And then there were four

Written By: - Date published: 6:33 pm, October 11th, 2014 - 156 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

And then there were four?

David Parker is likely to join the leadership race tomorrow.

David Parker has announced he’s holding a press conference tomorrow, but hasn’t disclosed what for.

He’s the man behind the complicated policies like raising the age of super that Andrew Little says frightened voters away.

Looks like we might have a contest of ideas after all.

Update: Confirmed – David Parker is standing.

156 comments on “And then there were four ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Rawshark 1
    11 October 2014 at 6:37 pm

    Let me get this straight. Slightly under 1/3 of the white men in the Labour caucus have now put their names up for the leadership selection. WTF.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 1.1
      11 October 2014 at 6:46 pm

      How about all of them 20+ (how many exactly, readers? I am not bothered to look up such a tiny detail) put their names forward?

      That way, the voting can be done on the basis of ranking the Labour MPs.

      Voters, collectively/in aggregate, can send a clear message about what they think about each of the MPs and their priority in the scheme of who voters would like to be represented in Parliament.

      Hey, the collective membership can do the list ranking of Labour MPs!

      🙂

      • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 1.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 7:49 pm

        edit.

        My good friend tells me there are 32 Labour MPs in the House.

    • phillip ure 1.2
      11 October 2014 at 8:02 pm

      i have just announced over on the general debate thread..

      ..that i am formally stating my intention to stand for the leadership of the labour party..

      ..i am the circuit-breaker labour needs…

      [lprent: Are you sure you got that correct. I can’t imagine why Labour would need a broken circuit? I trust the volume of weed wasn’t the cause? ]

      • Clean_power 1.2.1
        12 October 2014 at 9:54 am

        I support your candidacy Mr Ure. I believe your excellent command of the English language and wonderful writing abilities make you the right person to spread Labour’s message.

        You have won my vote.

      • phillip ure 1.2.2
        12 October 2014 at 10:10 am

        @ lprent..

        ..so that neo-lib/fuck-the-poor circuit needs to remain intact..?

        ..(remember labour 2014 said they wd raise the incomes of the very poorest..to match the/any raise in inflation..that was it..!.)

        ..and ‘volume of weed’..?

        ..i wish..!

        • ghostwhowalksnz 1.2.2.1
          12 October 2014 at 12:38 pm

          Dont you just love it how ‘everybody’ has invited themselves to the party who selects the next labour leader!

          The national party blogs are in full selection mode, the newspapers are a buzz with who should stand, who will stand, who will go.

          Of course The Standard features the candidates themselves, perhaps uniquely, why is that ?

  2. quartz 2
    11 October 2014 at 6:42 pm

    He bags his leader for the loss despite being the deputy throughout the campaign, then he says he won’t stand and instead becomes the acting leader, then he stands? What kind of a game is he playing?

    • Bill 2.1
      11 October 2014 at 6:51 pm

      What kind of a game is he playing?

      A losing one in which he’s the laughable pawn in the hands of Shearer, Goff, Cosgrove, Mallard, King…?

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 2.2
      11 October 2014 at 6:53 pm

      It reveals his d-i-s-c-o-n-n-e-c-t and a game of being a garbled and mixed up mess?

      Btw, wasn’t he meant to be the caretaker, neutral, let’s-keep-it-seemly leader to steer caucus through the leadership primary? Ho ho ho.

      For his sake, I hope the press conference tomorrow is not about him putting his name forward.

    • ankerawshark 2.3
      11 October 2014 at 9:16 pm

      1000+ Quartz @2

    • alwyn 2.4
      12 October 2014 at 12:56 pm

      “becomes the acting leader, then he stands”
      Perhaps he found out just how comfortable the Crown limo the Leader of the Opposition gets is and decided he would like it permanently?

  3. karol 3
    11 October 2014 at 6:48 pm

    Is it most likely that he will stand – or that the press conference is about something else: eg who he will be supporting in the leadership contest?

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 3.1
      11 October 2014 at 6:54 pm

      An ‘acting’ leader, no matter how good an actor, should not be drawn into stating who s/he will be supporting in the leadership contest.

    • Cave Johnson 3.2
      11 October 2014 at 8:33 pm

      Maybe he’s planning to announce that he will be resigning once the leadership contest is decided?

  4. Blue 4
    11 October 2014 at 7:13 pm

    How many wannabe leaders do we need? This is getting ridiculous. All we need now is Stuart Nash running and the farce will be complete.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 4.1
      11 October 2014 at 7:19 pm

      I should write to Kelvin Davis and encourage him to run too.

    • BM 4.2
      11 October 2014 at 7:20 pm

      Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.

      I think the best bet would be to can the primaries and just play Russian roulette until there’s only one left.

      • wekarawshark 4.2.1
        11 October 2014 at 7:52 pm

        Actually I think Labour’s problem is definitely too many Indians not enough chiefs.

      • b waghorn 4.2.2
        11 October 2014 at 8:07 pm

        @ bm as long as you go first sounds like a good idea.

        • The Al1en 4.2.2.1
          11 October 2014 at 8:59 pm

          Assume 6 players and a six-shot revolver.

          Without spin:
          A has a 1 in 6 chance of eating lead; if A survives,
          B has a 1 in 5 chance of death; if B survives,
          C has a 1 in 4 chance of death; if C survives,
          D has a 1 in 3 chance of death; if D survives,
          E has a 1 in 2 chance of death; if E survives,
          F is dead.

          With spin:
          Every shot fired has a 1/6 chance of killing someone.

          A’s chance of dying is 1/6 for the first shot + (5/6)^6*1/6 for the second shot (since six shots have to miss to get to A’s second shot) + (5/6)^12*1/6 for the third shot + …

          A: Sum of (1/6)*(5/6)^(6*round number) – about .25

          B’s chance of dying is 5/6*1/6 for the first shot + (5/6)^7*1/6 for the second shot (seven shots have to miss to get to B’s second shot) + …

          B: Sum of (1/6)*(5/6)^(6*round number+1) – about .20
          C: Sum of (1/6)*(5/6)^(6*round number+2) – about .17
          D: Sum of (1/6)*(5/6)^(6*round number+3) – about .14
          E: Sum of (1/6)*(5/6)^(6*round number+4) – about .11
          F: Sum of (1/6)*(5/6)^(6*round number+5) – about .09

          http://ask.metafilter.com/80129/Russian-Roulette-Odds

      • Chooky Shark Smile 4.2.3
        11 October 2014 at 11:40 pm

        lol…well it is better than sending all Labour’s rejects over to the Greens …as some idiot suggested

      • Foreign waka 4.2.4
        12 October 2014 at 4:19 pm

        BM you still have not cottoned on what democracy is? Clue: not a corporation,…

    • Rodel 4.3
      11 October 2014 at 11:56 pm

      What’s the problem ? 4 people, maybe more would like to be leader. So?

  5. ankerawshark 5
    11 October 2014 at 7:29 pm

    WE might yet have David Shearer putting his hat in the ring…………wtf! Surely Robertson, Parker and Little will split the caucus vote. This could favour DC?

    I thought the likes of Robertson, Parker and Shearer were united?

    • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1
      11 October 2014 at 7:54 pm

      It’s a preferential vote.

      • The Al1en 5.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 8:08 pm

        Yes, but Parker, who won’t win the members or unions gives the GR supporters in caucus a second choice vote that won’t anoint DC or AL in the process.

        If only these idiots ran an opposition with as much intensity and planning as they do their leadership elections.

        • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 5.1.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 8:12 pm

          Is that like Parker being put forward to supply a ‘spoiler’ effect against DC and AL so as to provide advantage to Grant?

          • The Al1en 5.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 8:18 pm

            If Cunliffe wins the members, Little the unions, grant gets the caucus vote.
            Second choice votes by abc in caucus would give DC or AL the win. Probably not what they intended a couple of weeks ago.
            Having Parker stand get’s those second votes and GR is still in the leadership race.

            • Cave Johnson 5.1.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2014 at 8:28 pm

              I ‘m not so sure that DC will win the membership vote. Much as the members might like to stand by him, they will be concerned that re-electing DC as leader could simply prolong the factional in-fighting in caucus. If Little can perform well in front of members I suspect he might swing it his way.
              I’m expecting to join up after the contest, but depending on who’s leader that could get deferred. 2 candidates would get my sign-up. One I’d probably wait a bit and see how he worked out. One would be a definite no.

              • The Al1en …
                11 October 2014 at 8:31 pm

                In my opinion the fight needs to happen and is long overdue, but yep, you could be correct about DC not winning, vilified as he has been, and thus seen as damaged, even if he is the best person for the job.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.1.2
          11 October 2014 at 8:48 pm

          That doesn’t really make sense to me. What scenario are you proposing where it makes a material difference to the outcome by having David P run/not run?

  6. les 6
    11 October 2014 at 7:30 pm

    hes easily the best…a haircut and some new glasses…yes..best of the bunch.

  7. TheContrarian 7
    11 October 2014 at 7:40 pm

    I wouldn’t think Parker would have a chance. He is clever and knowledgeable but too much of a policy wonk. A good guy with good skills but skills better suited in strategy and policy formation….my 2c

    • Troubled Soul 7.1
      12 October 2014 at 10:00 am

      Parker is only there because Robertson’s bid is faltering against the prospect of a Cunliffe Little platform.

  8. Andrew Welsh 8
    11 October 2014 at 7:41 pm

    Confusion in the Labour ranks? Goes to show why the majority of Middle NZ like JK and are turned off by the perpetual Labour bickering and preference for minorities and whacky ideas (such as quotas and CGT)

  9. Anne 9
    11 October 2014 at 7:44 pm

    Are they deliberately turning it into a pig’s feast because Cunliffe has thrown his hat back in the ring?

  10. odysseus 10
    11 October 2014 at 7:59 pm

    I think Mr Parker is very credible actually. Is knowledgeable, competent, does not appear to represent an ” interest “, and can do a good speech when required. My 86 year old mother says he is a very nice man. And he kinda looks like M J Savage.

    • Hamish 10.1
      11 October 2014 at 8:08 pm

      I could never vote for a guy who thinks that raising the age of super is a good election campaign policy. HOw the fuck could anyone think that would be a vote winner with workers??

      • Cave Johnson 10.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 8:13 pm

        That was a party policy. Not down to one man.

        • Hamish 10.1.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 8:58 pm

          Nuh, that was Parker driving that one and he wouldn’t let it go in the face of popular opposition.

          • Cave Johnson 10.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 9:08 pm

            I might be wrong about how Labour policy is arrived at (as a former GPANZ member I might be assuming Labour has similar conference-based policy ratification process as the Greens).
            How is it that a policy like this could be announced without the wider party being involved in policy development and ratification?
            How is it done in NZLP?

            • Cave Johnson 10.1.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2014 at 9:40 pm

              OK, so I’ve done some research and NZLP’s policy process is rigorous as one would expect.
              .
              It does appear however that raising the superannuation age to 67 might not be a Labour party policy, despite what the press and Robertson, Parker, Cunliffe, Shearer and Goff have been saying (google easily confirms that all of these folks have spoken publicly in support of 67).
              .
              67 is not down to Parker. It was originally announced by Goff in 2011.
              .
              My question now, is why do NZLP MPs think they have the right to create policy on the fly, that is not actual ratified party policy?
              If indeed they have been doing this I would not support any of them as leader.
              .
              [if anyone can find any reference to 67 in actual policy documents I’d be pleased to have a link to it].

              • wekarawshark …
                12 October 2014 at 3:01 am

                thanks for that!

                I’ve asked here before, and a few members have said various things at various times but the general gist seems to be that the policy was pushed from the beltway and the members had a hard time getting heard if they opposed it. I’ve also heard some members say they understood the rationale and so went along with it. It seems like beltway Labour believe it’s a financial necessity if they want to fund their other policies.

                There’s some discussion here,

                http://thestandard.org.nz/the-monkeywrench/#comment-900515

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                12 October 2014 at 3:34 am

                Yes a very good summary, which avoids the fact that a simple word from Parker to Conference in 2013 that there was no fiscal or monetary reason to raise the Super Age, and that would have been the end of the useless, mistaken, damaging policy.

                • Ad …
                  12 October 2014 at 8:23 am

                  +1
                  But have you heard Parker take responsibility either for the policy or its electoral effect? Nope.

                  On election night, with the nations cameras thronging, Parker the deputy leader was in the same hall, but spent the entire night nowhere near Cunliffe or the media. He spent the time usefully outside the hall by himself, on his cellphone, doing the numbers, while hundreds of party workers who’d worked their guts out stood by DC.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    12 October 2014 at 1:07 pm

                    Ahhhh I didn’t know that. A major problem, and clearly a bad choice by DC for deputy. DC needs to figure out who his friends are and reward them, not his enemies.

                  • Anne …
                    12 October 2014 at 5:07 pm

                    He spent the time usefully outside the hall by himself, on his cellphone, doing the numbers…

                    Aha, as I suspected. There’s a conspiracy (of sorts) operating here. We will need to work out exactly what it is, and who is involved. My own thoughts suggest the [apparent] sudden change of heart by Parker and the potential for one or two more candidates to enter the race is an attempt to spread the votes around as many candidates as possible. That could lead to the ABC- backed candidates, Robertson/Parker or Parker/Shearer coming through the middle?

                  • ankerawshark …
                    12 October 2014 at 5:08 pm

                    AD ………..very interesting about Parker.

                    The number of times I heard DC warmly praising Parker would be counted on more than one hand.

          • Matthew Hooton 10.1.1.1.2
            12 October 2014 at 4:42 pm

            I thought that under Labour’s new constitution, all policy was based on an agreed platform and signed off by party committees? How was policy signed off for this election?

        • phillip ure 10.1.1.2
          11 October 2014 at 9:02 pm

          parker is notoriously stubborn..

          ..and that was his baby…

          ..and given that no potential coalition partner wd have gone along with it..

          ..so it was dead in the water..

          ..just compounds the mindfucking stupidity of the policy..

          ..killing all those votes..and for nothing..

          ..just that lack of strategic nous should disqualify parker from running anything more complicated than a cake-stall..

    • alwyn 10.3
      12 October 2014 at 1:06 pm

      Just which M J Savage did you have in mind?
      I fail to see much similarity to the best known one. I guess if I squint and cross my eyes and do my best Clint Eastwood imitation there might be something.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Joseph_Savage#mediaviewer/File:Michael_Joseph_Savage.jpg

    • Clemgeopin 10.4
      12 October 2014 at 4:29 pm

      All that may be true, but he undermined Cunliffe on national TV after the election thereby pinning the election loss on Cunliffe alone. Nice people wouldn’t do such untenable mean stuff in public, rather than sorting issues internally within Labour, would they? That is the reason I have gone off Parker, Shearer, Cosgrove now, and Hipkins for his historical unfair public demeaning of Cunliffe a couple of years ago.

      • ankerawshark 10.4.1
        12 October 2014 at 5:10 pm

        Clem @ 10.4……………I agree.

        There was no reason at all to tell the msm and therefore the public that he had no confidence in DC. Very poor indeed and now that he is standing its looking even worse than that.

        • kiwisaver 10.4.1.1
          12 October 2014 at 7:15 pm

          I agree.
          The fact that he did so publicly speaks volumes about him. Yes he has a very good brain obviously, but the way that he and other Labour caucus behaved after the election is dreadful.
          I think Cunliffe and Little in that order are the way to go.
          Parker should never have gone back on his word not to stand. Just gives MSM and Nats more reason to ridicule Labour.

  11. Disraeli Gladstone 11
    11 October 2014 at 8:05 pm

    We’re one third of the way to Labour’s leadership election genuinely being ‘Twelve Angry Men’.

    And Cunliffe ain’t no Henry Fonda.

    • phillip ure 11.1
      11 October 2014 at 8:15 pm

      i thought more lord of the flies..

      ..and naked mud/jelly-wrestling appeals as a leadership criterea/contest option..

      ..throw them all into a room together..

      ..and see who walks out at the end..

    • alwyn 11.2
      12 October 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Of course not.
      Fonda was the one on the jury.
      Cunliffe is the one in the dock.

  12. Cave Johnson 12
    11 October 2014 at 8:11 pm

    Is this then a ‘Little Vs Parker’ contest?
    If we have two new and highly credible candidates, it would seem to highlight that Cunliffe and Robertson are both damaged brands whatever one might think of them personally.

    • Colonial Rawshark 12.1
      12 October 2014 at 4:22 am

      “damaged brands” – an utterly superficial way to think about people, and about politicians.

      • Cave Johnson 12.1.1
        12 October 2014 at 6:59 am

        Yeah I agree it’s superficial, but so is a lot of voter decision-making. It comes back to the old problem – do you want to win government or do you just want to have a new leader for your political club. Somehow it feels dishonorable to choose a leader based on wanting to win, but I presume winning govt is the priority for most members.

        • Hanswurst 12.1.1.1
          12 October 2014 at 7:01 pm

          Cunliffe is not a “damaged brand” in any useful sense, simply because most people don’t spend all their time thinking about politics. Given the short time he has been leader, he doesn’t have anything like the name or face-recognition of somebody like Key, Clark or Goff, and there is no major scandal, damaging policy or cumulative feeling of disappointment/boredom/distrust etc. surrounding him.

          There has been a concerted media effort to undermine him, but most of it involves feints and stabs involving things that are very far removed from people’s daily lives. It is only effective in drowning out positive reasons to connect with him. Given time and the odd bit of good fortune, positive messages would eventually cut through, at which point any minor beta-ups like letters from eleven years ago, one-second pauses in debates three years ago (come 2017) and misrepresented apologies for being a man would make no difference.

  13. Clemgeopin 13
    11 October 2014 at 8:58 pm

    May be he will say that his candidacy is untenable.

  14. Craig Glen Eden 14
    11 October 2014 at 9:15 pm

    If Parker stands it show’s the Labour members he cant be trusted, what a Judas.

    • Chooky Shark Smile 14.1
      11 October 2014 at 11:45 pm

      agreed!

    • boldsirbrian 14.2
      12 October 2014 at 9:16 am

      .
      @ Craig Glen Eden (14)

      Rubbish. Another example of Whaleoil 101.

      I had no idea until AFTER the election that Parker could no longer support Cunliffe.
      It’s perfectly reasonable for the leadership to be contested after a significant loss in an election. It’s why the Labour Party have a rule that the Leadership MUST be considered after every election.

      Cunliffe came in on the basis that he could make a difference. If he thought he had insufficient time to do so before the election, he made a major strategic mistake. I’m totally unsurprised that other MPS with leadership aspirations have been considering both their own personal aspirations, and their own abilities to lead the Party at this stage, with an election taking place. I cannot think of a better time to make a decision to stand for leader than this time. MUCH better than three months after the leadership election!

      I imagine that the entry of Little into the race was a catalyst for Parker to have a change of heart. Good on him. Seems to me he is starting from the back of the pack. But this is not even the start of the race.

      ALL candidates need to be given a fair go. Isn’t that what New Zealanders pride themselves on? Isn’t that what Labour supporters believe that they are better at representing? Robust discussion, surely. But Judas comment? Over the top. Of Everest.

      Mr. Botany (B.)

      • Craig Glen Eden 14.2.1
        12 October 2014 at 10:22 am

        You conveniently miss a few crucial points while be oh so far minded Mr Botany. One he said he wouldnt stand and then was put in as a caretaker leader, two his public display of he couldnt support Cunliffe because ………….. who the hell knows? 3 Its clear he had his own motives which where about what he see’s as being good for him and not about doing the right thing for the Party which is what he made out in the begging. So Judas it is Judas Parker what a piece of slime.

      • Colonial Rawshark 14.2.2
        12 October 2014 at 10:24 am

        Parker was deputy. Do you see him shouldering any burden for bad campaign decisions and bad leadership during the campaign? Do you see him wearing any blame for the stupid and unnecessary retirement age increase policy? Or do you just see him pointing all fingers at Cunliffe and none towards himeself?

  15. Princess 15
    11 October 2014 at 9:22 pm

    Gosh, too many chiefs and not enough indians. This leadership race is emphasising why Labour cannot come together as a team. The contenders (including the ones who may still put their hats in the ring) each have their own ideas and supporters in caucus, highlighting the factions in the party. I don’t think Labour is ever going to be able to come together until they can collectively and honestly back one leader. At the moment it is becoming a farce and perhaps more Labour voters are going to turn away. I for one am becoming confused about who to vote for now.

    • Rodel 15.1
      12 October 2014 at 12:08 am

      I repeat What’s the problem ? Just choose the one you want-pretty simple really. It was done last time when Shearer stepped down with 3 contenders.Now it’s 4 people, maybe more . Don’t be confused just because Rws are trying to tell us its farcical…it’s not.
      It’s called democracy.

      • Colonial Rawshark 15.1.1
        12 October 2014 at 3:37 am

        It’s a fine line between showing the electorate and the membership that you are a party which believes in internal democracy, and a party which is tearing itself apart because of MPs who can neither lead nor follow.

        That’s the problem.

        • boldsirbrian 15.1.1.1
          12 October 2014 at 8:53 am

          @ Colonial Rawshark (15.1.1)

          I see no evidence of a party tearing itself apart.

          We celebrate general elections in New Zealand as an example of good governance. Labour has certainly suffered a significant defeat, but the current Labour Leader election is a positive process, being conducted at the most appropriate time.

          I imagine that the result of the election will unify the Party. Some members will disappear, and others will join as a consequence.

          Mr. Botany (B.)

          • Jenny Kirk 15.1.1.1.1
            12 October 2014 at 9:29 am

            Goodness Mr Botany B @ 15.1.1.1 you are extremely hopeful.

            CR has it almost right – this is not a political party tearing itself apart, but a group of individually elected MPs who would like to rule without the necessity to have a political party behind them.

            I think it was Shearer who said yesterday on The Nation that if the party chose a Leader who (some) in the caucus deemed unsuitable, then there would be a revolt (presumably by those caucus members).

            These guys are incredibly arrogant, and are not there for the Party nor for the people they purport to represent. They are just there for themselves, and their cosy salary ,,,, oh, and the obsequious bowing and scraping which comes with the job !

            • Clemgeopin 15.1.1.1.1.1
              12 October 2014 at 10:38 am

              Well said.

            • Annie 15.1.1.1.1.2
              12 October 2014 at 12:57 pm

              A revolt might be welcome, they could revolt themselves right out of Parliament so we can rebuild the party.

            • swordfish 15.1.1.1.1.3
              12 October 2014 at 3:12 pm

              “….a group of individually elected MPs who would like to rule without the necessity to have a political party behind them.”

              Shades of Blairite New Labour in the UK. A core feature of Blair’s “modernisation” of the British Labour Party in the mid/late 90s was the centralisation of power around a few Party elites , the undermining of democracy within the Party, and a reliance on the media to set the broad policy agenda. UK Labour became an elite-driven vehicle profoundly influenced by media elites, rather than a mass-membership Party with strong grassroots input .

      • boldsirbrian 15.1.2
        12 October 2014 at 9:18 am

        .
        @ Rodel (15.1)

        Tick. Score 11 on a 10 point scale.

        Mr. Botany (B.)

  16. ankerawshark 16
    11 October 2014 at 9:22 pm

    CGE @ 14 100+

  17. Vaughan Little 17
    11 October 2014 at 9:50 pm

    There’s quite a bit of bluster around about the contenders.

    they all have their good points, and none of them is a genuinely terrible idea.

    surely magnanimity is a naturally leftist virtue…

    I’m starting to suspect, from reading comments here, that if you’ve been around the block enough times you’ll go crosseyed. i.e., cynicism is an occupational hazard for older people, and it can prevent them from seeing things in the most helpful light…

  18. Clemgeopin 18
    11 October 2014 at 10:37 pm

    I am suspecting that some of these candidates are just cunning knives aimed to defeat Cunliffe somehow, by hook or by crook or to make it harder for DC to win.

    • Chooky Shark Smile 18.1
      11 October 2014 at 11:49 pm

      If Cunliffe loses despite the membership voting again for him ( it is the membership vote which should count )

      ….he should leave the rogered Labour Party and take the membership with him

      ….and set up an alternative Labour Party ( not sure what you would call it)

      • lurgee 18.1.1
        12 October 2014 at 1:26 am

        What, you’re saying it’s okay for people to ignore the result of a contest held under pre-agreed rules because they don’t like it?

        • AmaKiwi 18.1.1.1
          12 October 2014 at 1:36 am

          No. What he’s saying is a democratic party is governed by the majority of its members, not by two dozen MPs.

          • lurgee 18.1.1.1.1
            12 October 2014 at 8:42 am

            It was rather a rhetorical question as he (?) is clearly saying it’s okay for people to ignore the result of a contest held under pre-agreed rules because they don’t like it. He (?) is wrong. If Cunliffe loses under the pre-agreed rules and quits in a sulk, it will diminish him still further. No-one likes a sore loser.

            As for a new party, it is just possible Cunliffe could hang on in New Lynn, but his new ‘party’ would be little more than the new United Future vanity project. Is that really the future you want for him?

            • Chooky Shark Smile 18.1.1.1.1.1
              12 October 2014 at 10:05 am

              @lurgee…..i am hermaphrodite ok…no more “(?)” question marks about my sexuality….i dont care if I am thought to be a male Chooky..i find it amusing

              @ Amakiwi …yes really it is the grassroots membership vote that MUST count….NOT the caucus vote and NOT the unions vote

              ( this is one of the reasons Labour lost the Election….because of backstabbing and lack of support for the elected Labour Leader by caucus)

              Labour should run their elections the way the Greens do…this gets rid of factional groups…careerists( past their use by date), special interest groups ( which are not necessarily an electoral winner) etc ….and there are no questions/problems about whether the grassroots elected leader should be supported or not…(so anyone who undermines the leader or does not cooperate should be put in their place or expelled as a trouble maker )

              ….also Labour should be continually testing policy formulations on the grassroots membership ….this is the acid test for a successful policy that will be a vote winner for Labour in General Elections

              • Clemgeopin …
                12 October 2014 at 10:46 am

                Good points to consider. The caucus should learn to be loyal to their leader and to the membership. If they can not do that, leave.

  19. AmaKiwi 19
    12 October 2014 at 1:30 am

    Reply to 18.1

    Cunliffe could well leave politics for a “normal” job, but he won’t start a new party.

    • Chooky Shark Smile 19.1
      12 October 2014 at 10:12 am

      well yes that is probably true….but imo if the Labour Party continues on the fractionated leadership battles way it is going ….and does not stay loyal to Cunliffe ( who faced an up hill battle from both within and without) …the prognosis is not good for Labour

      ….. and Left ( Labour) alternative(s) will be found

  20. dave 20
    12 October 2014 at 7:35 am

    don’t be to sure of that Parker is highly thought of amongst the members

    • ankerawshark 20.1
      12 October 2014 at 5:14 pm

      Where is your evidence that Parker is highly thought of by the members?

      There was some talk of his conference speech, which was an o.k. speech, but I think it got praise, because people were expecting so little of him.

      BTW I was there for his conference speech and thought it was ok/good, but it didn’t set the world on fire imho

  21. karol 21
    12 October 2014 at 7:53 am

    Sunday Star Times reckons Parker is standing because of Little attacking his economic policies:

    Little launched his bid by signalling he’d dismantle Parker’s flagship economic policies including raising the pension age and a capital gains tax.

    Parker is popular with the party and carries mana within the Labour caucus and will take votes away from caucus favourite Grant Robertson.

    But Little’s targeting of contentious policies such as raising the pension age, free doctor’s visits for over 65s and a capital gains tax, has resonated with many in the party.

    That’s Tracy Watkins saying Parker is popular with the party.

    • Anne 21.1
      12 October 2014 at 10:32 am

      He may have been popular once, but I have my doubts he is now. His intransigence over the CGT and Super policy would have annoyed a lot of members.

      If indeed the SST is right, then it shows exactly what is wrong with Labour. Prima-donnas whose perceived loss of reputation weighs more heavily on their minds than party unity.

  22. Ad 22
    12 October 2014 at 7:59 am

    Russell Norman should put his name in the ring. At least we’d have a functioning opposition.

    • karol 22.1
      12 October 2014 at 8:02 am

      Or Metiria Turei – if you really want a functioning opposition. And it’d mean there was at least one female candidate.

  23. Ad 23
    12 October 2014 at 8:27 am

    Winston Peters would be an excellent Labour leader.

    • Skinny 23.1
      12 October 2014 at 8:46 am

      Peters signaled all was not well within Labour during the election. You couldn’t get that agreement from him, his laughing would be hard to stop. He does not rate Labour at all. And now with all the infighting, it’s little wonder he is spouting he is the legitimate leader of the opposition.

      I’m half expecting Parker to defect to NZF if he doesn’t win. Peters will see a deal can be done. NZF are in a strong position to build on their good election result.

  24. Skinny 24
    12 October 2014 at 8:29 am

    Parker always wanted the leadership from the time Helen threw the towel in, I believe she even preferred him as the chosen one.

    problem is too many MP’s want to be the Leader. Throw in Tyford, Lee Galloway, Ardern, Hipkin, Nash, and rejects Goff & Shearer. I can see another party formed at some stage after this leadership challenge if the caucus don’t get their way.

    • Anne 24.1
      12 October 2014 at 10:47 am

      I believe she even preferred him as the chosen one.

      No. Her chosen successor was Steve Maharey. He decided to quit politics after the untimely death of his wife.

      Her next choice as a far as I can ascertain was David Cunliffe. I was told he turned it down in 2008 probably because at that point he saw it as a poisoned chalice. It was around the same time that the anti-Cunliffe sentiment seems to have started and you have to wonder if it was originally prompted by jealousy.

    • greywarshark 24.2
      12 October 2014 at 11:05 am

      Skinny
      A new party might be the logical and useful way of sorting out the divisions. But I think the limpets will stick to the existing wall of Labour, and the disagreeing will have to start from scratch.

  25. Ad 25
    12 October 2014 at 8:34 am

    Labour’s most popular MP is Jacinda Ardern.
    Anyone remember Phil Goff saying politics isn’t a popularity contest?
    Whe it is.
    There’s a major part of the problem.

    • Colonial Rawshark 25.1
      12 October 2014 at 10:18 am

      Labour’s most popular MP is Jacinda Ardern.

      Amongst the membership or amongst the public? Cunliffe scored a 17.9% preferred PM rating just before the election. What did Ardern score?

      • Skinny 25.1.1
        12 October 2014 at 10:54 am

        Cunliffe will win back my vote if he campaigns publicly on a major clean out of dead wood MP’s within the party. It will be a ‘everything to gain nothing to lose approach’. This is what has been needed since 2007. I might start talking publicly on the matter outside of here.

        • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 25.1.1.1
          12 October 2014 at 11:04 am

          The membership is very clear sighted as to who are the MPs really doing their jobs as Parliamentary REPRESENTATIVEs, as contrasted with who are the ones playing games, calculating their self interest or hanging on for post-Parliamentary jobs.

  26. Troubled Soul 26
    12 October 2014 at 8:56 am

    Stop Press:
    Annette King is putting herself forward for the Labour Party Leadership. Trevor Mallard will be her campaign manager.

    King says she is disgusted with Shearer and Goff for pushing Parker forward as the fall-back should Robertson slip into third in the preferences after Cunliffe and Little.

    King says that on the daily “Anything But Co-operative” conference call it had been agreed that a Wellington Region MP was to be the back-up for the faltering Robertson.
    King says she has proven leadership skills having driven the successful ABC faction since October 2007 when Helen Clark appointed Cunliffe Health Minister rather than her. King insists that is was very mean of Helen to not give her Health for reasons un-related to the Hawkes Bay.

  27. les 27
    12 October 2014 at 10:14 am

    Parker and Adern as dep…best combo.

    • Troubled Soul 27.1
      12 October 2014 at 5:45 pm

      Two LIST MPs! Yeah right!
      Electorate: Ardern has not done the hard yards. She has not developed a broad church base in Auckland Central. She has a few hard working and bright fans but that is not an organisation. She needs to bind members to Labour rather than herself.

      Parliament: She was to mark Paula Bennett. Did she?

      Membership: I’ve seen her at some regional conferences. She wanders in late with a naughty air, looks around the ceiling or her phone when others are giving a speech and then leaves early. The Membership have each two eyes, a memory and a vote.

      Television: good and getting better.

      Caucus smarts? I don’t know. Robertson used her to do some of his dirty work under Cunliffe in the same way as he used Maryan Street to undermine Shearer.

      Nah!

  28. hoom 28
    12 October 2014 at 10:41 am

    Fucking ridiculous.
    And with the utterly useless Shearer even not ruling out candidacy Goff might as well throw his hat in too.

    Maybe the ABCs could exhume MJS & put in a Weekend at Bernies style campaign?

    Do these fools not realise that there is no ‘right’ candidate that the Dirty Columnists won’t praise as candidates but savage constantly when leader?

    At this rate Labour won’t ever get back in Govt unless some rump leftover MP or Two does a coalition deal with the ever governing Nats.

    NZ will continue on our rapid descent into 1 party, 3rd world, right wing banana republic until there is nothing left to sell out/off.

    • ankerawshark 28.1
      12 October 2014 at 1:13 pm

      Homm @ 28 100+

    • Hanswurst 28.2
      12 October 2014 at 7:13 pm

      And with the utterly useless Shearer even not ruling out candidacy Goff might as well throw his hat in too.

      I’m not a Goff fan, but even with the electoral baggage of a three-decade parliamentary career, fifteen years in government and previous incumbency, he would still be a better bet for electoral success in 2017 than Robertson or Parker.

  29. rhinocrates 29
    12 October 2014 at 11:00 am

    I’ve heard that Robertson has taken up yoga so that he can stab himself in the back.

  30. greywarshark 30
    12 October 2014 at 11:00 am

    “NZ will continue on our rapid descent into 1 party, 3rd world, right wing banana republic until there is nothing left to sell out/off.”
    We will not end up one party only. The Green Party has been going since it started as the Values Party and will continue as an alternative and numbers will build.
    And NZ First for now will also be there and if People get their heads straight Mana would be back.

    • Chooky Shark Smile 30.1
      12 October 2014 at 11:58 am

      +100 greywarshark….and a Left coalition is what is required ( without the undermining and backstabbing of other Parties on the Left)

    • hoom 30.2
      12 October 2014 at 12:01 pm

      Sure but Greens are very stable about 10% on election night.

      They often poll quite a bit higher and they are often much more effective at being Opposition than the Labour clusterfuck has been & as much as I’d love to see them up in 20s or 30s %, I don’t think we will ever actually see it.

      With all the proven terrible stuff from Key still failing to put the slightest dent in the Key monstrosity, I really can’t see an end to it unless he gets taken out from within National & unlike Labour the righties are much better at sticking with a thing that works.

    • Marksman33 30.3
      12 October 2014 at 1:26 pm

      Yeah, thats a thought Grey, if NZ did descend into a classic right-wing banana republic and the men in black uniforms started rounding up opposition in the middle of the night, wonder how many LP caucus members would be putting their hands up for leader ??????
      I can see a few of them jumping on the first plane out to Raro, and setting up an opposition in exile. Very brave.

  31. RedBaronCV 31
    12 October 2014 at 11:27 am

    Interesting. Parker doesn’t strike me as having the emotional nous to be a leader. More the person who makes the bullets rather than fire them. But I can’t get past his policy that everyone has to join kiwisaver without supports in place for those with lower or non existent lifetime earnings. That one policy removes universal super payments without discussion.

    As for Grant Robertson, I hesitate to say this but, despite his large personal vote in Wellington Labour had no scrutineers all afternoon in the Micheal Fowler booth, the largest in Wellington and none in some of the other booths that I was in. When I saw that I knew Labour where in trouble and frankly he should probably thank the Greens for getting a vote out for him.

    I still don’t think anyone would have done better than Cunliffe given the multiple policy handicaps he worked under.

    • Anne 31.1
      12 October 2014 at 11:55 am

      To be fair RedBaronCV, scrutineers are becoming less relevant. Once upon a time when the checking of each voter amounted to crossing them off a list with a ruler and pencil, it was important to ensure they were doing the job properly. Now, voters are electronically checked and about the only use the scrutineer has is to show off the party rosette. I know Labour – and probably the Greens too – prefer to have the workers out on the roads door knocking or ringing identified voters and encouraging them to the booths to vote etc.

      • RedBaronCV 31.1.1
        12 October 2014 at 12:14 pm

        In a a practical sense yes but there is the last minute impact on the undecided voter and the overall image that simply not enough people are working for you. Oh and keeping other scruitneers honest??

        • Colonial Rawshark 31.1.1.1
          12 October 2014 at 12:18 pm

          Psychologically it is extraordinarily important to voters – red and blue – to have a scrutineer with a red Labour rosette there at the polling place.

          Just consider how many people turn up at polling booths with their minds still not fully made up on who they are voting for.

          • Lanthanide 31.1.1.1.1
            12 October 2014 at 12:31 pm

            “Just consider how many people turn up at polling booths with their minds still not fully made up on who they are voting for.”

            Yep, even if it’s only 2-3% who can be swayed, if they turn up and see a smiling person dressed sharply with a blue National rosette on, vs no one for Labour, that could easily be enough to sway them.

            • Lindsey 31.1.1.1.1.1
              12 October 2014 at 12:53 pm

              Yes, very important to have at least 1 scrutineer in each Polling place. There are older people who will not or cannot door knock who are happy to be the smiling face with the Labour rosette. A chap I worked with was a Poll Clark in Auckland Central last election and several people asked him why there was no Labour scrutineer.

              • Lanthanide …
                12 October 2014 at 7:44 pm

                But similarly, if all of your scrutineers are oldies, then you just look like a party for oldies.

          • Keir 31.1.1.1.2
            13 October 2014 at 9:15 am

            This is complete and utter nonsense. Scrutineers are only useful if you’re running a full Reading System election day, which no-one in New Zealand has the resources or skills or systems to run these days. The idea that voters are swayed by the sight of a rosette in a polling place is bizarre and has no evidential basis.

            If someone will only scrutineer on election day, fine, that’s ok. But if they are willing to do anything else – knock on doors, make calls, hell, make the tea – they should be doing that.

            I’m pleased to hear that Grant and Jacinda’s campaigns had sensible allocations of resources on election day.

    • ankerawshark 31.2
      12 October 2014 at 1:15 pm

      REd Baron CV @ 31

      No Labour scrutineers at another Wellington Central booth, where a contact of mine was employed.

      • fisiani 31.2.1
        12 October 2014 at 5:05 pm

        No Labour scrutineer at Aro Valley just National and Greens. Interesting the Party vote for both those parties increased at that booth probably due to last moment seeing a blue or green rosette. Robertson did not want a high Party Vote and got his wish, less than 10,000.

  32. greywarshark 32
    12 October 2014 at 12:21 pm

    Don’t forget to think about what you might like to ask Andrew Little to get a better idea of his thinking his intentions. Go to –
    http://thestandard.org.nz/cum-a-disputatione-andrew-little-3pm-sunday/
    Q&A with Andrew Little 3pm Sunday
    Written By: lprent – Date published: 8:38 pm, October 10th, 2014 –

    He is coming here at 3 pm this afternoon and there aren’t a lot of comments. Perhaps just a short question and why you think something should be done in that area in 25 words say.

    It wouldn’t need a big detail of what Labour should do and hasn’t been doing etc That would go elsewhere. I realised when I put something up the other day that it was in the wrong place so suggest others don’t make my mistake.

  34. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 34
    12 October 2014 at 2:38 pm

    “Tombstone” appears twice this afternoon in his quotes. How to subliminally put people off. Not clever at all. Well well, if that is his poor choice of language heralding his announcement to enter the race, he should own the word as also having the probability of being prophetic for his leadership ambition.

  35. fisiani 35
    12 October 2014 at 4:06 pm

    Cunliffe supporters will rank C ,P, L , R or C L P R
    Robertson supporters will rank R P L C or R L P C
    Do the rules state that candidates HAVE to be ranked or MAY be ranked? I do not know.
    Little supporters and Parker supporters have to decide which of C or R they dislike the most.
    Little simply has to avoid coming last and thus is bound to share in the likely Parker allocation and should get the lion’s share of this since a vote for P indicates a strong antithesis to both C and R
    If Little is then in second place for round 2 then virtually all the 3rd place votes would fall to him since first choice C would not vote R and first choice R would not vote C
    If Shearer chooses to stand then he would number 4 or 5 and this would increase the odds of Little winning

  36. Karen 36
    12 October 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Did Parker back Shane Jones in the last leadership contest? There have been suggestions that this was the case, but does anyone know?

    • Troubled Soul 36.1
      12 October 2014 at 5:49 pm

      Parker himself probably does not know! He is a ditherer. I don’t know how he decides which sock to put on which foot in the morning….or is it the night?

  37. Cave Johnson 37
    12 October 2014 at 7:17 pm

    The report on Stuff has more details than the one on the Herald website.

    In reference to Super and CGT “scary” policies he said they were up for review.

    “Look, I am the money man and I was responsible for our finances, I produced a balanced budget where all our promises were paid for. The problem was, some of our promises weren’t wanted.”

    Parker says Little will win the unions, but he thinks he has strong support in caucus and the membership.

    It’s still looking like a Little Vs Parker contest to me at this stage and I think a lot will depend on how they come across between now and the vote.

  38. dave 38
    12 October 2014 at 7:24 pm

    iam indecided i voted cunliffe last time i will be looking for a reformer not the statis quo
    and another thing who thinks we are off to war because our economy is fucked ????

  39. ankerawshark 39
    12 October 2014 at 8:48 pm

    https://www.facebook.com/cunliffeforleader

    Just thought I would post this Cunliffe for leader facebook page in case people have not seen it.

  40. Cave Johnson 40
    13 October 2014 at 7:37 am

    DP on morning report still talking up 67 as something he thinks NZers would support in a referendum.
    Reporters saying DC was coming under pressure to withdraw?

  41. les 41
    13 October 2014 at 7:54 am

    Little needs to win an electorate seat to be credible.Cunnliffe…public hate him,Robertson…no WASP appeal…Shearer um,er,um….Parker has the most potential by a miles.

    • Cave Johnson 41.1
      13 October 2014 at 8:04 am

      I don’t see how winning an electorate seat is relevant.
      DP clinging to 67 shows poor instincts.

      • les 41.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 8:12 am

        an electorate seat is a pretty telling barometer of public popularity!The 67 policy can be quietly dropped for another day.It beggars belief that Labour have not figured out the worst 3 letter word in politics is TAX.No place for naievity in politics these days..KISS!

  42. Tom Gould 42
    13 October 2014 at 9:01 am

    Fascinating to watch the Cunliffe supporters moving into full attack mode on Parker over election policy their hero advocated and pushed hard for and that Little was happy to vote for. At least Little is big enough to now say he made a mistake, I guess.

    • NeutObserver 42.1
      13 October 2014 at 9:07 am

      Yes, the gulf between DC & DP appears to be widening by the day.
      Nobody would have thought that up until a few weeks ago they were leader and deputy leader. That’s loyalty for the rest of us.

  43. Pat O'Dea 43
    13 October 2014 at 6:38 pm

    And then there were three.

    The ABC’s get their wish.