- Date published:
9:32 am, October 2nd, 2012 - 35 comments
Categories: election 2014, Judith Collins - Tags:
It’s been interesting to watch the Collins Faction of National talk down the Conservative Party all year. It’s not hard to see why – they occupy space/take votes that a Collins-led National would want for itself. What the Collins Faction would like is a decent liberal-right party. That would allow National to swing conservative and give up liberal votes to an ally, rather than to the Left.
A replacement for Act in the liberal-right would not just be useful for Collins at an election if she becomes National’s leader. It also might make all the difference in her becoming the leader. Think about it. If you’re a National backbencher, you’re not going to vote for a leader that is going to contest already taken votes in the conservative spectrum while giving up votes in the liberal spectrum to the Left. That would be a vote to kick National out of office.
So, Collins must reassure the backbenches that a vote for her is a vote for a brighter political future for them. Part of that is by assuring them ministerial portfolios by getting rid of the old guard that is coalescing around Joyce as National’s ABC candidate. The other part is assuring them that National will have a rightwing partner with which it can make a majority.
But it will all be for nought. Even if they manage to get a new Liberal party, she’ll never get the votes and why? Because next year she’s going to get her arse kicked in a high profile defamation case, which she brought upon herself. The mutterings about the terrible judgement Collins showed in taking the case has been loud and continuous. It’ll only look worse for her when she loses and the public assumes that, by default, the claims about her are true.
How good is Mrs Collins at gathering support from those around her. Does she have loyal office staff and loyalty from caucus. Like meeting a cobra I imagine that those around her would treat her with respect and loathing.
Collins is a snake and a bully and a liar and while traditionally bullies through their very nature tend to conquer all around them in politics it’s a different story. For this reason Collins can never be a successful leader.
Can someone please explain the National faction thing to me? I gather it’s Collins v Joyce, but who’s on who’s side?
There is no faction.
It’s a feeble attempt to draw attention away from the Cunliffe Shearer civil war raging within Labour.
Let me put it this way – what sort of tory minister wouldn’t be trying to place themselves in a good position when the PM is: irritable, dropping in popularity, and facing a number of interesting scandals and allegations of incompetence?
Especially when it’s the PM alleging his own incompetence by claiming to never have read anything during his term in office.
I think any minister within National would have to be insane to try and undermine the PM
Key is light years ahead of anyone else as the preferred leader, talk about commit political suicide.
The dude is looking tired and beginning to be tarnished. Sharks smell blood. Any minister with national will be putting their ducks in a row for after the election, with a contingency plan for if something blows up sooner.
English is out: failed the job before and too close to Key. Brownlee: too close, too dumb.
Bennett is unlikely – too dumb. Ditto Tolley. Not sure about Finlayson, but possibly the same ballpark.
Note: stupidity rules them out only because they’re easy cannon fodder this time around, not because intelligence is a requirement to be national party leader.
Collins, Joyce and Parata, Ryall, and Williamson could all be in the mix. The inexperienced guns who would be joining teams this time round include Wagner and Woodhouse.
When Key goes the next in line is Collins.
She’s an arsekicker, takes no nonsense and would be a very popular choice amongst the NZ public.
When the transition does takes place it will involve Key, he will be a integral part of the swap over, it won’t be some shifty stab you in the back affair, that’s for sure.
Arsekicker? Who’s arse has she kicked?
Sure, but she hasn’t got quite the nous to know which arses not to kick which means she wouldn’t last as leader, even if she did get the job. She ain’t called mad dog for nothing. She’s just not dextrous enough, no finesse so would inevitably fuck it up, if she hasn’t already. Just look at how she’s handled the ACC palaver? Hopeless.
I cannot recall a graceful hand over of leadership inside National in the entire time I have been aware of politics. I think that the last time there was anything like a peaceful transition of leadership in National was when Holyoake retired – when I was 11 or 12 in 1972
A basic backstabbing history in the National party goes something like this
So now we are waiting for the next backstabbing assassin…. There has been 40 years of back hacking in which only one leader of National was involved in selecting their successor.
I don’t think it will be a sneaky stab either. That is somewhat too subtle for National. Professing loyalty whilst figuring how to use a axe on the kidneys from behind is more their style..
The last two Labour leaders (Clark and Goff) have stood aside and have helped to select their successor. Are you sure you weren’t thinking of them?
Read what I said:
“…she hasn’t got quite the nous to know which arses not to kick which means she wouldn’t last as leader, even if she did get the job.”
I’m in fact talking about what would happen if she did become leader, not that she wouldn’t. Half the people you named didn’t last five minutes, which is precisely what I’m saying would happen to Collins. Jesus wept.
C’mn Lynn it’s politics. Labour is no less mucky. Clark knifed Moore. Moore knifed Palmer. Palmer knifed Lange. Lange knifed Rowling. Hardly a virtuous history when compared to National.
um, Palmer didn’t knife Lange. He never wanted the job.
In 50 years, Labour has seen just 4 coups: Kirk v Nordmeyer, Lange v Rowling, Moore v Palmer, Clark v Moore. It’s coming up on 20 years since the last one.
National has had 7 coups in less than 40 years. Three since 2000.
Looks like you don’t read history and do not understand actual politics – looks like you just have myths.
The Labour party is just over 95 years old. The first three leaders died as leader. The 4th one retired. Lange stepped down when his position became untenable and the deputy (palmer) took over (Palmer didn’t ‘knife’ him). Clark stepped down. Goff stepped down
So over 95 years there have just been 4 contested challenges. Kirk toppling Nordmeyer (after 2 years), Lange toppling Rowling (after 9 years), Moore toppling Palmer (after less than year), and Clark toppling Moore (after a bit more than 3 years).
We got rid of the National wannabes after that. So it has almost been 20 years since the last overthrow.
By contrast there have only been two leaders of National who have actually not had a coup against then – Holland and Holyoake.
C’mn Lynn it’s politics.
No it isn’t – it is the politics of National to eat their leadership. Labour tends to be somewhat more cooperative.
It is the politics of modern politicians to grab (or hold onto) power whether by fair means or foul if they are presented with the chance
Just as it is the nature of many politicians to be duplicitous troughing sacks of shit even if some originally entered parliament or local government with the best of intentions.
Remember what Lange said in his final speech to the Labour Party when he resigned and handed the leadership over to Geoffrey Palmer? He said “Just make sure you go easy on those who can’t quite cut it”.
I don’t care how Labour politicians might appear to treat each other in the cut and thrust of politics – they can eat each other till there’s no one left for all I care. But when a political party that holds itself out as caring and inclusive treats the poor and vulnerable with the contempt that the current Labour Party has treated the poor and vulnerable since 1999 (go read the Social Security Amendment Act 2007 if you don’t believe me – stuff all people have read it) then it deserves all the disdain that gets hurled at it. There’s only one thing that’s as equally despicable – and that’s people who continue to stand up for that party without bothering to even consider the evidence.
Never was a fan of David Lange. He never struck me as being particularly effective at making things work. So quoting him to me is a bit pointless – I get far more interested in how to get things being done rather than people waffling about how the world should magically be.
I seldom defend anything that I am not responsible for. You can usually tell the difference when I actually do defend something, I tend to tear people apart while finding out what in the hell they’re on about. It is rather distinctive. My usual defense is often mistaken for a allout offensive action and often includes a certain amount of (ummm) ‘personality stimulus’ (hey – that one is quite a good euphemism…)
It is remarkably effective against the whisperer brigade who prefer insinuation to speaking their opinions plainly. And it has the added benefit of making damn sure that people are very reluctant to tear me away from my passion for programming to work in either management or politics. Works pretty well and it is often quite good fun (for me at any rate).
But I do rather like stirring and correcting dumbarse mistakes, which I suspect is what you are mistaking as “stand up for”. In which case you’ll have a treat (or a horror) coming when I do get around to defending this site or if if I find a hapless CCD needing a extra excrectory orifice.
I will have a read of the SSAA 2007, however I can’t remember anything particularly different from the existing legislation prior to it. What are you thinking of?
Can’t see anything particularly revolutionary in the debates either. I was particularly reading Sue Bradford on the second reading after the select committee. Essentially she was saying that she’d have liked to the bill to extend further than any social security legislation had done before and while she liked some bits, other bits were crap because of that.
Unfortunately the select committee stuff wasn’t available…
I believe Key is there because he thinks he can do good for the country, he’s not like your average politician, he will only stay in politics if people want him and even then I doubt he would stay any longer then 3 terms.
Like a CEO in a company, you only have a limited life span before you become jaded and it’s time for an injection of fresh blood and new ideas.
He knows that and like I said previously will play a big role in the transition of his leadership to Collins or who ever is next in line.
That’s my theory anyway,.
He’s only here to do good for his rich mates.
He’s not like your average politician because he is a bankster at heart.
And yes, because NZ is still a democracy of sorts, he will only stay as long as the people let him stay.
Leadership passing to Collins. Perleese!
BM – can you tell us which Planet you are on? I guess it is far distant.
“….Not sure about Finlayson,”
There were rumours last week that Findlayson might step down. Not sure from whom.
It’s something that Eddie’s being on about for a while now.
I can’t really say any of it has been evident in the MSM. Eddie claims that Cameron Slater and David Farrar are involved in the machinations (can’t remember for which side).
It could all just be a figment of Eddie’s imagination.
or it could be that these aren’t the kind of things one discusses around reporters and one of the good things about blogs is they can reveal info the msm can’t.
It is a game played by both sides. It irritates me no end the bullshit stories that are dreamed up about Shearer and Cunliffe. Clearly anyone who sees them together can tell they are working together well and there is no leadership tension between them at all.
I think this Collins faction story (who else is in this so called faction) comes from the same fantasy play book.
joyce is on the side of downloaders like skim.dotcom and collins would get more votes if she changed the law to give boy wussers three strokes of the cane when they are caught with noisy vehicles.
apart from that they are much of a muchness.
neanderthal lowbrows fixated on jets and expensive hotels where they can pay to have their bums kissed by servile flunkies.
does that explain it?
Great. All clear now. Thanks.
[lprent: Try using the reply button. Then we’ll be able to see who you are thanking. ]
Collins politics are of the extreme right. ie.not interested in the welfare of the people of her electorate.
Papakura a relatively poor working class South Auckland suburb is infested by bottle shops selling cut price coloured and flavoured spirits drinks with advertising aimed at young people.
(There are three of these highly visible outlets within a true stone’s throw of her electorate office).
This trade has caused serious harm in Papakura. A fact which Judith Collins is well aware. But Collins instead of heeding the concerns of the community put the interests of the booze barons ahead of any sensible regulation.
A serious left candidate who dragged Collins over the coals on this issue, in this electorate, would have a real chance.
A serious focused effort by the left would unseat more than Collins. Bennett being one that springs to mind.
Therein lies the problem….the nats are ruthless and well backed whereas labour was a bit of a shambles at the last election on the ground when it mattered.
The smiley dodgy Samoan sent no end of ‘look how tough and good we are’ newsletters into mailboxes, during 2011 whereas the labour candidate (already a list MP) did dick and got what was coming not being on the gravy train anymore after the 2011 result.
The Nats’ most effective leaders (not their best ones) have all been bullies and Crusher fits the mode nicely. I think she’s much smarter than Jenny Shipley and about as vicious as Muldoon. With all that money laundered by the big right-wing law firms OBH the Nats, Crusher could run an extremely efficient campaign in 2014 and win against ??? from Labour.
Conservative ,n.(Tory) A statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
Jokerman – Good bon mot.