- Date published:
1:28 pm, April 10th, 2016 - 150 comments
Categories: clayton cosgrove - Tags: clayton cosgrove, election 2017
Long serving Labour Party MP Clayton Cosgrove is leaving Parliament. It’s unclear whether that means seeing the term out, or whether he will resign, allowing a new list MP to join caucus, but he has announced he will not fight the next election.
I liked Clayton, particularly for the work I know he he did for a constituent in his former Waimakariri seat which involved taking on one of Christchurch’s nastiest hoods. He was, however, considered to be in the right of the caucus and his leaving is clearly an opportunity to bring in fresh blood. Obviously, there are other Labour MP’s who could, or indeed, should, be considering doing the same.
Edit: If I recall correctly, after Andrew Little (the last successful candidate) on the Labour Party party list were Maryan Street, Raymond Huo and Priyanca Radhakrishnan.
Amen to that. Though the replacements looks to be knee deep in the non-profit industrial complex.
Depends on list selection process doesn’t it? Better not be top-heavy with current caucus again.
Good move Clayton. Did somebody give the one news opinion poll report to you this morning itself?
Doubt it. I know him and he hasn’t got his heart in it for the future, looking further down the track. He will have a fine post-Parliamentary career.
Good Lord! I find myself in agreement for the first and possibly the last time with more than one commenter here…A thoroughly odious little man…only knows ad hominen arguments and personal attack…Also awfully unlucky with his luggage while travelling as a Minister….Thank God for insurance
Before he goes…can we get our money back?
[RL: Moderators Note: Think smart. Comments that contribute nothing more than one dimensional abuse will be deleted.]
Are you moderating yourself there Red? 😛
Yes … bad RL wrote something really shitty and the boring RL stepped in.
Bad RL tried to ban the boring one for a week, but the boring one picked up the keyboard and smashed bad RL into Trash. From whence he’s making muffled bangs and furiously scribbling notes to lprent appealing to be let out and demanding it be put to a free vote.
Right now the boring reliable RL is wishing he’d kept right out of it, and is seriously considering taking up alcoholism as a hobby … again.
I know the feeling. My first instinct was quite scathing…
But look at it this way. We wind up with the culture of self-interested leaking from the Labour caucus continuing to diminish. A welcome trend.
Yeah well I never said anything about abuse in n-space 🙂
Very funny RL, mind you nearly spilt my coffee, can I have the Film rights. ?
Who will Grant Robertson use now to scurry around the Press Gallery bad mouthing Labour “colleagues”?
Clayton Cosgrove was the ABC’s bootboy and bag-carrier. The Labour Party is well rid of him.
When is King going to announce her resignation?
“When is King going to announce her resignation?”
Careful what you wish for, King is the backbone of the Labour party they would be
screwed without her. Or should i say even more screwed.
If the Labour Party means anything, it doesn’t need any specific MP to survive. This kind of thinking is exactly why you have a caucus full of careerist MPs with no succession plans for leadership or for key posts.
Annette King fights hard and is pretty good on the health portfolio. That’s it.
CC was Mike Moore’s “mini me” in the bad old days. I remember him and the rest of the “Beagle Boys” swaggering around Labour Party conferences as if they owned the Party. They tried to do that through the Mike Moore Supporters Club which ran the bigest cult of the leader racket outside Romania and North Korea. Eventually the rest of the Party got sick of seeing MMSC on everything and gave most of them the push.
Bet Phil Quin was among those MMSC Beagle Boys “swaggering around Labour Party conferences as if they owned the Party”.
Operative for the Moore faction during the 90s. Ended up as Phil Goff’s numbers man during the revolt against Clark. He and Nick Leggett apparently both inspired by Moore to become active in the first place. Then heads off to work for the ALP Right faction in Oz, possibly after being pushed out here.
Quin’s a bright bloke with a lot of campaign experience but the hostility and arrogance he displays towards anyone to the Left of Mike Moore (in other words, the vast majority of Labour activists, who he tends to dismiss as Trotskyite) is really something to behold.
On Twitter, when he’s not angrily attacking the Left for failing to support Israel’s violent 50-year Occupation, or cheerleading Hillary and Leggett in their respective grabs for power, he’s delighting us all with erudite little bon mots like: “Imagine a Dinner Party comprising only Trump and Sanders supporters. Beelzebub and all his minions couldn’t conjure a more hideous scene.”
Such is the mentality of the Blairite.
17 years. What were his achievements? What does he stand for? Queastions many in the caucus might want to self-reflect on.
Actually, does anyone have some details of the good and bad things he’s done over his time in Parliament?
Does anyone have any detail on what any of the MP’s really stand for?
They all hide behind the caucus confidentiality shield.
Not much love for CC at The Standard. I expect Farrar will probably have something nice to say though.
But who will Clayton Cosgrove get to pay for his suits now?
Remember Phil Goff is going to resign before he goes off to be supercity mayor, so there’ll be a by-election there and more fresh blood (presuming an existing list member doesn’t stand).
Errrr….. remember only 36% bothered to vote in the 2013 Auckland Council elections?
It ain’t over till it’s over ….
(A year ago – who had even heard of Bernie Sanders? 🙂
Which 2016 Auckland Mayoral candidates (apart from myself) have a proven track record of opposing this (forced) Auckland ‘Supercity’ – for the 1%?
Just saying ….
2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
Usually people who are vying to be elected to a position, where they want to abolish the position, don’t do very well in the election.
A year ago – who had even heard of Bernie Sanders?
I’d guess most of the roughly 626,000 Vermont residents, whom Sanders has represented in one capacity or another for more than 30 years, have heard of him.
To put that figure in context, it’s roughly 620,000 more people than voted for you last time out.
A little nasty jibe. It doesn’t fit with your previously proud record of fine analysis and comment.
Michael Wood is running to fill that seat I believe. He seems to be clever and compassionate and representative of a different generation entirely. Has had good TV time
I’ve watched his debates in the Epsom seat for at least 1 of the last elections – seems like a reasonable choice.
I bet it will be a list MP. That’s the way the system works. First you stand for Labour in an unwinnable blue electorate and get 60th on the list. If they like you, in the next election you get a shot at a marginal seat.
Look at the list MPs with Auckland backgrounds. There are so few Labour list MPs it shouldn’t be hard to figure who it’s going to be.
I meant a sitting list MP.
Serious question – do you think he got wind of the latest Colmar Brunton Poll figures earlier today?
Judging by the portfolios he’s held during 5 terms in parliament, Clayton was a lightweight:
“In Parliament, he held several ministerial portfolios including building and construction, associate finance, immigration, small business, responsibility for the Rugby World Cup, and associate justice.” NZ Herald
No. Why would you think that anyway?
Because there’s no such thing as coincidence in the mind of conspiracy theorists?
Who said anything about coincidence? Media reports have said it’s about Labour opposing the TPPA. I’m inclined to agree with Gristle’s view @11.
My guess is that the party list is starting to form and Mr Cosgrove was being told that his placement would be considerably lower down than his current position. Reading the writing on the wall he is managing his exit.
Well he can always go back into PR. I seem to remember him fronting for Telstra Clear. No doubt he will get some sort of crap lobbying job: I’m thinking The Sensible Sentancing or Taxpayers Union.
Who’s next after Geoff and Cosgrove? Suggestions and reasons please.
King: she is a a common factor in all the failures of the past 7 years.
Shearer. Voted for the flag. Supports the TPP. Believes in mercenary armies. Bashes beneficiaries.
This man has no place in a socialist party.
well, restating the obvious, he’s not in a socialist party.
But he saved 50 million people. /s
@Paul, Agreed, and to add, secret talks with John Key without Labour’s knowledge, and self serving disloyalty.
I think it is incorrect to blame King for the last 7 years. Personally, I would like King to stay. I think it’s David Shearer who should bite the bullet, and go.
King was a central player in the ABC caucus movement.
The ABCers are a spent force. Still would like King to stay.
Just don’t forget that King’s actions have been integral to the status of the Labour caucus and leadership today. You want her to stay after all that, fine.
Nice to see you use ‘was’ CV. The ABCers are history. The future of the party belongs to members with ideas for positive change (see the Design for Living post for example). Shame you’re not with us CV but the party will start it’s second century looking forward.
Yes, yes, agree that we should forget about the past and all look forward to a better future.
“Yes, yes, agree that we should forget about the past and all look forward to a better future.”
CV, did you mean a “brighter” future?
Parker because he is a ditherer, lacks fortitude, sold his soul to the right-wing and then let them fuck him over and be replaced by Shearer.
Parker stands for nothing.
@Gristle. I think you are on to it there. That was my feeling too, despite other reasons being given in the media, and at least he didn’t use National’s old line by saying he was leaving because of “family.”
David Shearer, I would like to see him go, as he has proven on more than one occasion that he should be in the National party.
Gristle: You obviously don’t know him well…he hates SST and McVicar personally…besides which all of us who work for SST do it for free…Cosgrove would have a hugely inflated view of his worth…
For every rightest labour parliamentarian who resigns/retires from the party to be replaced by someone socialistically inclined, the less electable the Labour party becomes.
As the concept of the Labour party being a ‘broad church’, which I think is its stated philosophic positioning, gets marginalised, and is replaced by a narrow, often intolerant, hard left cohort, its unelectability is reinforced.
It loses MP’s like Cosgrave and Goff and possibly Shearer and King at its peril.
No, you are palpably wrong.
Offering an alternative to neo-liberal economics is what is necessary and Cosgrove, Goff, Shearer and King do not offer that.
Look at the following 5 examples:
Spain, Greece, Scotland, England (since Corbyn) and the support for Sanders in the US.
People are hungry for an alternative to neo-liberalism which has screwed them for 30 years.
Now I am prepared to be generous and assume that you are unaware of these 5 examples, In which case, please read up on the events that have transpired there.
However, I have a nagging feeling you are simply a troll who is running the predictable and dull meme that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism and that all Labour have to do is to copy Key and adopt even more tenets of neo-liberal ideology. If so, I cannot be bothered wasting . Shilling for the 1% is a contemptible act.
I am aware of the examples you refer to, and offer these observations.
1. To date only only one of these countries has elected a socialist government (Greece). Though I to be fair, I’m not sure what the situation is in Spain. In the case of Greece, as I understand it, the socialist government has had to significantly back track on its radical programme because of its decision to stay in the European Union.
2. Despite his best efforts, Saunders is unlikely to be the Democratic presidential nominee.
3. Corbyn will have to wait 5 years before he’ll get the chance to run Great Britain (Although the Conservatives may self destruct before then).
The point is, as tonights TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll suggests, any move to the left by Labour in NZ will concede the centre to National, reinforcing the probability that they will win in 2017.
Interestingly Little was keen to reassure everyone that Labour was still a broad based party despite Cosgrave’s resignation. He recognises the potential problem for Labour that arises if rightist MP’s leave.
meh. Status quo arrangements are coming to an end. You can argue for more pretend and extend, but thats already at breaking point throughout the world, as ordinary people realise the oligarchy is burying them.
Btw Labour is not “broad based” it is rotten based.
The public mood is undergoing a dramatic shift from positive, optimistic and inclusive to negative, angry, and exclusive.
The question is, which parties and personalities can translate this anger into election victories? In the UK, Corbyn and UKIP both represent this anger, but with opposite solutions. In the US, Sanders and Trump reflect the anger. Try as she may, Hillary Clinton doesn’t. Tom Cruz puts me to sleep.
IMO, “Angry Andy” has a chance. “Reasonable, Logical Andrew” does not.
Politics is 90% emotional.
“I’m comfortable with that.”
People are turning away from National and Key, yes. The major beneficiary is going to be Winston. Little and Labour are too out of touch with what you describe to capitalise on the phenomena.
Colonial Viper. I don’t think Andrew Little and Labour are out of touch at all. Pointing out that banks need to pass on cuts, that immigration should be turned down during the bad times, (most people agreed with those), and raising a debate on the changing nature of work in the future shows the opposite of what you think.
That’s all Thorndon Bubble sound bite focus group crafted shit.
On the ground, people are rolling their eyes at Labour and at Little in work places, pubs and universities throughout NZ.
You are too blinded by your hate, and I don’t think you are in a position to know how everyone thinks in work places, pubs and universities throughout NZ, Colonial Viper.
Funnily enough I had a beer with Andrew in a pub last week. The joint was busy and he was approached by lots of folk who took the chance to chat to him. They seemed genuinely pleased to see him and from what I heard of several conversations, they were encouraging him to keep taking the fight to Key. No rolling eyes whatsoever. Perhaps it’s you that’s out of touch?
Hey TRP, yes I’m sure we’ll see Little’s popularity come out through the polls fairly soon. We have to remember that he hasn’t been Labour Leader for that long. So within the next 6 months or so, no doubt.
+1 Te Reo Putake
I agree. Andrew Little and Labour are doing a lot more than this poll reflects. Let’s not forget that 49% voted to change the flag. 56% voted not to. Where are these 56% reflected in the Poll. They are not! Clayton, from my recollection as a former resident of good old CHCH has always been a ineffectual and no loss but let’s replace him with someone who is, for Gods sake. This is where Labour needs to up its game. Get some decent candidates. They have a year to work on that. Christchurch needs a clean up big time and now is the Labour Party chance. The people rolling their eyes, if they have any thing worth offering need to put their money where their mouth is or “shut the F up”. CV pressed his own self destruct button and ought to either come up with something constructive or follow my former advice. As for the Other Left/right leaning global politicians, Sanders is onto it, but he is too old. Hilary is Hilary. She might have had my vote but as a resident and not a citizen, I don’t vote and I wouldn’t vote for her because she does not support a Palestinian State. And she never will. What I will do as a result of this stupid biased TV1 poll is renew my sub to the NZ Labour Party right now. They need all the help they can get.
You mistake voting to retain the flag as voting against the Government.
Some may have done so but a number will simply have voted to retain the flag they like.
Voting for a Government capable of running the economy is a completely different thing and clearly only 1 in 4 think Labour capable of doing so.
Coming up with plans to increase spending dramatically dosent help .
Herb, National never even got 50% in 3 general elections.
What’s National got to show for their massive govt debt that they have racked up? What about National’s wasteful spending of tax payer dollars on their pet projects, mistakes and dictators etc?
They kept social welfare payments going, hospitals running and schools open.
What is your problem with that.
Key and English could easily have gone down the road of Cameron/Osborne austerity. They haven’t. They’ve kept borrowing in order to keep spending.
Yes a small proportion of it has been on their BS crony/vanity projects.
Mostly its been on NZ Super and hospitals.
Well, look where not spending has gotten us!
Yes and Labour should be mopping up votes as the second largest party. But they are weighed down with so much deadwood. I won’t name them but the faces are all too familiar to the voting public.
They may aswell take the axe in ruleless fashion to them right now and clean them all out. Just do it or kiss the next election goodbye now.
Little has no choice other than risk getting rolled pre election himself, and if that happens the deadwood stay as does Key and his mates.
Fresh blood, get in workers that people can relate to.
Problem being that the deadwood in Labour control the balance of candidate selection power in the party hierarchy.
That’s why they’re still there.
Little can do nothing – and I mean nothing – to clear house and start from a fresh sheet.
IMO there’s now a solid chance (at least 50%) of a National majority government 2017, which means that it’s GR2020.
Colonial Viper, National couldn’t get a 50% majority in 3 elections, 2 of which were rigged, and neither could they govern alone either, and after losing a safe National seat not long after the 2014 election, losing the flag referendum that Key tried to game, and given the scandals of abuses of power and abject corruption since then, what makes you think John Key and his National government can achieve whats been impossible in the last 3 elections, in 2017?
What you are saying is exactly the same marketing “misinformation” ploy that the msm use in an attempt to change people’s perceptions and demoralize voters into basically giving up. The meme is, it’s a foregone conclusion, so why bother, right? After all, it’s a low voter turn out that suits National.
Distracted, directionless and halfway through its tired third term, this is National’s lowest point in its entire electoral cycle.
They have not settled on an election year strategy yet, their list of electorate bribes is still hidden in the bag, they are being very cautious about how/if they use their old dirty politics tricks and they are still busy dumping unpalatable policies on the country ahead of 2017 (eg pseudo privatisation of Kiwi Bank).
Things are only going to get harder for the Opposition from this point on. Especially after National releases a Budget full of nice sweets for voters.
And lets face some facts, their are still a lot of the fourth Labour administration hacks in regional positions within the party.
We need the new blood there too.
the party is actually fucked at every level. Yes there are a some good people trying to make positive change at those levels, but they are stuck in a morass of an unworkable system which belongs in the 1970s.
For instance – the huge report which was done analysing why Labour lost the last election.
Where are the sweeping changes and results which were a consequence of that report?
Nowhere, that’s where. Labour will go into 2017 with exactly the same problems as 2014.
Change does take time, and its happening, and I think Labour is in a far better position now than what it was, despite the trumped up opinion polls.
Yeah! Give it six more months.
Do you believe in opinion polls, with their outdated polling methods Skinny? How do you know they are true?
What about the complicit role msm play for their National govt masters?
IMHO Expect Andrew Little to fight for the 2017 election as Labour’s leader.
Sounds like grasping at straws.
If you remember, there was a lot of talk pre Nov 2014 that the polls were deeply underestimating Labour due to methodology, not calling mobiles, biased questions etc.
It turned out that the polls were within a couple of percent of what Labor got on the day.
No, its not grasping at straws at all. The polls also over estimated National’s support. As mentioned in another post it’s all part of National’s strategy isn’t it? Opinion polls are just another weapon in National’s political tool kit to dupe people. Hilarious isn’t it, that when John key faces a public backlash of significant proportions out trots an opinion poll conducted with outdated polling methods to make everyone think there’s nothing to see here folks, alls fine and dandy, John’s still got it.
Look at the msm, opinion polls are not above political interference either, nothing under key’s regime has been left untouched in that regard.
Happy for you to blame the polls, blame the MSM, blame the pundits, blame whoever, for Labour’s performance to date.
How about, next, blame some of the membership for not giving enough money, more of their time, their unquestioning support, …
“do you believe the opinion polls?………”
Yes. Yes I do believe them because for the past three elections they have said that the Nats are well in front and will be in government, and in the past three elections they have been correct.
Meanwhile, folk like you Leftie have cried out “the polls are wrong” “they only do landlines” and my personal favourite “no bugger contacted me for my opinion”
I dot know if theres a strong correlation between having a landline and going to vote, but the pollsters seem to pick the result better than the bloggers do.
So yes, I do believe the pollsters, jut like I believed them when they picked Ms Clarks government to win several elections back.
So you do not believe that opinion polls can be manipulated, and used as an electioneering tool?
Thanks for bringing up a valid point. More people use mobile phones than landlines, in fact a lot more people do not have a landline anymore, so how does Roy Morgan and other pollsters for instance, call mobile phones numbers when no directory of mobile phone numbers exist and telcos do not give out that kind of information?
Cellphones make political polling tricky
BTW Helen Clark was polling around 2% prior to becoming PM, it appears most Labour PM’s polled low prior to being elected.
+100 CV..for all your comments here
Labour doesn’t have a single MP that could remotely be considered hard left; it just isn’t a hard left party.
Labour is more like a shadow Nact Party..it is jonkey Nact lite
Labour is strategically hopeless
Labour can’t even get in behind its own constituents with a winner like KiwiBank
NZF and the Greens are more Left Parties ( and Mana/Internet, if it is still around after Labour destroyed its chances last Election by standing Kelvin Davis against Hone Harawira and defeating Harawira with the help of Lusk
@Chooky lol kind of rich given you support Donald Trump !!! Labour never made it a secret that they were going after all the Maori seats, and that’s what they did. Labour didn’t destroy Mana’s chances at the last election, Hone did that by himself when he went with Dotcom. Northern Maori saw it as a weakness. I have no doubts that Hone would have retained his seat if he had of stood independently, but he didn’t, and he lost as a consequence.
I support Bernie Sanders actually!!!! …and Trump over Hillary Clinton
Andrew Little supports Hillary Clinton, whose disgraceful warmongering record In the Middle East speaks for itself…as well as her taking money from the corporates and banksters…
…why doesn’ t Andrew Little support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton?
@Chooky, thanks for showing you once again support Donald Trump, and Andrew Little wasn’t asked about Bernie Sanders.
To correct your cherry picking…. “Labour leader Andrew Little says New Zealand will have no choice but to work with whoever is elected by the American people, but he would lean towards Mrs Clinton.”
The article from RNZ was a skewered question to start with… “Trump or Clinton – who would be better for New Zealand?” Bernie Sanders wasn’t mentioned once, neither was any other candidate.
No doubt Andrew Little was thinking, like most people do, if in the event it came down to just Trump and Clinton, better Clinton than Trump, and responded accordingly to the question he was asked.
given Clinton’s crimes against humanity record in the Middle East and support from the corporates and banksters …Trump would be preferable to Clinton .
Trump is a wild card ( full of wild talk…who knows what he would do if President ?…he may operate well with good advisors )
…but Clinton has a record …( this record shows she should be before a world court along with Tony Blair and Bush to be called to account for war crimes)…anyone who supports Clinton is either ignorant or sus imo
If you check Trump out, he doesn’t have a good track record either, and would be a disaster as well. Neither Clinton or Trump would be good. The media are being mischievous in their skewered questions.
pretty lame…Trump wasnt involved in the sacking of Libya…or the Middle East….He certainly does not have the track record of Hillary Clinton in warmongering foreign affiars…if anything Trump wants to draw the USA back from its entanglements in the Middle East and he wants detente with Russia
He’s a right wing loon, chooky. Your support for him is unusual, to say the least.
Leftie – Hone got more votes in 2014 than he did in 2011. The main reason he lost – by less than 800 votes IIRC – is that Labour, National and NZ First instructed all their supporters to vote for Davis.
No doubt Hone made some significant mistakes during the campaign. He could easily have won, but it had little to do with Dotcom, whom Labour likes to make a scapegoat of, and more to do with campaigning basics.
Don’t spend so much time out of your own electorate in the months before polling day, for starters.
Nevertheless, according to our electoral system Labour did win a fair and square tactical victory over Hone, getting Kelvin Davis across the line.
This had the effect of eliminating both Hone and Laila Harre for Parliament. Not only would that extra left wing vote have been extremely useful for making the Key government look unstable and weak this term, Internet Mana would have become a natural coalition partner for Labour.
But, Hone and Laila would have been true left wing voices in Parliament, making Labour sound rather washed out. Further, plenty in Labour still hold a big grudge against Laila Harre.
So instead, Labour made a strategic blunder.
Not only going down an Opposition vote in the House, but eliminating a natural MMP partner party.
Yes, Labour won a tactical victory in Te Tai Tokerau, but snatched a strategic defeat as a consequence.
Colonial Viper, Where did you expect the votes of NZ First and National to go anyway? Hone and the Internet party weren’t ever going to get them. Labour made it quite clear they were out to win all the Maori seats, and as you have pointed out, Labour won fair and square. Supporters of Hone and Mana/Internet party wouldnt have taken any notice of what National, NZ First or Labour had to say. Voters of TTT couldn’t hold their noses to vote strategically. They saw it as a weakness that Hone needed a white man to win, that’s what I was told.
A brilliant tactical victory for Labour; a clear strategic defeat, also for Labour.
Not at all. Labour didn’t have a strategic alliance with Mana/Internet party to start with, so there was no strategic defeat. Labour made it quite clear from the outset that they were out to win all the Maori seats, they made no secret of it, they certainly didn’t do any cup of tea deals that the media could pull them apart over. Hone losing his seat had nothing to do with Labour.
+100…well put CV
…Labour ruined the Left coalition’s chances of government by standing Kelvin Davis and gifted the Election to jonkey nactional…they also ruined the votes of many New Zealanders for the Left
Rubbish Chooky, there were a lot of factors at play during the 2014 election, a complicit msm in National’s dirty politics, and the right wing hatefest of Dotcom, who they viewed as John key’s nemesis. Hone ruined his own chances. Voters of TTT couldn’t hold their noses to vote strategically. They saw it as a weakness that Hone needed a white man to win, that’s what I was told. I understood why Hone partnered up with the Internet party, but others saw it as a betrayal.
you can talk it up all you like and have the last word but you don’t fool anyone… it is the Labour Party that is failing…and it has been evident for quite some time, despite a gift hand from jonkey nactional
….lets face it Labour does NOT appeal to many Left wing voters because it is a right wing party
…the facts speak for themselves
Lol that’s still rich coming from someone who supports the right wing nutjob Donald Trump. Aren’t I allowed to have say like you do, or pass on what I have been told? You sound like you have issues Chooky. I am not out to fool anyone, why would I? or have the last word either, why does that matter to you anyway? What weird things for you to have said. Your facts are often wrong Chooky, you are too blinded by hate.
My sense is that it has been the right of the party that has come to dominate the caucus and has sought to reproduce itself by acting as ‘patron’ to ‘new talent’ (like Shearer, Nash, etc.).
If there has been a lack of ‘tolerance’ then – like UK Labour – for the past twenty to thirty years it has come from the right of the party, not the left.
And I mean, you have to admit that any supposedly left-wing party that could ‘tolerate’ future ACT Party zealots skipping into its leadership and cabinet and then continued to tolerate the presence of those zealots’ camp followers for decades in its various cabinets and front benches has hardly been showing ‘hard left’ intolerance.
You really need to gain some political bearings and perspective. Either that or your political gyroscope needs an overhaul.
And everybody knows.
I wonder if Cosgrove’s resigning has anything to do with Labour’s support of jonkey Nactional over the slow motion destruction and sell off of KiwiBank …the peoples bank
…you know, the bank Jim Anderton and Labour set up to be a successful real New Zealand bank for New Zealanders and by New Zealanders( Instead of the country bleeding out millions to Australian banks and out of New Zealand)
… no wonder Little’s Labour Party is failing in the polls…we don’t really have an Opposition Party in Labour …they cant even support their own bank for God’s sake!
@Chooky. Apart from the fact that articles outing John key loving Chinese sounding names to raise a lot of money to game the referendum in his favour, and the Panama papers were either at the end or outside the polling period, who believes the easily manipulated opinion polls anymore anyway? Heck, National never got 50% in a general election. The spin doesn’t stack up with reality that these opinion polls offer. They are just another weapon in National’s political tool kit to dupe people.
Seriously doubt Cosgrove is leaving because of Kiwibank.
“He said his decision to stand down was “about new challenges and opportunities”.
” It is understood that Labour’s decision to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership was a factor in his decision to stand down.”
Cosgrove supporting KiwiBank was one of the few positive real Left things he did..credit where it is due!
…how galling to find his Party can’t even support KiwiBank!
Cosgrove is not the only one within Labour to support Kiwibank, I just put up a link showing Cosgrove wasn’t even talking about Kiwibank in his decision to leave, and Labour do support Kiwibank.
“Labour Party leader Andrew Little said he could absolutely guarantee that any government he led would keep Kiwibank 100 percent in public ownership.
“The most important thing is that the government guarantees if either the Cullen Fund or the ACC wants to sell its shareholding, that they take up the first right of refusal and buy back those shares, that’s the commitment that the Labour Party would make.”
Labour backing a National Party initiative to play financialised games with Kiwi Bank. More of the same National aping to come from Labour as we get closer to the election, I can almost guarantee it.
Awesome dude. Tell you what, Labour should keep putting the spotlight on Asian business owners and Chinese people in general. It’s proving a real vote and campaign fund winner. For National that is.
National don’t have a problem buying votes for favours, do they? One rule for National, quite another for everyone one else, particularly if it’s Labour. What a difference in your response. When Labour tried to highlight foreign speculators fueling the housing market, you went positively ballistic. When National used wealthy Chinese to game the flag referendum, you just point the finger at Labour instead.
You’re not so stupid that you can’t tell the difference.
Labour decided on a cynical racist Winston Peters strategy to turn the blame on Chinese speculators. When during their own rule, Auckland house prices shot up and up and up, and suburbs like Howick became known as Chowick.
What National has done now is, very predictably, tapped directly into the anti-Labour feeling in the Chinese community that Labour’s short sighted actions have fuelled. National will doubtless be getting additional campaign donations from those same Chinese over the next year.
Of course National will Colonial Viper, National’s donors have vested interests, particularly in the property market, and will expect “favours” in return.
ROFL thanks for proving that not only do you condone corruption at Prime Ministerial level, you have also proved it is indeed one rule for National, and quite a different rule for anyone else, particularly Labour. I guess its completely beside the point that John key tapped into the pockets of Chinese sounding names to game the flag referendum in his favour. You are comfortable with that.
Holy shit man, has your tribalism totally blinded you?
Read it again and realise why Labour has gone down the tubes. The twitching body keeps moving but just hasn’t realised its brain is already dead.
Your hate blinds you Colonial Viper. What is going on now is far, far worse under key’s regime. NZers have never seen anything like it before. You have no objectivity, and have lost all rationale.
I know Key’s Government is no good for NZ.
But that’s not a reason to support the Labour Party.
The same Labour Party which opened the door to neoliberalism, where Parker and Cullen support the kind of financialisation which is ruining the country, where Little has committed to the degradation of NZ democracy via the TPP, where Labour thinks that everyone in the country has either forgotten or forgiven them for Rogernomics.
TL/DR a shitty National Party regime ain’t a reason to support a light blue pro-financial globalisation free trade pro-growth Labour Party.
Pfffft. Almost every Labour Party MP is a landlord, and benefits handsomely from the rapid dumping of the CGT policy.
Again, explain to me who has vested interests and is acting upon said interests?
Already have, and you didn’t like it. What has Labour’s CGT election policy that they ran for 2 elections got to do with it? Not such a rapid dump after all, when Andrew Little decided not run it for a 3rd time. Isn’t that what people wanted? They wanted the Labour party to drop unpopular election polices so Andrew Little did when he became leader. Funny how the calls for a CGT grew loud AFTER the general election. Go figure. So howz that watered down version of National’s doing then? Isn’t every National MP a landlord, possibly a few times over? also how many National MPs/Ministers have large farm holdings, and businesses amounting to numerous conflicts of interests etc?
You call it a conflict of interest if you want, but it means that National MPs are far more in touch with rural and provincial communities, and the small business community, than city bound careerless townie Labour MPs are.
ROFL, you are funny Colonial Viper. So you do have a sense of humour after all.
Who on earth will Shane Jones use now to get leaked info about the Labour Party?
Joy, I don’t think there has been any leaks since Shane Jones left.
Leftie – That’s very interesting.
The programme to sink Cunliffe through leaks was much bigger than Jones, who was a likely operator in that programme. But not the co-ordinator.
Ah the old broad-church argument coming up a lot here. Is Labour to be a broad-church movement or is it to be focused on a narrow part of the political spectrum as an alternative to neo-liberalism.
I personally have no problem if Labour wants to adopt a more narrow base and focus only on those issues within that sector. My problem though is when moderates such as myself are called waka-jumpers or traitors for jumping ship and becoming a-political, joining other opposition parties or (heaven forbid) voting National.
Labour used to be a broad based party. So us who are no longer considered part of the base did not abandon Labour. Labour instead has made a strategic decision to move away from us. And that is fine. The Party has the freedom to do so.
The likes of Clayton Cosgrove however will be missed.
Fucking weird comment mate.
Labour ditched the working class and the underclass 3 decades ago in order to chase the swing voting middle class.
It swapped its core values for those of other political influences.
None of this says “broad base” it all says “no base.”
And as I said I’m not judging them for wanting to narrow the base again. Just be aware that they then lose touch with middle voters. That is all. I sympathize with attempts to reconnect with the working class.
What you think of as ‘no base’ must mean the attempt to bring a broad spectrum of people into the party has worked.
No fear mate, I reckon Labour is going to continue fawning to $100K+ households.
That’s where they live these days.
LOL Labour is dying on its feet mate, purposeless, missionless, base-less.
There is zero reason for Labour to continue existing today, apart from “Not Being National.”
So when are you launching your NEW PARTY CV?
New political parties almost invariably end up on the scrap heap after a couple of years. It’s tilting at windmills.
So are you taking any political initiatives to further your political beliefs, or does ’tilting at windmills’ imply you have given up on positive action and are going to be mainly focusing on a negative attack strategy from here on?
It’s been a long time since I read a post on the Standard, and going by the nasty comments here about Cosgrove, not to mention King, and Roberston, and Goff, and Shearer, and Parker, he’s clearly made the correct decision.
If bloody slow and overdue.
David Shearer as Leader could well be preparing the ground for a change of government. He would have been as soundly beaten as Cunliffe in last election but woud have bided his time in preparation for his turn. There will be no turn for Little.
Shearer is a globalist right wing elite fuckwit who belongs in National.
But I agree with you that there will be no second chance for Little. GR2020. If not before.
“But I agree with you that there will be no second chance for Little. GR2020. If not before.”
Then again, you could be completely wrong about that too Colonial Viper. Only time will will tell.
Agree that Shearer should be in the National party though.
Shearer is a cooked goose, he is not coming back in any Labour party leadership role in the future. Its over for him for good in that regard.
Yeah but Labour will continue to gift him Helen Clark’s safe seat, even though he has decimated his own LEC.
So his replacement is yet another cloth cap wearing unionist, at least CC along with the more saner members of the Labour Party had brains and common sense as opposed to the current leadership, which given the latest polls would suggest that the [r0b: deleted -that particular insult offends a lot of people] description is very apt.
@Michael Wills. Who said the polls are true?
Most polls are fairly accurate – some are more accurate than others. However some organisations take a poll of polls approach, and these are often highly accurate.
Check out Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight website and his US primary predictions based on a poll of polls approach for evidence of credible polling.
Evidence shows that polls are dodgy, easily manipulated, and changes in technology have rendered current polling methods outdated.
More people use mobile phones than landlines, in fact a lot more people do not have a landline anymore, so how does Roy Morgan and other pollsters for instance, call mobile phones numbers when no directory of mobile phone numbers exist and telcos do not give out that kind of information?
Cellphones make political polling tricky
Despite your assertions, the polls are still largely accurate within a given margin of error; especially, as I say, the poll of polls.
Their predicted outcomes align with the actual results most of the time – so, for example, the fivethirtyeight website gives Hillary Clinton over a 90% probability of winning the Democratic New York Primary. I expect this to be accurate.
Lets see if this turns out to be the case.
Gower and Garner will be starving for black smear on the leadership now. Guess they’ll have to make it up and focus single-mindedly on the “Winston is more popular line”. If they’re good they might get cases of Blind Trust Winery Estate from
Keysa secret admirer. woof.