Cunliffe’s team

Written By: - Date published: 9:58 am, September 17th, 2013 - 197 comments
Categories: david cunliffe, david parker, labour - Tags:

Breaking:  Stuff is saying that Cunliffe has asked David Parker to be his deputy in a Breaking banner.

Audrey Young at the NZ Herald is claiming this will be Cunliffe’s recommendation to caucus.

Labour leader David Cunliffe has recommended David Parker as his deputy leader.

Leadership rival Grant Robertson will be leader of the House.

An interesting choice, and I imagine Parker will get finance.  But the final vote for deputy is made by caucus, not Cunliffe.

I was hoping a bit for a female deputy.  I hope that there is a strong female presence in Cunliffe’s team.  And Maori?  Shane Jones role/s?

Will update as more information comes out.  Meanwhile, what are your choices for Cunliffe’s front bench?

[Update] Tracy Watkins on Stuff:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has announced that he will be asking finance spokesman David Parker to be his deputy leader.

It’s not clear if Robertson as Leader of the House has been confirmed:

Cunliffe said Robertson would be Labour’s leader of the House instead.

Robertson said it was a consensus decision.

Cunliffe would not confirm that he had offered the position to Robertson.

He would only say that he had “sounded out” Robertson on his preferences.

Robertson would not say either if Cunliffe had offered him the job, or if he would have taken the job if offered.

“I hadn’t made any decision about that. I had some good discussions with David yesterday.”

Robertson’s appointment as Leader of the House means Labour veteran Trevor Mallard has been demoted.

I’m not sure how Cunliffe’s recommendation of Parker for deputy fits with Labour’s recent democratisation of their procedures.

The above linked Herald article is updated saying Parker will retain finance.

[Update 2]  Watkins article has now been further updated, with a focus on a “showdown” between Cunliffe and Key in Question Time today.  Typical MSM infotainment – they want big drama, rather than a serious focus on serious issues, and how the opppsotion of Cunliffe’s team develops over time. She also adds an attempt to stress potential conflicts within Cunliffe’s team at the bottom of the article.

Conflict, drama, diversion, avoiding the serious issues – all dominant characteristics of neoliberal infotainment coverage of news and politics by the corporate media.

[Update 3]  David Parker is confirmed as Cunliffe’s Deputy.

David Parker has been confirmed as deputy leader of the Labour Party.

”David Parker will make an outstanding deputy,” leader David Cunliffe said in a statement.

”He is a man of intellect and integrity, with the Labour values of opportunity and fairness at his core. I could not be happier with his elevation.

Parker will remain as the party’s finance spokesman, with Grant Robertson taking the employment portfolio, and Shane Jones remaining as economic development spokesman. Sue Moroney will be senior whip, with Iain Lee-Galloway as junior whip

197 comments on “Cunliffe’s team ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Winston Smith 1
    17 September 2013 at 10:15 am

    There won’t be 50% of positions filled by females because the talent simply isn’t there and Cunliffe wants to win (as well he should)

    • karol 1.1
      17 September 2013 at 10:26 am

      WS, I said “strong presence” not 50%.

      I think the roles women MPs are given have more impact than a numbers balance. In Key’s government, the women ministers are in the lower status portfolios (for the Nats).

      • fender 1.1.1
        17 September 2013 at 10:35 am

        Meanwhile Keys “sister” party across the ditch has ONE woman in their 19-“strong” Cabinet

        • grumpy 1.1.1.1
          17 September 2013 at 10:40 am

          And Abbott has said he in not happy about that so has bought in a raft of women as ministers and Assistant Ministers outside cabinet to bring up in the future.
          Clearly the Coalition has a bit of work to do to recruit more capable women candidates but the electorate has shown that it has rejected Gillard’s gender wars and just want capability in it’s politicians.

          • Sosoo 1.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2013 at 2:03 pm

            He had binders full of women, I guess.

          • Murray Olsen 1.1.1.1.2
            17 September 2013 at 3:37 pm

            The only gender war Gillard was involved in was the one where Abbott and the neanderthals of talkback attacked her for being a woman. It was gender war alright when Abbott stood in front of a “Ditch the Witch” sign, or a Liberal dinner had Gillard’s big red box and thighs on the menu.
            As for capability – Australia has probably just voted in the most incompetent government it’s ever had. None of them exude anything remotely like competence.

            • JonL 1.1.1.1.2.1
              17 September 2013 at 6:48 pm

              Not looking forward to the next 3 yrs here – a bigger bunch of bozo’s I haven’t seen for a while…although, looking at governments around the western world, New Zealand, The UK, USA, I guess they are all involved in a race to the bottom…….

          • Sable 1.1.1.1.3
            17 September 2013 at 4:11 pm

            As long as they are not gay or a refugee, right grumpy?

        • Tracey 1.1.1.2
          17 September 2013 at 10:40 am

          “Abbott said he was disappointed there weren’t more women in his 19-member Cabinet.”

          As though he had no say in it..

        • King Kong 1.1.1.3
          17 September 2013 at 11:06 am

          And Cunliffes “sister” party just got comprehensively thrown out of Government for being utterly incompetent and an infighting mess.

          • Crunchtime 1.1.1.3.1
            17 September 2013 at 1:22 pm

            Aus Labor party got voted out because of Kevin Rudd’s terrible behaviour, horrendous sexism and trial by media. Not incompetence.

            On the upside, historically when Labor gets voted out in Aus, Labour gets voted in in NZ. Time for change.

      • grumpy 1.1.2
        17 September 2013 at 10:36 am

        karol, I thought you were a Green’s supporter? Clearly Cunliffe has looked at the paucity of talent on offer and made the call on performance?

        • karol 1.1.2.1
          17 September 2013 at 10:40 am

          I’m firstly a leftie. I supported Cunliffe for leader, and I give my electorate vote to him, but have voted Green Party in recent years. It will take a long term shift towards Labour’s traditional values, for me to be convinced to vote Labour Party again.

          • grumpy 1.1.2.1.1
            17 September 2013 at 10:46 am

            ….a bit like National voters wanting input into the leadership of ACT….don’t you think?

            • thatguynz 1.1.2.1.1.1
              17 September 2013 at 11:04 am

              Didn’t National achieve precisely that with Brash’s coup within ACT? Or was it vice versa?

              • grumpy …
                17 September 2013 at 11:08 am

                Probably….just saying…..

              • Wayne …
                17 September 2013 at 11:19 am

                I dont think the Nats had much of a say in Don Brash’s decision. We were more in amazement that Don thought he was the answer for ACT. And bear in mind that Peter Goodfellow was my campaign manger for 3 elections, so I know something about this.

                • thatguynz …
                  17 September 2013 at 11:45 am

                  I have no doubt you are right Wayne (excuse the pun). It certainly had every appearance of a National takeover of the ACT Party though – even if that perception is incorrect 🙂

                • Tracey …
                  17 September 2013 at 11:49 am

                  so guys do gossip and speak out of school Wayne?

                • framu …
                  17 September 2013 at 12:32 pm

                  As you say wayne – you do know something about this

                  so why you think banks and brash were chosen by act is rather odd

                  Just be honest man – its no secret. Brash was put at the head of national, then he and banks were parachuted into act because the people who back both wings of the neoliberal fantasy said so

                  no brash no cash ring any bells?

                • ghostwhowalksnz …
                  17 September 2013 at 2:11 pm

                  National was pulling the strings with all the minor parties… Hone out after ultimatum from National
                  Don in after infighting wrecked ACT, all or nothing attempt by National

              • Enough is Enough …
                17 September 2013 at 11:46 am

                I’d say vice-versa

                Act attempted to merge with National and largely did with the No Brash – No Cash aggressive take-over.

                They would have succeeded if it wasn’t for pesky democracy when in 2005 the people of New Zealand loud and clearly told Brash and Act to fark right off.

                The old bugger did not hear us and came back for more punishment in 2011.

                Even still the dopey old codger keeps popping his head up for more slaying.

            • Old Fan 1.1.2.1.1.2
              17 September 2013 at 11:05 am

              Snap!

    • Lan 1.2
      17 September 2013 at 1:16 pm

      Female “talent” gets nowhere in NZ so don’t bring up this non argument. It is crap. Females don’t stand for local government because they get treated badly so what’s the point. Those who bring up the “female”-standing argument don’t know what they are talking about. Just my view and experience….MATE!

      • grumpy 1.2.1
        17 September 2013 at 1:23 pm

        Absolute bullshit! One of the most conservative rural local bodies in the country, Selwyn District Council is about to elect an out there lesbian as Mayor. She will beat a whole crowd of good kiwi blokes by a country mile – because she is hugely capable!….and a bloody good sort….

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1
          17 September 2013 at 11:51 pm

          Doesn’t Wellington have a female mayor?

          Isn’t Christchurch going to get a female mayor?

    • Lan 1.3
      17 September 2013 at 1:26 pm

      Well I hope I am providing a response to this silly opinion in my previous entry. George Orwell was quite in support of capable females in my view. In Animal Farm female production capability ruled, as it does in the NZ dairy and poultry industry, in that it provided the economic basis for the agricultural enterprise. Think on that @Winston Smith

  2. neoleftie 2
    17 September 2013 at 10:15 am

    Interesting choice as deputy. Parker I’ve meet a few time, nice fella honest, bit dry, accomplished, always friendly and walm. Seen as a neutral within the party, orthodox mostly from the private sector. Top two are finance policy heavy. My only concern who in caucus will keep cunliffe and Parker on the left pathway, and who get finance, if Parker do we get another Cullen or will cunliffe use Parker as a frontman to reassure the market whilst pushing the lefts agenda.

    • karol 2.1
      17 September 2013 at 10:24 am

      The NZ Herald is saying Parker will retain finance. Yes it would make the top two positions finance heavy.

      i’ll be interested to see who gets social development. I think it would be better to go for someone who strongly represents a low income area (to counter “westie” Bennett) – a South Auckland MP? Ardern would possibly be better in a role that is more of a key focus in Auckland’s CBD – to boost her electorate chances. Residents in Auckland City area are more slanted towards high incomes these days, IMO.

      • Tracey 2.1.1
        17 September 2013 at 10:29 am

        Twyford?

      • neoleftie 2.1.2
        17 September 2013 at 10:36 am

        Interesting economic and employment team based cluster.
        So we have a leftie, a centralist orthodox, and a wild card jones.

        “Mr Cunliffe said Mr Parker, Mr Robertson and Mr Jones would be part of strong economic and employment team.
        Mr Robertson: “We’ve had a good discussion David and I and we’ve come to a consensus that this line-up is the strongest line-up that we can possibly put forward and I absolutely endorse and support it.”
        Mr Parker will retain his finance role.” As from herald.

        Cunliffe has stated that he wants a clusters of mp focused around policy area.

        Comments I have received is that its upto the members and unions, the party to keep cunliffe and co on track and not dilute the narrative, discourse or message by moving back to the centre after the moving double peaked centre vote.

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.3
        17 September 2013 at 11:28 am

        Cunliffe has experience as Minister of Health so he’s not all finance. And he has picked that the GFC II will be in full swing by electon time next year, which I agree with.

        No social agenda will get done unless it can be paid for.

        • Tracey 2.1.3.1
          17 September 2013 at 11:32 am

          It used to be said if you could survive being Education or Health minister you would make a great PM

      • Saarbo 2.1.4
        17 September 2013 at 12:30 pm

        Yes it would make the two positions finance heavy, but I think that is important going into the 2014 election. It is likely that Election 2014 is going to be fought on Economy and Finance so having these 2 in the top 2 positions makes sense. Remember how terrible Goff looked in the “show me the money” moment, and also how bad Shearer looked when asked to explain the financial intricacies of the new housing policy, I think we need representatives that can put our best foot forward. It will be very difficult for National to trip these 2 up.

        Also David Parker doesnt seem to play the childish games so many of the other Labour caucus members get involved with, we need to eliminate that stuff…its a huge waste of time and energy.

        I think Parker is a great choice. But Im keen to see Sue Moroney and Nanaia Mahuta and Louisa Wall in senior positions, Im not a big fan of Jacinda Ardern for Deputy, needs more experience…will be interesting.

    • grumpy 2.2
      17 September 2013 at 10:29 am

      With Cunliffe and Parker at the top the “left pathway” has now been abandoned. That was good enough to get him elected as leader of the party but to become PM he needs to capture the centre. Sorry, but it will be a move to the right coming up.
      The first duty of any party leader is to get elected.

      • Tracey 2.2.1
        17 September 2013 at 10:30 am

        Thats what came to my mind when I read about Parker… Is he closer to cullen in philosophy?

        • grumpy 2.2.1.1
          17 September 2013 at 10:34 am

          I understand his new Chief of Staff is ex Cullen, so right turn it is then.

          • Tom Gould 2.2.1.1.1
            17 September 2013 at 10:55 am

            Dr Cullen was deputy and finance and from Dunedin, just like Parker. Quite a shrewd move by Cunliffe. And Parker’s recent attacks on crony capitalism and on corporate welfare tend to signal a much more left of centre approach, as I see it, which would be a nice fit for Cunliffe as leader.

            • grumpy 2.2.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2013 at 11:02 am

              Then again, attacks on Corporate Welfare are hardly the sole domain of the left – there are plenty of hard right critics as well. As for Crony Capitalism, the same…..hardly leftie issues.
              We will see but expect more of the same from Labour as it goes for the centre.

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 September 2013 at 11:29 am

                Exactly. There is plenty of cross over with conservative voters who are just as fucked off with tax evaders and crony capitalism as lefties are.

                • grumpy …
                  17 September 2013 at 1:26 pm

                  “Crony capitalism” – eh? What finished Labor in Australia was “Crony unionism” and the ripping off of low paid union members by corrupt union officials. Don’t think “cronyism” is any respecter of Left or Right – just crooks.

      • neoleftie 2.2.2
        17 September 2013 at 10:41 am

        Within the party we have a consensus for the top team to go left, its been signalled, agree to and power holder, the brain trust and indeed us the commentators will keep the caucus on the left pathway or else….it’s the great reconnect to the lost labour identifiers who didn’t vote last few times.
        If this is a snow job I.e shearer rerun then the party will use the low street again and spin the wheels again.

        • grumpy 2.2.2.1
          17 September 2013 at 10:44 am

          I think you will find the the disillusioned left of Labour has gone to the Greens so Labour heading left will only try to get them back while alienating the much larger centre. If that’s what you want then fine…but don’t expect to win an election.

          • neoleftie 2.2.2.1.1
            17 September 2013 at 10:52 am

            Grumpy what about 800 k potential voters who are labour identifiers who didn’t vote last few times for a variety of reasons, why chase the hard hard centre voter who swings and hard to capture, lefts go after the people’s vote, the social vote, the poor downtrodden majority of people, the traditional bedrock of labour not just the socialist amongst us.

            • grumpy 2.2.2.1.1.1
              17 September 2013 at 10:57 am

              I agree that is a choice to make. If you think that group will be swayed by harder left policies then go for it but be aware that those policies may well push the existing Labour leaning centre voter to National, especially if their hard earned taxes are promised as policies aimed at those “poor downtrodden”.
              Hard call for the new leader but I think his appointments so far indicate his decision. He doesn’t live in a mansion in Herne Bay for nothing, you know. He hardly comes across as a dedicated hard leftie…..

              • neoleftie …
                17 September 2013 at 11:07 am

                The policy focus for labour is jobs, job creation, r and d, direct involvement in any market, basically it’s putting people first anyhow and way…a new direction a new way..cause as cunliffe stated publicly climate change energy shortages and resource limitation inc growth is the coming hump to be faced.

                • grumpy …
                  17 September 2013 at 11:11 am

                  ….but….but…it was exactly those issues “climate change energy shortages and resource limitation inc growth ” that cost Labor the election in Australia.
                  Go for it.

                  • Tracey …
                    17 September 2013 at 11:33 am

                    you just said on this thread that Oz labour lost because of incompetent women being appointed for the sake of it.

                    “Heaps, but not many competent (Wong, Pilbersek etc.) they were chosen for appearance not performance and ultimately that is what led to Labor being rejected by the electorate.”

                    • grumpy …
                      17 September 2013 at 12:58 pm

                      Two things, crap policies and crap people pushing them. The voters rejected the politics of division and the specif issues of carbon tax and immigration. Gillards “gender wars” backfired and caught up those most identified with it.
                      Note that both Wong and Pilbersek abandoned Gillard and jumped in with Rudd.

              • Crunchtime …
                17 September 2013 at 1:39 pm

                Your obsession with categorising EVERYTHING into left-centre-right is EXACTLY what the Labour party needs to ignore and be done with.

                Policy that is in the interests of New Zealand and its people is what we need and combined with strong confident leadership will get more people back to the polls that didn’t vote last year.

            • grumpy 2.2.2.1.1.2
              17 September 2013 at 11:06 am

              Why waste your time on 800k of voters who don’t vote anyway?

              • neoleftie …
                17 September 2013 at 11:12 am

                No reason to vote cause labour had moved to the centre after a few votes their….Jesse grumpy

                • grumpy …
                  17 September 2013 at 1:10 pm

                  There has always been a large non voting bloc in the lower income bracket. If they didn’t vote when Labour was tending left, why would they vote now? Have you thought that the 800k might be socially conservative low income? In short a natural voter for traditional Labour but possible left cold by the “identity politics” of modern Labour. A point well made by Jones.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    17 September 2013 at 1:45 pm

                    It’s not really your concern grumpy. Unless you’ve suddenly taken a surprise interest in turning out the lower socieconomic vote.

                    • grumpy …
                      17 September 2013 at 1:55 pm

                      Quite right CV! I just find it an interesting subject on an otherwise quiet day.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 September 2013 at 1:59 pm

                      Mate, you’ve posted more on this in an hour or two than you have for the rest of the year put together.

                    • RedBaronCV …
                      17 September 2013 at 9:58 pm

                      Last time I spotted Grumpy on here he was asking about Shane Jone’s er ‘collection’. Did ya find it Grumpy, must have been good, you’ve been quiet for ages

              • kenny …
                17 September 2013 at 12:27 pm

                Keep up the spinning Grumpy – you must be dizzy by now.

                Your concern for the Labour Party is underwhelming; you’re made of glass.

                • grumpy …
                  17 September 2013 at 1:06 pm

                  I have no concern for the Labour Party but this is a very interesting topic. It would apply to any party regardless of Left or Right.

              • Crunchtime …
                17 September 2013 at 1:43 pm

                They didn’t vote last year because they didn’t see anyone worth voting for.

                They voted in previous elections… It may have escaped your notice that the most recent election was a record low voter turnout.

                • Crunchtime …
                  17 September 2013 at 2:14 pm

                  sorry – that should say “They didn’t vote in 2011 because they didn’t see anyone worth voting for.”

          • chris 2.2.2.1.2
            17 September 2013 at 12:25 pm

            “I think you will find the the disillusioned left of Labour has gone to the Greens” grumpy

            Not in my circle of friends and acquaintances we didn’t. Many voted NZ First.

            • grumpy 2.2.2.1.2.1
              17 September 2013 at 12:58 pm

              Cripes Chris, didn’t realise you were over 70….

              • GregJ …
                17 September 2013 at 4:42 pm

                The 65+ demographic is expected to double by 2051 and make up 25% of the population – not a demographic to be ignored or taken lightly I would suggest.

                (Edited to note details are in the first pdf)

              • chris …
                17 September 2013 at 11:47 pm

                sorry to disappoint you… I am not over 70, not even close.

                Why do people think those who vote NZ First are standing by their grave with one foot on a banana skin?

      • Bill 2.2.3
        17 September 2013 at 10:54 am

        Then again…ever cross your mind it’s useful to have a foil next to you? Guess not.

        • grumpy 2.2.3.1
          17 September 2013 at 10:59 am

          “A foil”???? I would have thought a deputy who shared your vision and one who could step in in your absence with a consistent commitment to your policies would be more desirable?

          • Bill 2.2.3.1.1
            17 September 2013 at 11:07 am

            Getting vigorous and constructive criticism from someone who shares your vision is kind of difficult. Far better to have a thoughtful ‘adversary’ who holds a slightly different vision as a sounding board…and so better highlight glitches and oversights etc.

            Worth remembering that Labour are going to have to convince people who do not currently share the stated vision of Cunliffe. How do you best get through to them? Convincing those closest to you who’s views more accord with those you are trying to reach is a good start.

            edit. And Parker is no more going to contradict Cunliffe in public than Cullen did Clark.

            • grumpy 2.2.3.1.1.1
              17 September 2013 at 11:14 am

              I suppose the Clark/Cullen example is a good one…but that combo hardly took Labour screaming left. Somehow hard left policies emanating from a mansion in Herne Bay just doesn’t seem probable to me. We will see if his heart is in it.

            • neoleftie 2.2.3.1.1.2
              17 September 2013 at 11:21 am

              Good point there…also in larger game Norman could step into deputy role in the coalition govt as Parker would get finance.

  3. Tracey 3
    17 September 2013 at 10:29 am

    Who would be leaking this stuff and to what end?

    Abbott has said he is sorry there is only one woman in his cabinet…

    That is the funniest thing I have heard today.

    • karol 3.1
      17 September 2013 at 10:33 am

      It’s not a leak. According to the updated version of Audrey Young’s article, linked in my post, it was a press statement:

      Mr Cunliffe spoke to reporters before the caucus meeting and was flanked by Mr Robertson and Mr Jones, with Mr Parker and party president Moira Coatsworth present too.

    • grumpy 3.2
      17 September 2013 at 10:33 am

      Abbott is genuine. His support of Julie Bishop as Deputy Leader and now her first choice role – Foreign Minister, his choice of a woman as Chief of Staff and his marvellous strong female family all show his genuine support for the advancement of women.
      By contrast, not one of Australia’s Labor opposition four leaders is female.

    • karol 3.3
      17 September 2013 at 10:52 am

      Maybe Cunliffe is showing he’s going into the caucus vote with his recommendations, perhaps pre-agreement Thus, if this is rubber stamped by Caucus, it shows Cunliffe is in control and not just doing the bidding of caucus.

  4. Macro 4
    17 September 2013 at 10:30 am

    “Conflict, drama, diversion, avoiding the serious issues – all dominant characteristics of neoliberal infotainment coverage of news and politics by the corporate media.”

    Exactly! – which is why I no longer read, nor watch, nor listen to their crap…

    If the news media really wanted to be taken seriously they would start with being what they claim to be.. presenters of new information. So great is their hubris, that they have given themselves the mantle of the “fountain of all wisdom” – and that is clearly far from the truth.

  5. burt 5
    17 September 2013 at 10:36 am

    So not much support for Part 6A then …. Do as we say not as we do !!!!! Fucking self serving socialists playing the social engineering card on everyone else then doing what the hell they like internally…. Next thing the self serving muppets will be breaking the electoral funding laws and saying the law is confusing and others broke them too so it’s not fair to just punish us ….

  6. bad12 6
    17 September 2013 at 11:16 am

    RadioNZ are saying, reported from this mornings gathering of Cunliffe,Parker,Coatsworth,Robertson and Jones, that Parker is the choice for Finance and deputy,

    Robertson as shadow leader of the House, Jones as Economic Development with Robertson,Parker and Jones all having an input to Finance,

    Trevor is still said to be in line to be Speaker…

    • Tracey 6.1
      17 September 2013 at 11:45 am

      LOL @ speaker… please no

      • grumpy 6.1.1
        17 September 2013 at 1:01 pm

        Yes please! popcorn!!!!!

      • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.2
        17 September 2013 at 7:26 pm

        Actually I think of any of the roles you could give Trevor, Speaker is probably the best. It acknowledges his seniority while getting him safely out of the bloody way of any actual policy.

        edit: That’s not to say I think he’d be the best person in Labour to be speaker, just to say that I think Speaker is at the top of the list of Things Trevor Mallard Should Do If In Government, short though that list may be.

    • alwyn 6.2
      17 September 2013 at 12:24 pm

      Is Robertson really capable of doing the shadow leader of the House job?
      A major part of the role seems to be protecting your party’s interests via things like points of order. This requires an extremely detailed knowledge of the rules of the house and of Speaker’s rulings, which Robertson doesn’t really seem to have. Do you remember the mess he made of things near the end of the last term of Parliament when he was trying to hold up the voluntary student union membership bill. He looked totally out of his depth when he was ambushed by the simple proposal to report progress. Mallard wasn’t in the house and by the time he got back it was to late. That was a couple of years ago but Robertson doesn’t seem to have got any better at this.
      Whatever one might think about Mallard one must give the devil his due and say he had the skills required in this area.

  7. nadis 7
    17 September 2013 at 11:39 am

    Mallard as a potential speaker? That’s gotta be a joke. Cunliffe would be insane to even contemplate that. Mallard would be a massively divisive choice even before you think of the history he has with many members on both sides of the house. And he has shown time and time again he doesn’t have the personal morality or gravitas to rise above being a dickhead. You just know that sooner or later he would hang Cunliffe out to dry just because he could.

    If you thought Margaret Wilson or Jonathan “shopping trolley” Hunt were the worst speakers ever, I think Mallard would leave them in the junket heavy dust.

    Surely Cunliffe is only suggesting Mallard is in line to be speaker to keep him well behaved until Cunliffe can find a time and place to bury the body?

    • Tracey 7.1
      17 September 2013 at 2:18 pm

      the current speaker is giving them both a run for their money.

    • Murray Olsen 7.2
      17 September 2013 at 3:53 pm

      The current speaker is the worst I’ve ever seen. At least Lockwood sometimes remembered to pretend he was impartial. This one is a partial idiot who thinks his job is to smooth Key’s passage towards a knighthood.

  8. SDCLFC7 8
    17 September 2013 at 11:41 am

    Good move making Parker deputy. Signals that Norman won’t get near the cheque-book and shows continuity with the two previous governments where the deputy was the finance.
    I also think, having lost, Robertson is now too damaged to be the deputy.
    Don’t know about the front-bench; wanted Cunliffe leader but don’t rate the quality of those who supported him. Could it be this
    Cunliffe; Parker; Robertson; Jones; Adern; King; Moroney; Lees-Galloway; Cosgrove; Mahuta
    Little; Twyford; Shearer; Hipkins; Street; Mackey; Sio; O’Connor; Clark; Wall

    • Enough is Enough 8.1
      17 September 2013 at 11:50 am

      What do you have against Norman as the Finance Minister?

      Parker would not be out of place in a National Caucus. Norman will be a lot more suited to introducing real change to New Zealand rather than the tinkering which Parker iwill deliver.

      • SDCLFC7 8.1.1
        17 September 2013 at 12:27 pm

        Because if the electorate thinks that Norman could get Finance under a Labour lead government then 30-33 points is where we will stay.
        The Labour caucus needs a right and left side because you need to cover a lot of political ground to pull the votes in.
        Cullen implemented a lot of socially democratic policy as finance minance but he was able to win over the business community along the way – Norman will never do that. He hates them and it shows.
        Getting in office and then declaring war on the business community will not win anything.
        If you think that governments are able to steamroll through idealogical legislation without moderation then you are in the dark ages.
        This lot might be a poor government, and might follow idealogical lines like squeezing the public sector; scrapping with teachers; reducing spending and lowering taxes, all things that Labour will reverse for their own idealogical reasons, but they are not a government of extremism and neither will the next Labour government.

        • thatguynz 8.1.1.1
          17 September 2013 at 12:58 pm

          “If you think that governments are able to steamroll through idealogical legislation without moderation then you are in the dark ages.”

          So SDCLFC7, how would you categorise what the present government has done – or rather, who has provided the moderation to their legislative approach? I’m truly intrigued.

          • SDCLFC7 8.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2013 at 1:37 pm

            I stated what I thought they have passed along idealogical lines, and that Labour would reverse them along idealogical lines.
            It should be accepted that this is not a government of the far right ergo it has had some moderation – we still have some progressive tax rates, we still have workding for families etc. Do not read that as me trying to be some John Key apologist. I do not support their governance or their way of governance but there is lot further right they could’ve gone, therefore they are not extremists.
            Likewise the next Labour government will not be one of far left extremism and so Parker, as finance minister (which is where this started) putting some distance between us and Norman’s financial musings, is good for Labour’s prospects of governing next term.

            • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2013 at 1:39 pm

              Don’t run scared mate, the world is going to get much better for the vast majority of NZers.

              And I expect Norman to have a major economic role in the first LABGRN govt.

              and so Parker, as finance minister (which is where this started) putting some distance from Labour and Norman’s financial musings, is good for Labour’s prospects of governing next term.

              Repeat after me: the end of the practical and theoretical failure that is neoliberalism.

        • grumpy 8.1.1.2
          17 September 2013 at 1:02 pm

          Exactly!

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.3
          17 September 2013 at 1:37 pm

          Sorry mate you don’t seem to understand the difference between big corporate business (who too often act as monopolistic rentiers) and strugglinh SMEs and small contractors that we really need to support.

          The corporate sector and the major banks have been fucking over the real business sector – the SMEs – for years.

          Why are you going to bat for the big end of town, instead of focussing on the struggling small businesses/SMEs who really need the help through cuts in their broadband costs, cuts in their bank fees, access to cheap credit to build their businesses etc?

  9. Enough is Enough 9
    17 September 2013 at 11:54 am

    I don’t often agree with podgy Garner but this is a beauty and I hope will come to fruition today:

    “Mallard’s time is up. The public tired of him years ago. He has been one of the main protagonists in the fight against Cunliffe. He should be dealt to. He has done his time in NZ politics.

    He’s currently on the taxpayers tit living it up in San Fran – it should be his last trip. He’s done well out of NZ politics and it’s time he was moved on. I don’t see what he offers anymore.”

    • Tracey 9.1
      17 September 2013 at 12:11 pm

      yup. he and amy adams been sunning themselves and schmoozing in san fran, in her case while she loooks like losing the rma reform battle and fucking up the copper….

    • SDCLFC7 9.2
      17 September 2013 at 12:32 pm

      Nah; yeah his caucus influence will be gone, and that’s fair enough but he’ll be hilarious as speaker.

  10. Ad 10
    17 September 2013 at 12:07 pm

    What I particularly enjoy is the volume of media oxygen Labour and Cunliffe continues to suck from Key.

    After 5 years, we are the story.

    Cunliffe needs to keep feeding mystery-conflict-tension stories all the way to Christchurch.

    2 weeks before the Christchurch by-election, it needs to shift to policy stories.

    This is our moment to shift the discourse – and he knows it, which is helpful.

  11. Anne 11
    17 September 2013 at 12:15 pm

    On midday TV1 news Mallard was described as having been demoted.

    If true… confirmation he was the mastermind of the anti-Cunliffe campaign which we now know began well before the 2011 election.

    edit: oops, EisE got in first.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      17 September 2013 at 1:33 pm

      Indeed. Some of the top positions have now been clarified. Cunliffe will be working his way through the rest of the caucus list over the next few days.

      • karol 11.1.1
        17 September 2013 at 1:57 pm

        Yes, CV. Robertson. Jones, Deputy & whips were the people & posts that needed to be attended to first.

        I understand the need to have a strong financial lead against the Nats, but wish there was equal focus on social policy and roles.

        I will be looking for a strong social policy cluster, including, possibly Twyford, Wall, Ardern, King, Mahuta, Hipkins…. who else?

  12. Linz 12
    17 September 2013 at 12:15 pm

    Radio NZ website: 12:14
    David Parker new Labour deputy
    Updated 7 minutes ago
    Labour Party finance spokesperson David Parker has been elected as the party’s new deputy leader.

    Labour leader David Cunliffe says Mr Parker will retain his finance role, with Shane Jones set to take on economic development and Grant Robertson employment.

    David Parker.

    LABOUR PARTY
    Mr Robertson is also the new shadow Leader of the House in place of Trevor Mallard.

    Tuesday’s caucus meeting also elected new party whips. Sue Moroney is the new senior whip and Iain Lees-Galloway the junior whip.

    They replace Chris Hipkins and Darien Fenton.

    • Tracey 12.1
      17 September 2013 at 2:21 pm

      so ones spiel during the contest about business etc which all sounded a bit cullen-esqe has paid off

  13. captain hook 13
    17 September 2013 at 1:50 pm

    the last 10 c0mments are just piffle designed to throw ordure at the NZLP and hope that some will stick in the minds of the ignorati.
    how I wish some of the posters here would start discussing issues instead of retreading tired crap from tory party handouts.
    it seems the the gnats dont want debate.
    they just want everyone to buckle under.

  14. Wayne (a different one) 14
    17 September 2013 at 2:05 pm

    No amount of shuffling the deck chairs is going to help Labour.

    They are all “dead beat drop kicks” – they can’t hold a candle to the National line up!

    • Crunchtime 14.1
      17 September 2013 at 2:16 pm

      Hilarious blatant troll post is hilarious. Even with the solid and biased backing of the media for years the Nats are still headed to defeat at the next election.

    • thatguynz 14.2
      17 September 2013 at 2:24 pm

      “They are all “dead beat drop kicks” – they can’t hold a candle to the National line up!”

      Hahaha, thanks mate – I didn’t realise quite how much I needed a good laugh today until I saw this. Truly, you have my gratitude.

    • fender 14.3
      17 September 2013 at 2:46 pm

      No don’t bother holding a candle near the National line up, that hot air stench is highly flammable and there’s a timer set for Nov. 2014 explosion/implosion. Any request for an earlier fireball should be made to one J. Collins.

  15. alwyn 15
    17 September 2013 at 3:26 pm

    After his attempt at Question Time in Parliament I think that Cunliffe needs to set up a new role in his “team”
    He needs someone to ask questions for him. I used to think that no-one could be worse than Shearer at question time but David Cunliffe had a damn good try at doing so. Surely he can do better than that? Was it just an aberration or is he someone who is going to be completely dominated by Key who is a master of his trade?

    • Tracey 15.1
      17 September 2013 at 3:28 pm

      yes and no

    • Enough is Enough 15.2
      17 September 2013 at 3:32 pm

      Fark

      That was a fairly rubbish first day in the seat for Cunliffe.

    • karol 15.3
      17 September 2013 at 3:35 pm

      Nerves. Questions were solid. Delivery had a hiccup.

      Cunliffe actually controlled the terms of engagement. I noticed Key treated the questions very seriously and had prepared quite well. He couldn’t rely on just his song and dance routine and diversions. The ground has shifted.

      • Winston Smith 15.3.1
        17 September 2013 at 4:09 pm

        “I noticed Key treated the questions very seriously and had prepared quite well”

        – Thats why hes so good at what he does because when he needs to step it up he does, Labour have basically trumpeted their plans so of course JK will prepare accordingly

        – the question now is can anyone in Labour step it up as well?

      • Anne 15.3.2
        17 September 2013 at 5:26 pm

        Cunliffe actually controlled the terms of engagement.

        Exactly. And Key isn’t always going to come as well prepared as he did today. Cunliffe will get him in the end because he has the more potent brain.

        As for the wee hiccup over caucus/Chorus. Have a listen to the First Question again. Key’s diction was even more appalling than usual. Here’s what I picked up:
        orijnal – original
        Strucksha – structure
        consiring – considering
        consira-ation – consideration (said it several times)
        simition – submission.

        The Queen’s going to have a laugh after he’s had his weekend at Balmoral Castle. She has a reputation for being a very good mimic.

        http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/20988

        • Anne 15.3.2.1
          17 September 2013 at 5:33 pm

          Why has my 5:26pm comment gone into moderation I wonder. Because I mentioned Key’s weekend away with the Queen?

          [lprent: Surely not. I’m sure that akismet doesn’t consider the queen to be a subversive spammer. Neither Key nor you normally get auto-moderated… Might have been parliament. There is always an awful lot of trash going on there. ]

          • Anne 15.3.2.1.1
            17 September 2013 at 6:44 pm

            Well, it might not have been the Queen Iprent. Maybe akismet thinks Key is leading the Queen astray…. 😯

        • Chooky 15.3.2.2
          17 September 2013 at 7:08 pm

          @ Anne….i have it on personal authority that the Queen couldn’t stand Margaret Thatcher, who kept trying to ingratiate herself with her Majesty…and i don’t think she liked her politics much either….

          …… and I know the Royal Family favours the Greens

          ….so where does this leave John Key?……

          • Anne 15.3.2.2.1
            17 September 2013 at 7:25 pm

            Yes, and interestingly up until now she’s got along much better with Labour PMs than Conservative PMs – Churchill excepted of course when she was very young and needed his advice and support.

            • Chooky 15.3.2.2.1.1
              17 September 2013 at 7:35 pm

              John Key may like the Queen….but does the Queen like John Key?

              • Anne …
                17 September 2013 at 7:41 pm

                I doubt it after she’s spent a weekend listening to his appalling diction and having to get someone to decipher it for her. Perhaps she should be advised to hire a special Key translator. Could save her a lot of problems.

                I wonder if they’ll take him up in thar yon hills for a spot of deer shooting. Bit dangerous I should think.

      • felix 15.3.3
        17 September 2013 at 11:33 pm

        “The ground has shifted.”

        Indeed karol. Those expecting to see fireworks today likely missed the real action, which was simply that no-one is playing Key’s game any more.

        And Key only really has the one game. And he knows it, even if his sycophantic fan club are a bit slow to read the writing on the walls of the chamber.

        Tick tock.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 15.4
      17 September 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Alwyn & Enough is Enough

      What are you talking about??

      I don’t think the parliament performance was bad at all

      I agree with Karol’s comments

      Was a good solid performance for the reasons Karol provides.
      It is very clear that Mr Cunliffe is not afraid of Mr Key and I like the way Mr Cunliffe is not apologetic for the questions and views he holds.
      Nice bite at the end of his last question too.

      I also note that the Speaker was showing a lot more respect with cutting Key off.

      Nice to see the Labour Party members visible looking so happy.

      What is with the negative feedback? Is it just because JKey said it was a poor performance those of you saying so, believe him??

      Although this might be an unpopular thing to say, I am sorry to see Mr Mallard not shadow leader of the house* anymore, I enjoyed his humour. I think it is playing to Robertson’s strength to give him that role though.

      *hope this is the correct term

      • karol 15.4.1
        17 September 2013 at 3:59 pm

        Maybe some people were expecting a killer blow from Cunliffe today. That was never going to, or hardly likely to happen.

        Hamish Cardwell, Scoop on Cunliffe’s first Question Time:

        http://youtu.be/B51OOCJ7QT4

      • karol 15.4.2
        17 September 2013 at 4:08 pm

        Hansard version of Question One.

        Robertson was slow off the mark, but no doubt he will improve. Peters and Norman started off doing Robertson’s job for him.

        Hon David Cunliffe : Given that it was his Government that negotiated and signed the ultra-fast broadband contract with Chorus and that he now says that under that contract Chorus will go broke, why did his Minister Steven Joyce get the ultra-fast broadband contract so wrong? The Government cannot have it both ways.

        Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Under no scenario is the Government saying it got the contract wrong with Chorus. What the Government is saying is that the Commerce Commission should have taken into consideration, in our view, all parts of the determination or the indication that we gave. That included benchmarks with other alternatives, which is the standard practice, and Sweden and Denmark were the only two benchmarks that, in fact, actually the Commerce Commission believed it could get a similar view from. The Commerce Commission itself said that under section 18(2A) it was not sure how to interpret it, so it ignored it. Actually, section 18(2A) spells out very clearly the expectations of what the Government thought pricing should be.

        Hon David Cunliffe : Given that the Prime Minister’s actions have overridden both the contract entered into by his Minister Steven Joyce and the regulatory process of the independent regulator to provide a $600 million subsidy to one of New Zealand’s most powerful corporates, would he agree that this smells and tastes of crony capitalism?

        • Tracey 15.4.2.1
          17 September 2013 at 5:03 pm

          “Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No, because under every scenario, consumers will pay less.”

          something to watch…another lie perhaps.

          He also stood by his statement chorus could go broke because they said they might lose 160m and that would be against a net profit of $171m… o not really broke.

          ” Chorus also said that under the draft determination of the Commerce Commission, it could lose up to $160 million of annual earnings. To put this in some context, Chorus’s net profit for the 2013 financial year was a touch above that; $171 million.”

          Remember when the Pm didnt read reports… like the police report about J Banks?

          ” Hon Amy Adams : Has the Prime Minister seen any reports analysing the claims of the imposition of a so-called $600 million copper tax?

          Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Funnily enough, I have. I have seen the reports issued by Covec,”

          • karol 15.4.2.1.1
            17 September 2013 at 5:07 pm

            If you look to an earlier exchange during that question, you see Key is referring to every scenario in the government’s discussion document:

            Hon David Cunliffe : Why does the Prime Minister say that it would be cheaper than under every scenario when, relative to the scenario proposed by the regulator, Kiwi consumers will be paying up to $150 a year more per household?

            Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Under every scenario proposed in the discussion document, there will be—

            Hon Members : Oh!

            Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Well, that is what we are talking about. Under every scenario proposed in the discussion document there will be a reduction in price to consumers. That will have an impact on Chorus of, somewhere over the 5-year period, between $100 million and $500 million. But it is worth remembering what the price is at the moment. It is $44.98. I go back to 2007 when the total copper price was $47.28, and I do not remember the Labour Government back then demanding—

            Mr SPEAKER : Order! That is a sufficient answer.

            Dr Russel Norman : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a very straight question, and it was about comparing it with the Commerce Commission proposal not with the Government’s proposal, and the Prime Minister has refused to address the question.

            • Tracey 15.4.2.1.1.1
              17 September 2013 at 5:15 pm

              yup more manipulation… he knows the questions are taking account of CommComm but chooses to frame his answers to address his reports/discussion… therefore it isnt a lie, but it is irrelevant to what is being asked of him.

  16. Virginia Linton 16
    17 September 2013 at 3:59 pm

    I agree with Blue Leopard and Karol. We watched Question Time, great result by Cunliffe, Robertson and Parker. Measured questions, keep it up over the corporate cronyism. Heaven knows there is plenty to seek answers to on that front! Well done.

    • Olwyn 16.1
      17 September 2013 at 4:23 pm

      I agree with Blue Leopard, Karol and Virginia Linton: a solid and forthright performance from Labour. You can see that John Key’s Bart Simpson-like jokes are going to wear thin pretty quickly: if he’s going to keep up, he’s going to have to do his homework from now on.

  17. Thane Pullan 17
    17 September 2013 at 4:23 pm

    hmmmm right leaning Epsom candidate retaining finance, I am disappointed honestly.

  18. Tony Moder 18
    17 September 2013 at 4:50 pm

    Not from a traditional Labour supporter background but watched the question time and I thought Cunliffe looked excellent his questions had impact and Key looked less confident for a first up day on the job if you like, a very good performance ny David Cunliffe and Key now is just a really desperate style that lacks real clout.

  19. Murray Olsen 19
    17 September 2013 at 5:13 pm

    I’m seeing even more Tory trolls spinning here than usual. I hope they’re getting paid.

    Meanwhile, I’m hoping that Jones cocks up badly enough to be sacked before the election. His idea of economic development seems to be mining the land, drilling the seabed, poisoning Papatuanuku, and emptying the seas with slave labour. Maybe the idea is that he will bugger stuff up and be replaced in government by one of the Greens.
    I also have no idea what people have seen in Jacinda Ardern. She seems to be the most ineffective woman in the lineup, even though some of the effective ones, like Curran, only seem to do damage. Maybe I’ve missed something, but I’ve looked hard enough.

    [lprent: King Kong finished his exile and has ook’ed his way back into the debate. I think a few other minor chimps came with him. ]

    • chris73 19.1
      18 September 2013 at 7:20 am

      Well National were late with my invoices so I decided to do some freelance work for Cunliffe and once National saw the fine work I was doing they paid up pretty quickly so now I’m back on board for National and getting paid to be on here

      – The above may or may not be true depending on how gullible you are

  20. Wayne (a different one) 20
    17 September 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Silent “T” unleashed an attack on the Prime Minister and Government in the house today, with all the fury and dominance of a “wet bus ticket”.

    I could see it in JK eyes, he was really unsettled and is an extremely worried, worried man by the change in Labour leadership.

  21. jaymam 21
    17 September 2013 at 5:59 pm

    I am delighted to see David Parker as deputy. He was excellent in the election meetings for the Epsom electorate last election There was much robust debate, and should be again in 2014.

  22. gobsmacked 22
    17 September 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Labour/Cunliffe should avoid falling into the trap, of buying into the “King Hit” narrative.

    We could call it Trevor Mallard Syndrome. The opposition embarrass a Minister in the House and think that’s their job done. So Richard Worth and Pansy Wong have left Parliament, woo hoo (or “who?”)- but the Nats are still running the country. BIG PICTURE, please, David and team.

    Cunliffe isn’t going to bring down Key in the House, and doesn’t have to. In any case, a “King Hit” is going to end up like this …

    Oppo: “Yesterday he said black is white. Today he said black is yellow? WTF?”

    Key: “Your momma’s fat, and Labour poo!”

    Oppo: (series of points of order)

    Speaker: “The Prime Minister has answered the question.”

    The gov’t is not going to fall because of Question Time. Cunliffe’s job in Parliament is to be competent, to show that he knows his stuff, and to keep at it, week in week out. The votes will come over time, they aren’t going to magically appear as demanded by the press gallery who have the attention span of toddlers.

    • karol 22.1
      17 September 2013 at 7:30 pm

      Agreed, gobsmacked.

      As I recall, key wasn’t very good in the House when he began as Nat leader. Of course, Key also got a prolonged media honeymoon, unlike Labour Leaders. As I call, Key’s handlers kept him away from doing many media interviews also, early on.

      Key doesn’t stand up so well to doing a lot of serious interviews, and needs to prepare well in advance.

      I suspect Cunliffe is not only a better communicator on serious matters, but has a higher work ethic, and a better grasp of policies and procedures.

    • Blue 22.2
      17 September 2013 at 9:37 pm

      Agreed. In practice ‘king hits’ in Parliament by the Opposition on the Government almost never happen. The deck is totally stacked in favour of the Government and Key himself got smacked down by Clark a lot back when he had more hair.

      Those who piss themselves at the Chorus/caucus thing might remember Johnny Sparkles’ famous speech about “a Labour Party I lead”.

    • Puddleglum 22.3
      17 September 2013 at 11:35 pm

      I think that’s why Cunliffe said that he didn’t expect to have Key with his trousers around his ankles in their first encounter.

  23. Rodel 23
    17 September 2013 at 6:24 pm

    Just watched TV1 news on Cunliffe’s joust with Key.
    Honestly they are worse than Gower in headlining on trivialities.(Cunliffe saying ‘caucus’ instead of ‘chorus’. …. big deal) Have we any reporters in New Zealand who can focus on real news?

    Watching parliament a short time later, Cunliffe (and Norman) had key strung out flapping like an undersized snapper. TV1 ignored all that.
    No wonder I watch Al Jazeera… real news about real issues by real journalists.(Not the Alfred E Neumans that they are all starting to look and sound like) Grrr

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 23.1
      17 September 2013 at 6:34 pm

      +1 Rodel
      Just watched that too; what a load of absolute nonsense it was. I expect more from TvOne, although perhaps not anymore after that.

    • Clement Pinto 23.2
      17 September 2013 at 7:10 pm

      Cunliffe’s minor error at question time in the house on the first day of his momentous rise to power was no where as bad or embarrassing as Key referring to the rugby trophy as this great ‘TROTY’ in front of the whole wide world! Eat that, you stupid reporters! These small minded so called ‘political reporters’ are just silly chaps who take such childish delight at unimportant stuff rather than informing/analysing real politics, and masquerade as ‘prominent journalist’! Pathetic!

  24. Delia 24
    17 September 2013 at 6:30 pm

    Wonder what Key was thinking when he looked across the room at the two David’s, not as relaxed as he claims I bet. Than his petty caucus laughed at David saying caucus twice, like the school kids they are. Well you know who gets the last laugh.

    • lurgee 24.1
      17 September 2013 at 7:42 pm

      The Dalai Lama? Since he can reincarnate, he’ll probably be around last.

      Either him, or Colonial Viper, who doesn’t think my jokes are funny. So he (?) would probably be the last one to get the joke, and thus last to laugh.

  25. Leroy 25
    17 September 2013 at 8:28 pm

    Labour are back and with a vengeance!

    The new process for electing the leader has to rate 9/10 (Clare Curran spoiling a perfect 10/10)…I was originally against it, but credit has to go to the party (and David Shearer) for giving Labour time in the press that they couldn’t have bought!

    David Cunliffe is politically astute…he took the portrait of himself down in his electoral office when he was holding his press conference and he never does interviews outside of his New Lynn electorate, even if it means driving across Auckland. He is aware perception is reality.

    Already we are seeing a change in language with Cunliffe referring to the Nats as the ‘Key Government’.

    As a loyal Labour supporter (and a political science graduate) it is great for the first time in my live time to have a labour leader who has finance and private sector background.

    The next lot of polls will be interesting!!!

  26. Rogue Trooper 26
    17 September 2013 at 10:43 pm

    the move to conservatism , grumpy.

  27. tricledrown 27
    18 September 2013 at 12:02 am

    A Davids and Goliarth battle!

  28. CeeH 28
    18 September 2013 at 6:30 am

    I was very impressed with Mr Cunliffe’s performance. His ammo, to debate the broadband – copper-based network access pricing – misfired a couple of shots – but like Team NZ he stayed on course and kept driving towards the finish line. David was cool, and calm, kept firing the shots (and never cheap shots like JKs) “Given that … ” and in the end Mr JK had to resort to entertaining his MPs – DC was wearing him down. That’s skilful. Maybe Labour should take in placards saying “Laugh Now” and wave them whenever JK retreats to his comedy act – his weak line of defense or his escape route. Go Team Labour!

  29. chris73 29
    18 September 2013 at 7:23 am

    Good to see Cunliffe using his flat, monotonal voice to talk about well something because I was nodding off while he was talking, its so much better then when he injects passion into his voice

    I did wake up though when first Cunliffe then Robertson gave JK some free hits

  30. Comrade Coba 30
    19 September 2013 at 12:49 pm

    I’m rapt David Parker got the nod, I pick him as deputy from the get go, I even ring him to tell him he had mine & other mates support. Good call with Iain Lee Galloway getting a whip position too. Winners are grinners 🙂

    • CeeH 30.1
      20 September 2013 at 9:21 pm

      First time getting to know him and I like him. JT on Radio LIVE said he is very intelligent and very loyal. I enjoyed the interview on Firstline – thanks to Karol’s posting. A good Labour Strike Force coming together!

Links to post