saying that any member can go to conference and get policy on the agenda? Or that CV could have gone to conference and had the positioning of Labour on the left debated on the floor?

              In a number of your comments you’ve misrepresented both CV and the branch. Not a good look.

              • KK

                Yes, branches can send delegates and put up remits. Any member can go to conference. CV and his crew chose not to participate in the party’s democratic processes, and instead chose to throw stones.

                The only misrepresentation is from CV and his mates.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Sorry KK, but you should know that the Labour Party remit process is highly limited and IMO nothing more than a wasteful time and energy sink where membership ideals are easily subverted and circumvented by caucus and a handful of other careerists and aspiring MPs.

                  • KK

                    The policy platform is binding on the caucus and can be amended at conference. There was a platform item on the TPP that got debated and amended in the plenaries. The same session removed CGT and the rise in the retirement age from the platform. If you choose not to engage in the party’s democratic process then I can’t help you. If you choose not to engage and then attack the party for not being how you’d like it to be then you’re actually being undemocratic and undermining everyone and you should go.

                    • Tracey

                      Now this KK ^^^^^^ – no vitriol or personal stuff.

                      I DO agree that if CV dislikes Labour as much as it appears here, then having tried to get change from within, it is probably better for everyone, including him to look for a different vehicle. However that is his decision, not ours.

                    • Michael

                      I agree with CV – Labour’s conferences are highly choreographed with little or no time for policy discussion. As far as the process is concerned, I drafted two remits in the late 1990s, got then approved by branch, LEC and region, only for the hierarchy to drop them from the agenda at the annual conference. I amanged to get them reinstated and approved by a majority of delegates – only for the hierarchy to ignore them completely after taking office. Most activists left the Party during its first term in office, when it became obvious that its hierarchy was National-lite. I remain a member of the Party because I want to see it rediscover its principles and apply them to political problems of today. I do not want to turn the clock back but I don’t want it stopped at 1984 either. It appears though that’s where the hierarchy and the cheerleaders want it stopped so I can’t see Labour taking a lead in any future government.

                • weka

                  Yes, branches can send delegates and put up remits. Any member can go to conference. CV and his crew chose not to participate in the party’s democratic processes, and instead chose to throw stones.

                  The only misrepresentation is from CV and his mates.

                  You didn’t answer my questions but sidestepped them with answers that obscure the truth. You don’t appear to be stupid so I’m going to assume you are ok with misrepresenting someone and something for your own agenda.

                  • Pascals bookie

                    tbf, CV doesn’t exactly play nice with others, I only know him from on here, but honestly, does he seem like the type that would accept that he failed ot get something through a democractic process? Or would that be ‘proof’ that the group is beholden to blah blah, and cannot accept the obvious truth that jet fuel can’t melt steel beams?

                    • Lanthanide

                      +1

                    • Colonial Viper

                      hey PB, Labour doesnt want to change. Our branch accepts that so we are out. Its not difficult to figure out. BTW the official 9/11 narrative is utterly flawed: even a total absence of jet fuel can melt steel beams according to the likes of you.

                    • weka

                      well I don’t know Pb, I don’t read the 911 threads so I’m not sure what behaviour you have seen there. Or are you suggesting that CV’s beliefs about that mean he is deluded about Labour and this affects his behaviour?

                      I’m not sure how democratic the process is within Labour. I asked KK above and I think they have lied to me. Sure it’s democratic in the way that general elections are democratic but like general elections that doesn’t necessarily yield the best governance or representation. Maybe it’s more accurate to say that the ABP tried to work with Labour’s internal rules and processes and failed and CV hasn’t been willing to accept or be gracious about that.

                      And tbh, if this were happening in the Green Party, as a member I’d be pissed off as well and feeling similar to Jenny below. It’s the disrespect that I think is getting to people. So it comes down to whether Labour deserve to be disrespected or not. I can see the argument both ways on that, but I can also see that members would not be impressed with being disrespected.

                      btw, ego involvement doesn’t mean someone can’t be right as well.

                      myself, I think if CV focussed more on solutions and less on the negatives he’d be better received.

                    • KK

                      Weka, CV clearly did not try to play within Labour’s rules. He can’t point to a single constructive attempt he made to advance any policy change in Labour this year. Not one. And then he complains about the direction. It’s utter hypocrisy and lays bare his motives and his modus operandi. It’s no wonder he’s cagey about the number of people who actually voted to recess at his branch meeting in the weekend. I bet you it wasn’t more than 8.

            • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1.1.2

              Why participate in Party Conference? Its a waste of time and effort. Caucus is still going to vote for Nationals spying bills, National’s social welfare bills, Nationals corporate trade agreements, etc.

              Also, you perfectly describe how Labour establishment loyalists actually despise democratic dissent in the party regardless of all the fancy but ultimately meaningless “broad church” talk.

              • KK

                The caucus is bound by the policy platform. This change was made in 2013 and was covered widely by the media. You do realise that in a democratic party you have a right to put up changes and debate them and if you’re successful they become binding policy right? You do know the TPP and other issues were debated on the floor? And you chose not to engage, but instead to throw your toys. That’s why I said good riddance. We have a democratic process and we have the debates and then we get on with campaigning. Your behaviour is undemocratic and because of that you undermine everyone else’s work. We’re actually better off without you.

                • Colonial Viper

                  The caucus is bound by the policy platform. This change was made in 2013 and was covered widely by the media.

                  Where was it in the policy platform to vote for National’s spying and anti-terrorism bill?

                  Where was it in the policy platform to vote for National’s social welfare reform bill?

                  Where was it in the policy platform to cut the CGT or to cut NZ Power?

                  Where was it in the policy platform to put the spotlight on people with Chinese last names?

                  Frankly, the Policy Platform process is already an obvious failure, and for the simple reason that caucus is utterly unaccountable to the ordinary members.

                  • KK

                    I’m no expert on the policy platform but perhaps you could have a look and see. I imagine these things weren’t covered, but they could be if you got engaged with the democratic process.

                    I can tell you that CGT was in the platform, and that the annual conference removed it. That’s why Andrew Little announced at conference that it was going, because he couldn’t constitutionally do so before that. You’ll also notice the wording is that NZ Power is being reviewed – it can’t actually be cut until it goes through the policy process.

                    I think this gets to my broader point though, which is that political parties, like any democratic organisation, are only what you make of them. If you lose then the answer is to come back next year and organise harder rather than throwing your toys and complaining that everyone else is ignoring your great ideas. From what I gather you didn’t even bother turning up.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      We’re very pleased to be out of Labour, and you’re very pleased we are out of Labour, so it’s a win win.

                • Chris

                  Wow. Undermining work on a bunch of nasty neo-liberal policies that MJS would be turning in his grave over. Undermining that sort of work is what a Labour opposition is meant to be doing, not supporting it. Of course you’d be better off without anyone who undermined your work. But surely you have to ask yourself what that work really is? I regret hugely not undermining Labour’s work in the 1999 to 2008 period even more. We trusted Labour because we thought they were our mates which turned out to be untrue because they kicked us in the guts. All this “Labour’s better than National” malarkey is so wrong not just because Labour supports much of what National does, but because it lets National do things wholly unchallenged. When that that happening the cultural rot sets in and things get really bad.

            • Chris 4.2.1.1.1.3

              I’m not a member but have tried over the years to discuss specific issues with various Labour MPs, officials etc that Labour’s appeared to have lost its way over and I’ve found them to be completely uninterested in even talking about them. Couldn’t imagine what sort of response trying to raise that sort of discussion at the annual conference would attract.

              • Lanthanide

                You need to realise that MPs and party people talk to *a lot of people* all of the time. Your voice is just one amongst many.

                If you get 70 voices encouraging you, 20 having some doubts, 5 having serious concerns and 5 that are outright hostile to your position, how much time do you think the MPs will give each of those collective opinions?

                I’d suggest they’d pay attention to the 70+20 and ignore the rest.

                Now, imagine that you can’t tell the political affiliation or motives of the voices that are talking to you. It’s pretty easy to assume the 5+5 are from political opponents that have fundamental disagreements with your outlook that are un-movable. Even more reason to ignore them.

                • Chris

                  I agree entirely, and that’s why all this talk from Labour diehards about “joining the party, using the democratic mechanisms within Labour to bring change” is a load of shite. I think what’s happened in Dunedin shows that pretty clearly.

                • Colonial Viper

                  they need to stop talking to people in the top most comfortable 5% of society which is the main crowd too many of these MPs and staffers hang out with, or want to hang out with, after hours.

                  • AmaKiwi

                    I cannot remember my Labour MP ever asking our Labour Electorate Committee, “Tell me your views on this issue.”

                    The Labour Party is a top-down institution. The leader and the caucus decide. Our sole purpose is to try to get them elected, which we do because we prefer a Labour dictator to a National dictator.

                    When Goff/Cunliffe proposed the capital gains tax in 2011, I warned Cunliffe in the strongest possible language it was poison. I said they could obtain the same result after the election by making “accounting adjustments” to the existing tax code.

                    I was talking to a wall. Politicians are usually the last to know.

                    CV, you are doing the right thing. National versus Labour is a demolition derby between two broken down garbage trucks.

          • vaughan little 4.2.1.1.2

            i’m with trp and kk on this one. cv is clearly knowledgeable and energetic, but toxic, as far as i can tell. i’ve been following his interactions pretty closely on ts since he dimissed an article i translated from chinese and posted here. back during the hot money debate. his take on my motivations, something about assuming to be representing the entire nz chinese community, raised my eyebrows. i think he has an issue with dissembling. i mean, his comment below:

            “Sorry KK, but you should know that the Labour Party remit process is highly limited and IMO nothing more than a wasteful time and energy sink where membership ideals are easily subverted and circumvented by caucus and a handful of other careerists and aspiring MPs.”

            quite disturbing imo.

        • Chris 4.2.1.2

          I think there are a more disillusioned members than a few. I hope for the left’s sake this is the start of something much bigger. Guess only time will tell.

        • ABP member 4.2.1.3

          KK how does one engage ‘properly’ with a party that has for all intents and purposes stone walled our branch every step of the way? We have ‘engaged properly’, which is evident by our actions. As to our political motivations and reasons for involving ourselves in the ABP Branch, what you have said is mere speculation, as a Branch we have shown that we have acted within the ‘rules’ (more so than any other Branch I would imagine), we have acted with integrity and actively engaged within the community, building Labour’s membership base. We have attended rally’s and protests we have worked actively to build relationships within the community and support others who shared like-minded philosophies. We have acted with integrity and honesty, it is sad that not everyone in the Labour Party can say the same, Dirty politics is not just something that the Nats do you know!

          What you call CV’s branch is actually the ABP Branch and not a one of us are throwing toys, we are merely making a principled stand, something that certain Labour stalwarts know nothing about. This Labour party is, at this stage, not worth spending energy on, particularly when we as a group can achieve far better outside of party politics.

          • weka 4.2.1.3.1

            Thanks for that. One of the problems here is that CV’s posted a lot of negative comments here and quite a few people are sick of it, not just Labour supporters. I think that’s clouding how people see the ABP branch (not talking about KK, they’ve got an agenda of their own).

            It sounds like you leaving Labour and continuing to work as a group is a great idea. Would love to hear what you come up with.

            btw, dirty politics is a specific thing and while I can imagine there are people within Labour who are capable of dirty tricks or undermining people, I think it’s good to not use the term dirty politics outside of the way that Hager framed it. Not saying DP hasn’t happened within Labour, just that we should be cautious about using the term loosely and thus diluting it.

            • ABP member 4.2.1.3.1.1

              Thank you for your comments Weka. As I am new to the ‘the Standard’ I am unsure of what has or has not been said. However, I agree that ‘KK’ obviously does have an agenda, one which makes me more and more comfortable using the term ‘dirty politics’. I am in no way diluting the meaning that Nicky Hager put on the term, in fact I feel very comfortable using the term in the context used in my earlier post.

              Regardless of the ‘politics’, I intend, and I have no doubt other ABP members intend to continue our work.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Your usage dilutes the meaning of the term because while you are talking about an individual with an agenda (everyone has one), Hager’s findings refer to systematic and deliberate abuse of government.

                • weka

                  And even if we extend that to other power structures, such as the Labour Party, what KK is doing doesn’t fit the definition (unless you, ABP, know more than is apparent here).

                  If you can explain how either KK or other people in Labour are engaging in DP, as opposed to just being bad at utilising power and privilege, have at it. Asserting something doesn’t make it true, and isn’t well tolerated on ts 🙂

            • Tracey 4.2.1.3.1.2

              Well said weka

        • D'Esterre 4.2.1.4

          KK: I quite agree. I note this from the post above:

          “the ethnically divisive and ineffective tactics against Chinese property buyers in Auckland…”

          In fact, subsequent events have shown that Chris Twyford was dead right: it was offshore buyers – disproportionately Chinese – who were speculating on property, thereby driving up the prices. Which they would’ve known, of course, had they desisted from shrieking about racism and instead listened to those unfortunate New Zealanders who were going to the auctions and seeing it for themselves.

  5. Atiawa 5

    Good luck with your new political projects.

  6. KK 6

    Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

    For everyone else’s benefit, this is CV’s branch, which was set up a couple of years back to roll Clare Curran. Never saw much of them in the wider party, in fact most people wouldn’t know they exist. They didn’t even send any delegates to conference as far as I can tell.

    The thing CV never got his head around is that effecting change is a long and hard process that takes a lot of building bridges and taking people with you. CV never managed to do that in the wider party, and got increasingly impatient at his own lack of progress so took his frustrations out on this site by lashing out at the Labour Party for not seeing his genius.

    It’s much easier to throw your toys than patiently build and organise. I’m pleased to see CV has shown us what he’s made of.

    • left for deadshark 6.1

      K…
      If this is commentary from somebody in the know within the Labour party, its hardly surprising that they cannot get the million or so non voters too participate ..

      shame on you.
      now put that K that is at the start back with the other two, I think it better expresses you nature. 👿

      • weka 6.1.1

        “If this is commentary from somebody in the know within the Labour party, its hardly surprising that they cannot get the million or so non voters too participate ..

        shame on you.”

        +1

        Pot calling kettle black too.

      • ABP member 6.1.2

        @Left for deadshark + 100 – KK obviously has an agenda, which for all intents and purposes (in my opinion) is perhaps the reason why the ABP Branch now finds itself sitting dormant once again. This is sad because we have shown through our activity, a willingness to engage with the community in a meaningful way, in the process rebuilding the Party’s profile and reputation in the electorate. Sigh.

    • Colonial Viper 6.2

      Hi KK, I am not surprised that narrow sighted establishment loyalists like yourself are celebrating the loss of Region 6 Labour’s most active and innovative grass roots branch.

      In every way, you have explained why our political team has moved on from the moribund and purposeless Labour Party. It has become a political vehicle for the top 10%.

      As for rolling Clare Curran. She’s a low performing unranked MP who is well on track to roll herself in 2017, as Labour’s electorate majority in Dunedin South has been in steep decline since 2005 when it was over 10,000 and is now less than 4,000.

      It will drop further.

    • Tracey 6.3

      Generally speaking organisations who are advocating hcnage require a sharp edge group, one that chains themselves to the tables and bangs table tops. This allows the others to appear “moderate” and make some change. Labour moved at some pace from its roots in 1984 and it is 30 years of workby some to move them ever so slightly back. How long should people wait for the slow change KK?

      And don’t get me started on Goff’s decision to keep being paid by taxpayers for one job while essentially working another. I am not suprised cos he has been doing it for some time. But is this the slow change we can continue to expect?

    • AmaKiwi 6.4

      “The thing CV never got his head around is that effecting change is a long and hard process”

      Like climate change, which is why we must not rock the boat. (sarcastic)

      • s y d 6.4.1

        Is that a light at the end of the tunnel?

        • left for deadshark 6.4.1.1

          @ syd….Not sure what you meant, and more importantly, don’t care.
          But you did put a question mark at the end of that observation. Probably
          the labour caucus train coming straight for all those party members that should have just stuck too their knitting, ie (:Wo)man the phones, hand out leaflets, raise monies and generally nod to their betters, oh and make apologizes to the many questions from the public, like “I thought Labour stood for the workers” and maybe “weren’t Labour meant to look out for the down trodden” ie,” letting the government persecute the partners of beneficiaries” I could go on. Some have seen the light, and just got off the tracks.

  7. Jenny Kirk 7

    Well CV – your unhappiness with Labour has finally come to fruition. I’m sorry about that because the little I know of you, and what I’ve heard you when you speak, showed huge potential which would have been useful for Labour.

    But in doing this sort of thing so publicly, you are obviously trying to damage Labour.

    That is a bit hard to swallow : a real Labour person knows it takes years and years to get change through the political system and that you don’t do it publicly, you do it behind the scenes to achieve the change you want. And if you cannot get it, you try again from another angle.

    And if that still doesn’t work, maybe you have to ask yourself if you’re in the right political party for you.

    And at the same time, you maybe need to ask yourself what it is you really want : defeat of this current fascist government which is so damaging to ordinary New Zealanders, or is it something else ?

    Because if it is the former, then in my personal opinion you are working with that fascist government by these sorts of actions.

    • weka 7.1

      Pretty sure that CV is after something else, and it’s based on the fact that we don’t have years and years. Crunch time is now.

      I agree with you about dealing with things in house, but I also agree with CV that it’s too important to let lie.

    • Rosemary McDonald 7.2

      “…a real Labour person knows it takes years and years to get change through the political system and that you don’t do it publicly, you do it behind the scenes to achieve the change you want. And if you cannot get it, you try again from another angle.”

      Trouble is Jenny…we (those of us who want , no need, a change of Government) haven’t got years and years and years….

      I am a member of no political party, largely for the reasons CV has quit Labour.

      None are saying what I need to hear in order to get my vote.

      Another win for the Current Incumbent (due to the lack of any opposition) would be beyond unbearable.

      Labour/Greens really NEED to get their act together.

    • Colonial Viper 7.3

      But in doing this sort of thing so publicly, you are obviously trying to damage Labour.

      Our branch believes in transparency and openness. We have nothing to hide. The branch meeting this afternoon was open to the public and we had non-Labour members of the public present.

      Our political values around true democracy, transparency and openness have moved far on from Labour’s version of those things.

      That is a bit hard to swallow : a real Labour person knows it takes years and years to get change through the political system and that you don’t do it publicly, you do it behind the scenes to achieve the change you want. And if you cannot get it, you try again from another angle.

      The neoliberalism that Labour opened the door to in the 1980s and then entrenched in the 2000s has ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of families and the damage keeps going.

      So, how many more “years and years” do you want to wait for change in the Labour Party?

      • Jenny Kirk 7.3.1

        Yes – I agree the neo-liberalism started by Douglas in the 1980s has continued and has been hugely damaging to our peoples.

        I was there (1987-1990) and tried (helplessly, internally – with others) to stop it. And have been trying ever since within Labour to return us to those original Labour values : as have countless others. We thought we were getting somewhere when Helen Clark’s government was elected, and changes started to happen. But the neolibs swung back into power, more virulent than ever and with a greater pr team behind them.

        And finally – after many internal struggles – Labour is getting its act together under Andrew Little – he is doing what he said he’d do, pull the caucus and Party together in his first year, follow thru on policy stuff in the following years so Labour has a good showing for the 1917 election.

        And this is happening. Tonight’s TV3 poll shows ShonKey’s personal profile is going down, the Nats are slowly going down, and the Opposition is gradually moving up. Maybe not as quickly as people like CV would like – but its better to work up slowly than to hit the peak too quickly and then have the Nats with enough time to work their pr into making Labour seem pitiful – as they will try to do.

        What CV and his mates are doing in Dunedin is throwing a spanner into the works and giving the Nats and the rightwing media ammunition to blow Labour apart. That’s not going to help the “lives of hundreds of thousands of families ”
        CV purports to be concerned about.

        Not one little bit. Get real, CV.

        • weka 7.3.1.1

          Jenny, would you be glad if a more left wing party was formed and reached the 5% threshhold and gained seats in parliament? What if those were Labour votes?

          • Jenny Kirk 7.3.1.1.1

            No, Weka – that’s just vote-splitting.

            Labour needs to grow its vote, not split off into little bits of this and that – far left, mid left, whatever. That just confuses the general voter.

            What CV is doing is personal and ego-driven (I regret to say) not from any real concern for those “hundreds of thousands of families” who’ve suffered under neo-liberalism.

            • Colonial Viper 7.3.1.1.1.1

              here is a novel concept: Labour needs to work for and deserve each and every vote it seeks.

              Last election only about one in five registered voters ticked Labour. I’d say the typical Kiwi voter is far smarter than the Thorndon Bubble set gives them credit for.

              And now our branch has declared its out as well.

              • KJS0ne

                I am the Comms officer for ABP. Yesterday was tough, lots of conflicting emotions and cognative dissonance for me.

                There has been a lot of “Get in behind damnit and pull your socks up” from stalwarts of Labour, Kennedy lines were quoted, and the point was made that if we don’t like what’s going on in Labour then we need to organize to change it. These Stalwarts see loyalty to the party above all else as what’s important. These people have been very critical of our collective decision to put the branch into recess, and it reinforces to me why I have come to the decision to resign my office and not renew my membership next year. Because in saying those things, you are not treating our concerns as legitimate.

                But I put this to those of you who feel that way:

                Loyalty should not be unconditional, loyalty is something that should be earned. You have to show that you’re willing to listen, to take the membership and it’s views seriously, rather than speaking down to us and telling us to get in line, and take our concerns to people who frankly have no interest in hearing us out, let alone listening to us with an open mind and being open to the prospect of changing.

                In the last year I have increasingly found it very difficult to defend a party that has no bottom lines, that is constantly back tracking and failing to defend the values that Labour used to, and should stand for. Though Labour’s gratuitous support of our Kiwi version of the Patriot act was the first alarm bell for me, and there have been many more inbetween, Andrew Little folding on the TPPA was the final straw for me, it proved my suspicions that he is just as much an adherent to the corporate neoliberal agenda as Key.

                My deep concern with party politics in New Zealand is that it really doesn’t matter anymore whether it’s Labour or National in charge, the corporations are the ones with all the influence, and Labour is more than happy to get into bed with them to obtain some of that sweet influential power.

                For me though, this is not the end of my association with Labour, if Labour takes a Corbyn turn I’d be more than willing to get in behind, but this arrogance that I have heard from quarters that says that our loyalty to the party should be unconditional, to me that’s part of the problem.

                I will also say this. Trying to roll Claire Curran was never the reason I left the Greens to join Labour and ABP. I (and many others) joined because we believe in the Vision that ABP has for NZ, because there was so much energy and enthusiasm, because it’s a dynamic group with some great minds and good company. Anyone who says that this was the driving purpose of the branch or the main reason the branch was revitalized is mistaken.

                Where we go from here I do not know, but we won’t stop. This isn’t the end of the line.

                • Michael

                  Well said. Your decision, and that of your fellow members, leaves Labour looking threadbare and exposed. The Empress is indeed not wearing any clothes. I understand why you’ve taken the action you have and I hope you either find another political organisation that values energy and passion or start one of your own that does. It is certainly apparent that the Labour Party in 2015 does not value these qualities.

                • Stuart Munro

                  Well said – and a real Labour party would recognise and value your work so far as well as your views. If your new project happens to crack NZ’s dysfunctional political duopoly so much the better.

            • weka 7.3.1.1.1.2

              No, Weka – that’s just vote-splitting.

              Labour needs to grow its vote, not split off into little bits of this and that – far left, mid left, whatever. That just confuses the general voter.

              Labour has never represented me or many other people I know (and don’t know). You appear to want a party that appeals to the general voter and that will form govt but not really do much in terms of the Overton window or addressing the critical issues we face. I’m sure Little’s Labour govt would do many useful things, but there is no denying that there would be major gaps as well. IMO this is what CV is on about (as well as the general problem with Labour’s economic paradigm). Many people see Labour as part of the problem and to be honest your ideas that Labour should be king reinforce that.

              I’ve never met CV so can’t speak to his ego, but I’ve not seen anything he’s written here that makes me think his concern for NZ, and NZers who are struggling in particular, is not genuine.

            • Chris 7.3.1.1.1.3

              “What CV is doing is personal and ego-driven (I regret to say) not from any real concern for those “hundreds of thousands of families” who’ve suffered under neo-liberalism.”

              Wow. You really believe that Labour’s not neo-liberal, eh? Wow.

            • ABP member 7.3.1.1.1.4

              Jenny Kirk, you make the assumption that CV is acting alone. As a now former member of the ABP, each and every person made an independent decision, which was NOT driven by other members. Our branch has been probably the most transparent and democratically principled branches in Dunedin. Each of us had come to our own reasons why we have had enough of continuing to prop up a party that for all intents and purposes was doing nothing beyond tinkering and blindly supporting neo-liberal policies,(which CV has already mentioned thoughout this thread), my personal favourite was the moving bottom lines on the TPP, lack of knowledge on TPP and inability to understand the implications against those supposed ‘bottom lines’. Labour didn’t even have to work hard to understand those things, Jane Kelsey spelt that out in an open letter to them prior to conference, sadly Labour took no heed and in my opinion made a complete mockery of being the supposed opposition – they rolled. Then they came up with some policy on sugar (which they did not even have the foresight to weigh that up against what would happen if the TPP were signed…or maybe they did but for lack of anything better pushed it anyone – who knows).

              My real concern is when Labour Stalwarts, instead of sitting back and asking themselves what is going on here, go in for the attack, personal attacks. It is easier for those stalwarts to blame individual personalities and imagine they are flawed than accept, let alone acknowledge that people have had enough, had enough of a party that continues to ‘tinker at the edges’, has no strong bottom lines and does not act to benefit those under the ‘middle’. I must say Jenny, if you haven’t noticed, Labour keeps losing ground, which is particularly true in the Dunedin South Electorate. Have you asked yourself the question why that might be? No of course not, instead it is easier to attack individuals, rather than look at the deeper issues.

              In my opinion Labour is not a choice for the left anymore – Labour has decided they are not going after the missing million – why? Are the missing million not worth chasing? Instead Labour will chase the middle vote and how do they do that?

              Jenny Kirk your attacks on CV are unwarranted, un-reasoned and certainly reinforces my position about why I no longer want to be involved in a party that does not understand that its own shit stinks.

        • Colonial Viper 7.3.1.2

          Jenny you better decide if Little is getting the party together or not. If he is, then our one provincial branch going into recess is no big deal. If our move makes a few people look at Labour’s actual direction a bit harder, then good.

    • Lanthanide 7.4

      +1

    • Tracey 7.5

      “a real Labour person knows it takes years and years to get change through the political system ”

      I point to 1984 to 1987 for how quickly things can change and continue to impact when people put their minds to it. In the 30 years since…

    • Saarbo 7.6

      @Jenny Kirk
      +1

  8. Pat 8

    In the 1984 general election, Anderton stood successfully as the Labour candidate for Sydenham in Christchurch, becoming a member of the Fourth Labour Government.[2] He soon came into conflict with the party’s leadership, and became one of the most outspoken critics of Minister of Finance Roger Douglas. Douglas and his allies, Richard Prebble and David Caygill, were determined to implement radical reforms of the country’s economic system, known unofficially as “Rogernomics”. This involved a monetarist approach to controlling inflation, the removal of tariffs and subsidies, and the privatisation of state assets, all of which were regarded by Anderton as a betrayal of the party’s left-wing roots, and an abandonment of the party’s election platform.

    Anderton’s severe criticism of Douglas and his reforms earned him the enmity of many within the party, including some of those who otherwise shared Anderton’s frustration;HIS PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE SEEN AS DAMAGING TO THE PARTY’S PUBLIC IMAGE (my caps)

    1989 split from Labour[edit]
    Although many ordinary members of the Labour Party (who were unhappy at the way the party’s parliamentary wing was behaving) backed Anderton, he became increasingly isolated in parliament. When Anderton disobeyed party instructions to vote in favour of selling the Bank of New Zealand (which Labour had explicitly promised not to do), he was suspended from caucus. In April 1989, believing that Labour was beyond change, Anderton resigned from the party. He later said, “I did not leave the Labour Party; the Labour Party left me.”….Wiki, Jim Anderton.

    ….things that make you go hmmmm

    • KK 8.1

      Oh dear. [deleted]as Jim Anderton. I don’t even know where to start.

      Outing people is a holiday. Good-bye. Sorry for the delayed departure.] – Bill

      • Pat 8.1.1

        lol…i was waiting for that response…

      • Tracey 8.1.2

        Will you tell us your real name now KK?

        • Nessalt 8.1.2.1

          trying to out commentators tracey and / or not respecting their right to anonymity? Isn’t that against policy?

          • weka 8.1.2.1.1

            +1

            • Tracey 8.1.2.1.1.1

              See below.

              • Nessalt

                Not the point. your among the first to laugh and rightly point at any good right winger that points out that labour / greens / mana / other loonies do the same things as they do. the hypocrisy is strong here in this case. just because KK knows who CV is after CV’s own outing doesn’t mean KK should have to reveal his identity.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Nah, those dickheads are just using my real name as a cheap intimidation trick.

                • tracey

                  That you can’t get that my point was that “he” had outted someone not that I wanted to “out” “him” speaks volumes (even after I explained that).

          • Tracey 8.1.2.1.2

            No. The opposite. Was pointing out nessalt, that KK broke CVs anonymity. Sorry if it was too subtle for you and weka. Not everyone who reads knows cv’s real name and it is for he to use his real name when he chooses not those seeking to score points here against him.

            • weka 8.1.2.1.2.1

              I think in such cases it is better to make points explicitly. Making them obliquely means that many people see a ts author trying to out a pseudonymous commenter.

              I don’t agree with people using CV’s real life name unless he does, but that is different than people who only use a pseudonym.

        • Ross 8.1.2.2

          I thought it was obvious – KK sounds just like Stuart Nash. 🙂

    • weka 8.2

      Thanks for that Pat.

  9. Pat 9

    was it a serious suggestion? …am unsure myself, but there is no denying there is a disquiet among traditional Labour supporters about the Party’s positioning on a number of issues…whether CV (whomever he is) has the public profile to form a successful breakaway party is in some respects irrelevant, there was obviously enough local support to enact the remit and Labour may have a wider problem than it is willing to admit.

    From small acorns mighty oaks grow

    • KK 9.1

      I respect what you’re saying, but it doesn’t apply here. CV has helped organise a small branch in Dunedin that didn’t like the local Labour MP and wanted Labour to turn hard left. They didn’t manage to roll the MP and they didn’t bother to engage with the democratic process. The rest of the party largely isn’t even aware of their existence.

      • Pat 9.1.1

        in the words of a former party president….i shall watch this space

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.2

        I respect what you’re saying, but it doesn’t apply here. CV has helped organise a small branch in Dunedin

        We built an old defunct Labour Party branch up to over 50 financial members.

        And we will continue organising and growing – outside of a moribund and Wellington-centric Labour.

      • millsy 9.1.3

        New Zealand was pretty ‘hard left’ before 1984. It is only the past 30 years that have been an aberration. We have had 3 decades of collective amnesia, 1984 being a ‘Year Zero’ if you will.

        A lot of countries butchered thousands to get this sort of attitude entrenched and still failed. Roger, Ruth and co did it without a shot being fired.

        • Tracey 9.1.3.1

          pretty sure there were others there who are still there… Mike Moore has come home now (sorry to hear of the iillness) but as National’s ambassador to USA he finally had a role that fit his true politics … Goff is gonna stay suckin gon the taxpayer teat before moving to the ratepayer teat (and will be a shoe-n cos the Right like him as much (and for the same reasons) as I dislike him)…. anyone else?

      • Tracey 9.1.4

        CV is the enemy, insignificant Dunedin branch is the enemy, the Green Party is an enemy,change is slow…. pooor poor Labour.

        Oh wait, no it’s poor poor vulnerable kiwis waiting for Labour to step up.

  10. McFlock 10

    I missed it in the post – how many ABP members voted for the “recess”?

    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      A clear majority of those branch members who attended the Special Formal Meeting. The meeting was open to the public and there were notices about the meeting in the community papers earlier this week.

    • Tracey 10.2

      How many at the LP conference voted to remove CGT from the policy?

      • McFlock 10.2.1

        According to the coverage at TS, several hundred members attended the conference. Whether the policies were voted on in the main sessions or were subject to the vagaries of small workshops on the side, I have no idea.

        I’m just curious as to how many of the 50 members of ABP turned up to the SGM that put the branch back into the organisation limbo from whence it was previously resurrected.

  11. reason 11

    A whole lot of Labor MP’s should actually be in the national party ….. its where they belong.

    Political parties are generally just vehicles for narcissistic sociopaths to gain power and social climb ………… the greens are the best of a bad bunch and many voters just pick the least worst option ………….. or don’t vote at all.

    Labor are bad and rotten

    National are just plain evil

    Act are a branch/division of national kept alive mainly so they can cheat at mmp and scam an extra seat….. they are also useful for being the fall guys for some of the governments more extreme dog eat dog policies

    • Karen 11.1

      Are you in Australia?

    • AmaKiwi 11.2

      @ reason

      Neither Labour nor National are bad, evil, rotten. They are dinosaurs.

      Labour and Nats do the bidding of multi-nationals, ignorant that corporate leaders are some of the nastiest people with the most selfish, socially destructive motives.

      The Labour party does not have the MPs or framework to speak truth to power.

      • Stuart Munro 11.2.1

        I’m sorry, but National are evil.

        The corrupt practices made visible through dirty politics, the speaker’s abandonment of his constitutional function, and innumerable instances of corruption like dismissing Campbell, the Christchurch EQC frauds, and the SCF confiscation are not politics as it was once done – they are a new and unusual low in NZ political morality and economic dysfunction.

        We’ve had seven years of stupid and inhuman neo-liberalism and of course our economic position and quality of life is immeasurably worse.

        The Gnats must pay for their corrupt practices – recovering overpayment to flag panel sycophants might be a good place to start.

        • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1

          We’ve had seven years of stupid and inhuman neo-liberalism and of course our economic position and quality of life is immeasurably worse.

          we have had over 30 years of stupid and inhumane neoliberalism.

  12. maui 12

    Labour in emergency all night caucus meeting looking for a resolution. Region 6 thrown into chaos. Was it really because the quality of Marjories sausage rolls were causing ructions within the group.

    Heh, on a serious note I thought some of the policies ABP came up with sounded promising.

  13. millsy 13

    Probably worth reminding ‘KK’ that CV is probably more committed to Labour principles than anyone else here.

    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      i said to the people at the meeting yesterday that Labour supporters hold a gleaming concept of the potential and power and possibilities of the Labour Party to do good in NZ; the problem is that that Labour only exists as a mental picture which does not resemble any thing like the reality. In reality, Labour has been instrumental in creating and entrenching the neoliberal environment NZ finds itself in today, and is especially instrumental in resisting and suppressing any real change to the status quo privileges of the top 10%.

  14. vto 14

    You know, everybody can be the best in the world at something. That something is yourself. Nobody can be better at being you so be the best of yourself you can possibly be and you will achieve..

    This would seem to be a solid step in that direction CV so go hard.

    All the best

  15. Tautoko Mangō Mata 15

    This week the expert feedback on TPP( organised by Jane Kelsey) should be available to the Labour Party. It appeared to me,at the time, that many of the policy positions indicated in Andrew Little’s speech at the recent conference would not be possible under the TPP. (Buy local, choose local service providers, etc)
    Labour must make a decision. (Hint: to the 3 News Reid Research poll question ‘do you support the TPPA?’ 52 percent – said no, we don’t support it.
    34 percent said yes,
    the rest didn’t know. )

    http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/kiwis-still-to-be-convinced-on-tpp-2015112017#ixzz3sFHxXwfK

    “TPP is Not a Free Trade Agreement” should be Labour’s Mantra to be repeated 100 times before bedtime for those MPs who have been conditioned into neo-cap ways and are too myopic to see the pain and suffering beyond them.
    Stand for Something. with clear evidence supporting reason for stance.
    Continual fence sitting turns off people on BOTH sides of the fence. There is no authenticity to be inferred and only increasing distrust prevails.

    • Tracey 15.1

      I agree @ his apparent stance on TPP remains confusing if not contradictory and unattainable. It is actually, imo, a BIG hit for National that with a month of unopposed spin, Parliament resourcing and months of planning they couldn’t get 50% of kiwis to agree TPP is a good thing for NZers. So, where now all those who say the voters/polls are always right – kiwis know what they want/think?

      Pilin gin here, like Mapp, infused, BM and others demanding that the majority be sated. Bah!

    • Rosemary McDonald 15.2

      ““TPP is Not a Free Trade Agreement” should be Labour’s Mantra to be repeated 100 times …”

      YES.

      Everytime, every single time that anyone says “TPP: and “free trade” in the same sentence….Labour must respond with that….

    • Colonial Viper 15.3

      of course you are correct about the fact that Labour should “stand for something” the thing is when you analyse it to the core, what Labour stands for today is in total conflict with its founding concepts.

  16. b waghorn 16

    Its shame you didn’t take a leaf from Corbyns book and play the long game.

    • Tracey 16.1

      I voted for Labour in 1984. I was excited and exilerated until they unveilled their economic “plan”. I waited until 2005 to change my party vote. 30 years IS a long game b waghorn.

    • Colonial Viper 16.2

      climate change and fossil fuel depletion mean that our civilisation runs out of road in the next 25 years. No time to wait for Labour to get its shit together and move away from destructive orthodox economics and monetary policy.

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 16.2.1

        Agree. No time for procrastination. TPP is the last thing needed at this time. It’s bad enough trying to wake up our own incompetent gov’t – what about having an international committee over which we have only 1/12 influence?

        Article 27.1: Establishment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission
        The Parties hereby establish a Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission (Commission)
        which shall meet at the level of Ministers or senior officials, as mutually determined by the
        Parties. Each Party shall be responsible for the composition of its delegation.

        mfatlink

        • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.1

          we’ll have less than 1/12 influence; America then Japan are the two biggest players in TPP leverage, because they have the most powerful corporations.

      • Heather Grimwood 16.2.2

        Tat it’s really sad that you didn’t feel able to belong to the Region 6 Environmental Branch as a remit that I believe could not be bettered was formed there and unanimously accepted and at Conference….and commended. Had you been aware of that, you would not have got so distressed.

        • Michael 16.2.2.1

          It remains to be seen though whether that remit will ever make it into Party policy for the next election campaign. Even it does, there’s no guarantee that a victorious Labour caucus will ever implement it. Party history indicates that expressions of policy preferences by the membership are more likely to be ignored once the caucus move into the Beehive and start talking to the nice men from the business community and all those ever-so-helpful officials.

          • Anne 16.2.2.1.1

            Party history indicates that expressions of policy preferences by the membership are more likely to be ignored once the caucus move into the Beehive…

            There’s certainly an element of truth in that and it goes back further than Rogernomics.

          • AmaKiwi 16.2.2.1.2

            @ Michael

            +100

            I’ve seen it too often. The leader and caucus decide everything. We are the spectators

          • Heather Grimwood 16.2.2.1.3

            Michael, it is the job of members to ENSURE such things become official policy…….much easier in these days of quick communicating to be knowledgeable and involved effectively.

            • Michael 16.2.2.1.3.1

              Been There, Done That Heather. Consider how many ideas the Castle St branch had in the late 1990s, only to have none accepted by the hierarchy. There were some great activists in that branch; nearly all of them disengaged from the Party once it became clear their contributions were unwelcome.

        • Colonial Viper 16.2.2.2

          Hi Heather, great to see you on The Standard as always. Awesome people like yourself is exactly why Labour still has the potential to do some good, positive things. For myself and many other members of the ABP Branch, we are now looking to do very different things in very different ways than Labour is currently capable of.

          Free education, free healthcare, cheap as chips state housing; you were there watching that come together right from the early days.

          But today, Labour can’t even bring itself to commit to those things any more. Why not?

  17. RedLogix 17

    Well everyone will have their opinion on what you should or should not have done. There were merits in both staying or leaving.

    I’m sure you will be hurting a bit. It always feels like a personal failure when your hopes do not pan out. But then again it is worth keeping in mind that all the people history celebrates as heroes and successes – all went through a solid clutch of failures beforehand.

    But crucially the question is, regardless of which choice you took – what are you going to do now? There is no question that Labour – despite the apparent unity Little has achieved (or imposed) remains a house divided. There remains a core within who have never truly come to terms with the Fourth Labour govt, and have never repudiated it. And that these unreconstructed, closeted ACT party members will do all in their power to ensure the left remains divided.

    Therefore whatever it is you chose next, it would be my fondest wish you consider how best to build bridges and unity. Across the Green, Mana and the marginalised left of the Labour parties there is much more in common than not. There would be my starting point.

    Regards

    RL

    • Tracey 17.1

      Very well put RedL, and reflects my views on this too

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 17.1.1

        +1 RL
        Progressives need to work together, using the common core issues as the glue, with the individual differences at the periphery. (Venn diagram forming in my mind.)

    • Colonial Viper 17.2

      thanks RL. To our team forging unity throughout the Left is not going to be the goal, it is going to be shifting and driving authentic political debate, something that many are clearly uncomfortable with.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2.1

        🙄

        Like Pete George only with conspiracy theories 😆

        • Colonial Viper 17.2.1.1

          yeah, because everyone on the Std reckons that my politics and that of Pete Georges are directly comparable.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2.1.1.1

            I’m referring to the fact that, like yours, his rapier-like debating abilities make people uncomfortable 😆

            • McFlock 17.2.1.1.1.1

              Different sides of the same coin.

              PG often seemed to me to be so keen on the idea that truth was a matter of perspective that he would disappear up his own cartesian doubt.

              CV seems to be so convinced he can read the matrix code as it swirls by that anybody who disagrees with him must be either a fool or a neoliberal stooge.

    • Michael 17.3

      I agree with you, RL. Until Labour comes to terms with the Fourth Labour government it will continue to lack legitimacy as a progressive political force. FWICS, the Greens are making the running on issues of social justice, leaving Labour looking indistinguishable from the Nats.

      • vaughan little 17.3.1

        labour needs to publicly apologize for the 1980s. 00s would be nice too, but i’d settle for foreshore and seabed. and the stoking of the real estate casino.

        • Colonial Viper 17.3.1.1

          The vast majority of the Labour caucus and the rest of the Thorndon Bubble set honestly believes that voters no longer really care about or even remember what Labour did in the 1980s.

  18. Chooky 18

    CV…agree with this!

    “Labour’s inability to be consistent in opposing the neoliberal/corporation-drafted Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA)”

    good luck….suggest you all join Green Party !…ha ha

  19. Olwyn 19

    Hi CV, I am confident that you will continue to push for positive change, and party politics is not the only vehicle for doing that. Good luck with you next move, whatever that turns out to be.

  20. Sanctuary 20

    I have no problem with setting up a branch to achieve a specific purpose, whatever that may be, as long is it all within the rules. I have no problem with folding up the project when it didn’t achieve what you were after. Good on you for trying to achieve change, better luck next time.

    Having a hissy fit and posting about it is however a bit childish, makes it easy for people to dismiss you and and burns bridges.

    • Colonial Viper 20.1

      hi Sanctuary, one reason we did this is because Clare Curran and others, including TRP have been spreading negative BS about us, and there was no way we were going to let them frame our decision as they pleased.

      • Reality 20.1.1

        I guess it could also be said CV you are spreading negativity in your own particular fashion. Compromise and the art of what is possible are fine arts which I guess eludes some people. Is Jeremy Corbyn’s idea of utopia ever likely to happen – it would seem not.

        • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1

          And who are you to define what is possible and what is not? Or shall we leave it to the transnational corporations to define for us citizens what is possible and what is not?

      • Michael 20.1.2

        That’s Curran for you – Labour’s communications expert.

      • Anne 20.1.3

        Yes CV, I’m aware of the problems Clare Curran has caused you and your friends. Very difficult circumstances. If it’s any consolation people like Ms Curran always come a cropper in the end.

  21. Karen 21

    I wish you luck CV in whatever you decide to do politically now. It was been obvious that you have become increasingly frustrated by the Labour Party in recent months and so I am not surprised that you have made this decision, but I am sorry to see you leave.

    I know it is a cliché but it is also true that the Labour Party is, by necessity, a broad church. To get 35% of the vote, which is the minimum required to get into government, they have to appeal to a wide electorate. Could they do this by becoming a bit more left wing? Yes, I think so but that requires left wing Labour Party members working hard at pushing their ideas at conference as well as in their electorates. Could they do it by being a lot more left wing? Not in a million years. The MSM is controlled by the right and as most NZers take little interest in politics they are easily manipulated.

    I do understand how frustrating that is – it is why I stopped being a Labour Party member after the neoliberals took over in the mid 1980s. They were a well resourced bunch and they managed to fool a lot of Labour people with their theories – some temporarily, some permanently (most of those people joined ACT).

    There are still a few neoliberals in the Labour Party caucus, but their influence is fading. There are also some much further to the left, and then there are those with big egos who are there for all the wrong reasons. Caucus unity is difficult as a result but I think Little is managing it very well. Without an appearance of caucus unity there will not be a change in government.

    There were several reasons National won last time, but a big one that National exploited in their election advertising was that the opposition were made up of too many parties rowing in different directions, and Labour was itself divided.

    Labour is having regular meetings with the Green Party and I have heard that they going very well. IMO the best scenario for the next government would be a Labour/Green coalition, but for that to happen both Labour and the Greens need to increase their share of the vote. A new left wing party would make that harder to achieve because they would need to justify their existence by attacking Labour and the Greens.

    What would be good if there was more support for the left wing think tank that Sue Bradford is advocating. This could provide research that could encourage the adoption of more left wing policies because there would be evidence that was not tied to any particular party, so is more likely to appear in the MSM.

    • Anne 21.1

      What would be good if there was more support for the left wing think tank that Sue Bradford is advocating. This could provide research that could encourage the adoption of more left wing policies because there would be evidence that was not tied to any particular party, so is more likely to appear in the MSM.

      Sue Bradford attended a Labour function on the North Shore a few months ago and we were very impressed with the way she and her supporters are going about setting up this Think Tank. They will be encouraging a wide spectrum of people – ranging from the centre-left to the so-called far-left – to become involved. She made it clear she is on the far-left (most of us knew 🙂 ) but she is also realistic enough to appreciate that any movement on the left can only be gradual and they need to take the bulk of the populace with them. Last I heard they had over 500 people already signed up to the venture so it is looking like it will happen in the not too distant future.

    • Colonial Viper 21.2

      thanks Karen. What happens with people like Shearer, Nash and Parker in the upcoming reshuffle will signal whether or not the partys right wing is in ascendance.

      • Bill Drees 21.2.1

        CV, the Trevett article is the real oil in terms of what will be in the reshuffle. Robertson and Ardern, two listers, now have Andrew’s ear.
        Cunliffe, Sepuloni and anyone else who didn’t support Robertson in the leadership is about to be knifed.
        Shearer will take another step towards her Ambassador role.
        Ardern will will continue in her unelected ascent to … nothing.
        Nash will bleed to death after trying to make love to a mirror.
        Parker will do nothing. You could throw Parker into a still pond and there would still be no ripple.

    • savenz 21.3

      “I know it is a cliché but it is also true that the Labour Party is, by necessity, a broad church. To get 35% of the vote, which is the minimum required to get into government, they have to appeal to a wide electorate. Could they do this by becoming a bit more left wing?”

      Hello, the problem with Labour is not that it is “too left wing” it should be completely obvious by the policies named in article they are “too right wing”.

      If Labour faithful can’t work out that TPP and spying without a warrant is deeply unpopular (and NOT left wing it is RIGHT wing policy) then no wonder Labour is imploding!

      Labour lost the last election because their policy was atrocious. As well as having the deeply unpopular policies of the Natz they also advocated putting up taxes for the middle classes and failed to be concerned about the corruption exposed in dirty politics because it was ‘a distraction’.

      Lose lose for everyone!

      It was not just the Labour party divide (although that did not help) it was the Labour policies and their actions which have continued to disappoint post election with spying and TPP confusion.

      Everytime there appears to be a glimmer of hope they are changing Labour destroys it with Nash out bursts, TPP turnarounds and so forth.

    • Colonial Viper 21.4

      “I know it is a cliché but it is also true that the Labour Party is, by necessity, a broad church”

      one more point: the Labour Party fancies itself as a “broad church” but it is not. Demographically there should be 3-4 Asian MPs in caucus. There are none. Last election roughly only one in five registered voters party voted Labour. Approx five in six men did not vote Labour.

      These stats indicate that Labour isn’t a “broad church” but instead one with a declining congregation. Some may consider Labour the party of the 99% but the vast majority of that 99% appear to disagree with the notion that Labour represents them or their interests.

      Even the much vaunted post election review gives no insight as to why this is the case or how it will be turned around.

      • Karen 21.4.1

        Labour cannot be the party of the 99% and this isn’t what I meant by “broad church.” As I said in my comment above they do need to get 35% and, as you rightly said, they did not in the last election. There is no single reason for this, but the widely reported divisions within the party were one element.

        As for the number of Asians (I am assuming you mean SE Asians) that reflects the level of political involvement in the party. If you look at the lists of candidates for all the parties you will find a similar percentage of SE Asian candidates. This may change over time – I hope so. Labour does get support from the Indian and Pacific Island community, but they have had large communities in NZ for a much longer time.

        The Greens are far less representative when it comes ethnicity..

        • Colonial Viper 21.4.1.1

          As for the number of Asians (I am assuming you mean SE Asians) that reflects the level of political involvement in the party. If you look at the lists of candidates for all the parties you will find a similar percentage of SE Asian candidates.

          I mean East Asians, SE Asians or even central Asians (Indian subcontinent: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.). Labour has zero MPs from that massive region of the world.

          Whereas National has several.

          Labour cannot be the party of the 99% and this isn’t what I meant by “broad church.”

          Then what is? How is it that a party which prides itself as a “broad church” gets the support of only one in five registered voters? If the party is really a “broad church” of perspectives why do all the reports from Conference say that there was no significant dissent or disagreement on any issue, up to and including the reasons for the loss in 2014 and the report investigating the reasons for that loss?

          • Karen 21.4.1.1.1

            As you know National won more seats than National Had Labour received even 29% Raymond Huo and Priyanca Radhakrshnan would be both be MPS now.
            Should there be more? Yes, of course, but there needs to be involvement in the party first.

            I get that you are angry CV and do have sympathy, but I won’t be responding on this post again, as it is impossible to get reasoned debate when what you are saying gets misrepresented.

            You’re a smart guy CV. I hope you find some way of making NZ a better place whatever way you decide is best.

        • Chris 21.4.1.2

          A broad church in politics means standing for nothing. That’s why Labour lost the last election and that’s why they’re useless now.

          • Chris 21.4.1.2.1

            And the second largest party standing for nothing is akin to collusion with the largest party. That’s what Labour’s doing now and what it’s done since 2008.

  22. The lost sheep 22

    Hi CV,
    What specifically is the future plan of action for the Ex-ABP’s to “continue organising and growing – outside of a moribund and Wellington-centric Labour.?

    • Colonial Viper 22.1

      yeah thats currently in development. Suffice to say, party politics is a broken system.

      • Lanthanide 22.1.1

        Smash the state. Got it.

        • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.1

          Lanth you really are not this stupid.

          Sovereign states and democracies have existed throughout history whose governance did not revolve around political parties.

          • Lanthanide 22.1.1.1.1

            You couldn’t even get Labour to change their views on things.

            How successful do you really think you’re going to be at throwing out the established political framework of this country that has been going on for at least a century?

            • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.1.1.1

              Nothing is going to be “thrown out” but change is seriously needed.

              This is the country which first gave women the vote and the anglo country which decided to go for proportional representation.

              Naysayers of the day reckoned it couldn’t be done and if it was done, that things would fall apart in short order.

              • Lanthanide

                So where’s the incentive for any current political party to disband themselves?

                • Colonial Viper

                  You are right in that there are none; the people using political parties as their personal career vehicles will ride that gravy train as long as is possible.

          • left for deadshark 22.1.1.1.2

            Lanth you really are not this stupid.

            Yes CV, I had stronger words for this fellow, but the Standard dropped off as we all know, up your game Lanthanide.

        • vaughan little 22.1.1.2

          嘻嘻

  23. CV, I do have a couple of quick questions, but first, good on ya. It’s a win/win, IMHO. I’m looking forward to you commenting from an independent position (though as my second question shows, I’m unsure how independent you intend to be).

    How many attended the meeting?

    Are you and those who attended the meeting intending to resign your party memberships? If not, why not?

    • Colonial Viper 23.1

      There were twenty something people at the meeting. Each person will make their own minds up as to what they want to do with their memberships. We had life members present whom i daresay will stay on as members of the party. You know, if that’s OK with you, that is.

      • te reo putake 23.1.1

        Cheers, CV. Are you intending to resign your party membership? If not, why not?

        • Atiawa 23.1.1.1

          Surely he would want to resign his membership.

          • te reo putake 23.1.1.1.1

            Somehow I doubt it, Atiawa. Losing the ghost branch is a blow to the ego, but survivable. I suspect CV wants to go down the full martyr route and be expelled from the party. Passive/aggressive to the bitter end.

            But I may be wrong. Only one person can clear the matter up.

            • weka 23.1.1.1.1.1

              or maybe it’s none of your business. I certainly wouldn’t answer if I was being treated to the aggressive/aggressive bullshit you’ve been putting out.

            • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1.1.2

              TRP – it is up to the individuals in the ABP Branch to decide what they will do with their Labour Party memberships. There were some Life Members of the Party at the meeting on Sunday and I daresay that they will probably keep their Life Memberships.

              That is, if its OK with you, of course.

              • Cheers, CV. Are you intending to resign your party membership? If not, why not?

                • Colonial Viper

                  Who are you, my supervisor? Seriously, fuck off.

                  • Poor cowardly viper. Passive aggressive, ego driven loser, now left without an official position and not even possessed of the balls to resign from the party he hates because of his worries about relevance deficiency.

                    So, in summary:

                    The phony APB branch has failed. The local campaign to drive Claire Curran out has failed. The wider campaign to undermine the Labour Party has failed.

                    What’s not to love?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      What do you mean “passive aggressive” – I am being quite open in my antipathy towards you.

                      In fact, the only “passive aggressive” complex present here is yours, which is quite clear for everyone to see over and over and over an over again.

                    • Look the term up. Your behaviour perfectly fits the description. Constantly negative and pointlessly whingeing, but lacking the guts to leave.

                      You make Phil Quin look principled.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Geezus mate. Passive aggressive all the way.

                    • Well done! The first step on the road to recovery is acknowledging the problem, CV and now you’ve done that. Doctor, heal thyself.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      And you are still doing it. Are you six years old? Don’t you realise people can simply read through the thread and tell what you are doing?

                    • weka

                      Poor cowardly viper. Passive aggressive, ego driven loser, now left without an official position and not even possessed of the balls to resign from the party he hates because of his worries about relevance deficiency.

                      I thought it was against ts policy to attack authors.

                      Silver lining, at least this shows us much about you as a person TRP. Nasty is still the adjective that comes to mind regarding your behaviour. Also hypocritical.

            • left for deadshark 23.1.1.1.1.3

              trp…I get that you hold strong views, and support you expressing them, but cut the psycho babble and general abuse of the people here.

              Poor cowardly viper. Passive aggressive, ego driven loser, now left without an official position and not even possessed of the balls to resign from the party he hates because of his worries about relevance deficiency.

      • lurgee 23.1.2

        There were twenty something people at the meeting.

        How many of them were actual members and how many voted?

  24. Cylon Raider 24

    Well from my (albeit very limited) point of view, the Anderson’s Bay Peninsula Branch of the Labour Party has been one of the most difficult, destructive, and contrary branches of the Labour Party over the last 18 months.

    IMO, no other Labour Party branch in Dunedin North or South has come anywhere close to Anderson’s Bay Peninsula’s desire for unrest, upheaval, and petty vendettas. While the branch may have met on a very regular basis, they in fact achieved very little in terms of change. The Labour Party has one of the most progressive mechanisms of member input in regards to formulating and voting on policy. While the rest of the Party were in Palmerston North voting on policy that individual members and branches had proposed, ABP was no where to be seen.

    I think a lot of the problem is the leadership of said branch. Due to past experiences, certain members of the ABP exec have bones to pick with particular members of the party, and instead of constructively trying to sit down and talk about things to affect positive change (which the majority of the party wants, not just the ‘enlightened’ ABP), these particular exec members have warped messages from the party to encourage their members into futile rebellion. All of this to further the political standing of a handful of people. I’d say that’s a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

    While other branches, when in disagreement with party leaders/higher-ups voice their concerns to the party leaders, ABP has consistently done nothing of the sort, instead whining and fretting and once again affecting no change whatsoever.

    During their tenure as a functional branch, ABP has been almost completely inward-looking; while other branches have been helping the party raise awareness, raise funds, and act on current serious issues, ABP has been sitting on its thumbs trying to figure out how best to dethrone Clare Curran, and how to derail the party.

    As for TPPA, the Labour Party has consistently said that they have fundamental baselines that must be met: Pharmac must not be interfered with; and we must be able to protect our housing market from foreign ownership in the interests of New Zealanders. Furthermore, MULTIPLE Labour MPs, including Clare Curran herself have been openly vocal about their opposition to the TPPA. The fact the ABP cannot see nor recognise this further supports my point that they are (were) an inward-looking group that had a rather selective view (or were given information by their exec selectively) of the party.

    One does not bring about change by whining and destroying the very mechanisms that allow everyday Labour Party Members to have a significant say in the future policy of the party. The way to bring about positive and considerable change is to PARTICIPATE in the Labour Party’s democratic policy process, and to COLLABORATE and COOPERATE with other branches (instead of alienating them) to turn the tide.

    Long story short: most members of ABP are good-hearted, good-natured Labour Members who genuinely want positive change. Unfortunately there are a few in the branch that somehow managed to become shepherds of their flock and present misinformation to further their personal gains and to receive as much media attention as possible all due to personal vendettas against 0.1% of the members of the party.

    • savenz 24.1

      @ Cylon Raider – are you really Stuart Nash, because your language sound similar (albeit a bit toned down from Nash).

      “While other branches, when in disagreement with party leaders/higher-ups voice their concerns to the party leaders, ABP has consistently done nothing of the sort, instead whining and fretting and once again affecting no change whatsoever.such as the use of word ‘whining’ and ‘futile rebellion’ to describe supporters”

      Sorry to be one of the winning voters but it is a bit nitpicky about TPP when you can only name one Labour MP against it and have a Labour TPP policy full of holes.

      Get real. Smart people and even ordinary people can smell the inconsistency in Labour policy and their language to describe their supporters which sounds like some sort of class system “higher ups” and “futile rebellion” WTF?

      We live in 2015 not 1855!

    • Michael 24.2

      It’s not as though the other branches of the Labour party are fizzing with energy and ideas is it? The average age of most members is over 70 and they treat their membership as social. The caucus does not take branch members seriously. The Party suffers from a democratic deficit that the ABP matter highlighted – I think that was probably the intention.

    • Colonial Viper 24.3

      Cylon Raider, mate if you think you have the leadership potential, then show us as the chair of the ABP branch is now an open position and if you want it it’ll be yours.

      Get in there and show us how its done, that is if you’re not just another cloned careerist Labour activist busy greasing up to the local MPs for a Wellington job.

    • weka 24.4

      “The Labour Party has one of the most progressive mechanisms of member input in regards to formulating and voting on policy”

      I find this hard to believe. Perhaps you (or anyone who knows) could describe the process, because the things I’ve heard about it on the standard comments over the years suggests it’s cumbersome and slow and not encouraging of participation. I’m happy to be corrected on that.

      • AmaKiwi 24.4.1

        “The Labour Party has one of the most progressive mechanisms of member input in regards to formulating and voting on policy”

        Yeah, right. Progressive for the 19th century!

    • ABP member 24.5

      @ Cylon Raider – attitudes like yours reinforces that the ABP Branch members made the right decision. In saying that, we all know that we can leave with our heads held high, we acted with integrity, we stand by our principles. Principles that are sadly lacking in some quarters of the Labour Party.

      You should be embarrassed by your ungracious remarks, they stink of inside party politics.

  25. Nessalt 25

    CV, is this just the culmination of a 5 year trolling plan on the LP? just as unity is presented after national conference, you announce this on the premier nu-media site for the left?

    I mean, your right wing credentials are impeccable. upper middle class, inherited wealth, professional in a city that is traditionally blue among the non-educational establishment professionals. Now this?

    • Colonial Viper 25.1

      yeah mate youre the clever dicky who figured it all out

      By the way, Tony Benn matches your description of inherited wealth and position.

  26. savenz 26

    The real problem is Labour is to the far right of Labour! They are further right than NZ First on many issues!

    In the issues mentioned in the resignation they are literally ACT policy on those issues. We are not talking a bit right of centre, we are talking major shifts which is actually helping the Nats win, because Labour are so close behind them in agreement, it is helping the Nats to get away with it.

    This has just happened in the last 15 years. Seems a shame to destroy the Labour brand like that, but I guess what else can normal Labour do, if they can’t get the Labour MP’s to see sense and change their right wing policies and support?

    • AmaKiwi 26.1

      The Labour caucus must accept full responsibility for “destroying the Labour brand.”

      The Labour caucus alone pushed the LEAST experienced MP in parliament (Shearer) into the leadership when it was obvious the members did NOT want him.

      The Labour caucus alone engaged in the character assassination of David Cunliffe for 2 years and then blamed him for losing the 2014 election.

      When the Labour caucus makes itself the enemy of the membership, the caucus alone must accept responsibility for destroying the party.

  27. tinfoilhat 27

    All the best on your new direction CV.

    It’s been fairly obvious from those of us looking on from the outside that your vision is quite different from that of the Labour party. Sorry to hear that you don’t consider the Green party a good fit for you.

  28. Puckish Rogue 28

    One of the reasons I keep coming back to this site is reading posts like this, I’m finding it quite interesting

    • Tracey 28.1

      The Left dont have the unifying factor of believing thay anything is fine if it makes someone money

  29. Neil 29

    The problem I see is Labour are damned if they do & damned if they don’t & will continue to get crucified by the biased MSM for whatever they do.

    • Colonial Viper 29.1

      Poor analysis. This isn’t about the MSM. This is about a Thorndon Bubble Labour Party which thinks that the MSM is its constituency, and which has become the party of the top 10% in NZ.

  30. DS 30

    Speaking as a member of the largest Labour Party branch in Dunedin… all I hear is the laughter of the Nats.

  31. greywarshark 31

    I’m just catchng up with this CV. Your views have been jaded for a while. Sorry that you can’t see change happening. I have been reading Chris Trotter and he is getting very restless about Labour’s lack of vigour.

    I think your branch’s judgment indicates they have assessed the effect of their efforts and feel they will yield better results elsewhere. I didn’t realise that Te Reo Putake was involved in Dunedin which explains somewhat his emotional input to his criticisms.

  32. Bill 32

    Something that a few on this thread might want to consider or reflect upon.

    All the officers resigned and no other members wanted to fill the vacancies.

    Whether people are dumping their membership or not is beside the point. As stated, former branch members (whether continuing as members of the Labour Party or not) will continue to be politically active.

    Now why is it that a branch votes to recess itself when those very same people are still committing themselves to be politically active on CC and TPPA etc? It can’t onlybe because the Labour Party wasn’t attuned to them (or visa versa) – since that same relative position exists in terms of those people and wider society.

    So perhaps the ‘broad church’ accommodates some ‘priests’ and ‘lesser clergy’ who abuse their relative position of power by seeking to demonise, ostracise and/or banish those who might not always acquiesce or herd with the flock that they (the priests and lesser clergy) would seek to exercise power and direction over – and whose personal sense of power is absolutely tied to securing an on-going state of acquiescence and conformity? Half remembering something from Shakespeare about crowns and heads…

    Anyway, it’s just a question to encourage general reflection on the nature of large organisations that devolve power to a relative few. I think you all know what my hunch would be given my disdain for any (so-called) ‘democratic’ centralist structures 😉

    • McFlock 32.1

      bit of a sample bias in ABP branch membership, I suspect.

      • Bill 32.1.1

        Not understanding the context of your comment.

        Where you have ‘democratic’ centralism, you have nodes of power and all the attendant gate-keepers, game players, fiefdom builders, paranoiacs etc – in other words you have power struggles. And where you have power struggles, you inevitably have a democracy (how to say this nicely?) under stress.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 32.1.1.1

          In that case, democracy has always been under stress.

          • Bill 32.1.1.1.1

            Are you saying that all governance structures that have ever claimed the mantle of democracy have been ‘democratic’ centralist in nature?

            You might be right in terms of modern nation states and their ‘social democracy’, but as for historical arrangements…meh, I dunno.

            There have been suggestions that Celtic society was more syndicalist in nature, although if that claim is accurate, then I can’t figure how the religious bit fitted in. (I tend to think that the druids probably held sway, but have no way of actually knowing how power was arranged)

            There are countless examples of smaller organisational structures being genuinely democratic for sure, but in terms of large modern examples, maybe Rojava is the place to look.

            Whatever the historical reality, the fact is that we can envisage democratic structures of governance and recognise them with ease. We can also envisage how to safe guard them. So it seems reasonable to assume that they have existed in some point in time and place and that they can be (re) developed.

            I could be dreaming, but in a world that’s about to demand extra-ordinary levels of co-operation from us (or fascism) it might be better if I wasn’t the only one 😉

            • One Anonymous Bloke 32.1.1.1.1.1

              I mean that power struggles are ubiquitous: democracy survives despite them, or possibly as a response against them.

        • McFlock 32.1.1.2

          You asked us to consider why an entire branch will “recess itself” and leave positions vacant.

          That branch was recently resurrected and built up by the vocally discontented. Whatever objective it has does not seem to have the desired effect, so now they continue to be vocally discontented.

          That might be a problem with the party. It might also indicate that the branch members were never going to work with the rest of the party.

          If a branch of previously constructive and loyal members had had a full meeting, written a letter of protest and wound up, maybe that would be an issue. But the permanently whinging continuing to whinge is not exactly a news story.

          • Bill 32.1.1.2.1

            No McFlock. I asked that the impact or effect of organisational structures be considered or reflected upon. And I outlined why I thought that reflection was warranted…ie, “why is it that a branch votes to recess itself when those very same people are still committing themselves to be politically active on CC and TPPA etc? It (the recess) can’t only be because the Labour Party wasn’t attuned to them (or visa versa) – since that same relative position exists in terms of those people and wider society.”

            • McFlock 32.1.1.2.1.1

              If by “the same relative position” you mean that someone from wider society might have difficulty seeing much of a difference between ABP members and more typical Labour party members, that’s irrelevant.

              The gulf between the ABP and the party that CV says keeps selecting neoliberals into caucus could well be inflated to sufficient breadth to rationalise the two propositions that CV is always correct and that the bulk of the party still isn’t agreeing with his every word.

              • Bill

                Aw c’mon McFlock, it’s pretty clear I was talking about the relative position or stances regarding the TPPA, CC etc.

                On the one hand, an organisation seems to hold a position contrary to at least some of its members, and on the other a far greater number of people in society will hold a view contrary to that held by those same members/citizens.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  The organisation’s members determine its positioning. I doubt any of them agree with 100% of party policy, though.

                  • Bill

                    And members can work to have a position or policy changed just as citizens can work to change political opinions or whatever. The second, in terms of numbers, is much more difficult. Yet ex ABP members are continuing with that task but not the former. So the internal difference in positioning cannot, no logically at least, be the sole or whole reason for the action taken.

                • McFlock

                  Yes.

                  So either the smaller group successfully gains members from other groups in relative proximity (in which case organisational elements in the other groups view them as a threat), or the smaller group fails to gain support from members of larger groups in close proximity (in which case the smaller groups historically denounce the intransigent members of the larger groups as heretics or apostates).

                  In an ideal world they’d all say “gosh, we’re common allies, let us work together nobly and free from machination towards those goals which we share”. But both groups know the knives will be out when the common goals diverge, so each tries to pre-empt the other, which feeds into the cycle of dispute and mistrust.

                  Tories care mostly about money. They don’t have as many disputes over random policy principles. That’s why they don’t have as many of these issues, imo.

                  • The lost sheep

                    But Leftists are more intelligent apparently.
                    So why can they not recognize this tendency for infighting as counterproductive to their common goals, and formulate a ‘really brainy’ strategy for overcoming it?

                    • McFlock

                      Because of principles. You wouldn’t understand.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      While there are studies (eg: Hodson & Busseri, Piff et al) that would seem to indicate that your assertion is true, to my knowledge, none of the results have been replicated.

                      I suppose the equivalent for the Right is trying to decide whether to cover up for Mike Sabin or not.

                    • The lost sheep

                      Because of principles. You wouldn’t understand.

                      So. Given the choice between conceding some ‘principles’ to other members of the Left in order to actually implement some kind of leftist programme, or, not conceding any ‘principles’ among those with a largely common interest and thereby aiding the Tories to retain power and implement their policies….
                      You’ll choose continuing to in-fight?
                      Well, if that’s intelligence it’s well over my stupid head, exactly as you predicted it would be.

                      This thread is a textbook illustration on why I gave up on involvement in Leftist politics after 40 years.

                    • McFlock

                      Some principles shouldn’t be compromised.

                      The problem is that nobody with principles agrees on exactly which principles can be ignored in the vague hope of achieving the greater good. Whereas tories talk about integrity but start the torturing and thuggery at the slightest excuse.

                  • Tracey

                    The Left dont have the unifying factor of believing thay anything is fine if it makes someone money…. and so I agree with your last para mcflock

                    • The lost sheep

                      Money is not the only unifying factor Tracey?
                      Surely the Left could find plenty of them to gather around?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      The Establishment Left has largely given up on a vision for a truly alternative world. The constraints of orthodox neoliberal economics and monetary theory have been embraced by the Establishment Left meaning that nothing they suggest is that different to what National suggests.

                      In fact, Labour have shown themselves to be edging to the right of National on things like the Super age and on CGT.

                    • The lost sheep

                      So if the Labour Party had adopted the platform ABP was advocating CV, what do you think they would be polling now?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Policy issues are only about 25% of the reason that Labour is doing so badly and is (IMO) on track to lose 2017.

                      After losses in 2008, 2011 and 2014, the post-election review needed to recommend sweeping changes throughout the organisation and clear accountability shouldered by those individuals at the heart of the losing campaigns who should by now be goneburger.

                      But there has been nothing like that.

                    • The lost sheep

                      Maybe, but I what I was interested in was how much better you believe Labour would have been doing if they had adopted the ABP platform?

                      Just roughly….
                      Much more popular support?
                      The same?
                      Less?

                    • The lost sheep

                      What you seem to be implying Tracey, is that ‘the love of money’ is a ‘unifying factor’ of overwhelming power that explains why the Right have a cohesive advantage over the Left.
                      Surely you don’t mean that? What hope is there if that is true?

                      By any standard, compassion for the weak and vulnerable, or a desire for equality, or a commitment to protecting our Planet from Climate Change, among many other noble causes…..
                      are far more powerful unifying factors than the simple greedy self interested love of money?

                      And it should be a very basic matter for the Left Wing to understand this, and use the knowledge to coordinate a plan to outwit the Right?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      current day Labour couldn’t sell ABP policy in an authentic and believable way, so Labour’s polling would drop, I think.

    • vaughan little 32.2

      I’ve known and campaigned with two Labour MPs – Brendon Burns and Grant Robertson. Both approachable guys, the opposite of imperious, really. genuine, humble, grateful, inspiring. i’ve campaigned with lots of labourites and while i hated some people’s politics (dude, i’d put money on you not being able to outhate me on that front), i found the very large majority of them genuinely likeable and respectable inasmuch as they were people of conviction.

      • Bill 32.2.1

        You can out-hate me. My comment wasn’t about individuals, it was about the environment individuals find themselves in and the types of people/character/behaviour that the environment throws up and encourages.

      • savenz 32.2.2

        @Vaughan I have no doubt you are right about them being nice people – it is their policies and effectiveness, that is the question.

        In fact it is not a question it is a problem because Labour are losing it’s voters, supporters and members and if the Labour MP’s are as genuine, humble, grateful, inspiring as you think, the question is,

        Why are they losing voters?

        They are not losing swing voters, (they have already gone) they are losing dedicated, long term voters for Labour and if they can’t see that is a problem then that IS the PROBLEM!

        The fact so many Labour MP’s and members are vitriolic and have extremely inappropriate and violently abusive posts about fellow members (i.e. Stuart Nash) speaks about a Labour culture which has been allowed to grow in the opposite direction of civility and in fact trying to shut down ideas and views and democracy and the fact that Labour can’t be bothered trying to be civil to CV’s views which are actually pretty mainstream all the polls are showing most people don’t want spying they don’t want TPP. And according to Labour they agree on that but they say it such a way that is seems they don’t agree with their own official position.

        Clearly it is a mess.

      • Colonial Viper 32.2.3

        Brendon Burns and Grant Robertson. Both approachable guys, the opposite of imperious, really.

        Robertson is a highly motivated, highly focused, and occasionally brutal, backroom politics player and political manager. Yes, he is utterly approachable and congenial if you are helping him or working on his behalf. But if you are identified as being irrelevant to his political aspirations you will be ignored. And if you are identified as getting in the way of his political aspirations you will be targetted.

        Robertson will also never be seen close to any high risk issues or incidents; he will always let one of the other MPs or even the Leader, wear the blame until it becomes clear that the issue at hand as reversed to become a “win.” At around that time he will be all over it as if he carried the day himself.

        Robertson has a further skill – he can smell careerists from a mile away, and knows how to attract, motivate and lead them very effectively.

        Putting a positive spin on it, out of all the MPs in caucus, Robertson is the guy who can build the tightest knit caucus team – but at a cost.

      • Tracey 32.2.4

        Of course they are likeable. Most people are. This isnt about wearing evil intent on your faces.

        • vaughan little 32.2.4.1

          dunno if you’ll see this. seems that the standard lives in the moment – all the action happening on the latest posts.

          digging into my memory, burns set up an ecological branch in his electorate. robertson consistently pushed for leftist policies and ideas. that was the intent they wore on their faces, so to speak.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 32.3

      “A marriage of principle and pragmatism” inevitably leads to conflicts of this sort.

  33. weka 33

    Just catching up on the last round of comments and the impression I’ve been left with is Labour has a real problem with people being nasty. If you can’t call someone out on their behaviour without trying to assassinate their character then there is something wrong. Of course, it’s probably not surprising given the whole ABC thing. I hope Little and co are able to change this part of the culture of Labour because I don’t want people like this governing the country.

    • Colonial Viper 33.1

      There are some internal aspects to the Labour Party which are extremely nasty, and which are quite tolerated as part of the culture of the party.

      Just look at how they fucked David Cunliffe over and over again, for example. Or how Clare Curran attacked me a couple of years ago.

      So oddly, the accusation of the NATs in this regard is spot on – Labour has its share of nasty people.

    • lurgee 33.2

      Of course, it’s probably not surprising given the whole ABC thing.

      Come off it, Weka. You know it started well before that. And it was not the hapless left being demonised by the right. What was it Rhinocrates liked to call David Shearer? “Mumblefuck,” wasn’t it? Very nice and respectful, that.

      Take a look at this: /?s=mumblefuck&isopen=none&search_posts=true&search_comments=true&search_sortby=date

      • weka 33.2.1

        How many times does weka use the term Captain Mumblefuck? I count 3, including this one where I suggest it’s an abusive term.

        Good coverage for Shearer

        Note that in none of my comments did I use the term to refer to anyone.

        Besides that, what’s your point? That because some other people (not many) called an MP who was perceived as incompetent ‘Captain Mumblefuck’, then it’s ok for one author on ts to go round slagging off another in an active attempt at character assassination? Or it’s ok for one Labour supporter to go round publicly slagging off another Labour party member as part of a character assassination?

        “You know it started well before that”

        Right. So I’ll ammend my statement to be more obviously inclusive – “it’s probably not surprising given the whole ABC thing, and all the macho shithead things that have gone on in Labour before then”

        • lurgee 33.2.1.1

          What a strange response!

          Why are you taking my comment so personally? I didn’t say you were the one referring to Shearer as “Mumblefuck.” I specifically mentioned it was Rhinocrates that was the main offender.

          I merely pointed out that linking the abuse and character assassination to “The whole ABC thing” is not accurate.

  34. peterlepaysan 34

    I would love to see the policies that cvabp puts up to attract all those absentee voters.

    That would really show the nzlp what is what.

    Put up, or shut up cv.

    • Colonial Viper 34.1

      Seriously mate, what the fuck is your standing in life to demand these things of me? Are you paying me money to do this work for you? And what in this thread has suggested to you that I am especially targetting “absentee voters”?

      • AmaKiwi 34.1.1

        Colonial Viper. It’s 11:56 pm. In 4 hours and 179 comments you’ve generated one of the most heated debates I’ve seen on TS.

        I’d give world’s to know how many caucus members will take it seriously and do something to change the party.

        That’s the test.

        • Colonial Viper 34.1.1.1

          Indeed, although I’m pretty sure that our branch will (once again) have its mention at the regular Tuesday morning caucus meeting.

  35. Ad 35

    One of the most encouraging bits of activism out of Dunedin in a while is the Blueskin Bay group. Their growth from one wind turbine to now proposing a whole bunch shows a very small base of local capital being aggregated together for years, then expanding. But they have already charted well into independence from the great power companies.

    CV I know that takes a whole different level of intentional community, but I’ve always found them very inspiring. Naturally I’m not proposing wind turbines in Anderson’s Bay (!) I’m simply adding their scale of commitment to your mix of where to next.

    Whatever your next political form, make sure it’s a collective one. With hand-picked people that you trust. Doing a task that changes your own little part of the world.

    Project-based activist dramas are far and away the most spiritually rewarding, and taxing. Blueskin Bay is one of them.

    Do let me know when you are in Auckland or Wanaka next – it would be great to catch up and share some of the ones I am doing now.

  36. thechangeling 36

    While i agree totally with CV’s political opinions about rejecting every facet of neo-liberal ideology whether it be economic, social or political, the one thing that occurs to me is that maybe Andrew Little and the caucus is simply aligning itself with the middle ground of the voting spectrum.
    Maybe his intention is to do this by ‘appearing’ non threatening at this stage of the election cycle so as to creep by stealth toward the shackles of power. Once in power there will be another stage whereby ‘creeping’ leftward policies are gradually instigated as ‘redesigned’ new policy to appease our collective hatred of all things neo-liberal.
    Or maybe i’m just being naively optimistic again.

    • Ad 36.1

      Not unreasonable – that’s what happened under Clark.

      • savenz 36.1.1

        @the Changeling and AD

        It is the opposite – Labour are appearing too ‘right wing’ not in the middle! They lost the election because they combined right wing foreign neoliberal economic policy with higher taxes for the middle classes! That is not LEFT wing policy that is STUPID policy.

        The easy way to get the money needed is to start looking at corporate welfare and how much tax these companies are paying in this country. Corporations in some cases are paying nothing or very little tax on huge profits.

        But again that does not fit in with neoliberalism, where workers all sweat and toil for the benefit of benevolent business and the ‘greater good’ and then we get the ‘trickle down’ and ‘more jobs’.

        Post Neoliberalism we now have less jobs, lower wages, less taxes from companies and from the fewer jobs and greater inequality.

        Does not sound like a good plan for Labour especially now opening up offshoring of government and council jobs via TPP and unchecked economic profiteering in NZ but all sounds fine to politicians isn’t it?

    • AmaKiwi 36.2

      “one thing that occurs to me is that maybe Andrew Little and the caucus is simply aligning itself with the middle ground of the voting spectrum.”

      In other words, same-old top down leadership.

      As Baldrick on Black Adder used to say, “I have a cunning plan.”

      I don’t want the caucus’s next “cunning plan.” I want democracy.

    • Colonial Viper 36.3

      Once in power, Labour governments always go further right than their campaigning platform; they never go further left.

      the one thing that occurs to me is that maybe Andrew Little and the caucus is simply aligning itself with the middle ground of the voting spectrum.

      What Labour calls the “middle” of the voting spectrum is nothing more than the portion of the top 20% of society which has slightly more of a social conscience.

  37. Rolay 37

    ABP has always seemed like a vehicle to roll Clare Curran and install Tat Loo in Dunedin South. With Carol Jess’ recent election to NZ Council as Region 6 rep it’s clear your project failed as you’ll no longer have the numbers.

    And it’s also clear that your mate Andrew couldn’t give a shit about your appeals to join forces and roll her. Which is shitty payback for the votes you secured for him.

    While Clare might not be performing well; Tat, you seem way more crazy than her. Which is an achievement. This latest toy-throwing exercise is a perfect example. Unstable, unpredictable, narcissistic. I’m sure people would like to replace Clare. But at this point we’re more worried about your mad lot.

    You say you’re fighting the careerists, but your personality games belie your real agendas. Get off your high horse.

    Love, the Thorndon Bubble (it doesn’t exist, who can afford to live in Thorndon?? I don’t know any NZLP who live there? Do you mean Parliament? That’s more Lambton)

    • Colonial Viper 37.1

      Hi Rolay,

      The funny thing is that all the accusations you level at me are really nothing more than a sorry reflection of yourself and the kind of culturally and intellectually disconnected people you support in Thorndon Bubble Labour.

      With Carol Jess’ recent election to NZ Council as Region 6 rep it’s clear your project failed as you’ll no longer have the numbers.

      In my view this election was unconstitutionally conducted, to the extent that scrutineers were not used and the publicly announced election results did not even match the ballot papers used in the election.

      There are a whole lot of background issues that you are clearly unaware of.

  38. Lucy 38

    must admit when this debate started I was hopeful that this branch was going to surprise me, but 50 paid up members sounds a little on the small side. Mind you I am over 50 so I remember halls fill of Labour members. Then to disband with 20 something votes seems to be dishonest – less than half your membership turned out or voted – does not seem to me a vibrant aware organisation.
    Sorry I actually came from a political time when things could change. My first meeting was watching Norman Kirk. But I also knew how much back room work was required and 50 members is not going to make a difference – if your ideas are good you can launch a movement around you and that requires hundreds at a minimum. Maybe you and your executive need to stop and think whether Labour is the problem or what you were trying to do/the way you were trying to do it was the problem.

    • savenz 38.1

      In the business world there is a mantra and that is, it is easier to retain an existing customer than than to find a new one. In fact it costs something like 9 times more for a business to get a new customer than maintain an existing one.

      The same applies for voting.

      Labour simply does not value its existing voters. They want to compete with the Natz or Mana for those ‘new voters’. They are so busy and focused pandering to these new voters that they forgot about their existing ones.

      All through these left wing blogs where most people are more likely to vote Labour a significant portion are complaining about Labour policy and direction.

      Instead of looking to capture those voters and views to Labour, the party faithful instead seeks to abuse, devalue and claim they are better off without them and are not going to go in that direction.

      If Labour don’t want to see a Canada outcome and start coming third and being bankrupt to boot they might want to look at the above mantra.

      @ Lucy 50 votes should not be ridiculed. Labour needs all the votes, and it is not only those votes but their influence that is important. Labour can refuse to budge, abuse everyone each day and call them ‘left wing nut jobs’ like Nash and so forth but it is a mistake born by stupidity and arrogance and refusal to work in their own best interests. Helen Clark has left, Roger Douglas has left. It is time for Labour to write a new chapter post neoliberalism because currently Labour have become the “Fawlty Towers” of Politics.

    • Colonial Viper 38.2

      Hi Lucy,

      There are other branches in Dunedin North and Dunedin South with larger membership rolls than ABP Branch, however none of them have as many active members as our branch.

      I would also argue that in terms of political astuteness and political innovation, our members can be considered second to none.

      Then to disband with 20 something votes seems to be dishonest – less than half your membership turned out or voted – does not seem to me a vibrant aware organisation.

      There is a simple rule in politics which I am sure you are aware of.

      Those who turn up on the day, make the decisions.

      Those who can’t be bothered to turn up on the day, live with the decisions.

      Further, we have left the door wide open to any member of the Labour Party to take up the Officer positions of the ABP Branch and bring the branch out of recess. The process is very simple. Are you volunteering? Because no one on the day responded when we called for interest.

    • Ad 38.3

      Only in the Labour Party could a person claim that 50 people don’t make a difference. Lucy, your kind of pessimism is a whole larger scale of ‘the problem’ altogether.

      • Lucy 38.3.1

        Never said that 50 people don’t make a difference – it’s just harder as everyone has to work more on top of a day job. I am not pessimistic just wondering why if the branch was so dynamic it was small – that size leads to huge levels of burn out and disillusion which is what happened here. CV’s point about “Those who turn up on the day, make the decisions” is valid but the SGM seems to me a very middle class, 20th century way to do business and that may be part of the issue. The SGM was 2pm Sunday -great for office workers , retired people, people on a benefit but not for shop workers who have to work when rostered on, who used to be an integral part of the Labour Party. Democracy is not about 50% vote of the 50% who turned up, it is about making the decision making process fit so that you get a vote that represents the will of the people.

        • weka 38.3.1.1

          50 members seems like a lot to me. I’d love to belong to an activist group where nearly half the peopel turn up to an SGM.

          • Tracey 38.3.1.1.1

            We cant even get half our staff to a compulsory staff meeting…. and they are paid to be there

        • Colonial Viper 38.3.1.2

          . I am not pessimistic just wondering why if the branch was so dynamic it was small – that size leads to huge levels of burn out and disillusion which is what happened here.

          Oh fuck off. Your bringing up of these irrelevancies is bordering on stupidity.

          Read the post. It details very clearly why the Officers and Delegates of the branch quit the Labour Party.

          To make it easier for you here it is:

          Several of the current officers and LEC delegates of the ABP Branch have become deeply dissatisfied with the performance and direction of the Labour Party both locally and in Wellington and no longer wish to remain in their roles or continue supporting the party.

          Labour’s inability to be consistent in opposing the neoliberal/corporation-drafted Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), the softening of the stance against the 90-day right to fire, the ethnically divisive and ineffective tactics against Chinese property buyers in Auckland, the voting for National’s inequitable and discriminatory social welfare reform legislation, and the support of National’s spying and anti-terrorism bill, all point to a Labour Party which is now lost at sea but does not appear to recognise that fact.

          The palpable sense conveyed has been that apart from minor
          tinkering, there are no likely or viable prospects for positive, real progressive change coming from the Labour Party in the foreseeable future.

          That’s some real issues of substance there which you have danced around and ignored in favour of BS theories.

          Further, your attempt to characterise the most active and capable branch in Region 6 as “small” is nothing but deliberate spin.

          Keep going on this track and I will delete your comments without hesitation.

          The SGM was 2pm Sunday -great for office workers , retired people, people on a benefit but not for shop workers who have to work when rostered on, who used to be an integral part of the Labour Party. Democracy is not about 50% vote of the 50% who turned up, it is about making the decision making process fit so that you get a vote that represents the will of the people.

          More idle talk.

          Tell you what. The chair position of the branch is now open for the taking. It’s all yours if you want it. Why don’t you slide in there and run the next AGM to your satisfaction and show us how its all done?

          For this Special Formal Meeting we have met all the requirements as stipulated in the Labour Party Constitution. I’m betting that you wouldn’t know how.

          • weka 38.3.1.2.1

            What does region 6 cover?

            I’m kind of curious as to what time of day for a meeting would suit all workers.

  39. The ABP made the right decision. The Labour Party is an oxymoron unless you interpret ‘Labour’ to mean exploiting it on behalf of capital.

    Labour no longer offers any prospect of a left wing turning it towards socialism. The high point was the 2013 Conference that saw the membership gain some rights over the caucus. But this gain was almost instantly taken back by the LP machine that subverted Labour’s return to its working class constituency.

    Labour can only win Govt today as a National lite party. It can no longer promise reforms because global capitalism is stagnating, and its survival means forcing workers to pay for the crisis.

    The age of reforms are over – in fact they were over by 1914. The Second International which the LP still belongs to betrayed the German Revolution when the SPD formed the government in a bloc with the army and right wing militias, killing the communist leaders Luxemburg and Liebknecht and unleashing postwar fascism.

    All ‘reforms’ since then have been paid for by the increased productivity of labour (rising exploitation) and the loss of lives in major wars and depressions. The Labour Party didn’t pull NZ out of its depression by progressive legislation, but by sending workers off to war in the second great orgy of destruction. Its legacy was not the welfare state but the warfare state.

    The only point of working in the Labour Party is to expose this rotten treachery yet again. When this fails to rally opposition to stop further political (1984 and all that) and today the dirty work for US and Chinese imperialism, then those who stay in Labour to rescue it from the traitors are counter-productive.

    It is obvious that Labour’s positions on the TPP, spying, climate change, CGT, mining, social welfare, etc are consistent with serving the interests of US and Chinese imperialism.

    Time to recognise there is no parliamentary solution to capitalism’s crisis and climate catastrophe.

    We need Survival Socialism.

    • Bill 39.1

      Time to recognise there is no parliamentary solution to capitalism’s crisis and climate catastrophe.

      We need Survival Socialism.

      Only if we intend to survive 😉

      • savenz 39.1.1

        Might I suggest that Labour is ignoring the CLEAR gap between NACT policy and Survival Socialism.

        Is CV as a voter is in that gap, (he seems not left enough for Green) but violently against NACT policy? Who does he vote for next time, nobody or NZ First?

        He could be still voting Labour! Why alienate him? It makes zero sense to me?

        My guess is 1 million voters who did not vote, wanted less neoliberal policy from Labour and corporate welfare and cronyism, more rights for citizens, but not pay any more taxes and some sort of stability on interest rates.

        Is it really that impossible?

        Companies earning millions in profit are paying less tax than the average worker for petes sake. Why does not somebody target them? Donations drying up? It sounds like Labour has none anyway but even if they did –

        Are we really down to paid for politicians for policy like the US?

        • dave brown 39.1.1.1

          Its not impossible to rally 1 million voters turned off politics.
          But you need something like Mana taking root and winning mass support to a program of workers power.
          Because voting is no answer, parliament is a talk shop designed to stop workers organising their alternative to capitalism.
          The point would be not to merely get them to vote it would be to prove in the process that the threat of a genuinely left wing government would unleash not just Dirty Politics but outright fascism.
          The big majority of NZs that are workers have to be prepared to meet and defeat not only DP but the big F to create a Workers’ Government.

  40. BM 40

    Haven’t read the whole thread, but just in case no ones mentioned it.

    I recommend your new left party pick some candidates and start campaigning to win the Dunedin North and Dunedin South seats.

    • Colonial Viper 40.1

      That certainly is an option under consideration although not the top one, and I think you may be the first who has mentioned it thus far.

      • BM 40.1.1

        Dunedin would have to be the best place in the country to launch an alternative left wing movement.

        Traditionally socialist and chock full of activists.

        • savenz 40.1.1.1

          Hello, like everywhere else Labour are losing market share! Dangerous idea to play devils advocate and have more party splits to split the left vote.

          Also it looks like voters prefer the Green party to Metiria Turei as a candidate.
          The opposite of Labour where they like the candidate more than Labour policies judging from the party votes.

          Official Count Results — Dunedin South

          CURRAN, Clare LAB 18,182
          WALKER, Hamish NAT 14,324

          National Party 15,003
          Labour Party 12,518

          Official Count Results — Dunedin North

          CLARK, David LAB 16,315
          WOODHOUSE, Michael NAT 10,398
          TUREI, Metiria GP 5,978

          Labour Party 11,147
          Green Party 8,035
          National Party 11,302

          • Ad 40.1.1.1.1

            No one owes anyone market share. Certainly not Labour.

            Let me introduce you to MMP. From about a decade ago. It’s a thing we have here.

          • Lanthanide 40.1.1.1.2

            “Also it looks like voters prefer the Green party to Metiria Turei as a candidate.”

            No, it simply shows that the voters of Dunedin North understand MMP and that Matiria’s list placing of 1 or 2 will see her in Parliament anyway. They’re clearly happy with David Clark as their local representative.

            Interestingly (using this poor methodology), if David had gotten 11,147 constituent votes (equal to Labour party votes), and the excess votes had all gone to Metiria, she would have ended up with 11,146 votes: second-place to David by 1 single vote!

        • Michael 40.1.1.2

          As opposed to traditionally fascist and chock full of materialists?

      • Skinny 40.1.2

        Good work CV! I concur with the disappointment in general with Labour. Room for a true Left party 🙂

      • The Chairman 40.1.3

        @ CV

        I’d look at getting the Unions on side, Labour are currently offering them and their members little.

  41. savenz 41

    The voters can see what is happening under TPP – why can’t Labour just take a stronger stand. If Labour MP’s can walk out for detainees on Christmas Island can’t they make a strong stand on TPP? Voters are even posting on Clare Currans FB. (Note zero response from Clare Curran).

    Marnie Reid Clare Curran, I believe you are a good honest kiwi, and I see your passion, but Labour really needs to take a stand on Tppa ,
    If I, a mother from Otago can work out its a corporate takeover why can’t people in Labour see that, or is it now with your high paying jobs just a matter of shoring yourself up and then leaving the working class to flounder??… Our kids future, our wonderful country, this is serious!
    Like · Reply · 7 · November 9 at 12:51pm
    Sally Randell
    Sally Randell How can New Zealand Labour Party and Andrew Little spout on about creating more jobs when the TPPA and TISA will ruin any hope of that !! If Labour opposes the TPPA, you will gain far more voters for 2017 and you might even save your own jobs, coz TPP…See More
    Like · Reply · 2 · November 9 at 2:18pm
    Marnie Reid
    Marnie Reid And one more thing , why can’t the Labour Party really take notice of the Scandinavian Countries and mimic them, they seem to be doing so much better in so many ways( not perfect, but….) instead of heading down the plug hole with the USA, I don’t know much about history but I have heard about the Roman Empire and how that ended
    Like · Reply · 2 · November 9 at 3:27pm · Edited
    Tom Ang
    Tom Ang Godd on yer, Marnie. Speak up and kick a**!
    Like · Reply · 1 · November 9 at 6:45pm

    • Cylon Raider 41.1

      Clare Curran, as I mentioned above, has been very vocal of her opposition to the TPPA. Her lack of engagement on a social media level shouldn’t outweigh her attendance (and speaking) at Dunedin TPPA protests and rallies. It’s all very well putting the onus on Clare Curran to change the direction of the party, but it’s going to take more than one MP to turn the tide!

      • Colonial Viper 41.1.1

        Yes, Curran has been better on the TPP than David Clark. Yet she’ll vote for the TPP enabling legislation like everyone else in the Labour caucus.

        • Michael 41.1.1.1

          Curran knows Labour will agree to the TPPA no matter what she says in public. Those comments are meant to stop Labour voters floating off to the Greens or Winston First. What Curran does not say is how a Labour government would handle the challenges of globalisation – it’s probably the biggest issue we face as a country but no one within Labour’s hierarchy seems to have any idea what to do about it – except talk left before the election and act right after taking office.

      • savenz 41.1.2

        @Cylon Raider

        That says it all about Labour’s communication problems.

        Clare is Associate Spokesperson Communications and IT, Regional Development and Economic Development (Procurement)
        Chair of the ICT Committee of the Parliamentary Service

        but does not engage with social media.

        Notice the above questions and any reference to TPP has been deleted from her FB.

        Thanks for clearing that one up Clare!

        You are not publicly for TPP apart from at rallies when it suits you, and will not respond and then delete anything on TPP on Facebook.

        cheers.

  42. The Chairman 42

    Hi, CV.

    It’s disappointing to hear your branch has gone into recess. You gave the left within Labour hope of creating change from within.

    I’m surprised the fallout has yet to be picked up by the MSM.

    I respect the fact that your branch is standing by their principles, principles that Labour have seem to have largely abandoned.

    I’m disgusted by some of the comments made here by so-called Labour supporters. Decrying you are undermining their neo-liberal policies. They should be ashamed.

    Moreover, they seem totally oblivious to the damage their comments are having on genuine supporters of the left. Being left and reading their comments puts one off wanting to associate with them, let alone vote for a Party that shares in their neo-liberal beliefs.

    If they don’t want to be left, then it’s them that should leave Labour. In fact, the left in Labour should be showing them the door.

    And if Labour itself don’t want to be left, then they should be honest about it and change the party name (to the Centrist Party) making it clear to all voters.

    Left supporters are growing tired of Labour paying lip service to the left.

    The Democrats for Social Credit may be more inline with your politics and the party could sure do with a surge of new energy.

    I hope you still plan to post and comment here, I for one appreciate your input and quite often hold a similar perspective.

    All the best to you and yours.

    • Colonial Viper 42.1

      Thanks The Chairman.

      Apparently, I am a narcissistic ego driven loser with passive-aggressive tendencies who throws his toys if he doesn’t get everything his way, while I went along and duped all the members of the ABP branch who clearly have no intelligence, independence or agency of their own as individuals and behave like easily led sheep.

      This thread has given me an insight into how the Thorndon bubble types think and their true character.

      And given that The Force Awakens is almost upon us, I believe it has also given all of us an insight into the personality of the masters (MPs and other political operators) that mentored them.

      I do like the Democrats for Social Credit but I wonder if their platform is also too much one of 20th Century solutions for 20th Century problems.

      If they don’t want to be left, then it’s them that should leave Labour. In fact, the left in Labour should be showing them the door.

      And if Labour itself don’t want to be left, then they should be honest about it and change the party name (to the Centrist Party) making it clear to all voters.

      The guts of it is that Labour completed everything that it was founded in 1916 for by roughly the late 1940s, and in the last few decades the Labour vehicle has been taken over for an extended joy ride by a group of people almost totally disconnected with the founding aims of party.

      • The Chairman 42.1.1

        “This thread has given me an insight into how the Thorndon bubble types think and their true character.”

        Indeed.

        Moreover, the fact some find you undermining highlights how fragile and flawed their position is. Thus, the personal attacks.

  43. savenz 43

    It is absolutely astonishing to me that the MP’s who receive few social media posts anyway can’t even be bothered to respond to anything!

    They then are upset and have a political strategy to get more ‘likes’ on FB.

    Can someone forward the above Clare Curran FB messages to Nash since he asks the public to contact MP’s in writing as Labour’s preferred way rather than the Standard to voice their views.

    of ignoring people. (my view).

    And to Clare Curran because apparently she is against TPP. You can really tell from her (lack) response.

  44. Tracey 44

    Anyone who thinks deep down Labour really wants to go left, repeat after me..

    Labours preferred partner is NZF

    • left for deadshark 44.1

      quite possibly true Tracey

    • McFlock 44.2

      That’s the thing that mildly irks me – one of the ABP commenters said “Labour is not a choice for the left anymore”. Well, duh, not if “the left” means something that does a fundamental jump to the left of its own volition. Labour hasn’t been a choice for “the left” since 1981, FFS. Nine years in government and Lab5’s main positive achievements were policy concessions to its coalition partners. Anyone who joined a branch 18 months ago expecting to lead the revolution obviously missed the memo.

      But Labour will need, most likely, different flavours of left to help it govern. To use an analogy I came up with a few years ago, labour will be the sponge portion of a decent left wing cake. But for that cake we’ll also need healthy doses of green icing and red jam, and so on. Sponge for substance, liquers and icing for flavour.

      • Tracey 44.2.1

        I get the sense the LP think they can piss of the Greens but the Greens will still be left. Piss of NZF and they cant be government. Problem with that kind of pragmatism is where does it stop? 4 out of 5 aint bad so we will stay in TPP… etc

        • McFlock 44.2.1.1

          I suspect you’re right.

          But on the flipside the Greens have played that game well in the past and maintained their independence, unlike Anderton.

          As for the tpp and suchlike, I really think labour can be pushed either way once they’re in a position to have to put up or shut up. Some of it seems to me to be trying to couch left wing moves in non-scary language (like the fairness/90 day trial thing), and others are basically to not commit until they figure out both the actual situation and how much support there is for it (e.g. the tpp wishwash).

          • The Chairman 44.2.1.1.1

            “As for the tpp and suchlike, I really think labour can be pushed either way once they’re in a position to have to put up or shut up.”

            In other words they are directionless.

            Acting in a non-scary way merely reinforces the notion being left is something to fear.

            Labour need to stand tall and be confident in what they are selling.

            • Kiwiri 44.2.1.1.1.1

              “As for the tpp and suchlike, I really think labour can be pushed either way once they’re in a position to have to put up or shut up.”

              Very optimistic, at best.

              The difference between Natz and Labour on TPP has now been reduced to a tiny subset of one of five bottom lines!

              If the general membership truly feels that is right and are truly delighted with that, then good luck to the Labour Party and to the causes of the progressives and the Left.

              • The Chairman

                “The difference between Natz and Labour on TPP has now been reduced to a tiny subset of one of five bottom lines!”

                And that one remaining bottom line seems to be reduced down to whether or not Labour can ban foreign buyers from our property market.

                Overlooking the far wider implications of the Investor-state dispute settlement process.

            • McFlock 44.2.1.1.1.2

              Not quite.
              On some issues Labour have quite a bit of momentum/will to follow through.

              But on issues like the tpp there’s a lack of momentum because the issues are not easily packageable in a message. So Labour need to be pushed on those, either by a general swell of support from the membership or by their coalition partners.

              And the membership only care about what they care about – one fringe branch doesn’t necessarily reflect the desires of the majority.

              • The Chairman

                How about the TPP is a corporate takeover – not a free trade deal, thus Labour won’t support it?

                That’s an easy enough package to sell.

                The recent 3 News Reid Research poll gives us an indication of the desires of the majority.

                http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/kiwis-still-to-be-convinced-on-tpp-2015112017#axzz3sSYzsv6I

                • McFlock

                  Really?
                  Maybe easy enough to sell to you or me.

                  If 73% of Labour members oppose it, what directives were issued at the recent conference? It should have been easy to pass a clear policy resolution to withdraw from the tpp as soon as Labour was in government. Or maybe the issue just wasn’t that important to the membership.

                  Caucus can drag its heels only so far in the face of unequivocal instruction from the membership.

                  • tracey

                    Do you know if a “briefing” paper was circulated to delegates before or at the conference, post release of the 6000+ page agreement?

                    • McFlock

                      no idea at all

                      edit: maybe ABP-branch put something forward? 👿

                    • tracey

                      Sorry, I thought you might know cos of the comment you made about the conference. I think I misunderstood.

                      Naughty @ branch comment 😉

                  • Colonial Viper

                    It should have been easy to pass a clear policy resolution to withdraw from the tpp as soon as Labour was in government. Or maybe the issue just wasn’t that important to the membership.

                    Members can’t simply propose brand new policy remits on the floor of Conference. They need to have gone through a several months process and multiple rounds of vetting before they can even see the light of Conference.

                    • weka

                      it’s depressing the number of comments in this thread that seem to think Labour members have all this power to take action.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      it’s a game of smoke and mirrors which lends the appearance of legitimacy to the decisions taken in Wellington, while expending the time and energy of well meaning members in what is typically an exercise in total futility.

                    • McFlock

                      so would 18 months be enough to get the issue raised at conference, if the membership wanted it raised?

                    • tracey

                      Do you know what remits were called for, if any, on TPP and on what information delegates based their votes?

                    • weka

                      “so would 18 months be enough to get the issue raised at conference, if the membership wanted it raised?”

                      Are you suggesting that time is the only limiting factor? That’s not the impression I’ve had.

                    • McFlock

                      no, but it was mentioned as a limiting factor.

                      Let’s assume ABP made motions and put forward remits to the regional meetings. When were they minuted as being put forward, and did the regional meetings follow an inadequate constitution in sidelining the remit, did the regional meetings violate the constitutional process, or were the remits knobbled somewhere else in the line?

                      That’s the joy of paper trails – you can tell exactly who put shit in the pot, and when.

                    • KK

                      Actually you can rewrite an entire platform amendment at conference. The TPP amendment was added in specifically from a general non-specific remit about trade. You don’t even understand the process you deride so heartily and whinge about so publicly. Pathetic.

                  • The Chairman

                    You, me and going off the poll, the majority of voters.

                    Caucus have been dragging its heels for years when it comes to going along with the desires of the party members. Thus, after Labours positioning (upon Little’s return) I didn’t expect the party conference to turn it around.

                    Caucus are quite often on the wrong side of public opinion. It took a defeat at the polls to get them to review policy last time around.

                    Labour’s handling of the TPP has been disastrous.

                    Talk of flouting the rules was pathetic and totally unprofessional. Turning off those on the right they were trying to woo. And, of course, their failure to stand against it disappointed many on the left – lose-lose.

                    And this is the problem when Labour try to play the middle ground.

                    • McFlock

                      Ok, so let’s say caucus are on the wrong side of public opinion.

                      What have the membership done to change this: any branch can apparently put forward a remit.

                      Are the remits ignored by caucus, voted down at AGM, knobbled by the policy committees or the regional conferences, or are the branches not doing anything?

                      Maybe include ABP branch if they’ve walked their talk, but any action by membership would do. Because if the only remit was from ABP then the idea that staunch opposition to the tpp is supported by the normal Labour party membership would be in serious doubt.

                      They might not like the tpp, but do the membership actually do anything to signal they oppose it?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Labour’s 5 bottom lines were never run by the membership before they were announced ; when Little decided that 4 out of 5 bottom lines were met by the TPP that also naturally was never run by the membership.

                    • McFlock

                      CV, my question was about what the members have done to demonstrate that their personal opinions are widely held amongst the membership.

                      So all your response demonstrates is that caucus is showing leadership, just maybe not telepathic ability.

                    • The Chairman

                      @ McFlock

                      Ultimately, only a handful of remits are selected by the Policy Council.

                    • McFlock

                      @chairman

                      indeed, after referral through regional meetings.
                      So CV or any other ABP commenter will be able to list the dozens of “real Labour party” policy remits that ABP branch sent up the chain, whether the remits were passed on with negative comments by the regional meetings as per the constitution, prior to outright rejection by policy council, no?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Jobs guarantee, super GST, assisting the Kurds in Northern Iraq and Syria, locking in the minimum wage as a percentage of the average wage, serving only Compass frozen meals in Parliament, etc.

                    • Grant

                      CV. “..serving only Compass frozen meals in Parliament, etc.”

                      lol

                    • The Chairman

                      @ McFlock

                      Yes. Or at least the ones drafted before they became disillusioned with the process.

                      And I see he has.

                    • McFlock

                      ok, so where did these remits disappear from the system?

                      The constitution has a pretty transparent system. What happened?

              • tracey

                One thing would be to frame it as looking to negotiate with partners in TPP in the way we did with China, South Korea, Singapore (?) etc… and to work harder to strengthen those markets we have.

                Getting in the ears of people in the nations who are also in the same boat as us…

              • Michael

                McFlock: “On some issues Labour have quite a bit of momentum/will to follow through.”
                Like what?

                • McFlock

                  well, they seem to have good track record of mutterances on child poverty over the last few years, they’ve also tried the housing affordability issue from a number of different angles, they’re pushing on the deportee issue, and that lot’s just off the top of my tired wee head.

                  I’m sure someone can think of other areas. That you seemed unable to think of any says more about you than that it does Labour, imo.

                  • tracey

                    Did you see the journalist from the Herald (sharing a by-line with Hosking) this morning suggesting Key was on the way out cos unemployment is in the “6”s?

                    Made me think that Hosking prolly only contributed a couple of lines, or his name, or has had an epiphany he is not yet ready to let hurt his day jobs?

                  • Michael

                    McFlock – it didn’t take you long to descend to the ad hominem level of debate did it? I infer, from your post, that you equate “quite a bit of momentum/will to follow through” with “good track record of mutterances”. Your two statements are mutually contradictory. I therefore have no hesitation in concluding that you are a cognitively-challenged fuckwit. What position do you have within the Labour Party’s organisation?

                    • McFlock

                      lol you thought that was ad hom? Good for you. Obviously your willful blindness to caucus activities when judging their merit is something that you feel ashamed of at some level.

                      So to recap: you ignored two of the three activities by Labour caucus that I raised and then claimed that the third and the argument it supported actually contradicted each other. Claimed negation of one does not equal negation of all three.

                      Oh, and I’m not even a Labour party member – although I’m considering it.

          • tracey 44.2.1.1.2

            INteresting to me is the apparent silence from Labour on the recent TV3 poll on TPP. I accept I may have missed Labour’s comments, so happy to be corrected.

            BUT, it seems that only 35% of the population supporting TPP in light of a one-sided information campaign (in favour of TPP) was a chance for Labour to appeal to some of that 50-ish percent (which MUST include current Nat voters)?

            • Colonial Viper 44.2.1.1.2.1

              Labour is determined to be seen by the MSM as a ‘government in waiting’ which means taking stances unpopular with the people, but popular with establishment money players.

              • tracey

                Ah, so your theory is win the media and the voters (more or less) follow…

                Didn’t Clark do quite a good hearts and minds… on the ground tour a year before 1999, pressing flesh and meeting people face to face? Or have those days been scuppered due to, amongst others things, DP?

                • McFlock

                  case in point: Winston peters and NZ1

                  • tracey

                    cos he’s managed what, 15% at his peak, with the opposite of MSM support?

                    • McFlock

                      He’s come back from <5% with zero mention by media. He caned Northland when he'd been initially written off as a gimmick candidate.

                      The media only goes so far to dictate public opinion, was my point.

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      ”He’s come back from <5% with zero mention by media.''

                      You must mean the 2011 campaign, when Winston returned after three years out of Parliament.
                      But the lack of coverage was a factor only until Winston was gifted the teapot tape saga. And then he was at the centre of all the campaign craziness and relevant again.
                      To say he came back from 'zero mention' is inaccurate. The teapot tape was the biggest story of that election campaign.
                      Plus being 'written off' or criticised is often a lifeline for Peters, as he portrays himself as a maverick.

                    • Tracey

                      And, i got it but wanted to be sure.

                    • Tracey

                      Ergo, are you saying the media have no history of trying to get rid of winston but been outwitted?

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      Hi Tracey, you’ve probably picked up from previous exchanges that I don’t go in for media conspiracy memes; I tend to think of NZ political journalists (I take it you mean the press gallery by ‘the media’?) as a bit vapid and inconsistent, but not involved in a big working conspiracy.
                      That’s not to say Winston hasn’t had crap and people briefing against him – but I think the exit in 08 was more that he was part of a fading regime and hadn’t had any maverick or ‘hard case’ moments, being foreign minister and all. He was ultra conservative – check out his ’05 speech (link below) warning about Islam and claiming militant and moderate Muslims fit ‘hand and glove’. Scary stuff.
                      McFlock actually grasped the more relevant issue – campaign coverage and media attention – but his claim was inaccurate if he did mean the 2011 come-back election.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10338138

                    • tracey

                      Thanks for the clarification Ergo.

                      My own view os the political press gallery live in a bubble. Their daily life is around politicians and much of their night lives too. Just as police are impacted by who they see and mix with every day so are they. I suspect self interest drives the more well known ones and journalism drives the lesser kown ones til they become better known.

                      So I don’t think it is a conspiracy per se, BUT I don’t discount the widespread commercialisation of our media as impacting editorial direction and choices either.

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      Yep, I don’t disagree, it’s just that I think Winston thrives (overall) in that chummy system.
                      The younger ones feel he’s quite the card; the older ones view him nostalgically.
                      The political press gallery operates in a vacuum in most countries, but capture and group think are worse in NZ (journalism as well as other sectors) – that’s partly why Rogernomics was easy to effect here. We even had one TV journalist fronting TV ads for the reforms.
                      At least blogs break up the prevailing narrative, a bit.
                      A great example is Mickey’s post on the vicious dogwhistle about the housing tenants. In the midst of a housing crisis, a third term Govt should not be getting away with that crap. It should have been called, but it was dutifully reported.
                      As for Winston, he’s riding high – the last TV3 poll had NZF at more than 7%. I think marriage equality may have locked in an extra percent or so for them (as National allowed a conscience vote), but the event that shot him back to relevance in the Key era was the teapot tape debacle. It redefined him as the thorn in the side of this sleazy Key Govt.
                      @McFlock – are you able to clarify? Did you mean the 2011 election, or another time?

                    • McFlock

                      Yes, I did mean 2011.
                      The teapot tapes were a week out of the election. He still came back to outpoll the other minor parties before then.

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      Thanks for that.
                      Silly me – I thought you were referring to Winston’s re-election to the New Zealand Parliament, rather than the point at which his poll numbers were lower than Colin Craig’s Conservatives at the same point in the 2014 campaign.

                    • McFlock

                      I was referring mostly to the average polling between that period and the teapot tape incident. Note that my point was not that corporate media exposure has no effect, just that it is not 100% necessary to get a competitive level of support.

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      OK then – you meant the campaign period right up until its defining moment when NZF became relevant again. Rightio.
                      I don’t disagree that ‘media exposure’ in itself is not the only factor in a campaign to beat the 5% MMP threshold (I don’t know why anyone would argue otherwise), but it does show how events change the course of a campaign and dictate coverage narratives.
                      By corporate media, do you include the public broadcaster Radio New Zealand?

                    • McFlock

                      oh shit, sorry, I forgot that any mention of the media requires precise definitions of every piece of minutae that’s irrelevant to the original point for fear that I might have impuned the media’s reputation.

                      The teapot tapes gave exposure to winston, yes. I don’t believe that the final week of blessed attention from your sainted media would have been as extensive or as effective without the months/years of groundwork he did across the country beforehand, without their attention,

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      Hang on, you claimed Winston had ‘come back’ with ‘zero mention’ in the media. I was merely questioning whether that was a fair statement. Perhaps you misunderstood – I wasn’t discounting the role of on the ground campaigning.
                      How does your snide reference to ‘sainted media’ square with my actual comments concerning the media?

                      .

                    • McFlock

                      You were questioning whether that was a fair statement by asking me how I defined radioNZ? Seemed a touch oblique. Especially when we only seem to disagree as to whether the example I pulled to demonstrate a point is 100% strictly applicable to that point, when we both seem to largely agree on the point in question.

                      And I seem to recall the same steaming pile of semantics the last time I dared mention the media and you decided I was being unfair. Well, have fun with that.

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      Now you’re getting a wee bit desperate. The question about RNZ and corporate media was clearly a side query.
                      My point on this thread is whether Winston had ‘zero mention’ in the media leading up to the 2011.
                      You can deny it, but that’s the claim you made.
                      Referring to my contributions as a ‘steaming pile of semantics’ is horrible, and I do not wish to engage further.

                    • McFlock

                      🙄

                      I’m sure that even before the final week of the election campaign, one or two journalists must have mentioned winston peters by name, too. That would explain nz1 hitting 4.5% in a roy morgan a week before the teapot tapes even happened. /sarc

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      Weird – you checked out that 2014 polling link, right? Colin registered 4.7% in one poll in the corresponding period in 2014 (and 4.9% in a poll closer to the day).
                      I’ve acknowledged I initially thought you meant Winston’s re-election, but it turns out your metric was just some arbitrary point in your mind.

                      As for your whinge about ‘semantics’. I daresay everything looks like worthless nuance to someone with a hostile and aggro attitude to media who doesn’t even see a particular need for public broadcasting reform.
                      I daresay you prefer things pretty much as they are – so you get to rail against ‘tory media’ and feel superior without being in any way constructive.

                    • McFlock

                      Loved the “hostile and aggro attitude” link.
                      Yes, I do get pissed off when people demand I provide evidence to support things I never said.

                      Maybe you should take a few moments to reread a comment before you jump on your high horse just because someone dared disparage the media.

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      I meant your initial comment on that link, and the tenor of your comments on media generally, but whatever.
                      The hostility is understandable, but I note you haven’t attempted to reconcile your antipathy toward tory media with your disdain for public broadcasting reform.
                      It seems like a no-brainer, but it makes me ponder how some people don’t get it – that the likes of Campbell Live (yes, not a public broadcaster) and RNZ influence coverage in more commercial media.
                      CL has gone, and RNZ’s news coverage is becoming more once-over-lightly as the funding freeze bites. Its coverage of some stories is embarrassing.
                      Even more annoying is David Farrar crowing over the demise of newspapers in a post today, and skiting about the blog’s lack of paid staff without acknowledging that most of his posts are based on newspaper articles. Creep.

                    • McFlock

                      Getting rid of Campbell Live is a good example of why “tory media” is not related to “public broadcasting reform”. It was a commercially disastrous decision made most likely because of the directors’ personal politics. Public broadcasting programmers would also have their personal bias.

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      That doesn’t make sense. It’s right wing logic that I’m somewhat surprised to see from you (although it does explain your antipathy to public broadcasting reform).
                      I don’t have an ideological bent that says the private sector cannot produce good news and current affairs coverage. Basically, I want to see both thrive. I value pluralism.
                      But the market is less likely to provide the resources to cover current affairs and news stories adequately because of:

                      – the unstable media environment we inhabit due to technology change.
                      – NZ’s small population, thin democracy and institutions, and deregulation of media.

                      If you don’t acknowledge these dynamics and challenges, it’s hard to have a rational conversation.
                      It’s much like trying to communicate with one of the tories you rail against over topics like minimum wage, electricity or healthcare; out of touch with reality.

                      Do you see any potential for progress in this area, and if so, in what way?

                    • McFlock

                      Campbell Live met your definition of quality programming and probably was subsidised by NZonair.
                      CL was cancelled by a commercial organisation.
                      That cancellation was a commercially flawed decision (going by the subsequent TV3 vs TVNZ ratings on throng).
                      John Campbell and some of his team have since been hired by a public broadcaster.

                      So NZonair funded CL to be shown on a private network, when that network made an incompetent decision John campbell was hired by a public broadcaster.

                      How is this an example of why public broadcasting needs to be reformed?

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      What? Your comment is full of supposition.

                      And do you get that the CL situation is an example?
                      It does not represent the entirety of NZ current affairs and journalism.

                      CL was not funded by NZ on Air to air on TV3.

                      And RadioNZ is cutting news staff as we speak, yep, as it gears up to provide for Campbell’s revamped Checkpoint.

                      Did you register the RNZ funding freeze I mentioned?

                      edit: Can you please explain how your view is in any essential way distinct from the tories whom you rail against on other issues? Isn’t this a case of an area that you don’t particularly value, so you’re happy to leave it to the vagaries of the private sector and an increasingly under-funded public sector?

                    • McFlock

                      ok, so lose the nzonair bit- that means that RNZ hired john campbell when tv3 ditched him.

                      You claim this is an example of why public broadcasting needs reform. This seems to me to be a case of the public broadcasting system meeting the shortfalls of [incompetent] commercial progammers. i.e. doing its job.

                      Yes, there’s a funding freeze. Name a government organisation that isn’t facing funding cuts – such an entity is rare these days. That doesn’t mean the model is broken, any more than chronic underfunding means the health system needs “reform” – both could be rejuvenated a great degree by simply allocating them more money.

                      Thanks for the rule clarification: your examples aren’t expected to illustrate the “entirety” of a point, but woe betide me if winston got a few headlines three days out from the election. 🙄

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      Oh dear – you really don’t get it.
                      I’m not saying that John Campbell being hired by RNZ is an example of why public broadcasting needs reform; no, quite the opposite is the case.
                      I give up – if you don’t have basic knowledge or interest than it’s just too laborious.
                      I’ve tried to point out to you before that we spend a lot as a country on public broadcasting (which includes the likes of X Factor)

                      But as regards RNZ itself, can you please name a Govt ministry that’s had its funding frozen since 2008?

                    • McFlock

                      1: RNZ isn’t a ministry.
                      2: Community Law centres
                      I’d also be interested in the levels of funding to the Health Research Council and Southern DHB, off the top of my head.

                      I know you don’t like Xfactor. Neither do I, but I recognise that public broadcasting is not supposed to satisfy only my tastes.

                      Anyway, this is rehashing old bullshit and I’ve just realised we’re clogging up tracey’s reply feed (sorry T).
                      If you want to keep going do it on open mike, but I won’t be back for a while.

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      I’m sorry too, Tracey, and this is my last comment.
                      I know RNZ is not a ministry. But it’s our only public broadcaster and many people (clearly not you) see that as a crucial statutory role.
                      Southern DHB has definitely had funding increases since 2008; other vitally important services, like rape crisis, are being starved.
                      But it’s just about impossible to discuss this topic with you, as you pick up on pedantic points, and ignore bigger ones.

                    • Tracey

                      No probs peeps

                      I did take a deep breath when I saw so many replies to me.

                      😉

                • Michael

                  Helen Clark conducted a great campaign in 1999, including Dunedin. Labour’s poll results reflected that. of course, that was after 15 years of unrelenting New Right government. People thought Labour would repair a lot of the damage if it was re-elected. Wrong.

    • Magisterium 44.3

      Anyone who thinks deep down Labour really wants to go left, repeat after me..

      Labours preferred partner is NZF

      This post deserves to be rendered in mile-high flaming letters.

  45. pentwig 45

    Whew!1 And nothing from Lynn or Mickey. Weird!

    • lprent 45.1

      Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

      1. I’ve been travelling without much access to the internet since the 22nd.
      2. Branch politics in the NZLP? I got uninterested about 25 years ago.
      3. I’m trying not to be a NZLP member these days.

      Anyway, the jetlag appears to have subsided. Time to find out if my car has been fixed (it didn’t start yesterday) and head off to work.

      • left for deadshark 45.1.1

        [Deleted, more or less, by way of a roundabout request] – Bill

        :wink”

        • left for deadshark 45.1.1.1

          God I’m a novice with computers, If your there Bill, can you delete this one, cheers.

          [Never before seen a comment made that was an explicit request for it to be deleted. Very strange. Sorry. No can do. Keeping for prosperity 😉 Will delete the one from above though.] – Bill

  46. left for deadshark 46

    Welcome home Lynn. 😉

  47. Michael 47

    Lynn – have you given up on the NZLP too? Why don’t you and CV work together and start another Party – how about “True Labour”? I’d join.

    • tracey 47.1

      Lynn supports capitalism in some form, CV does not.

      • Colonial Viper 47.1.1

        I support capitalism in many corners of our society (having been involved in many different types of businesses large and small at various times).

        However I am dead set against the usurping of sovereign democracy by transnational corporate capitalism, as well as the for-profit toll boothing of the necessities of day to day life.

    • weka 47.2

      “True Labour”

      That’s the Pagani party, with Stuart Nash as leader. Still want to join?

      • Colonial Viper 47.2.1

        some days I think they have it the most accurate

        • Ad 47.2.1.1

          Shadow restructure is looking pretty sick.
          Brace yourselves people.

          • Kiwiri 47.2.1.1.1

            Not too surprised.
            The signs are all there for those who can see.
            Good on the astute ABP folks who are keeping their integrity and principles intact.

            • Colonial Viper 47.2.1.1.1.1

              I’m pleased it has smoked out some rather nasty career minded establishment loyalists who are connected to that political party. The organisation remains mired in a FPP 20th century mindset and despite talk of implementing major reviews and learnings post-election defeats, is simply not fit for purpose.

  48. greywarshark 48

    CV
    An interesting write-up of you CV on Chris Trotter’s Bowalley Road. I have been commenting on the images he has used lately. One was Michelle Boag who looked like Patricia Bartlett might have when she found out how babies were made, then there is a new one with a bunch of young insurgents posing with the first in a skeleton mask and multiple arms, that just looks gross. Now you come along, and are definitely the best looking including Key as well. I’m ready for a new political look. I wait for the next interesting development.

  49. Expat 49

    While the fire is still raging, their still arguing over what fire extinguisher to use.

  50. Dean 50

    Here’s perhaps a song that CV might like to consider including in his list of dedications:

    The party’s over
    It’s time to call it a day
    ….

  51. KJS0ne 51

    Just a correction too for Richard Harman’s trash chit on Politik. We had, at the time of recess over 50 members on the roll, not a mere 10 as he states.

    Clearly journalistic integrity, fact checking and present a truthful account of matters are not priorities for Mr. Harman. Ho Hum.

  52. nadis 52

    Manged to sneak in and film the last meeting:

  53. nadis 53

    Managed to sneak in and film the last meeting:

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    4 days ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    5 days ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    5 days ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago