All Things Being Equal…

Written By: - Date published: 1:46 pm, October 27th, 2014 - 173 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, david parker, grant robertson, labour, Media, Nanaia Mahuta, Politics - Tags: , , , , ,

All things being equal, there really is only one sensible choice to make over who should be Labour’s next leader.

When I say ‘all things being equal’, I’m suggesting that if you believe all four contenders have similar levels of ability and attitude, then the critical factor that must be taken into account is National and their two tier method of attack.

Whoever is leader, is going to subjected to, and have to contend with, an endless barrage of innuendo and attempted smears from Slater, Farrar and/or others. These attacks will inevitably be picked up and amplified by major newspapers and TV outlets. The hope, as always, will be that any negative image of who-ever is leader gets traction in the mind of the general public and becomes projected onto the party as a whole.

Obviously, the attack lines on some candidates are more obvious than for others, and some potential attack lines will resonate with the public more than others. The point is, that with one exception, the contenders for the Labour leadership are, to one degree or another, sitting ducks or fish in barrels. Now sure, three of those contenders could, if elected, learn to counter attacks, but then essentially waste a lot of time being on the back foot…itself a successful outcome from any attack perspective.

Nanaia Mahuta is the exception. I believe she’d present a real problem for the National Party’s two track system of ‘dirty politics’; even to the extent that attack lines could well backfire in spectacular fashion.

So, like I say – all things being equal…

173 comments on “All Things Being Equal… ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Chooky 1
    27 October 2014 at 1:54 pm

    +100 agreed….Nanaia Mahuta will not be easy to attack!….. without the John key Nacts (and their right wing black ops PR and bought msm) attacking the very constituency they want to win over ! (in which case it will back fire badly on them)

    ironic that while the Labour Party caucus is striving to appeal to the middle class and white male ….( and Parker and Robertson)….the Nacts are trying to appear less so…in order to win Labour’s constituency

    • Bob 1.1
      28 October 2014 at 9:05 pm

      They will let the Maori party do it instead but if people think she won’t be attacked you are deluded. She will be seen as leader of the party first which is the way it should be.

  2. wekarawshark 2
    27 October 2014 at 2:06 pm

    “Nanaia Mahuta is the exception. I believe she’d present a real problem for the National Party’s two track system of ‘dirty politics’; even to the extent that attack lines could well backfire in spectacular fashion.”

    How so? I tend to agree, but am curious what examples you might have in mind.

    • Bill 2.1
      27 October 2014 at 2:20 pm

      I’m not going to give any examples for the simple reason that I’ve no interest in this thread descending into smash as happened on the thread where I made this same point in the comments.

      You’ll just have to run some examples (I’d have thought there are fairly obvious ones) through your own mind and punt on how they’d play out in major media and the public mind.

      • wekarawshark 2.1.1
        27 October 2014 at 3:29 pm

        Ok, so the basic premise is that the 3 white blokes are attackable but Mahuta is significantly less so, and we’re not supposed to talk about why? What are we supposed to be discussing then?

        • Colonial Rawshark 2.1.1.1
          27 October 2014 at 4:01 pm

          Bill didn’t say “we’re not supposed to talk about why.” He said that you can make some good educated guesses for yourself and that he wasn’t going to give any further examples; he also explained why he had decided on that.

          I for one think Bill is right. Little, Parker and Robertson are way easier to attack than Mahuta. If I were CT I would have by far the most difficulty constructing lines to attack her compared to the others.

          • wekarawshark 2.1.1.1.1
            27 October 2014 at 4:48 pm

            “I for one think Bill is right. Little, Parker and Robertson are way easier to attack than Mahuta.”

            That’s nice. Now I know what you and Bill think. Excellent. In terms of understanding how the right will attack the new Labour leader that doesn’t really advance things too much unless we look at the detail. I guess we can wait and see instead of talking about it now.

            • wekarawshark 2.1.1.1.1.1
              27 October 2014 at 4:51 pm

              btw, if the thing I am supposed to be mindreading is the fat lazy Maori meme, or the fat woman meme, then fwiw I think that needs to be named because the other day it was lefties using the meme and if we don’t deal with that now when will we deal with it exactly? After the right implement their troling and Slatering to reinforce what some lefties are already doing and the media start reporting that?

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                27 October 2014 at 5:03 pm

                Is it normal for you to take what people say and then completely invert it to mean the opposite of their statement?

                Why are you talking about likely right wing attacks on Nanaia when we’ve been talking about how it is all the *other* candidates who are more susceptible to attack.

                …and if we don’t deal with that now when will we deal with it exactly?

                Who exactly is this “we”? How exactly do you propose that this “we” (whoever they might be) “deal with it”? And what kinds of outcomes are you expecting which will show you that
                “we” have actually successfully “dealt with it”?

                • wekarawshark …
                  27 October 2014 at 6:10 pm

                  “Is it normal for you to take what people say and then completely invert it to mean the opposite of their statement?”

                  You’d have to be more specific.

                  “Why are you talking about likely right wing attacks on Nanaia when we’ve been talking about how it is all the *other* candidates who are more susceptible to attack.”

                  Fine, thanks for finally clarifying what this conversation is supposed to be about. And, no, it wasn’t obvious to me, in the same way that the potential attacks on Nanaia that shouldn’t be named weren’t obvious either (I actually thought her having been in politics most of her life instead of having a real job was one option. Silly me).

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    27 October 2014 at 6:30 pm

                    Yes that is one line which will be used on her. In fact the politics her whole life attack is very similar to what Little will get, except his spin will include the “nasty unionist” angle. Grant is the one who is especially vulnerable to the “life long political bureaucrat” attack. Parker – well, Parker’s likely to come fourth.

                    btw, if the thing I am supposed to be mindreading is the fat lazy Maori meme, or the fat woman meme

                    I just wanted to reiterate these were memes preoccupying you only; as far as I could read Bill and my comments, they were about how Nanaia was LESS susceptible to attack than the other candidates; a simple plain english reading of the comments above should have made that clear.

                    • blue leopard …
                      27 October 2014 at 6:34 pm

                      I don’t fully understand the voting system that Labour are employing, but if Parker is likely to come 4th – isn’t there a likelihood that Grant wins i.e. people voting for Parker are likely to have Robertson in second place? Or is it that once one person has been ‘knocked out’ ALL second choices get counted (not just the second choices of those who voted for the one ‘knocked out’)?

                    • wekarawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 6:45 pm

                      CV, I’ll just say again. It’s great that you understood the point of Bill’s post. I didn’t.

                      Telling me I can’t understand plain simple English isn’t helpful. Bill told me to go away and figure it out for myself, but I still don’t get it. The 3 blokes are more susceptible to attack than Mahuta. Yes, and? Or, really, how so?

                      Or no, hang on, Mahuta will get attacked by these things x, y, z that we’re not going to discuss, so why is she considered less attackable?

                      You say that Mahuta is less susceptible to attack. Am I just supposed to believe you and not raise any questions?

                      I’m not the only one in this thread who is looking at the issues as they pertain to Mahuta.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 6:47 pm

                      You were correct first up: if Parker gets knocked out first, the people who had him as their first preference candidate will then have their second preference candidates counted. Yes, a good many of those second preferences will probably go to Grant, but Little will also get quite a few. Nanaia least – probably.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 7:04 pm

                      wekarawshark – Bill and myself, neither particularly well known for their championing of identity politics (hmmm perhaps I will just speak for myself), both figure that Nanaia is a win for the Left on the dirty politics attack PR front.

                      Not that Nanaia won’t be attacked mind you, but that she is far smaller and less vulnerable a target than the 3 pakeha male 40-something 50 something candidates. I can already pick the attack lines which will be used on each of the three; with Nanaia the attacks are simply going to be a rerun and refresh of the sentiment of the whole Iwi/Kiwi campaign. With some general misogyny thrown in. And its not going to work.

                      Fascinating, isn’t it. More fascinating when you think that quite a bit of this opinion is based on non-rational factors. And that a lot of Kiwis will get it the same way., too.

                    • blue leopard …
                      27 October 2014 at 7:26 pm

                      [Thanks for confirming that about the voting system, CR, am not really on topic, & am breaking into this conversation, hence the square brackets]

                    • wekarawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 8:05 pm

                      “And its not going to work.”

                      why not?

                      that’s the question I’ve been wanting to get to. I’ve stated why I think she is less vulnerable, but it’s more to do with her as a person than the right not having ammunition.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 11:42 pm

                      “Why Not”

                      You know what, proof is in the pudding. We’ll just have to wait until it is served, cause there ain’t no proof here, yet.

        • KJS0ne 2.1.1.2
          27 October 2014 at 4:35 pm

          Here’s my speculative spade calling, some of it might be right, some of it might be wrong:

          You can’t call her (or imply she is) a lazy fat Maori without looking like a complete bigot, racist and all things unbecoming and it all back firing completely.

          Robertson can be detracted for his sexuality behind closed doors (and in virtue of being gay, in close association with this fictitious Lesbian clique who according to some Nat supporters seem to be running the show), and for not being left enough. Hell they don’t need to insult him for being gay, just chip around the edges at stereotypes of gay personality traits.

          Parker for being part of the old machine, responsible for unpopular policies (Age of entitlement etc) and plenty of dirt to be found on him if you go back far enough.

          Little for being a flagrant unionist commie.

          I did see some guy in a previous topic try and argue that her weight would be a problem, and render her unelectable, citing Grant Robertson’s hyper fast 20kg shed as proof, but David Lange tbh.

          National may not realise it, but Dirty Politics may have done one thing, underscore the link between the attack-blogs and the party edifice for all to see. It remains to be seen what the long term effects of this might be, but it could mean that should their attack blogs go after the next Labour leader in the wrong way, the blowback may be substantial.

          • wekarawshark 2.1.1.2.1
            27 October 2014 at 4:57 pm

            Thanks 🙂

            “You can’t call her (or imply she is) a lazy fat Maori without looking like a complete bigot, racist and all things unbecoming and it all back firing completely.”

            True, but what you can do is run the line that other people won’t respond well to a fat leader. See? It’s the other people that are bigoted and the media or commenter or whoever is just the concern trole. This is pretty much what got run on ts the other day. I think the vulnerability is the amount of fat phobia within the left. The right will exploit that.

            There’s also some sexism at play. Clark got shit for how she looked, and then for the makeover. I don’t think any of the male candidates will be exposed to that.

            FWIW, I think that Mahuta is the least vulnerable to attack because she has mana and appears to know how to keep out of the bullshit games that Labour caucus have been playing. I’m guessing that when they come for her, she will know how to respond with integrity and realness rather than the whole panic that ‘people won’t like me so what should I say’ that DC and much of the caucus appear to engage in.

          • Anne 2.1.1.2.2
            27 October 2014 at 6:51 pm

            +1 KJSOne.

            Despite the fact the voters appear not to have taken Dirty Politics into consideration when voting, I do believe Hager’s revelations will still have an impact on their reactions to further attempts at dirty politicking. And that goes for the MSM too. Its going to be harder for the Nats and the MSM culprits to get away with it in future.

            Andrew Little commented at his West Auckland get-together today that no-one’s talking to Slater any more except perhaps Collins. He’s well and truly off-limits. Whether it will last remains to be seen, but I don’t think we can take it as read the smear tactics against Labour leaders since (and including) Helen Clark will continue to be tolerated. The Cunliffe slander campaign must have shamed even the most avid – but basically principled – Nat Party supporters.

          • lurgee 2.1.1.2.3
            27 October 2014 at 7:55 pm

            I think you’re being naive if you think Mahuta can not be attacked, and that attacks will backfire. She’ll be described as being ‘jobbed into power by the minority interests that run the Labour party’ and representing ‘the triumph of Political Correctness’ and vague comments about how a vote for her Labour party is a step down a ‘dangerous road’.

            None of these are valid reasons for not voting for her. Who ever wins will be attacked. She’s no more or less vulnerable than the others. These bastards are good at what they do and will find a way to do it.

            • greywarshark 2.1.1.2.3.1
              27 October 2014 at 8:26 pm

              lurgee
              +1

            • Skinny 2.1.1.2.3.2
              27 October 2014 at 9:02 pm

              I agree and think Mahuta is easy to pick off. Been around a long time hasn’t really achieved a lot, can’t even unite the new power (numbers) the Maori caucus have. Then the race card will be played if need be, a popular source the right have gone to the well on successfully previously.

              I still see Little as the one with the clean slate, and being able to create a sense of Nationalism which is always a powerful tool in politics.His stance on the challenge of ‘work’ is very true and needs to be addressed before it’s too late.

              • lurgee …
                27 October 2014 at 11:57 pm

                Little will probably win because of the Ed Miliband Principle: no-one’s first choice, everyone’s second choice.

                I think the order of elimination will be Mahuta, Parker, Robertson, with Little taking the prize. But I don’t think it matters a great deal. Each is capable of doing some good, and – let’s be honest – little more damage can be done to Labour.

                I just wish caucus, and the fanatical partisans hereabout, would all give up on the plotting ans scheming and hating and leaking and undermining and factioneering.

              • Clemgeopin …
                28 October 2014 at 1:31 am

                Little speaks as if he has a frog in his throat and the fact that he was not able to convince his own electorate to vote for him in sufficient numbers to at least come close to the Nat winner worries me. Also, I worry whether the general public will take to him, being an ex union leader, to vote for the Labour party considering that many NZ workers are stupidly no longer in an union at work! I am keen to hear your views to dispel my doubting Thomas minor misgivings.

                • lurgee …
                  28 October 2014 at 6:17 am

                  Having a funny voice and little charisma didn’t stop Ed Milliband.

                  I have few views on any of the candidates. I can’t fathom why people around here are so passionate about this or that mediocre politician. They’re all pretty dire, bluntly. They’re all pretty dire, bluntly. The talent pool wasn’t very deep or wide to begin with, and has been almost drained after being drawn on so many times in recent years.

                  • Clemgeopin …
                    28 October 2014 at 11:20 am

                    Good points. But, Mahuta’s vote may surprise. Cheers!

                    • lprent …
                      28 October 2014 at 12:02 pm

                      But I didn’t think you were a NZLP member. Why would you know?

                    • lurgee …
                      28 October 2014 at 4:27 pm

                      I’m not a member, true, but that does not mean I am uninterested in the never ending eviserations (self inflicted or otherwise) of the Labour Party.

                      Why would I know what, exactly?

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      28 October 2014 at 5:00 pm

                      I have been a member for several years though it had lapsed for about a year which I renewed in 2013 before the last leadership contest.

            • KJS0ne 2.1.1.2.3.3
              28 October 2014 at 10:27 am

              I’m not saying she can’t be attacked, or that it will necessarily backfire. I was just speculating that it would be harder to do so compared to the ease of attacking the other three.

              Not to say that your straw man argument was a bad one by any stretch, you make good points.

  3. left for deadshark 3
    27 October 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Some good points mate,in any case,,those long in the tooth will need to go,along with ANYONE else who can’t fall into line.It’s a short turn around,we may make 2017,but its all hands on deck,rowing in the right direction.(sorry for the puns)or we will watch nactional pull out the some lifeboat image,to good affect again,i’m afraid.

  4. just saying 4
    27 October 2014 at 2:22 pm

    You haven’t noticed a certain resistance to women and Maori, particularly in positions of power, Bill? A bit of a feeling that such people aren’t as valuable able, or accomplished as, say, white het men? Haven’t heard comments about body image and women or identity politics and tokenism even from our own?

    I agree that she should win and I will be voting for her but you seem to have an optimistic view of the smear machine in her regard. Not saying she wouldn’t be up to meeting it head-on (from within and without) – I think she would be best able to of the four.
    just saying.

    • Bill 4.1
      27 October 2014 at 2:35 pm

      You haven’t noticed…

      Well, yes. Of course I have. It wasn’t by accident that I headed the post “All Things Being Equal…”,

      I reckon your comment contains the broad sweep of attack lines that would be used against Nanaia. In my mind they all attract a high level of risk for blowback for the perpetrators…far higher than would be present with regards the obvious attack lines on the other contenders if any of them became leader.

  5. honey_T 5
    27 October 2014 at 2:40 pm

    I think its the wrong mindset to approach it from. The right will attempt to smear anyone. Its like a parent choosing a child’s based on which is least likely to be able to be turned into something that can be teased, you simply cant account for everything! Or the levels that bullies will stoop to.

    I’m basing my decision on who I think will have the broadest appeal to the NZ public, as I believe they are all as capable of leading the party as each other.

    Its been great getting to know them a bit more and hearing what they’re all about, and very heartening and faith restoring that we have such talent in the LP.

  6. ankerawshark 6
    27 October 2014 at 2:58 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11348896

    Related is I think who caucus is supporting according to Audrey Young

    • Colonial Rawshark 6.1
      27 October 2014 at 4:05 pm

      Audrey Young’s analysis is very weak on two counts. First preferences: my impression is that Mahuta and Little have at least 7 each.

      Second preferences: without an understanding of where the second preferences are going to fall, knowing just the first preferences (even 100% accurately) allows no actual conclusions to be drawn.

      • Anne 6.1.1
        27 October 2014 at 7:32 pm

        And who is the leaker? Coming from the Robertson camp I’ll be bound. Trev?

        • felix 6.1.1.1
          27 October 2014 at 8:03 pm

          Wouldn’t know, but Chris Hipkins really is a horrible little man.

        • greywarshark 6.1.1.2
          27 October 2014 at 8:34 pm

          The smooth way that the fruit loops moved in here to support Robertson earlier on implies that they could take their partisan attitudes to a highly managed level.

          • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.1.2.1
            27 October 2014 at 8:38 pm

            Robertson has the strongest set of loyal and organised online activists out of all the candidates. You can also see how narrowly they view “their” Labour Party.

          • Keir 6.1.1.2.2
            27 October 2014 at 8:40 pm

            The “fruit loops”? Jesus fucking christ you guys are out of it.

            For fuck’s sake, I’ve tried to get good left wing shit done in the party, and I’ve been lucky enough and worked with good people and managed to get a few little wins, and it turns out this is how the left of the party acts? Grow the fuck up.

            • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.1.2.2.1
              27 October 2014 at 8:54 pm

              I notice you took this GW’s comment personally. Good. Because we take quite personally Grant and his team screwing over the overwhelming 2013 leadership choice of the broader membership and unions.

              As an aside, I note you don’t see yourself as being on the Left wing of the Labour Party. And here’s the thing: the next 20 years coming down the pike (climate change, peak energy, financial instability, oligarchic rule) is going to really test this nation. Labour on the path the centrists/right wing want to take it, will be an utter liability in that reality.

              • Keir …
                27 October 2014 at 9:07 pm

                Personally, I do identify as being on the left of the party, I always have done, and I always will. That’s why I was the first person to argue at Policy Council that the Policy Platform should say the party is a democratic socialist party, and should apologise for the Fourth Labour government. (And it is why I worked with another left winger from Christchurch to make sure the democratic socialist amendment passed on the Conference floor in 2013, even if the apology didn’t make it). So don’t try it on mate.

                But I think that the increasing identification and obsession of the party left with David Cunliffe’s faction is deeply damaging to the left, and it’s evident in the utterly absurd claim that Grant “screwed over Cunliffe”. Grant worked hard and kept his head down. So did the other MPs who backed him. I know this because I saw it happen.

                If you want to insist that you can only be part of your club if you adhere to an increasingly sectarian orthodoxy, you’re fucked, and that’s what’s happening to the left of the party. You’ve elevated hatred of Robertson to a religious credo, and the actual underlying left wing principles have gone out the window, and it’s utterly ruinous.

                • wekarawshark …
                  27 October 2014 at 9:11 pm

                  I’ll say this as an outsider (and someone who always felt that DC was the best of a not terribly inspiring lot, so I don’t have any particular loyalty to him), but didn’t you just do the partisan shit you are railing against others for doing?

                  • Keir …
                    27 October 2014 at 9:14 pm

                    How? I haven’t accused anyone of being a fruit loop. I haven’t said you can’t be a left winger in the party and back Little (I think it’s a weird choice, but I know people who are and do.) I haven’t accused anyone of being a traitor, or undermining the leader without any evidence, or any of the other baseless smears that get thrown around here. It’s a false equivalence.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 9:23 pm

                      eg “if you want to insist that you can only be part of your club if you adhere to an increasingly sectarian orthodoxy, you’re fucked, and that’s what’s happening to the left of the party. You’ve elevated hatred of Robertson to a religious credo, and the actual underlying left wing principles have gone out the window, and it’s utterly ruinous.”

                      A lot of assumptions and projection there. Not too different to calling someone a fruit loop.

                    • Keir …
                      27 October 2014 at 9:33 pm

                      Eh, I don’t think it’s projection. I think it’s a harshly put thesis, but it’s cogent and based on a pretty clear logical chain, and it’s based on my personal experience coupled with some pretty basic understanding of left wing politics.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 10:18 pm

                      Am pretty sure that someone like CV could make similar claims re experience, logic and understanding left wing politics. So what’s the difference?

                      Fruit loops is also a harshly put thesis (not one I agree with, but then I don’t agree with yours either). It’s also an insult, like your comment was insulting. So again, what’s the difference?

                      You like GR, other people like DC, everyone is mean to each other, and on and on it goes.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 10:25 pm

                      Except it doesn’t go on ad infinitum. The NZ Labour Party is now on the track of the NZ Liberal Party. Out of mandate, out of mission, out of vision (other than to somehow try and win an election).

                    • wekarawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 10:39 pm

                      I think that’s why it goes on ad infinitum 😉

                    • Keir …
                      27 October 2014 at 10:41 pm

                      I don’t actually think it is true that CV could in fact make those claims. I think that empirical reality is on my side, and I’m willing to actually back claims up with factual evidence. It isn’t the case that accusing people of sectarianism is in fact simply sectarianism – that’s a lazy way to avoid figuring out the underlying factual basis of the discussion.

                      For instance, it just isn’t true that Grant Robertson undermined Cunliffe. There’s no evidence of it, there’s no factual basis to it, it’s rubbish.

                      And remember, I’m a very left wing member of the party. It’s really problematic when you’ve constructed, as CV has, a world view so narrow that someone like me becomes a right winger. It’s the worst kind of sectarianism.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 10:47 pm

                      Ok, what’s the factual basis for this?

                      “You’ve elevated hatred of Robertson to a religious credo, and the actual underlying left wing principles have gone out the window, and it’s utterly ruinous.”?

                      I’d also like the factual basis for CV having no experience within Labour, not having an understanding of left wing politics, and not having logic to his arguments.

                      btw, CV said he believed you don’t see yourself as being on the left wing of the party. You’ve skewed what he said (unless there is discussion of this elsewhere too that I haven’t seen). That’s all I’m saying, be honest about your own bias.

                    • Keir …
                      27 October 2014 at 11:04 pm

                      Well no it’s pretty fucking clear that there’s a lot of people here who want to treat “hating Grant” as a litmus test. I’m not going to prove that for you – either you can read or you can’t, and I’m sorry if you aren’t willing to apply that level of analysis, but this faux-naif approach isn’t really very useful.

                      Now, that litmus test is one that is leading people to have an increasingly narrow and sectarian view of the world, and it’s one that’s actively counter-productive to achieving left wing policy wins. (You can tell this, by the way, because the only thing CV has accomplished in the party is losing to Bill English. That’s it. He’s pissed off huge chunks of the party in Dunedin, many of whom are very left wing people, and that’s about it. It’s not helpful.)

                      My position is not that I don’t have a bias, my position is that my bias corresponds to underlying empirical reality – and I’ll note that CV hasn’t offered any actual, factual argument here, just baseless assertion.

                    • Keir …
                      27 October 2014 at 11:15 pm

                      And also, I am sorry, but you don’t get to show up at the point someone says “piss off, don’t call me a bloody fruit loop astroturfer” and then say “oh well everyone has a point of view let’s look at all sides, why are you saying that calling people fruit loop astroturfers is counterproductive, isn’t that a bit rude”. When people say you’re a wanker for no reason, that’s wanker behaviour in itself. Calling them out on it is entirely legitimate.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 11:35 pm

                      (You can tell this, by the way, because the only thing CV has accomplished in the party is losing to Bill English. That’s it. He’s pissed off huge chunks of the party in Dunedin, many of whom are very left wing people, and that’s about it. It’s not helpful.)

                      I’m so very glad that I do not meet with your faction’s approval. I neither seek it, nor want it. As for losing to English – it was a pleasure and an honour to lose to the DPM in Clutha Southland.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 11:58 pm

                      Keir, by all means call people out for being wankers. Just know that people will call you out in turn.

                      The main thing I’ll point to at this stage of the conversation is that you appear to be confusing opinion with fact. You claim that you can back up what you say as fact, I say, ok, show me then, and all you come back with is more assertion and invective. I just think your arguments would work better if you expressed them as opinion.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      28 October 2014 at 12:03 am

                      eg,

                      “Well no it’s pretty fucking clear that there’s a lot of people here who want to treat “hating Grant” as a litmus test.”

                      See, that’s opinion.

                      “I’m not going to prove that for you – either you can read or you can’t, and I’m sorry if you aren’t willing to apply that level of analysis, but this faux-naif approach isn’t really very useful.”

                      And that’s a bullshit argument – “my opinion is fact but when you ask for evidence I’m going to refuse the evidence I was just going on about and put it back on you that you are stupid if you can’t see what I am talking about”

                      Seriously?

                • ankerawshark …
                  28 October 2014 at 2:10 pm

                  Hi Keir,

                  Re the claim that “David Cunliffe faction is deeply damaging to the left and it’s evident in the absurd claim that Grant “screwed over Cunliffe”.

                  I pointed out yesterday on the “Why I am backing GR for leader” thread the tangible things Robertson did (not rumour or gossip), to undermine Cunliffe. I didn’t use the term screwed over.

                  A lot of us on The S supported DC. Some of us followed things very closely and were aghast at what we saw happening. I gave an e.g. yesterday of DC comments in the house re Key and childhood poverty, which JK then skewed into “DC is trying to hide the fact he lives in a mansion”, that msm then elaborated on as an attack line against DC. Then GR managed to put the cherry on the cake by commenting about his comparatively modest abode. THAT IS UNDERMINING.

                  So now when Grant enthusiasts many of whom usually don’t post on the TS drop in for a bit of PR for GR, it would be naive to think that regular Standardistas, are going to respond with ” Gee that sound’s great. GR is likable.”. That is not the level of debate or discourse you will get on here. BTW, I don’t consider myself part of a faction re DC. It has however been helpful to share my observations about what was happening to DC in the media, Whale Oil and with his own caucus.
                  And to hear that other people were seeing it the same way. The public have been drenched with spin and vilification about DC. Some of us, prefer to share a more evidenced based version of the man.

              • SDCLFC …
                27 October 2014 at 9:23 pm

                The 2013 leadership choice of the broader membership and unions screwed over himself with his absurd election night and post election behavior.
                Cunliffe cooked himself.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  27 October 2014 at 10:11 pm

                  You just ignored Parker speaking up in the media straight after the election. Nash as well. Then Shearer on half a dozen different media appearances. Some MPs were doing the numbers against Cunliffe even as the last results were still coming in on election night.

                  In fact, your memory of what actually happened seems pretty damn weak.

                  • SDCLFC …
                    27 October 2014 at 10:17 pm

                    I’ve done this earlier today on The Standard.
                    The first public moves to test the leadership was David Cunliffe on election night in speech and then the letter that he sent out.
                    It’s not unreasonable to expect Caucus members to respond with their own moves.
                    Given the way Cunliffe tried to block Parker from answering in front of the media I would’ve thought less of Parker if he did not withdraw his support.
                    Cunliffe was embarrassing.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 10:23 pm

                      Given the way that Parker backstabbed the guy who put him in as Deputy, I thought it was Parker was disloyal and embarrassing.

                      The first public moves to test the leadership was David Cunliffe on election night in speech and then the letter that he sent out.

                      DC was the first to test and challenge his own leadership? Oh fuck off.

                      Some of todays leadership contenders were counting their numbers on election night. Fact.

                      Your assertion that “Cunliffe cooked himself” is just BS.

                    • SDCLFC …
                      27 October 2014 at 11:16 pm

                      Parker didn’t back-stabbed – Cunliffe belittled him in front of the media.
                      I’ve got no problem with people doing the numbers, it’s to be expected. The leader does not have the right for their mandate to go unchallenged and being elected the caucus have the right to challenge that.
                      And it doesn’t change the fact that the first public moves were made by Cunliffe and so all subsequent public moves can be viewed relative to that.
                      Cunliffe expressed absolute confidence he could’ve won the primary sticking with that belief after he had dropped out.
                      If that’s true then there was no need for him to make the moves he made on election night. He could’ve done what was expected, conceding gracefully, waited for these Machiavellian back-stabbers to make their move, and then win with all the support he supposedly had.
                      No, he felt he needed to use the concession speech to make his move and to write to membership the night of the loss.
                      All his own making.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 11:26 pm

                      I think I understand the perspective and self justifications of your faction a little bit more now.

                      In your mind, Cunliffe started it all, Cunliffe is at fault, and if it wasn’t for Cunliffe’s own foolish actions, he would still be Leader.

                      What I want to know is whether or not you and the rest of Grant’s faction have learnt to count in the last year. I guess we’ll find out in a few weeks.

                • ankerawshark …
                  28 October 2014 at 2:14 pm

                  SDCLFC. I disagree that DC was absurd on election night and post election. Absurd is a pretty strong word.

                  Can you please provide e.g.s?

            • greywarshark 6.1.1.2.2.2
              28 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

              @ Keir 8.40pm
              Pardon me, spray that again? You are upset at an amusing quip of mine?
              What sort of debater and thinker are you, you precious little bundle of political certainties. As anyone who takes a real interest in the content of the debates and statements here would know, practically all the people who came on Robertson’s thread and supported him so heartily, used a fruit name as an identifier/pseudonym.

              And I thought it was a bit spooky how they were all so positive about Robertson. Sort of like a groupthink mind-set bunch of cheerleaders.
              In case I’m right I googled for cheerleaders chants and helpfully give you the link and a suitable one for you all to learn.
              http://cheerleading.about.com/od/cheerschantsyells/a/chants.htm

              Submitted by: sbpartygirl2004
              We’re gonna win tonight,
              We’re gonna win tonight,
              We’re gonna w-i-n win tonight!
              This one’s better –
              Submitted by: Brittany
              Victory ohh yea
              Grab that V,
              Now dot that I,
              And grab that c-t-o-r-y
              Victory!

              There are different thoughts and approaches to getting a Labour leader for NZ than yours. That’s why we haven’t a dictatorship in this country but a struggling democracy, and we are trying to prevent the idea of a dictatorship becoming set in the concrete steps to Parliament.
              So don’t swear and spit and stamp your foot, or throw yourself on your couch and weep. Presumably we all want a good left party doing good things for the country and citizens, we just have different thoughts on how to achieve it than you, but we are prepared to hear your cogent points.

            • ankerawshark 6.1.1.2.2.3
              28 October 2014 at 1:50 pm

              Keir, Fruit loops may be an unfortunate term that was used by Greywarshark at 6.1.1.2.

              But GWS may be referring to the names that some used the other week when coming on here to bat for Grant.

              From memory there was “Apple’s” and “Melons” actually truth is I don’t remember their posting names, just that a few of them had fruit titles.

  7. Mike 7
    27 October 2014 at 3:08 pm

    You mean the fact that NM hasn’t achieved a single thing worthy of note while in parliament isn’t a bad thing?

    The fact that she is known for being a Maori “princess” and not in a good way?

    Or the fact that her entire support base in caucus is basically only voting her because of her skin color? (look at the MP’s supporting her, a rather obvious link no?)

    • Colonial Rawshark 7.1
      27 October 2014 at 6:37 pm

      Or the fact that her entire support base in caucus is basically only voting her because of her skin color? (look at the MP’s supporting her, a rather obvious link no?)

      That attack will be substantially weakened if she gains a stack load of pakeha and non-brown ordinary Labour Party members voting for her.

  8. The Pink Postman 8
    27 October 2014 at 3:22 pm

    Nanaia ! People like her.She just makes people fell good .She oozes charisma just what we need to beat Key.Plus highly intelligent and an excellent speaker .The fact that we won nearly all the Maori seats back are evident of Nanaia’s leadership skills.
    Of course the Tories will find some way of denigrating her but we just have to realise that and start to fight back instead of meekly accepting it.Let’s .get some fire back in our Party . Start with telling Audrey Young that we do not need her comments on “our” leadership election.

  9. The Real Matthew 9
    27 October 2014 at 3:33 pm

    As a National voter I’d be delighted if Nanaia became the Labour leader.

    National wouldn’t need to attack her to win the 2017 election.

    • Tracey 9.1
      27 October 2014 at 3:40 pm

      ah the critical thinking and depth of the right….

    • blue leopard 9.2
      27 October 2014 at 6:41 pm

      …Hmm an implicit admission that the right won on attacking opponents and not on merit of their conduct or policies. Nice to see the truth being acknowledged, finally.

      • greywarshark 9.2.1
        27 October 2014 at 8:38 pm

        Lies are very hard to remember. They don’t usually get acknowledged, they just have a habit of oozing out under the door and slipping up all involved or popping up in conversation as Freudian slips.

        • Colonial Rawshark 9.2.1.1
          27 October 2014 at 8:40 pm

          You’re talking about ad hoc lies, for which your comment is spot on. The dirty politics/CT approach is anything but ad hoc however. It is about building a consistent and damaging narrative. Very easy to remember because it is deliberately geared for the mass market.

          • greywarshark 9.2.1.1.1
            27 October 2014 at 9:21 pm

            Thanks blue leopard getting a smiley is an incentive to achievement!

            CV Yes there really is a great difference when the lies multiply into what Judge Mahon called ‘an orchestrated litany of lies’. I guess they are easy to remember actually, you just think of what you know is the truth, and say the opposite. And if you have secret knowledge of the truth, then say the opposite and blacken or smear someone, that is dirty dealing.

        • blue leopard 9.2.1.2
          27 October 2014 at 8:48 pm

          lol, great description, there, Greywarshark, very well worded, indeed. 🙂

  10. Cave Johnson 10
    27 October 2014 at 4:19 pm

    “I’m suggesting that if you believe all four contenders have similar levels of ability and attitude…”
    Why would anyone believe that?

  11. finbar 11
    27 October 2014 at 4:21 pm

    My seeing of Nanaia,is she represent the understanding of Labour,its soul and its birth understanding.Knowing that time has progressed since those times of Labours inception, understanding our progress of struggle to fairness in our lives and the hardship of that suffered endured.Nanaia,has that knowing in her.

  12. dave brown 12
    27 October 2014 at 4:53 pm

    Picking winners on the basis of popularity with white, racist patriarchal NZ is the politics of fear.
    It leads to popularity contests, self-censorship and opportunism already well ingrained in the ABC egos of Robertson, Parker and Shearer.
    This is the flinch that spoke when Cunliffe ‘apologised for being a man’.
    I agree with those who say that the right doesn’t need to dog whistle Nanaia.
    Her invisibility despite a great record in advancing her people and the poor is testament to that.
    A Maori woman does not even appear on the radar of racist, sexist, authoritarian passive-aggressive middle NZ except as an objectified threat.
    Its because she is a Maori woman who identifies as working class, that she embodies all that is important to fight for by a party claiming to be “Labour”.
    By voting for Nanaia first, and for Little second, we are telling the fuckers out there we know who they are and we are coming to get them.

    • wekarawshark 12.1
      27 October 2014 at 5:03 pm

      +1

    • left for deadshark 12.2
      27 October 2014 at 5:51 pm

      I like your thinking Dave,good stuff. 😉

      • Jesse 12.2.1
        27 October 2014 at 7:00 pm

        I voted Nanaia first and Little second for the same reasons as you DB. Nanaia is not part of the white male establishment, and has no wish for the approval of the white male establishment, and that makes the media attacks likely to roll off her like water off a duck’s back. When the public of NZ who voted National are hurting enough to vote for the left, and it is only a matter of time, then they may well be very happy to have a staunch, true Labour Maori woman in charge who will stand up to the establishment and get a better deal for the ordinary working NZers.

        • greywarshark 12.2.1.1
          27 October 2014 at 8:52 pm

          Maori have clawed back from those who are conservative, grasping NZ much of their heritage and the challenge has taken its toll of those who worked for it. The kaumatua have kept on, and given encouragement and support to the younger ones, and they have succeeded against great hostility. They have backbone, and continue on doggedly despite knockbacks. And Maori love language, they are good speakers, not the vehement and obssessive or silent dour pakeha riff-raff that form the basis of any group of racist men and women.

          It is likely that if Nanaia became leader that there would be so much attention on Labour that yek would be second billing often. And have to look through his drawers for some tool to use against her. She has been in the papers already for some dramatic events relating to family. I think she would just calmly continue on with the job over the top of any attempt to throw a spanner in the works.

    • les 12.3
      27 October 2014 at 6:11 pm

      you are part of the problem imo…all the candidates have credentials,but preaching to the converted does not translate to winning the election.Its winning back voters who didn’t vote Labour that is the task.And to succeed you need a leader that will appeal to THEM!

      • Colonial Rawshark 12.3.1
        27 October 2014 at 6:40 pm

        Appealing to THEM being (wannabe) white middle class males on $60K and over, yeah?

        You’re not talking about appealing to the appallingly numerous low waged folk and beneficiaries who didn’t vote Labour, are you?

        Just guessing.

        • les 12.3.1.1
          27 October 2014 at 6:49 pm

          appealing to people who have voted Labour before but haven’t been interested in doing so for the last few elections.

      • SDCLFC 12.3.2
        27 October 2014 at 9:32 pm

        Let alone having called them all racists. Tough guy to have round for a bbq this one; think I recognise him from Don’s Party.
        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074422/

    • vto 12.4
      27 October 2014 at 7:17 pm

      Yep, “middle” “white” new Zealand is racist, sexist, patriarchal and just completely bigoted in the head all over

      piss off dave brown – shallow and ignorant

      • greywarshark 12.4.1
        27 October 2014 at 8:56 pm

        @ vto 7.17 pm
        Dave Brown was putting up a robust coverage of different arguments. If you had read to the last you would have seen this – which I think gives his own thinking on the matter of Nanaia.

        By voting for Nanaia first, and for Little second, we are telling the fuckers out there we know who they are and we are coming to get them.

        • SDCLFC 12.4.1.1
          27 October 2014 at 9:36 pm

          I read to the last and it didn’t impress me.
          I felt like I was being called a racist, bigot because I’m white, am a father and was brought up middle-class.
          How not to win friends and influence people is how I’d categorise that thinking.

          • vto 12.4.1.1.1
            27 October 2014 at 9:49 pm

            Yep. Unfortunately it is a common bigotry of the left and often expressed on this site. Mr Brown’s brain explosion there is a classic example.

            It is doubly unfortunate because the point which greywarshark highlights has some validity. They just need to back off on the rude and bigoted generalisations.

          • wekarawshark 12.4.1.1.2
            27 October 2014 at 10:25 pm

            I’m white and was brought up middle- class and I heard Dave talking about racists not white people.

            • vto 12.4.1.1.2.1
              27 October 2014 at 10:29 pm

              but the word is right there in the defining opening sentence weka ….

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                27 October 2014 at 10:33 pm

                “white racist patriarchal NZ” does describe one specific segment of NZ culture fairly well. I don’t think Dave Brown suggests that ALL pakeha are racist and patriarchal, for instance.

                • wekarawshark …
                  27 October 2014 at 10:36 pm

                  yes, that’s how I read it too. And that some on the left think that the Labour leader needs to appeal to that sector of society, whereas Dave is suggesting it’s based on fear and is a losing strategy.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    27 October 2014 at 10:47 pm

                    It’s also exactly where Labour keeps going wrong – the need to appeal to and be liked by natural National supporters.

                    Instead of appealing to, motivating and exciting its own natural base.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      27 October 2014 at 10:49 pm

                      I suppose that’s what I liked about Dave’s comment. It was clear and unequivocally left wing. Refreshing.

                    • boldsirbrian …
                      28 October 2014 at 12:11 am

                      @ Colonial

                      It’s also exactly where Labour keeps going wrong – the need to appeal to and be liked by natural National supporters.

                      Instead of appealing to, motivating and exciting its own natural base.

                      This will probably lead to a situation seen in the Values Party, the Social Credit Party, and the New Labour Party. A slow decline, as the Party is forced to continue to appeal to an ever diminishing ….and even more strident … activist base, becoming more and more irrelevant to the public..

                      The problem is the word “Instead” Colonial.

                      Of course it is important to appeal to it’s own natural base….. AND to appeal to voters that will raise the support for the Party up from the 25% support it currently received.

                      I would actually place an emphasis on the latter. There is nothing like a growing level of support to excite and motivate the “natural base”

                    • wekarawshark …
                      28 October 2014 at 12:16 am

                      Pretty hard to be a party that tries to get left and right votes.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      28 October 2014 at 12:16 am

                      boldsirbrian: I disagree with your analysis. Your idea of appealing to natural Labour Party supporters (who you misidentify as activists!) by winning over the comfortable middle class – is utterly backasswards.

                    • Tracey …
                      28 October 2014 at 5:32 pm

                      yes for some reason some lp peolle have it in their heads that lp has to win alot of nat voters over. if lp wants to lead a govt, imo, they can do it with less than 5% of those currently voting nats, better mmp cooperation and non voters.

              • wekarawshark …
                27 October 2014 at 10:34 pm

                Opening sentence: “Picking winners on the basis of popularity with white, racist patriarchal NZ is the politics of fear.”

                Yes, he’s pointing to a part of NZ society. Do you relate with that part of society? Why? I don’t, although I know it.

                • vto …
                  27 October 2014 at 10:46 pm

                  Hmmmm, you and CV may have split a hair there but its not really supported because further down he says “A Maori woman does not even appear on the radar of racist, sexist, authoritarian passive-aggressive middle NZ except as an objectified threat.”

                  Middle NZ is of course generally accepted as white, mostly, vastly bulkily. And that sentence reads as middle NZ, who is racist, sexist, etc etc, not the racist, sexist, etc etc part of middle NZ.

                  So the two descriptions combine to paint a bigot in full flight.

                  But then, you know, we interpret from inside our own individual heads and look through our own individual eyes, so maybe you could read it the way you have …

                  But also further – he gives his bigotry away again by referencing “middle” nz. I have never given the term “middle” any credibility. All it does is allow those of shallow thought to dump opinions and generalisations. In this example – does Brown think “bottom” nz or “top” nz are any different on those counts? Eh, really?. Nup. If anything imo the bottom and top are worse on those counts.

                  anyways sorry, I must away… and you know this issue is a hair trigger for me, rightly or wrongly …. out

                  • wekarawshark …
                    27 October 2014 at 10:53 pm

                    I also think ‘middle NZ’ is a construct rather than a hard reality. Hence I took his comment as representative rather than absolute.

                    Just because NZ society is patriachal, it doesn’t follow that all NZers are sexist.

            • SDCLFC 12.4.1.1.2.2
              27 October 2014 at 10:34 pm

              “Picking winners on the basis of popularity with white, racist patriarchal NZ is the politics of fear.”

              I heard him talking about white people along with all the other name calling of fuckers, sexist etc.

              • wekarawshark …
                27 October 2014 at 10:37 pm

                Interesting. Well perhaps he can clarify, but it reads to me like the people who are white and racist and patriarchal. Not the white people, the racists and the sexists.

                • SDCLFC …
                  27 October 2014 at 10:44 pm

                  Are matriarchal, non-whites racists exempt?

                  • wekarawshark …
                    27 October 2014 at 10:55 pm

                    exempt from what?

                    I don’t know any matriarchal, non-white racists personally, perhaps you could give an example.

                    • SDCLFC …
                      27 October 2014 at 11:07 pm

                      Exempt from his vitriolic criticisms.
                      I don’t need to because I wasn’t the one making grand proclamations identifying the demographics of racism.
                      He either is not concerned with matriarchal, non-white racists, patriarchal non-white racists, matriarchal white racists or he believes they don’t exist in which case he’s saying that all racists are white patriarchs. See the problem with making grand statements about the demographics of racism and why people get so put-out by it.off by it

                    • wekarawshark …
                      28 October 2014 at 12:17 pm

                      I have no idea what you are talking about, other than that you think that generic statements included you and you’re offended.

                      There is no such thing as the matriarchy, which pretty much renders your whole point meaningless. You might have more luck arguing that there are Māori racists, but then you come up against the problem that Dave’s comment is almost certainly in the context of structural racism and not restricted to personal racism. You would have to explain how Māori as a class support and perpetuate structural racism against non-Māori.

                      You seem to believe that racism and sexism are human traits (and thus applicable to everyone) rather than things that arise from specific classes of people that have privilege and prejudice.

                    • SDCLFC …
                      28 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

                      A matriarchy stretching across all of New Zealand might not exist, however matriarchs in small demographics may well and matriarchs as individuals certainly do therefore like patriarchs they can be racist unless you believe that only patriarchs (and whites) can be which is how our friends comment above reads.
                      “[T]elling the fuckers out there we know who they are and we are coming to get them.” read as Dan wanting to be very personal to white people, patriarchs and racists.
                      This is one of the most astonishingly prejudicial, imbecilic comments I’ve read on here (not that I spend much time), and it astounds me that people would defend it.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      28 October 2014 at 1:41 pm

                      That’s probably because you don’t understand what he said. He’s not talking about patriarchs (go read the comment again). He’s talking about patriarchal society. If you don’t know what that means google ‘patriarchy 101’.

                      When you give me an example of an actual matriarchy (either national or a small pocket), I’ll have a conversation with you about racism in that context.

                    • SDCLFC …
                      28 October 2014 at 1:59 pm

                      I understand perfectly well.
                      And I understand that he may well have been trying to say that because of institutional racism in New Zealand’s patriarchal society etc, but he didn’t.
                      A pocket of a matriarch? The Playcentre I attend with my child is matriarchal. Not racist, not at all racist, however matriarchs do exist therefore can also be racist unless you believe that only patriarchs can be.

                    • wekarawshark …
                      28 October 2014 at 2:12 pm

                      I’m not willing to be in a conversation with someone who willfully misuses the English language, because it’s just a mindfuck and no decent communication can happen. To me it looks intentional because your assertions about patriarchs in fact have nothing whatsoever to do with Brown’s comment.

                      If I’m mistaken and you still can’t tell the difference between patriarchy and patriarch (or matriarchy and matriarch), I suggest you educate yourself (try a dictionary to start with).

          • greywarshark 12.4.1.1.3
            28 October 2014 at 12:35 pm

            SD etc
            I’m declaring myself right away. I’m a letter-ist. I hate lots of letters instead of a name. The name is a sort of identifier, the letters to me are just random, or an acronym which usually indicates to me I’m someone who doesn’t know what’s going on and others don’t think it worth explaining the name behind the acronym.

            As for your feelings being hurt, you and vto. How do you know you aren’t a racist if you don’t think about it, question yourself, now and then. And how can anyone get through life always not criticising someone of a different race or colour or generalising about them. You have to think about it to know if you have ‘transgressed’ and decide whether it was justified. When you have considered, then you can decide you are not racist, at the present.

            Then you can stop feeling so holy, humans err, forgive yourself for you’re lapses and try and do better in the future. Things aren’t always black or white. But don’t hold yourself up as somebody who can’t be questioned, or criticised.
            We all criticise, but we hope it is done fairly.

            Dave Brown seemed to be referring to certain parts of society that he thinks that Labour is targetting, and goes on to mention Shearer, Robertson and Parker. He then criticises Cunliffe as joining the trio because of his apology. Which I think too was inappropriate at that time. He infers that the system up till now has overlooked Nanaia and her work, and that it might be because it is largely Maori and whanau-related and that she is a woman, and all these things together result in her being invisible as she stands in the shade of noisier, white males. I wonder if that is the case?

            Brown hasn’t thought to mention you vto and SD whatever. If you are not the above why are you getting antsy…. Or perhaps it is a bit close to the bone?

            • vto 12.4.1.1.3.1
              28 October 2014 at 1:08 pm

              Having your ethnicity roundly generalised and subjected to bigotry goes down poorly with most all ethnicities greywarshark.

              Anyway, my response is outlined in the above. Pretty self-explanatory I would have thought. Those on the far left like Brown are as bigoted as those on the far right like Ansell.

              • greywarshark …
                28 October 2014 at 1:43 pm

                @ vto 1.08pm
                Brown came on strong for sure, and it sounds as if you have read him too often holding forth before. My thought that it is necessary to keep the nobility of one’s attitudes under scrutiny is still valid. And that applies to Maori talking about pakeha too, it applies to all. Too easy to fall into smugness about one’s own righteousness.

              • wekarawshark …
                28 October 2014 at 1:44 pm

                @ vto, bullshit, and you conflating what Brown said about societal structures with Ansell’s white supremacy is both ignorant and daft. And self-serving.

                By all means take what Brown said personally. As grey said, if the hat fits.

                • vto …
                  28 October 2014 at 2:04 pm

                  You are welcome to your opinion weka of course. I have already explained the bigotry of Brown above and don’t see that there is much more to add.

                  • wekarawshark …
                    28 October 2014 at 2:13 pm

                    No you haven’t. Brown didn’t subject YOU to his attack, unless you are a racist etc. Are you?

                    • vto …
                      28 October 2014 at 2:24 pm

                      yes I have, including the personal aspect, try reading closer.

                      the left don’t like being called out as bigots do they. they try to occupy some sort of higher ground on such matters. then they get all upset if criticised for it.

                      you can choose to turn a blind eye to Brown’s bigotry if you wish. your personal choice for your personal reasons..

            • SDCLFC 12.4.1.1.3.2
              28 October 2014 at 1:48 pm

              If it helps they’re my initials fused with Liverpool Football Club. As unidentifiable to you as yours is to me – do you like 5 day old sushi or am I reading that wrong – I don’t care.
              Don’t worry about my feelings – they’re fine and always were – thanks for the concern though.
              Much of your comment reads like gibberish so I can’t comment.
              Where I can follow your thoughts I will disagree with you that Dan was criticising because good criticism is measured and self-moderated.
              He was preaching, proclaiming a large demographic of society, white patriarchs, racist.
              I am offering criticism to his comments as opposed to those who want to cheer for such obscene opinions.
              I read his comment regarding Cunliffe differently, that he was grouping the reaction to Cunliffe’s apology with the patriarchal white racist fuckers who need to know that Dan’s coming to get them.
              Close to the bone? Being a non-racist white father it was close to the bone.

      • blue leopard 12.4.2
        28 October 2014 at 2:38 pm

        VTO,

        Calling people out on being bigoted does not make someone bigoted.

        New Zealand just voted in a poltical party that uses propaganda that appeals to peoples’ fears, bigotry, and the lowest instincts in people. The National party’s consistent mode has been to use puerile name-calling and bullying tactics to win.

        It is not unreasonable to conclude that ‘middle New Zealand’ have these qualities – because large numbers of people did support a party displaying these qualities.

        • vto 12.4.2.1
          28 October 2014 at 2:44 pm

          Hang on. Isn’t your third paragraph logic that you rely on the same logic that you criticise in the first paragraph?

          In addition, how on earth would anyone know what type of New Zealanders voted for who? And further on that and on the basis your wild and completely unproveable assumption is correct, you claim ‘middle’ nz voted for the nasty Nats, but wasn’t it those that traditionally vote left that went to the Nats? In other words it was arguably the lefty types who responded to the name-calling and bigotry.

          I think you twisted yourself up there ….

          • blue leopard 12.4.2.1.1
            28 October 2014 at 2:52 pm

            “Hang on. Isn’t your third paragraph logic that you rely on the same logic that you criticise in the first paragraph?”

            “I think you twisted yourself up there ….”

            No, I don’t think I have used the same logic. I am providing a reason for why a person, such as myself, may have concluded from the election results that there are a large number of New Zealanders with questionable values.

            You will have to make your point clearer, because I don’t really understand your line of reasoning at all here.

            ” …but wasn’t it those that traditionally vote left that went to the Nats? In other words it was arguably the lefty types who responded to the name-calling and bigotry.”

            I don’t know the demographics, however I am of the view that anyone who got swayed by the bigoted propaganda of National, whether of a left or right-wing persuasion, show a vulnerability toward bigotry.

            • vto 12.4.2.1.1.1
              28 October 2014 at 3:10 pm

              I think you may have done it again blue leopard. Your line here “may have concluded from the election results that there are a large number of New Zealanders with questionable values”. Your conclusion was that this was “middle” nz.

              Yet your line here “I don’t know the demographics” completely undermines that conclusion.

              If you don’t know the demographics then how can you conclude that it was ‘middle’ nz?

              My point around who changed voting to support the nats was that it would appear that it was the lefties who did this . The right increased, while the left decreased i.e. the left listened to the name-calling and bigotry of the nats and responded to it by voting for it…

              Mr Dave Brown may wish to reflect on this fact too before rushing to judgment as he did.

              edit: but I completely agree that this election showed that a huge chunk of nzers have questionable values. Imo many will come to regret their vote, possibly leading to a landslide change next time…

              • blue leopard …
                28 October 2014 at 4:06 pm

                Done what again? I asked you to explain what you meant, I don’t understand.

                With reference to my ‘demographic’ comment – all I was saying is I didn’t know whether your assumption that left-wingers had moved to the right was correct, however if that were so I would consider such people in the same light. I often shorten what I am saying to keep my comments shorter (which have a tendency to get rather long) and hope/trust that the person reading will not do what you have just done – misinterpret what I am saying.

                Do you accept the main point I was making, or not? That simply calling out people for bigotry doesn’t make one a bigot?

                It just seemed to me that your response to Dave Brown’s comments contained the erroneous view that simply having someone call out bigotry made them a bigot.

                I really don’t think the MSM or politicians currently in power could get away with the type of small-minded memes they continuously express, if this country didn’t have a large element of bigotry contained within its culture. There would be an uproar.

                I don’t think the propaganda being used would take hold in the way it has, if there wasn’t a large element of bigotry in our culture.

                Have you got another explaination? I’m all ears.

                I am glad that we have some agreement (re your edit 🙂 ) however your edit tends to contradict the views you were putting forward previously. Please explain.

    • Chooky 12.5
      27 October 2014 at 7:54 pm

      +100 dave brown

    • boldsirbrian 12.6
      28 October 2014 at 12:26 am

      @ dave brown (12)

      By voting for Nanaia first, and for Little second, we are telling the fuckers out there we know who they are and we are coming to get them.

      I do not want to send any message anywhere that we are coming to “get” anybody.
      I think a method of positive politics (not just a slogan) would be better.

      I agree with your assessment of Nanaia Mahuta as first choice. By far the best prospect for leader. But Little as deputy would be a wrong choice for precisely what you say it will “tell the fuckers”

      • Colonial Rawshark 12.6.1
        28 October 2014 at 12:49 am

        I think the membership will once again this year send caucus a very strong message. How the Labour caucus interprets that message – will be up to them. And if they don’t get it this time, we’ll send it louder and clearer until they do.

        • boldsirbrian 12.6.1.1
          28 October 2014 at 7:56 am

          @ Colonial (12.6.1)

          I think the membership will once again this year send caucus a very strong message. How the Labour caucus interprets that message – will be up to them. And if they don’t get it this time, we’ll send it louder and clearer until they do.

          This sums up the problem that Labour has. Those who want Labour to again become Government, and strident shouting activists who want Labour to be a small minority party representing their personal interests, a little bit like the Social Credit Party.

          The shouters, of course have no accountability. It’s their way or the highway, in their minds. I think that Nanaia Mahuta will be up to unifying the Party, including the vast majority of the refreshed membership, and the shouters will slink off to New Zealand First.

          The stakes are high. If the successful candidate (whoever of the four candidates) cannot sort out the shouters, I predict those with Labour core values at heart will make a gradual exodus to parties such as the Greens and Mana. Not a bad prospect individually, but a left Government will take even longer to achieve.

          • wekarawshark 12.6.1.1.1
            28 October 2014 at 8:10 am

            you do realise that you just insulted the whole Labour party internal structure? The people that voted for the membership to have more say include the active party people who are delegates representing their regions. Are you saying they’re the shouty ones too? Or that they made a mistake in giving the membership more power?

            • boldsirbrian 12.6.1.1.1.1
              28 October 2014 at 9:07 am

              @ wekarawshark (12.6.1.1.1)

              I am astounded how my comment could be interpreted as an insult. Hello? Labour has had the worst defeat for nearly a century, and now it’s more important to worry about the hurt feelings of a few people, rather than consider the importance of electing a leader who can unify the party?

              The strident shouting activists can be anywhere … those that are part of the group who suggest that they will not accept democratic decisions, and will continue to undermine: “if they don’t get it this time, we’ll send it louder and clearer until they do”. Those people who appear more interested in the party representing their personal agenda, than caring about growing the Party vote.

              There is of course legitimate debate about the “membership” vote. How much say should they have? What protections does the Party have for a membership that will demand a ‘new car’ capable of winning the race, but demand that it also has square wheels?

              The biggest protection against that in the short term is having a substantial membership base, which the election has fortunately fostered.

          • greywarshark 12.6.1.1.2
            28 October 2014 at 12:57 pm

            I thought bold sir brian was an amusing pseudo. The AAMilne character used to be a dick and aggressive and causing skirmishes, until the villagers rose up and confiscated his weapons and threw him in the duckpond. But the pseudonym seems to represent the feelings of someone who has been quietened by that ducking and now wants to tame the left who demand strongly that Labour represent the people who formed it.

            Those who have gentrified themselves now want to take Labour along with them as a useful working machine into their land of milk and honey. But they have stolen the machine from the people struggling at the bottom. And they are stirring and saying give us our bloody Labour machine back. We have waited for you to return it, we have asked for long enough, and we are not giving up the quest for its return.

            So sir brian you had better regain some of your challenging spirit and dry off the duckweed or you can’t be regarded as a true, responsible leftie in this village.

            • boldsirbrian 12.6.1.1.2.1
              28 October 2014 at 3:06 pm

              @ greywarshark (12.6.1.1.2)

              Good work on the pseudo analysis. Amazing how you can make it fit an argument. Yes, boldsirbrian did become Mr. Botany (B.) I’ll add it to the bottom.

              What amuses me are those who are so strident about the great divides in Labour between the “real” left … or as you refer to it as the “true” left, or the “responsible” left; and the bad guys …. where they borrow skills from Whaleoil and call them “traitorous” and “neo-liberal” and as you have done above, the biggest insult of all? …”gentrified”. Oh dear.

              But for all the wailing, I’ve seen very very little about differences in policies between these warring factions. It’s all smoke and mirrors, as far as I can tell…..and much ado about nothing. Waffling semantics largely. If the two groups just kissed and made up, the union just may thrive.

              What Labour does need to do is to work out it’s vision and what it stands for in relation to the real parties of the left: Greens and Mana, and from there work out an election strategy. Does Labour really want to compete against Greens and Mana, instead of National? How do the left parties compare on great issues of the day, such the TPP, going to war, housing, job creation, wages , crime and punishment, global warming and the environment, health and education and welfare? Where does Labour want to agree, and where does it want to differentiate itself? The answer is possibly buried in a list of policies, but it’s not clear to the public.

              My feeling is that the great left-right-middle-liberal debate is not at the root of the Labour problems that have to be fixed. It’s more to do with not having a clear vision, and doing some things really badly. The “man apology” probably shaved several percent off the Labour vote, not because of that particular issue in itself, but because it was perceived as part of a more general malaise, harking back to the “Nanny State” perception that helped finish the Clark years.

              Mr. Botany (B.)

              • greywarshark …
                28 October 2014 at 6:46 pm

                sirbrian
                The concern of many here is that the attention will be on merely getting a Labour Party in. The leader and the presentation will be concentrated on to the exclusion of everything else.

                It is getting good policies for the people and the country in general that are now vital – to get a strong people investing approach. If those are the policies then that is the strong base. Next is how to explain them to the public and a leader who the public will warm to.

                • boldsirbrian …
                  28 October 2014 at 7:44 pm

                  @ greywarshark

                  The concern of many here is that the attention will be on merely getting a Labour Party in. The leader and the presentation will be concentrated on to the exclusion of everything else.

                  With that I totally agree.

                  It’s a pity that the leadership has to be fought before the review is completed. Perhaps a relatively minor change to the rules could see a better outcome if ever this happens again.

                  It’s a pity that all parties buy into the media desired “presidential” style of electioneering. It’s convenient for the media, but ensures that insufficient attention is placed on other senior politicians in parties that do not rely on the Leader to make all policy.

                  ~~~~

                  It is getting good policies for the people and the country in general that are now vital – to get a strong people investing approach. If those are the policies then that is the strong base. Next is how to explain them to the public and a leader who the public will warm to.

                  Again good comment.

                  I would add a little to first place an emphasis on telling the world what Labour is all about. The vision. Something simplified enough to be easily understandable, but detailed enough to hang the policies on.

                  It is no surprise that the current vision was never publicised:
                  “By leading a strong, progressive government, Labour
                  will provide all New Zealanders with the support and
                  opportunity to achieve their potential, no matter their
                  background.

                  It looks like a committee consensus job. Says little, and does not inspire. I am loath to criticise though, as I cannot immediately think of something better. Worth a thought, perhaps, from a few marketing gurus?.

                  Mr. Botany (B.)

  13. les 13
    27 October 2014 at 5:36 pm

    Crummy reason for selecting a leader.National would love it.Would Nanaia have broad voter appeal=NO.

    • finbar 13.1
      27 October 2014 at 6:28 pm

      How fucked is Labour now.How fucked are they following this is what should be done.How fucked is Labour now,following look what gets elected elsewhere.

  14. fisiani 14
    27 October 2014 at 6:19 pm

    Please make Nanaia the next leader till November 2017. For the reasons articulated above she is an excellent candidate and although I do not expect her to win I wish her well.

  15. Clean_power 15
    27 October 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Whoever created that headline must be dreaming: all potential leaders are and will be attacked. It is the nature of politics.
    Not that the Labour Party does not do the same.

    • Bill 15.1
      27 October 2014 at 6:54 pm

      Me. I created the headline. I create all the headlines for the posts I write.

      Did you read the post? I ask, because in the post I explicitly state…” Whoever is leader, is going to subjected to, and have to contend with, an endless barrage of innuendo and attempted smears from Slater, Farrar and/or others.”

      And the Labour Party does not do the same as the ‘dirty politics’ brigade on the right of the political spectrum. Even a cursory read of “Dirty Politics” would have enlightened you on that front.

      • finbar 15.1.1
        27 October 2014 at 7:27 pm

        Grow up,understand that whatever Labour does by its enemies is going to be riddiculed.Its what Labour does should be sparking up your mind,not some capital and their corporation.FIRE UP Naniaia,you think she dont know that,or are you into look what these dogs are saing about us.We know what their dogs are going to say about us.Its your understanding to select not what your ignorance thinks but what is better for the party.Deciding on race and looks and what the other side are going to say,is not the way to decide.

  16. ropata 16
    27 October 2014 at 7:12 pm

    Remember you’re not just voting for the next Leader of the LP, but quite possibly the next PM of NZ. I think it would be awesome if Nanaia pulled an Obama and won the next election.

    I can’t see the NZ public voting for Robertson in a big way, Little and Parker are grey men, but I reckon either of them will probably take the leadership. Nanaia Mahuta is someone really different with the ability to win back the good will of Kiwi voters.

    Whaia Kia Kaha Labour!
    May the best person win, and rejuvenate the party.

    • finbar 16.1
      27 October 2014 at 7:36 pm

      Its not about look at me im the first Maori,to say to you,i have your care as my charge.Its about we are challenged,lets stand and care for us,look see know what has lost control of our care.Labour is back,and our care is home.

  17. Mike 17
    27 October 2014 at 7:16 pm

    The Left DOES engage in “dirty politics”, god I hate that phrase. It’s become such lame meme now. It’s simply the age old tactic of trying to discredit someone by digging for dirt.

    What did Labour spend the last 3 elections doing? You must be blind not to see that a huge part of their strategy was based on attacking John Key. Everyone whether left or right knows that JK is the strength behind National.

    Remember the “H-Bomb” that was supposed to be dropped on JK in 2008?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/696924/Labour-tries-to-dodge-bomb-fallout

    There was a pretty big effort to do the same with Judith Collins. The only difference was Judith was discredited successfully because there were obvious conflicts of interest revealed and frankly she deserved to be bought to account.

    [lprent: Oh what complete bullshit. You have to reach back to 2008 for an example from a single person? What are you? A particularly stupid child?

    When a newly created author pushed a post about the “H-bomb” on this site, a number of authors here looked at it, decided that it was probably crap, and booted the author. We then did a post a month later after the NZ Herald wrote about it saying that it looked fishy, and a followup post the day later saying that the Herald was probably wrong. That wasn’t to say that John Key looked innocent. Simply the evidence used simply didn’t look credible.

    That is why most of the left activists looked at it and dropped it as being toxic stupidity.

    The job of an opposition in Westminster system is to look at the Ministers of the Crown and to examine their behaviour. Same for all types of media. All of the Collins stuff was done above board and in public. Most of it was done with OIAs. There were far too many coincidences in the patterns between the toxic attacks by the arsehole bloggers and Collin’s interests. That was obvious long before Dirty Politics.

    Frankly if you think that the examination of Ministers is dirty politics, then I guess that you really really need a lesson in civics or you are instinctive fascist with the arselicking fetish with powr.

    But I guess even a poor thinking fool like yourself must realize that. Look at your last paragraph.

    So what are you left with as evidence? Nothing…. apart from displaying your asine bigotry. ]

    • karol 17.1
      27 October 2014 at 7:23 pm

      The Left DOES engage in “dirty politics”, god I hate that phrase. It’s become such lame meme now. It’s simply the age old tactic of trying to discredit someone by digging for dirt.

      Nope. You clearly haven’t read Dirty Politics or paid any attention to the discussion of the content.

      Dirty Politics is a particular kind of highly orchestrated and relentless attack politics that uses a two-track strategy. It’s about having John Key as a smiley front man, distanced from the attack politics (track one), while the second track via Slater_Lusk_Ede_Kiwiblog et al, gets the benefits of the Nats research digging endlessly for things (most often very trivial). And it involves feeding lines to mainstream journalist; threatening politicians and journalists who don’t follow their lines with disclosures about their sex lives.

      It’s underhand, covert and extremely nasty.

      It’s a continuation from the politics of deception, as practiced by the Nats and exposed in The Hollow Men.

      The Left has never done anything like any of that.

      • Chooky 17.1.1
        27 October 2014 at 7:51 pm

        +100 karol

      • lprent 17.1.2
        27 October 2014 at 8:48 pm

        Yeah. If we started to do the dirty politics style in anything, the first to turn on us would be the activists on the left. Most tolerate disagreement well. They don’t tolerate being told how to think or missing logic strings with much tolerance.

        In my experience, the right seem to operate in a bit of a group mind of conformity. Really kind of irritating.

      • lprent 17.1.3
        27 October 2014 at 8:48 pm

        Yeah. If we started to do the dirty politics style in anything, the first to turn on us would be the activists on the left. Most tolerate disagreement well. They don’t tolerate being told how to think or missing logic strings with much tolerance.

        In my experience, the right seem to operate in a bit of a group mind of conformity. Really kind of irritating.

        • greywarshark 17.1.3.1
          27 October 2014 at 9:00 pm

          @ lprent Group conformity – Bit like the comments here! Did anything happen yesterday afternoon Lynn? TS was off for me.

    • just saying 17.2
      27 October 2014 at 7:41 pm

      Read the book.

    • Mike 17.3
      28 October 2014 at 9:04 am

      Obviously you are the one who needs to learn to fucking read. Do you deny Labour’s main strategy for the last 3 elections is based on trying to discredit Key?

      [lprent: Perhaps you should ask Labour, I just run this site.

      I simply pointed out that you were completely wrong on two substantive points in *your* argument. In short, in my view, you were simply lying. Since you addressed it to no-one in particular and it had nothing much to do with the post, I assume you are talking to me. I responded as part of the robust debate part of this site.

      So you want to ignore the two points? Fine. This is a place for *debate* and that means dealing with other peoples objections to whatever you happen to *have* wanted to talk about. That you don’t want to talk about it any more is your choice, however you have dropped from debate to trolling.

      Banned two weeks so you can review your online behaviour and adjust to dealing with others in a online debate rather than being mindless troll spewing crap all over our site and being too gutless to deal with challenges to your own points.

      I really don’t like cleaning up the mindless flamewars that come from online idiots like yourself being better at wanking than thinking. ]

      • Tracey 17.3.1
        28 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

        please outline for us what you understand dirty politics means as espoused in the recent book of the same name, then we can discuss if trying to show up mr key for his hundreds of lies to mislead the electorate is dirty politics.

  18. Psycho Milt 18
    27 October 2014 at 7:24 pm

    Nanaia Mahuta is the exception. I believe she’d present a real problem for the National Party’s two track system of ‘dirty politics’; even to the extent that attack lines could well backfire in spectacular fashion.

    I don’t think they’d really struggle to come up with stuff like “Brown Table aristocracy,” or “been in Parliament 18 years without notable achievements.” No doubt there are others. She’s as vulnerable as any of the contenders. Of course, in theory the current PM, a wealthy bankster and insider trader, had a severe propaganda handicap to overcome, but it all seems to bounce off.

    • finbar 18.1
      27 October 2014 at 7:45 pm

      Only would shallow ignorance run so uncaring lines.

      • McFlock 18.1.1
        27 October 2014 at 10:30 pm

        pretty much sums up the tory msm and dirty tricks brigade.

        Although to be fair, every single candidate will have shallow and uncaring lines tailored and personalised especially for them, care of dunnokeyo’s cronies.

    • miravox 18.2
      27 October 2014 at 11:14 pm

      Yeah, I’d say she’s the most vulnerable.

      The iwi/kiwi meme is just as strong as when Don Brash gave his speech and Nanaia presents an obvious image for that in a two-track politics strategy. Plus the ‘she’s been elected because she’s a woman not because she’s the best’ brigade will be out in force in all the opinion columns and comments threads of the corporate media.

      Having said that, I’m not making my decision based on what the two-trackers might do.

  19. Undecided 19
    28 October 2014 at 10:24 am

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Irritated – always explain why. Dropping a link and a 6 word meaningless teaser is just the action of a troll. I really don’t like people dropping in decade old articles like this on the site and then being too gutless to explain why they think it could be of interest to others.

    Banned for four weeks. You just lost your ability to comment on the leadership election on this site because of your piss-poor behavior. Just like the couple of previous trolls who ran this same article with the same kind of trolling behaviour. ]

    • Undecided 19.1
      28 October 2014 at 12:42 pm

      I apoligise, I don’t think its an issue as its in the past however politics…[deleted]

      [lprent: And now you are bringing it up without a link, making unsubstantiated assertions, and talking about something that is legal. You still haven’t managed explained why it is of any *political* interest (your prurient behaviour doesn’t count as being of interest).

      Banned 4 weeks for wasting more of my time.

      BTW: I rather suspect that having Whaleoil bringing it up means that it much *less* likely to get in the media.

      The question that the media are likely to ask is the same as mine – who is paying for him to run that story? ]

  20. Mighty Kites 20
    28 October 2014 at 10:56 am

    The same Nanaia Mahuta that has done nothing over the past six years even when she was shadow education spokesperson? Yeah, National will be shaking in their boots at the prospect of going toe to toe with her…

    • Tracey 20.1
      28 October 2014 at 4:22 pm

      what did key contribute to new zealand between 2002 and 2005… from 2005 he was rtraining as a knife sharpener

Links to post