Cunliffe to pull out?

Written By: - Date published: 12:35 pm, October 13th, 2014 - 154 comments
Categories: david cunliffe, labour - Tags:

Only a rumour at this stage…

154 comments on “Cunliffe to pull out? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    13 October 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Fairly inevitable given his multiple cock-ups post-election.

  2. Draco T Bastard 2
    13 October 2014 at 12:40 pm

    It’s only speculation at the moment but, IMO, if he does Labour’s fucked. Watch them drop below 20% at the next election.

    • Colonial Rawshark 2.1
      13 October 2014 at 12:44 pm

      I wouldn’t be so melodramatic: 20%-25% I think.

    • TheContrarian 2.2
      13 October 2014 at 12:54 pm

      Draco’s part of the ABC club I see. Anyone But Cunliffe is to blame for labours loss

      • Colonial Rawshark 2.2.1
        13 October 2014 at 12:58 pm

        Labour front bench and the campaign management team bear primary responsibility.

      • Tracey 2.2.2
        13 October 2014 at 1:20 pm

        pretty sure draco has attributed blame fairly widely… unlike those who think sacking

        goff
        shearer
        cunliffe

        is a panacea

    • Saarbo 2.3
      13 October 2014 at 12:58 pm

      +1

      Cunliffe is a clever and highly capable operator who shouldn’t waste any more time in a political party that is a dysfunctional, mediocre and embarrassing mess.

      • Colonial Rawshark 2.3.1
        13 October 2014 at 1:00 pm

        If we lose him out of Labour, that will be a loss to the nation.

        • leftie 2.3.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 1:02 pm

          @Colonial Rawshark.
          Agreed.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.2
          13 October 2014 at 1:38 pm

          Not necessarily. It could actually be a gain if he joins one of the other left parties.

          • Chooky Shark Smile 2.3.1.2.1
            13 October 2014 at 1:47 pm

            +100 DTB..Cunliffe should not waste his time anymore with the existing Labour Party if he decides not to contend for the leadership…

            what about a new ManaLabour/Internet Party ?

            • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.2.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 2:02 pm

              I think he’d be great in and for IMP.

              • TheContrarian …
                13 October 2014 at 2:22 pm

                IMP was completely thrashed, I don’t think there is a future for either party

                • felix …
                  13 October 2014 at 4:05 pm

                  Since when has the level of voter support impacted on political futures?

                  Key just made ministers (one of them a super duper secret minister) of the leaders of the worst performing parties in the entire world*.

                  *probably

                  • Tracey …
                    13 October 2014 at 4:10 pm

                    exactly…

                    4500 nz votes
                    16,000 nz votes

                    makes IMP look like a leading player. Hone at least understood the import of getting rid of this govt. LP did not.

                • swordfish …
                  13 October 2014 at 6:46 pm

                  “IMP was completely thrashed”

                  Or, to put it another way, the only Party on the Left to increase its share of the vote.

          • Andrea 2.3.1.2.2
            13 October 2014 at 2:04 pm

            While I’m in wish-mode: Cunliffe and Harre.

        • Once Was Tim 2.3.1.3
          13 October 2014 at 2:34 pm

          “…….. that will be a loss to the nation.”
          ….. and possibly even the demise of Labour

          All that will remain is a tainted ‘brand’ and a gaggle of egos protesting loudly that it had nothing to do with them. They could form a committee even – with the top positions going to Oik Williams and Josie.
          I note that on Firstline, or Breakfast, or Morning Report, or one of the other platforms where the media stars exercise their egos and pretend journalistic integrity (can’t remember which, they’re now all alike) that me ole mate with supposedly left wing creds, the Burma Road sage; Onslow College old-boi (and with better journalistic cred than most), suggested Parker’s entry was going have a moderating effect (to paraphrase).
          Maybe, maybe not.
          I suspect we’re now going to go thru’ all this 5 sets-of-eyes Labour leader shuffle, after which there’ll still be a grand proportion of the non-voters, sitting alongside the disposessed?, the beneficiary, the once-were-ardent-trade-unionists STILL wondering where the fuck they stand.
          For me, Labour’s future (whether it’s announced policy, or whether it’s using tactics which mean is doesn’t announce the unpalatable to many – kind of a la Key) lays in systematically and progressively dismantling the neo-lib ideology/religion/lingua-franca/culture. Other than that, they might as well try to piss in the pockets of anyone they think will flick them a vote – be they the sell-out once-were-Tramways-Union-now-masters-of-the-Universe; the pragmatic trumping the principled; the bankers; the crony capitalists; the ideologically driven; the muddled class who now live on credit and debt and ‘are comfortable’ that’s normality (crony-capitalist-constructed-debt at that; those comfortable with doing ‘cashy’ jobs under the table, whilst bashing the beneficiary next door; those that can’t differentiate between ‘public’ ownership and that nasty ‘state’ ownership’ those that don’t ekshly give a stuff about a public sphere – letalone a PUBLIC;

          (time to end the rave me thinks but thos is not a NZ I want to be part of – and not thru’ lack of trying)

      • ankerawshark 2.3.2
        13 October 2014 at 1:37 pm

        Saarbo @ 2.3 1000000+

      • Tom Jackson 2.3.3
        13 October 2014 at 1:44 pm

        Like anyone other than the hard core will be voting for Labour in 2017. Political parties don’t last for ever and this one needs to die and be replaced by something new.

    • Cancerman 2.4
      13 October 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Tbh I think they will rebound. I think Cunliffe was a weight on the party. Little is much better.

      • Tracey 2.4.1
        13 October 2014 at 1:22 pm

        can you outline specifically how he will be better? yesterday he didnt seem to know where he will take labour until he has spent months talking to kiwis…

        makes you wonder who some of these guys talked to for the months and months prior to the election, the mirror?

        • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 1:39 pm

          makes you wonder who some of these guys talked to for the months and months prior to the election, the mirror?

          😈

      • Chris 2.4.2
        13 October 2014 at 1:30 pm

        There is currently no-one in Labour who can lead. That’s the problem. They need to look to get someone from outside but before they can do that they need to sort the party out. Nobody’s going to want the job in the state they’re currently in. Little’s the only one who can do that because he’s the only one who’s not tainted by the nasty infighting and who’s got more of a handle on what a Labour Party should look like. Robertson, for example, doesn’t represent traditional Labour values, and Nash should be in the ACT Party with his mate Odgers. So get Little in there to get Labour back on the straight and narrow which will also make them a party more attractive to lead, and then get someone from outside to do the job. Cunliffe is highly skilled but no leader. Hope he doesn’t quit politics.

        • Lanthanide 2.4.2.1
          13 October 2014 at 1:55 pm

          GR should quit if he loses.

          • wekarawshark 2.4.2.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 1:57 pm

            why?

            • Lanthanide 2.4.2.1.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 2:55 pm

              Same reason Cunliffe resigned from the leadership and now isn’t running.

              Cunliffe never made a move at the 2011 (or whenever) conference, and the subsequent talk of a leadership attempt by him against Shearer also doesn’t seem to be true. Both events seem to have been constructed by GR and his camp; he’s been deputy leader and could have had it under DC if he so chose, and if he still can’t win leadership after the 3rd open contest then clearly the party doesn’t want him and he should get out. As campaign manager he’s also presided over two bad election campaigns.

              • felix …
                13 October 2014 at 4:14 pm

                Agreed, and it should apply to Parker too.

                If losing an election signifies the end of the road – as is apparently the new rule – then Parker and Robertson ought to consider that they are both lining up for their second leadership election.

                • Lanthanide …
                  13 October 2014 at 4:16 pm

                  Actually it’s the 3rd for both of them, the first in 2011 just wasn’t open to members voting. Parker withdrew and backed GR.

            • Chris 2.4.2.1.1.2
              14 October 2014 at 11:52 am

              Because while no-one in Labour at the moment can lead, Robertson cannot be led. Robertson won’t stop until he becomes Labour leader = bad for Labour/bad for the Left/bad for New Zealand = Robertson must either leave politics or join National.

        • wekarawshark 2.4.2.2
          13 October 2014 at 1:57 pm

          thanks for shining the spotlight on the elephant in the living room Chris 🙂

        • SHG 2.4.2.3
          13 October 2014 at 2:29 pm

          There is currently no-one in Labour who can lead. That’s the problem.

          Bingo

  3. Tracey 3
    13 October 2014 at 12:43 pm

    and one of his replacement contenders yesterday wrote

    “..If I were elected leader, I would like to take a few months to get out and talk to New Zealanders. Kiwis are pretty open-minded, you’ve just got to know where to start with them, and I don’t think we did.. ….”

    didnt we just have an election where the whole party was talking to nzers?

    • karol 3.1
      13 October 2014 at 12:45 pm

      Shearer and Cunliffe both used that line about first getting out and talking to NZers.

      I agree. It’s what MPs should be doing as a matter of course.

      • Tracey 3.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

        he stated the party vote was a problem. ya think!?! my main observation of littels q and a here was how few of the questions he actually answered.

        he is a politician

        but i read his intro and his answers and have no better idea of what the lp or he stands for as a result, how he will get caucus to pull together or how to improve lp votes.

        everyone standing seems to want to talk to kiwis but not their members…

        • Karen 3.1.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 1:25 pm

          +1 Tracey
          I was less than impressed by Little’s effort yesterday.

        • Chris 3.1.1.2
          13 October 2014 at 1:34 pm

          But he’s also saying Labour needs to find out what went wrong first before they can decide on future work and direction. He needs to say this, but the fact he’s union man should give context to his rhetoric.

        • boldsirbrian 3.1.1.3
          13 October 2014 at 2:11 pm

          @ Tracey (3.1.1)

          I also do not think Little would have won many over with his Q&A on the Standard. A pedestrian effort. Nice to hear that voters “deserve to be told”, but deflating to find that even though we were deserving, he was not going to bother.

          re your comment about wanting to “talk” to kiwis: Being a little cynical, I think that politicians often go on a road trip (“to find out” what kiwis think), say some platitudes to a few people, listen to the job description of a few others, and come back home to be able to report stuff they have made up at the keyboard: “New Zealanders tell me ……..” A bit like Nigel Latta’s psychological experiences.

          I hope that the remaining three candidates (including Little) provide us with substance. All three have had good to brilliant opening statements, which largely reflect on vision ….but …..

          Q You think that you will be good at unifying the party. Can you please provide details of the way that you would go about achieving that?

          Q What specific ways do you think that you will be able to achieve the aims of lifting people out of poverty, providing social benefits for those who are unable to work, a minimum living wage for those who are, and incentives to get people in the workforce?

          Q What specific policies distinguish Labour from potential coalition parties Greens and Mana?

          Q If your responsibilities to provide your social equity vision cost more than is currently fiscally possible, what action will you take? Lower benefits? (which ones?) or Increase taxes or introduce new taxes? (which ones?)

          etc

      • just saying 3.1.2
        13 October 2014 at 1:16 pm

        And Goff before him. We’ve been living Groundhog day for nearly seven years. I can’t even imagine Labour being able to break the circuit anymore.

    • Colonial Rawshark 3.2
      13 October 2014 at 12:45 pm

      I don’t think so. Possibly mainly the NZers in the press gallery.

      • Tracey 3.2.1
        13 October 2014 at 12:52 pm

        well, judging by his q and a he has already mastered the art of not answering the question he was actually asked.

        • boldsirbrian 3.2.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 2:18 pm

          @ Tracey (3.2.1)

          I think he forgot that he was not at question time in Parliament. When responses by Government members to the Opposition are masterful non-answers. Perhaps he was treating the Standard as Opposition? Rather than searching questions from a largely sympathetic audience.

          He would have much better if had thought of the Q&A as a job interview. He may then have done better.

  4. NeutObserver 4
    13 October 2014 at 12:45 pm

    The countdown to DC’s withdrawal from the leadership race (and Parliament?) could well be underway. A rumour, but a strong one.

  5. Ad 5
    13 October 2014 at 12:48 pm

    Can’t they all just have a big televised MasterChef instead?

  6. karol 6
    13 October 2014 at 12:49 pm

    NZ Herald saying Cunliffe is understood to be pulling out and will back Little.

    • Tracey 6.1
      13 October 2014 at 12:54 pm

      well, labour seems to be mastering theknives in the heart part, now if they can find an ordinary bloke who people want to have a beer with

    • wekarawshark 6.2
      13 October 2014 at 1:09 pm

      “NZ Herald saying Cunliffe is understood to be pulling out and will back Little.”

      This would be a good move, but only if Little will deal to the ABCs.

      Little said this yesterday,

      “That’s something I have a lot of experience in. As the leader of the EPMU for 11 years, I undertook a careful and strategic reshaping of the union to turn it into a campaigning organisation that engaged powerfully with the public on the big issues”

      Does anyone have more detail on this, how he was in that job, what kinds of things he did?

      • Te Reo Putake 6.2.1
        13 October 2014 at 1:23 pm

        Very good at it, Weka. Probably the best example was the 5 in ’05 wage campaign where nearly all kiwi workers got a decent rise for the first time in a decade on the back of the EPMU ‘s initiative.

        • wekarawshark 6.2.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 1:33 pm

          That doesn’t answer my question though. I’d like to understand what he did internally, not just the outcomes.

          • Te Reo Putake 6.2.1.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 1:47 pm

            Well, to fill it out a bit, some of the things he did include these changes:

            Internally, he moved from the branch, region and industry organiser model to one where the organisers crossed multiple industries, the regional leadership didn’t control bank accounts and the members elected representatives to go to relevant industry councils which determined policy in their own industries. Regular cross industry delegate forums were also brought in (and that was where the 5 in 05 campaign was endorsed).

            So, to summarise, he democratised the union, made it a genuinely national organisation, and looked to maximise member value by wider campaigns, rather than just site bargaining.

            • wekarawshark 6.2.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 2:00 pm

              ok, thanks, that sounds interesting.

              To be more blunt, how did manage people within those organisations that were resistant to the changes he was making? I’m really asking whether he can deal with the deadwood (although admittedly you and I might disagree on the deadwood).

              • Te Reo Putake …
                13 October 2014 at 2:11 pm

                Ha! I doubt if there’d be any deadwood disagreement, weka. I’d start with anyone who was in Parliament last century, then look at newer people who have woefully underperformed.

                I know there was at least one restructuring around the changes and some senior figures moved on or took alternative positions in the union. Andrew is not someone to shy away from making tough calls.

                And we’re off ….

                • wekarawshark …
                  13 October 2014 at 2:51 pm

                  Good, thanks.

                  “I’d start with anyone who was in Parliament last century, then look at newer people who have woefully underperformed.”

                  Looks like I will have to draw up a list seeing as how so many people are shy about naming names 😉

      • boldsirbrian 6.2.2
        13 October 2014 at 2:27 pm

        @ wekarawshark (6.2)

        what kinds of things he did?

        When a person is being interviewed for a job, it’s often what they don’t say that is crucial.

        In Q&A most of Little’s responses informed us much better for what he didn’t say, unfortunately. A good example is the one you have raised. Why did he not say more himself about the kinds of things he did?

        I’ll keep a very open mind about Little. It is just at this stage, his responses to questions has been noted for their secrecy. He is still well in the running because the other candidates have been little better.

        • wekarawshark 6.2.2.1
          13 October 2014 at 3:13 pm

          He told me two things with his answer to me: one is the situation I raised is very complicated (I agree) and two, Labour isn’t currently doing any work on resolving it (I suspected as much).

          I learnt quite a bit about Little from the Q and A and wonder if people are being overly harsh. Might be good to compare to the first time DC did one, and see if he also used slogans and equivocations.

    • Chooky Shark Smile 6.3
      13 October 2014 at 2:03 pm

      “NZ Herald saying Cunliffe is understood to be pulling out and will back Little.”…but, but..

      …why would Cunliffe back Little ?…that is carrying Christianity a Little too far imo

      …especially as Boag endorses Little for Labour leader on some accounts

      ….and how good was Little as President ?

      ….and where is that Review of the Election?…surely Labour President Little should be responsible for this Review ? ( or has that been swept under the carpet?)

      ….so is Cunliffe taking the whole blame for the Election results ?…(as Matthew Hooton and the right winger spinners advocate)

  7. Lanthanide 7
    13 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

    It’ll happen, the question is whether he’ll resign from Parliament or not.

    • Tom Jackson 7.1
      13 October 2014 at 1:53 pm

      He should become a corporate raider. He’d be good at that, and since NZ has voted for corporate raiders he will have a clear conscience. 😉

  8. Barfly 8
    13 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

    old Toyota add time………….”BUGGER!!!!”

  9. westiechick 9
    13 October 2014 at 12:56 pm

    If this is true I am very disappointed. It was not DC’s fault that the dirty politics gang spent a year smearing him or that dirty politics itself starved those excellent labour policies of oxygen. Sure there were slips and mistakes but a double standard by the media amplified them. No one cared when Key’s charity game of golf with the Oravida guy turned out to be a national party fundraiser. DC was crucified for failing to recall a letter signed 12 years previously. Given a fair chance and three years I really think DC would have led labour to victory. I don’t really care which of the other middleclass white guys takes his place – I might not bother voting and certainly won’t be renewing my membership.

    • Paul 9.1
      13 October 2014 at 12:57 pm

      Yes it appears a concerted effort by the caucus to seize control back.

    • Colonial Rawshark 9.2
      13 October 2014 at 1:03 pm

      it would be very disappointing to see Cunliffe step out. Both the man and his family have taken a smashing over the last 2 years though. At this stage I wouldn’t blame them for walking from the highly toxic environment which is the Labour caucus.

      • wekarawshark 9.2.1
        13 October 2014 at 1:11 pm

        +1, I wouldn’t blame him either.

        He may end up being more effective working with Little without being leader.

    • leftie 9.3
      13 October 2014 at 1:05 pm

      @westiechick. Totally agree and will be doing the same.

      • blue leopard 9.3.1
        13 October 2014 at 1:16 pm

        If Cunliffe is withdrawing, would those of you who are Labour members and who were supporting Cunliffe please take a deep breath prior to leaving Labour and vote for the next best option, because otherwise Labour may end up getting the worst choice for leader 🙁

        Please don’t leave Labour before voting for the best available option.

        • Chooky Shark Smile 9.3.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 1:41 pm

          @ blue leopard re “Please don’t leave Labour before voting for the best available option”

          ….there is no best available option!…none of the contenders are trustworthy…quite frankly if Cunliffe leaves the right wing has won!

          .the only alternative is to form a new Left Labour Party?….or transfer your membership to the Greens or Internet/MANA

          • blue leopard 9.3.1.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 2:00 pm

            You do realise that this is the same type of logic that non-voters apply and that keeps allowing National to get into power?

            I would have thought Little was a far better option than the others?

            He has already very quickly stated some pretty-obvious-yet-so-far-ignored-problems with Labour’s campaign – namely the problem over raising the retirement age.

            He also doesn’t appear to have been so involved with the undermining of leaders (although admittedly my knowledge isn’t extensive on the subject!).

            • Colonial Rawshark 9.3.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 6:25 pm

              You do realise that this is the same type of logic that non-voters apply and that keeps allowing National to get into power?

              A lot of people simply want something that they can vote for. Although some will, many are not going to turn up simply to vote against National.

              • blue leopard …
                13 October 2014 at 8:49 pm

                While your comment is interesting, it doesn’t entirely fit with the line of conversation I was having, CV. Did you read the context?

                I am asking people motivated enough to be a member of a political party to vote for the best available option, rather than spit the dummy and simply quit/move to another party.

                I am suggesting to consider voting prior to quitting, that is all, so that Labour at least end up with the best leader out of the available options.

                Do you disagree with this suggestion?

        • Clemgeopin 9.3.1.2
          13 October 2014 at 1:44 pm

          The best available option is no where near the calibre of the head and heart of Cunliffe. The others aren’t real leaders. Just also-rans. Cunliffe is inspirational and trustworthy, though was slightly inexperienced, was facing an uphill battle on many fronts and had a short time to master and manage the various leadership needs. In spite of all that and some minor mistakes, Cunliffe worked really hard. Things didn’t work out on election night due to many reasons. It is unfair and very wrong to hold Cunliffe as the cause for that loss. He wasn’t. Just a scapegoat for the nasties and the stupid. Cunliffe may bear some responsibility, but not all.

          • wekarawshark 9.3.1.2.1
            13 October 2014 at 1:49 pm

            It’s not about DC and the election. It’s that he failed to deal with the ABCs/neoliberals/rogernome hangover. It doesn’t matter who the leader is, if those things don’t get dealt with.

          • SHG 9.3.1.2.2
            13 October 2014 at 2:57 pm

            Inexperienced? Please. He was a Minister in Clark’s cabinet and entered Parliament in the NINETIES.

            • lprent 9.3.1.2.2.1
              13 October 2014 at 3:09 pm

              You mean at the end of 1999. Technically correct, but really I’d have to say that just identifies you as a mindless failure.

            • Clemgeopin 9.3.1.2.2.2
              13 October 2014 at 4:27 pm

              Inexperienced in the ‘leader of the opposition’ position and what it entailed in those few months, the relentless attacks on him from all directions, nasty agenda being set by the RW bastards stupidly followed by MSM and politically unfair gutless idiot commentators blowing up the minor issues, accentuating the negative etc….and amidst all, that he had to keep the peace, do umpteen interviews, make instant reactions to news, support colleagues standing in elections, carry scores of policy details, travel all over, prepare for debates, be watched relentlessly by reporters and enemies, be the leader of the opposition and try to win the election. All in those 11 months. He needed at least a couple of years. Even Helen needed 6 years as did many other previous PMs, including Key. Cunliffe’s withdrawal is bad stuff for the party and the country.

              • SHG …
                13 October 2014 at 5:44 pm

                Yes, those nasty RW bastards who forced Cunliffe to funnel cash through a secret trust, who forced Cunliffe to go on a skiing holiday as Labour started dropping in the polls, who forced Cunliffe to ham it up for snapshots with a sex offender after apologising for being a man to Women’s Refuge, who forced Cunliffe to criticise John Key for living in a nice house and who then forced Cunliffe to stand in front of a luxury superyacht sign and defend his multimilliondollar Herne Bay pad as a “do-up”, who forced Cunliffe to make a big policy announcement on antenatal health care but then made sure the written and spoken text said different things and who forced Cunliffe to not know the answer to a key question about the big policy, who later forced Cunliffe to make exactly the same mistake when quizzed about a detail of his own CGT policy, etc etc.

                Those nasty RW bastards. Making Cunliffe do all those things.

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

                  Brilliant synopsis of the National Party Dirty Politics machine working against Cunliffe. It’ll be turned on against the next Labour leader soon enough.

                  • SHG …
                    13 October 2014 at 7:26 pm

                    Let me guess, the National Party Dirty Politics machine and Big Pharma implanted a mindcontrol chip in Cunliffe’s brain when he was vaccinated as a child?

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      14 October 2014 at 1:37 am

                      Why can you remember all those things, mostly trivial, but don’t worry about Key’s lying about his insider trading with Tranzrail?
                      Colonial Rawshark is exactly right about the NAct filth machine, and I think you’re part of it.

                    • SHG …
                      14 October 2014 at 9:29 am

                      Trivial? Did you by any chance see the election result?

        • Princess 9.3.1.3
          13 October 2014 at 2:01 pm

          Got it Blue Leopard. AL is a humble softly spoken guy but I think Key may eat him for breakfast, lunch and tea. So sad DC is pulling out.

          • blue leopard 9.3.1.3.1
            13 October 2014 at 2:24 pm

            Thanks for understanding my plea 🙂

            I just watched the announcement live. It is very sad.

            It seems to be a win to corporate/neoliberalist players everywhere.

            Bully, hound and smear until the person threatening your interests stands down. Ho hum.

            Hopefully what Cunliffe has done is to have made the first step on the path of countering the neoliberal status quo and the next person who picks up the baton will continue the good work that Cunliffe put in.

        • greywarshark 9.3.1.4
          13 October 2014 at 9:27 pm

          Please conserve energy and turn out the light at the end of the tunnel as you leave NZ.

    • Chooky Shark Smile 9.4
      13 October 2014 at 1:26 pm

      +100 westiechick …I hope David Cunliffe , if he decides to walk, joins with another Party on the Left (that is if they will have him)…he is too valuable to waste…maybe a new Left Labour Party should be set up

      ….and the rank and file of Labour members who supported him… will probably follow him…

    • Clemgeopin 9.5
      13 October 2014 at 1:28 pm

      I might not bother voting and certainly won’t be renewing my membership

      Me too.
      I am seriously considering supporting and volunteering work for Mana or IMP from now on.
      Labour is losing a leader who would have turned Labour’s support around in three years time and become a very good PM. The stupid ego driven small minded caucus couldn’t see that.
      I think it will take Labour a long time to recover from this miserable mistake from the stupid caucus.

      • Chooky Shark Smile 9.5.1
        13 October 2014 at 1:42 pm

        +100 Clem

      • boldsirbrian 9.5.2
        13 October 2014 at 2:36 pm

        @ Clemgeopin (9.5)

        The problem is that the Labour Greens and Mana are all mutually dependent. If any of the three parties are weak (And you cannot get weaker than the current Mana), then all three parties suffer.

        Those who walk from Labour to the Greens or Mana, are not a loss, but it does not do anything to solve their combined problem.

        Mr. Botany (B.)

    • Jilly Bee 9.6
      13 October 2014 at 1:48 pm

      Hear, hear westiechick I’m getting ready to cut up my membership card – I’m also from the west (Auckland) and on our local LEC. I’m just getting too long in what teeth I have left to fight anymore. I believe DC would have made a good PM, but the MSM made it their prime role to decimate him from the day he was elected as leader. I certainly voted for him and I can’t really be bothered voting this time if DC does pull out.

  10. Ffloyd 10
    13 October 2014 at 12:57 pm

    I wouldn’t be surprised if he did pull out. He is a great family man and the atrocious pressure and attacks he has been put under must have had a hugely unsettling effect on his family. He seems like the sort of man that will put his family first. If he continues it will only mean more and more vitriol against him on a daily basis. It has been hugely astounding the amount of crap thrown his way and he countered it all with amazing dignity. If he does pull out it will be sad day for NZ . Not least the way it has been achieved. I will no longer vote for Labour and will not be renewing my membership.

    • Paul 10.1
      13 October 2014 at 12:59 pm

      It shows the level of vitriol that will be thrown on anyone who threatens the established order in NZ.
      Another sad day for the country.

  11. Tangled_up 11
    13 October 2014 at 12:58 pm

    Well. Little is a good compromise. He won’t push away left voters as much as Robertson & Parker will; and being baggage free he has the potential to draw back soft National voters. Which needs to happen because as this election has shown, you can’t rely on the non-voters.

    • Anne 11.1
      13 October 2014 at 1:06 pm

      There’s much truth in that Tangled up.

      However I will never forgive the creepy villians who destroyed Cunliffe and tried to bring down his family too. There’s no suitable word in the dictionary to describe how I feel about them!

  12. northshoreguynz 12
    13 October 2014 at 1:08 pm

    If the Labour Party has so much talent on its front bench that it can afford to dump Cunliffe, how come we’re not in power?

  13. repateet 13
    13 October 2014 at 1:15 pm

    Claire Trevett says, “The Labour leader caused outrage when he said he told a Women’s Refuge Forum he was “Sorry for being a man”, because men are usually responsible for violence against women and children.

    That was one nail in the coffin.

    Having said that, the response says more about the mentality about in the country than Cunliffe. And having said that, it said a helluva more about media reportage than Cunliffe.

    • Tracey 13.1
      13 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

      plus 1

    • Tautoko Mangƍ Mata 13.2
      13 October 2014 at 1:52 pm

      Shame! Disgust!

    • boldsirbrian 13.3
      13 October 2014 at 2:51 pm

      @ repateet (13)

      Yes it was a nail in the coffin. And I am proud to be part of the mentality that condemned Cunliffe for his comment. Cunliffe has to own that comment. Forever his.

      The media are blameless. No saving “wrong context” or other excuses I have heard.

      When I first heard the comment, I instantly thought Labour was finished.
      From that point I noticed Cunliffe being mocked. The kiss of death in politics. Just as Seymour is now being treated. (Although I would still willingly share a jug of beer with Cunliffe, where I would run five miles to avoid having one with Seymour. Cunliffe is a good man, an extremely intelligent man, and has his heart in the right place. (Which is what I would also say about the three remaining candidates)

      Those supporting Cunliffe are understandably upset now at his decision to stand down. But I think that one comment would have needed some serious recovery attention for him to be successful.

      • greywarshark 13.3.1
        13 October 2014 at 9:35 pm

        Save your boldness for when it’s wanted. Leave Cunliffe alone. The attack figures on women are bad and though it was not required at the time, it was the words of a genuine man with integrity. There is too much blipping going from men to women.

        We are lucky that women don’t turn on men in the same way. There are some big strapping dames around, and the little ones only need a bit of martial arts to be able to place some well-aimed hits that would enfeeble a guy. Perhaps the equality thing should be applied more robustly.

        • boldsirbrian 13.3.1.1
          14 October 2014 at 12:55 am

          @ greywarshark (13.3.1)

          We are lucky that women don’t turn on men in the same way. There are some big strapping dames around, and the little ones only need a bit of martial arts to be able to place some well-aimed hits that would enfeeble a guy. Perhaps the equality thing should be applied more robustly

          There are many men who have already experienced exactly what you say. That you are seemingly unaware of that says more about you than anything.

          What you then go onto suggest, advocating violence, is outrageous. All violence from men or women against men or women or children should not be tolerated. All victims of violence deserve support. Not just some of them; Not just most of them.

          ~~~~~~~

          Perhaps the equality thing should be applied more robustly.

          With that I totally agree with you.
          The world would be a better place for men and women and children.

          Mr. Botany (B.)

          • Colonial Rawshark 13.3.1.1.1
            14 October 2014 at 1:09 am

            Oh get off your moralistic high horse. GW was not “advocating violence” he was just saying women are more than capable of smashing a guy if the situation required it.

            • boldsirbrian 13.3.1.1.1.1
              14 October 2014 at 1:48 am

              @ Colonial Rawshark (13.3.1.1.1)

              Your criticism is bullshit.

              And if it was not to do with violence, then what point was GW supposedly making ? What was being advocated was not justifiable and commendable self defence, it was “turning on men in the same way”, after expressing ignorance that many men are already victims of female violence.

              You may call it a moralistic high horse. (Whaleoil 101).
              I care about all victims of violence. Children. Women. Men.
              There are too many victims.
              There is too much blipping.

              Mr. Botany (B.)

    • SHG 13.4
      13 October 2014 at 8:23 pm

      I thought the way he went and schmoozed a sex offender afterwards was a nice touch.

  14. Bill 14
    13 October 2014 at 1:25 pm

    Well, if true, it fucks up the whole preferential voting scenario for anyone on the left of the party.

    I reckon that 1 & 2 for Cunliffe and Little would have predominated over any other combination and guaranteed a win for either Little or Cunliffe.

    But now what?

    1 for Little and….fuck. Nothing there.

    Thinking if Cunliffe withdraws he’s inadvertently giving Robertson or Parker a fair crack at it. Bye bye to Labour ever regaining its status as a party of the left if either of those guys prevail.

    • wekarawshark 14.1
      13 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

      What happens if voters just vote Little and no-one else?

      • Bill 14.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 1:37 pm

        No second preference from those ballots go to either Parker or Robertson if Little is eliminated, nd I guess those ballot papers are deducted from the total number of papers meaning fewer votes = larger percentage.

        Hardly the point though. With both Cunliffe and Little standing, then either of the two of them was guaranteed.

        Say Cunliffe maintained his membership vote. Most of those votes would have second preferenced Little. Little would have won the union vote. And Little might have got a higher caucus vote than Cunliffe, off the back of soft Robertson and soft ABC backers.

        Anyway, between them, they would have more or less cleaned up.

        I’m just thinking, and not for the first time, bad strategy by Cunliffe.

        • wekarawshark 14.1.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 1:44 pm

          Unless he doesn’t want to be leader.

          “No second preference from those ballots go to either Parker or Robertson if Little is eliminated, nd I guess those ballot papers are deducted from the total number of papers meaning fewer votes = larger percentage.”

          Sorry, can’t follow that.

          • Lanthanide 14.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 1:49 pm

            Worked example:
            Say GR gets 9/20 1st preference votes, DP gets 7/20 1st preference votes and AL gets 4/20 1st preference votes.

            Because there is no clear winner in the first round, the loser is struck off and their second preference votes come into play instead. Imagine that all 4 of AL’s 1st preference votes choose not to vote in second preference, then after re-distribution of the votes, we would have:
            GR 9/16 and DP 7/16.

            In this case neither have increased their number of votes, but each has increased their percentage – in GR’s case he now has over 50% of the vote and wins.

            • wekarawshark 14.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 1:55 pm

              ok, thanks! think I am getting it now.

              What happens if AL isn’t eliminated in the first round?

              • Lanthanide …
                13 October 2014 at 1:58 pm

                Nothing. The votes are only redistributed for the candidate that comes last in each round.

                If there were 4 contenders, then whoever came 4th would have their votes re-distributed among the remaining 3, and then whoever came 3rd after that would have their votes re-distributed; with only 2 in the race one of them must get more than 50% of the vote (or a dead-even heat, which is infinitesimally unlikely).

                With only 3 contenders, there is only a single elimination of whoever came 3rd, and the (second and) final round finds the winner.

                Note that in the last process, Cunliffe won about 52% of the vote on the first round, so there was no need to do any eliminations because Cunliffe would always have more than 50% of the vote after that. But, if there had been an elimination, Jones’ 2nd preference votes would have come into play; some would have gone to DC but probably most would have gone to GR, at which point DC would probably be on about 60% of the vote and would have still won; hence why the elimination wasn’t required.

                • wekarawshark …
                  13 October 2014 at 2:02 pm

                  does that mean the DC pulling out doesn’t change much except if he had been last in the first round?

                  • Lanthanide …
                    13 October 2014 at 2:58 pm

                    No, the opposite. If he had been last in the first round, then him pulling out now is exactly the same outcome: instead of someone writing DC / DP / AL / GR on their ballot, they would now write DP / AL / GR and so DP would have gotten the vote that would have gone to DC and then been redistributed.

                    If DC came 3rd or 2nd, then him pulling out now could make a tangible difference to the outcome (putting aside how things may have played out after the contest itself).

        • Lanthanide 14.1.1.2
          13 October 2014 at 1:45 pm

          “Hardly the point though. With both Cunliffe and Little standing, then either of the two of them was guaranteed.”

          No, it just means DC could have come 4th, and after re-distribution of 2nd preference, AL could come 3rd.

          Or, DC comes 4th, and after redisitribution, AL comes 2nd.

          Nothing about it was guaranteed at all. Really it just means instead of saying DC = 1 and AL = 2, or vice versa, it will now just be AL = 1.

          Speaking from a strictly theoretical point of view, assuming all voters held AL and DC in exactly equal regard (so they were selections 1 and 2, in random order), nothing is changed.

  15. Young and Dumb 15
    13 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

    I highly doubt DC would win the leadership contest. He may not be leadership material anymore but he is still valuable to labour. Maybe if he throws support behind Little then there could be slightly more cohesion. There is still the issue with uniting caucus though.

    Labour will just need to find a good place for him in the party where he still feels valued and respected, one of the problems I noticed during the whole Shearer fiasco was that he clearly felt that he was not respected, with people from within the party taking shots at him etc. Maybe Finance or Foreign Affairs would be good portfolios for him. He is still one of labours top talents.

    • NeutObserver 15.1
      13 October 2014 at 1:36 pm

      I do not know if a newly elected leader would trust DC to the extent of giving him an important portfolio. Mr Cunliffe would do better by staying in the backbenches for a year or two, to see how the situation develops.

      • Young and Dumb 15.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 1:44 pm

        Yeah you’re right based on the way he acted after Shearer triumphed (temporarily) over him would make any leader wary of his loyalty/trustworthiness.

        My thought on this is that if he can be included to the inner circle then he would be most constructive than disruptive.

      • leftie 15.1.2
        13 October 2014 at 1:57 pm

        @NeutObserver & Young and Dumb.

        Will remind you that David Cunliffe gave his enemy the most bitter and self centred David Shearer important portfolios. Cunliffe doesn’t hold grudges like the self interested parasitic faction that’s destroying the Labour party for their own ends.

  16. DoublePlus Good 16
    13 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

    I hope then that there is a “No confidence in any of the candidates” option in the voting for Labour leader.

    • Lanthanide 16.1
      13 October 2014 at 1:51 pm

      If there’s no formal option for it, it’s easily represented by choosing not to vote.

  17. Skinny 17
    13 October 2014 at 1:37 pm

    While it’s disappointing knowing that Cunliffe proved to be the best debater against John Key, both in parliament and arguably through media interviews, ‘when the MSM’ gave him a fair crack.

    Very selfless move by DC and must be commended. I really hope he sticks around to mentor Little, because in effect he has helped the cause by not weakening AL chances.

    Really hope he sticks around to rout Labour of the deadwood MP’s.

    Here is a media release Andrew Little has put out having a crack at John Key 
    and his Labour market reforms;

     Law changes shaping up to be worse than first thought

    The Prime Minister needs to be up front about exactly what changes he is planning to make to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, Labour’s spokesperson on Labour Issues Andrew Little says.
    Interviewed on Q&A yesterday John Key said he did not think the Bill would change dramatically and that nothing would change “in principle”.

    “What that really means is changes are likely, and he needs to tell New Zealanders what they are.

    “John Key has justified this Bill by saying it’s too difficult for employers to get around collective bargaining. That tells us all we need to know: his government wants to make it harder for workers to get together and negotiate with their boss.

    “Mr Key talks about the need for more so-called flexibility. But the real problem in the labour market today is that a growing number of New Zealanders aren’t being paid fairly for the work they do, and the government is doing everything it can to make it harder for them to get ahead.

    “The Prime Minister needs to be honest and open with New Zealanders about his employment law changes. They were already designed to drive down wages and conditions – now it sounds like they are set to make things even worse,” Andrew Little says.

  18. philj 18
    13 October 2014 at 1:46 pm

    If David C stands down. Whose ‘ left’?

  19. Blue 19
    13 October 2014 at 1:55 pm

    Dammit. I was on the fence between Cunliffe and Little and I didn’t know what to do, and now DC is withdrawing and backing Little. It makes my decision easier, but I still have my doubts about Little and I was still pretty much hoping DC would manage to win somehow.

    Not happy. Especially because the arseholes in the media are getting what they wanted.

    • leftie 19.1
      13 October 2014 at 2:01 pm

      @ Blue. yeah, that bothers me alot too. i dont know what to do either. David Cunliffe has my complete support, there is no one else I want to vote for. What to do?

  20. Ron 20
    13 October 2014 at 1:58 pm

    I wish that just one person in Labour caucus would have the guts to speak out on why they do not like Cunliffe. Has to be a reason unless there is no reason and they just want someone else

  22. Te Reo Putake 22
    13 October 2014 at 2:02 pm

    It would be interesting if he also quit parliament. Does anyone know if there is anyone in his LEC with a history of running a good party organisation, overseeing winning electorate campaigns (and maybe also with a well developed social media presence) that could be convinced to step up and be the next MP?

  23. Te Reo Putake 23
    13 October 2014 at 2:13 pm

    Gone as leader, endorsing Little. Staying in Parliament.

  24. Hami Shearlie 24
    13 October 2014 at 2:21 pm

    I am very very sad and angry about David Cunliffe not continuing in the race for the leadership. The jealousy of his caucus colleagues is truly disgusting. I’ve voted labour every election since the age of 18 – if they are this stupid, to get rid of a leader like David Cunliffe I may just tear up my membership and never vote for them again!

    • Chooky Shark Smile 24.1
      13 October 2014 at 2:29 pm

      Hami Shearlie …there will be a lot feeling like you …including my wider family, who will not be voting Labour again…so they say

      ….why not join with the Greens or Mana/Int ?

      …..I actually think Mana/int is the real old style grassroots Labour Party…and should re-brand itself as ManaLabour /Int….( Int is the firebrand intellectual side)…..and the Greens have always had more radical social welfare policies than Labour

      …all is not lost…put your energies elsewhere and make new friends on the Left

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 24.2
      13 October 2014 at 3:19 pm

      Nah, don’t teear up your membership.
      The members and unions are a step closer to ensuring better representation at the leadership level.
      Vote to send a clear message for renewal.

  25. leftie 25
    13 October 2014 at 2:26 pm

    Well the media won the election for National and now the media have dictated the terms and leader of the Labour party as well.

    John key supports Mr Little’s bid.

    The Labour Party have pushed the best man out, and have resoundingly vindicated John key and the media.

    I am gutted beyond belief.

    • Chooky Shark Smile 25.1
      13 October 2014 at 2:37 pm

      weird how both John key and David Cunliffe are supporting Little’s bid!

      …that one should be called the ‘LabourMonkey Business Party’

      …time to join another Left Party imo

  26. venezia 26
    13 October 2014 at 3:50 pm

    Me too leftie! When John Key supports Little’s bid – I want to run away !

  27. Murray Rawshark 27
    14 October 2014 at 2:01 am

    Ah well, I’ll do what I can to help Mana.

  28. RRM 28
    14 October 2014 at 8:13 am

    You need to get Sir Peter Leitch the Mad Butcher.

    Someone from the wrong side of the tracks, who never left, who has worked his arse off to get where he is, and now devotes so much to helping others around him. Real labour. Someone who knows how to build up a business and manage a lot of people. Someone who knows there’s another side to work and employment law than the war stories and class warfare rhetoric of the unions.

    Not a tried and failed political journeyman from the beltway.

    He would be an inspirational and transformative leader of the Labour party, and with the right policies I could see myself voting Labour again under someone like that.

    But Darien Fenton declared him a class traitor for talking to Key about something, so I guess that will never happen…